GUESSINGS ABOUT GOD: Robert Conner’s review of new book by David Madison, PhD Biblical Studies

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison at 9/24/2023

Books that question the validity of Christian belief and the historicity of New Testament stories appear regularly these days and they raise quite a few uncomfortable questions. Did Jesus really say the things attributed to him? Was Jesus even a real person? Did the gospel writers simply make up accounts of miracles like the virgin birth? Can we harmonize the contradictory resurrection stories? Do the gospels, written decades after the life of Jesus, record any eyewitness evidence? Who actually wrote the gospels? The gospel authors never identify themselves in their texts or speak in the first person—did they even meet Jesus? Over a century of critical study of the New Testament has raised many such thorny problems.

In the newly-released Guessing About God, David Madison and Tim Sledge take a common-sense approach to a discussion of Christian belief. Although many counter-apologetic works assume some familiarity with psychology, biblical criticism, church history or philosophy, Madison asks little more of the reader than a degree of open-mindedness, access to a Bible, some familiarity with the Christian liturgy, and a willingness to argue in good faith. Like Madison, I spent part of my childhood in Indiana: “Christianity was in the drinking water where I grew up…God was just there, a given.” Questioning what is taken for granted is often painful and occurs in stages, a process tacitly acknowledged by Madison’s thoughtful and empathetic approach.

For the people of the Bible, Yahweh was never far away—an animal ritually slaughtered and burned produced “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” (Leviticus 3:5, 16) God was close enough to Earth to smell the smoke of sacrifice, to hear the prayers, receive the praise, and observe the actions of his worshippers. The biblical God “makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind.” (Psalm 104:3) Yahweh even accompanies his followers into battle: “God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory.” (Deuteronomy 20:4) However, as Madison points out, these days the God of the Bible is nowhere to be found. Modern theologians are forced to claim that God is “outside space and time,” an assertion that would have been quite incomprehensible to the Bible authors who clearly write about a God that has both location and history.

“If, say, the Space Shuttle were sent speeding toward Alpha Centauri at about 18,000 miles per hour, the journey would take about 80,000 years. And that’s to the nearest star!” Humanity no longer inhabits the biblical microcosm where “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” can be viewed from the top of “a very high mountain.” (Matthew 4:8) Indeed, the incomprehensible vastness of the universe threatens to reduce the biblical world and its gods to an invisible, irrelevant speck.

In “Problem 2 — The Bible Disproves Itself,” Madison discusses what I regard as the most fundamental problem of religious belief: sacred books as self-authenticating documents. Philosophy, history, or probability aside, “proving the Bible’s authenticity by quoting from the Bible is closed-loop reasoning…no document on the planet can be self-authenticating.” Truth claims made for a sacred book cannot be substantiated simply by quoting from that book. “This irony is not lost on atheists. The theists, in fact, are among those who deny that the Word of God comes in book form—when it’s the other guy’s book. They are like kids in a playground taunting others, ‘My book is holier than yours!’”

As Madison notes, “Without question, the Bible is the most researched and minutely studied book ever written. There are countless books, articles, scholarly journals, doctoral dissertations, and sermons about the Bible.” Bible study is an industry: “Most lay people, the average individuals in the pews, are unaware that thousands of scholars make their living studying and writing about the Bible.” Likely few believers have reflected on the economic implications of seminaries and departments of religion in secular universities, the Christian broadcasting and publishing empires, or multi-millionaire celebrity preachers with private jets. Religious conviction aside, churches are big business, motivation enough to keep theologizing, philosophizing, preaching, broadcasting and publishing. For many thousands, religious belief is a matter of employment.

The third section of Guessing About God addresses the vexed question of vetting the bona fides of sinless Jesus: “Let’s suppose that in the course of your research, you found that no information was available on this man’s life between the ages of 13 and 29. Wouldn’t this give you pause?” In point of fact, it is well known among scholars that apart from the New Testament, no contemporary evidence confirms the life and career of Jesus of Nazareth. Which raises some additional questions: “Are the Gospels accurate in their portrayal of Jesus? Is their content reliable? Are they history, or something else?”

Until relatively recently, even skeptics thought the gospel accounts retained some historical core of information based on oral traditions about Jesus. It is now known with near certainty that Mark was the first gospel written and that it is a literary construct “that has nothing to do with contemporaneous documentation.” In short, we are back to self-authenticating stories again, a claim that simply won’t bear examination. “It’s no surprise that many church leaders have about as much use for Bible scholars as laypeople do. The task of such leaders is to keep the Jesus brand alive.” 

The third section confronts the reader with the present state of the Jesus Studies debate: “Enter stage left The Mythicists. The people-of-faith New Testament scholars, those who cling to Jesus, even if only by a thread, now face a phalanx of scholars who argue that the whole story of Jesus could be fiction.” At this point, Madison focuses on the best internal support for the mythicist position generally: “In the earliest of the New Testament documents, penned long before the Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth isn’t there. That is, the epistles of Paul and others don’t speak at all about Jesus of Nazareth. Their focus is a divine Christ. There seems to be no awareness of Jesus’s preaching and parables, his miracles, his disputes with religious authorities, or even the Passion narratives. It’s almost as if the real Jesus hadn’t been invented yet, which would not happen until the Gospels had been created.” 

Paul is perfectly clear about the source of his gospel: “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12) This statement is not a confession; it’s self-satisfied boasting. Paul and his house churches had little use for a historical Jesus: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.” (2 Corinthians 5:16) If this represented the attitude of the primitive church, there is even less reason to expect that believers treasured and transmitted details of Jesus’ life or that those details would eventually be enshrined in the text of the gospels. 

I’m in complete agreement with Madison’s conclusion: “The managers of the Christian brand have to hold onto the Gospels for dear life and to believe there must be shreds of evidence in Gospels to underwrite the reality of Jesus. If the Jesus-was-real folks want to paint themselves into this corner, that’s fine with me. I’m delighted with the Gospels as the playing field. I want to stick with the Gospels. They are the best tool for showing that the case for a credible Jesus is weak.”

In his final section, “How I Came to Write this Book,” Madison describes his personal transition from young Bible geek to the emergence of doubts based on deeper knowledge and reflection, to the rejection of his former belief entirely. There are several similarities between my story and the story of David Madison. Although I didn’t pursue an advanced degree in Biblical Studies, I deconverted after two years of university study, convinced that religious belief is without any factual basis. As the number of believers continues to plunge and enrollment in seminaries drops, it appears many more former adherents will be making the trek from conviction to unbelief. For such travelers, Guessing About God will prove a welcome guidebook.

Robert Conner is the author of The Death of Christian BeliefThe Jesus Cult: 2000 Years of the Last DaysApparitions of Jesus: The Resurrection as Ghost StoryThe Secret Gospel of Markand Magic in Christianity: From Jesus to the Gnostics.

God Is Okay with Abortion—Devout Christians Tell Us So

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison at 9/22/2023

Without intending to!

A member of the congregation is hospitalized with cancer. So fellow parishioners organize prayer marathons to plead with their god to intervene—and it works! So they claim when their friend’s cancer has been defeated, after considerable intervention by medical professionals. What a relief that god granted their wish. 

But what are the implications of this belief? It’s a good idea to think it through.

In fact, this is an example of belief that sabotages the concept of a good god—for three reasons: (1) the guy in the next bed also had cancer, but there were no prayer marathons for him and he died. Didn’t god notice or care? An omnipotent god is influenced by prayer marathons? (2) In fact, if god is capable of curing cancer, why does he allow any cancers in the world? Why not get rid of the disease altogether—kick it off the planet? Stephen Fry was once asked what he would say to god when he dies, if god is, after all, real. His response: “Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you.” 

(3) The god-cures-cancer claim is based on the assumption that the all-knowing deity is aware of what’s happening inside our bodies. If we look at diseased cells or tissues (extracted during a biopsy) under a microscope, we can see the activity of the pathogens. Surgeons do this in their efforts to save the patient. The all-knowing deity sees it all without a microscope—and thus knows what has to be done to effect a cure. The prayer marathoners have no doubt that their god has these amazing powers of perception, this detailed knowledge of our biological mechanics. 

This is a logical extension of the certainty that their god is aware of everything that every human on the planet does or thinks. The hairs on our heads are numbered; not even a sparrow falls to earth without god being aware (Matthew 10:26-31); on the day of judgement, we’ll be held accountable for every careless word we utter (Matthew 12:36); if we don’t believe in Jesus we will suffer god’s wrath (John 3:36).  

But this confidence that god has detailed knowledge of what’s happening in our bodies at microscopic levels has major implications/complications. How can this god not know that a high percentage of fertilized human eggs never make it to maturity? That is, they abort naturally, either at the zygote or embryonic stage. In this 2012 DCB article by Jonathan MS Pearce, God Loves Abortion!, you’ll find statistics, as well as in this 2023 article on the March of Dimes website.    

What are the implications for theology? Pearce states the following:

“God is supposedly omnipotent, all-powerful; and omnibenevolent, all-loving. We also hear very often how terrible clinical abortions are. Now I don’t want to investigate clinical abortions per se but I do want to look at the standards that Christians adopt when approaching abortion, and then when they evaluate their perfect God. The general approach, rightly or wrongly, is that abortion is the murder of human beings. If this is the case, then the death, at the hands of other humans, of any and every embryo from blastocyst onwards, is bad, abhorrent and so on.
 
“The reason for talking about this is twofold. Firstly, for people who critique abortion on religious grounds, it makes somewhat of a mockery of their arguments. Secondly, again from a religious perspective, it does make God look a little callous. Nay, brutal and unloving.”
 
How can a caring, loving god heal one cancer patient, while ignoring thousands of others? How can a caring, loving god—who knows the intricate details of human anatomy—fail to fix the problems that cause so much loss of life at the zygote and embryonic levels? 

The outrage against abortion is yet another symptom of horribly derailed theology. 

The Christian crusaders against abortion seem to be under the spell of an idealized concept of god that is far removed from the wrathful god portrayed in the Bible. In one episode of Call the Midwife, about mid-wife nuns in post-war London, we find the story of a pregnant woman who has been diagnosed with cancer. She is in anguish, certain that god is judging/punishing her for something she’s done. But the nun who is caring for her is confident that is not so: “I do not believe in a God who judges.” Clearly, this benevolent sister had not read her Bible.  

We find the violent arrival of the kingdom of god described in Mark 13, which includes the warning, “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days!” (v. 17) They will be among the casualties. In I Samuel 15, Yahweh orders Saul to commit genocide: “Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (v. 3)

The Genesis flood story—Noah’s Ark—is genocide on a massive scale, carried out by god himself. The story is commonly sanitized for children by showing animals entering the ark, and featuring the rainbow at the end. Yet it is a horrifying story. If understood as an actual event—which so many Christians seem to do—the god who carried it out was not the least bit concerned with the toddlers and pregnant women who perished. Can we imagine anything more grotesque than an entertainment theme park designed to celebrate this genocide, namely Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter? Truly, derailed theology. Let’s bring the idea home: even the most devout people I know were deeply stressed in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami—a minor disaster compared to the Genesis flood. There was catastrophic loss of life, more than 200,000 killed. James A. Haught stated the obvious: 

“Horrible occurrences such as the Indian Ocean tsunami that drowned 100,000 children prove clearly that the universe isn’t administered by an all-loving invisible father. No compassionate creator would devise killer earthquake and hurricanes—or breast cancer for women and leukemia for children.”  (Religion Is Dying: Soaring Secularism in America and the West)

How can it be that the Christian god is outraged about abortions, when he tolerates massive deaths from natural disasters (on a planet he is credited with designing), and millions of abortions caused by bodily malfunctions? 

Devout conservatives are so sure that this the case, but then we run into the next major problem: how can their theology be verified? In fact, there are many Christians who are not so sure that abortion violates the will of god; who are far more sure that their god is concerned for women who, for a variety of reasons, are not ready for pregnancy and motherhood. But the fact is that no theologies can be verified. We ask believers—and we ask it repeatedly—to show us where we can find reliable, verifiable, objective evidence for the god(s) they worship, and for what these gods supposedly require of humans. 

We don’t ask this just out of idle curiosity. Devout folks, who are so sure of their theology, are determined to make it the basis for public policy. Even to the extent, in some cases we’ve heard recently, of making getting an abortion punishable by death. Christians should look around at the many different brands of their faith, and at other monotheisms. If Catholics held power and could set public policy, would Protestants welcome a ban on all contraceptives? If Muslims were suddenly in charge, would Christian women welcome mandatory hijab laws?   

Because of strident, unverifiable theologies, pushed with such fervor by their advocates, it’s been an uphill battle to achieve and preserve equal rights for people of different races, for women (for control over their own bodies) and for gay/lesbian/transgender citizens. Diversity should be welcomed, cheered, appreciated. We come up short in trying to find widely embraced theologies that support such diversity.

There is yet another factor that is rarely considered—and underappreciated: the last thing our endangered planet needs is more babies. Individual countries may fret about declining populations, but the bigger picture is a warning that more people is not a solution. We have been exploiting the planet’s resources for a long time, and there can be no doubt that climate change can be traced in large part to increased human demands and expectations. If there are genuine, credible reasons for women to seek abortions, then so be it. To help ease the burden on earth’s resources.

There has been a lot written about abortion on the Debunking Christianity Blog—check it out for a better understanding of the bad theology that drives the anti-abortion advocates.  

David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of two books, Ten ToughProblems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, now being reissued in several volumes, the first of which is Guessing About God (2023) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also now available. 

His YouTube channel is here. At the invitation of John Loftus, he has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.

The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here

Is It Better to Follow Christ or to Live a Contented Life? Paul vs. Epicurus

Here’s the link to this article by Bart Ehrman.

September 20, 2023

What would other deep thinkers in the ancient world have thought of Paul’s teachings?  Short answer: not much.

Earlier this year I posted on one of my favorite Greek philosophers, Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).  Epicurus acquired a bad reputation already in antiquity, and still has one among many people today, mainly because his views are widely misunderstood and often simply misrepresented.   As it turns out, he advocated views that have widely become dominant in our world, and for good reasons.  For that reason I’ve always read him as remarkably prescient, entertaining ideas that would not become popular for two thousand years.

And they stand precisely at odds with the views of the apostle Paul.  I’ve recently begun to think about this more deeply — especially since they talk about the same *topics* but take completely different stands on them..

Unfortunately, we do not have very many of Epicurus’s writings.  In fact, the most important sources we have are simply three long letters, quoted in toto by a significant but little-read author named Diogenes Laertius, writing around the year 200 CE or so, in his book called “Lives of Eminent Philosophers.”  In this book he discusses the lives, writings, and views of major philosophers down to his own day, and he often quotes  their writings.  Diogenes’ work comes to us in ten “books,”, and the entire tenth book is devoted to Epicurus.  That’s where we find these three letters.

I won’t summarize all his views here.  But I will say that like many scientists and other serious thinkers today Epicurus was a complete materialist.  He believed that there was no “spiritual realm” outside the material world.  The entire universe was made up of atoms that combined in an infinite number of ways to create large entities, such as our world and living creatures in it — including us and the gods.  The gods, like us, are material beings who came into existence at one point and will go out of existence later, in a never-ending cycle. Everything, except the atoms themselves, does.

Epicurus develops his understanding of physics in one of his three preserved long letters, and his closely-related understanding of how people ought to live – his ethics – in another (the letter to an otherwise unknown person named Menoeceus).  For now I’m interested in this letter on ethics, as I’ve been reading it slowly in Greek and relishing its cleverness and compelling views.

It was just a few days ago that I realized that Epicurus is very much concerned with precisely he same things as Paul is, and takes ENTIRELY different views of them.  Here is a kind of précis.

What is Most Important to Them

Paul:  The Gospel of Christ. Reading Paul’s letters it is clear that his main passion is preaching and defending his gospel message, that Christ’s death and resurrection were the fulfillment of God’s plan to provide salvation to the world, coming to all who believe.

Epicurus:  The Love of Wisdom.  Epicurus begins his letter by insisting that people should seek out wisdom, that is, they should “philosophize.”  The word “philosophy” literally means “love of wisdom” and Epicurus maintains that no one is too young to think deeply about the world so as to understand it and our place in it, and no one is too old.  And we should live in light of this wisdom.  That should be the focus our lives.

The Nature of God

Paul: There is one God, the God of the Jews, the Creator of the World, who sent Christ as the savior in fulfillment of the divine plan as found in the writings of the prophets.  God has always been and continues to be active in the world, deeply concerned about human affairs, intervening in them, and chiefly intent on judging and saving humans who have sinned against him.  Paul knew full well this was an unusual view in his polytheistic environment: he preached his gospel precisely to counter the widespread views.

Epicurus: Epicurus was a polytheist but an unusual one.  At the outset of his letter to Menoeceus he insists that wisdom shows that the common view of the gods is completely wrong.  In his case it was because the gods were perfect beings who were completely removed from the affairs of humans, having nothing to do with them and no interest in them.  They were at complete peace and harmony in their own sphere, and had never been involved with humans or concerned about how humans regarded or worshiped them.

The Central Importance of Death

Paul: there are forces of evil in the world that are opposed to God; these are the wicked nemeses of all people, and include the devil and his minions, the power of sin (which is a demonic force compelling people to violate God’s will and so be alienated from him), and, above all, death – the worst power of all, which is set to destroy people and remove them permanently from God’s presence (see e.g. Romans 5-7; 1 Corinthians 15:21-56).  Death is the enemy to be feared most of all, and only by believing and being baptized into Christ can a person escape its power.

Epicurus: death is a natural event that occurs to all living things.  Everything comes into life, everything leaves life.  Including the gods.  They too will cease to exist.  But it is senseless, even absurd, to fear death, and life can be happy when we realize that death is nothing to be afraid of.  Why fear death?  When death comes, we no longer exist; while we exist, death has not come.  So death is irrelevant to our lives.  That is, when we are alive we don’t experience the death; and when we die we don’t experience life.  Why should we be afraid of something that hasn’t happened yet, and that when it does happen, we won’t be around to experience it?  Death is not an enemy to be feared but a natural process with nothing to be afraid of.  Realizing that is one of the keys to happiness.

How Then Shall We Live?

Paul:  People should not care or fret about the present sufferings of life.  What matters is eternal life, what comes after death.  This world is controlled by evil powers and naturally those who side with the good will be opposed and oppressed by them.  But that is of no ultimate concern.  People should not seek out their own happiness but the welfare of others, serving others the way Christ served us, giving up everything for others, even their lives if necessary, being more concerned with the welfare of others than for themselves.

Epicurus:  Everyone ultimately seeks to lead a life that is happy, fulfilled, and contented.  And that is what we should seek: a life filled with pleasure and lacking in pain.  Pleasure for Epicurus was not wild, excessive, extreme bodily pleasure at all costs.  He was accused of thinking that (and still is) but it’s the opposite of his view.  His view was that it takes very little to make us truly happy, content, satisfied.  We should avoid things that cause pain — and licentious and riotous living in the end does cause pain.  So we should live a simple life without too many needs or demands.  Having good friends, loving family, eating good meals in the company of others, have interesting and meaningful conversations, not getting overly involved in the craziness of the political and social worlds so important to others and so on.  We should live for our own happiness and fulfillment, focused on contentment in this life.

In short: for Paul true life meant living the life of the crucified victim.  For Epicurus it meant living anything but the life of a crucified victim.  Two billion people in the world today consider themselves devotees of Paul, but many (most?) of them actually agree with Epicurus.

Theologians Squirm and Fret When We Ask for EVIDENCE

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison at 9/15/2023

Why does their god play hide and seek?

We can assume that some (many?) churchgoers read the gospels, but, it would appear, without critical thinking skills fully engaged. When the devout come across Mark 14:62, does it bother them that Jesus was wrong? At his trial, Jesus was asked point blank if he was the messiah, to which he replied: “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” The main thrust of Mark’s gospel was that kingdom of his god was so close. But obviously those at his trial did not witness the arrival of Jesus on the clouds. The apostle Paul was confident too that Jesus would arrive in the sky soon. He promised members of the Thessalonian congregation that their dead relatives would rise to meet Jesus—and that he too would be there to join them (I Thessalonians 1:15-17). So Paul was wrong as well.

Paul was pumped for years by his delusions, which show up continually in his letters: he knew for sure that Jesus spoke to him in his visions. Is there any better foundation for all those “words of Jesus” in the gospels?  We have no way at all to verify that the Jesus-script in Mark 14—or anywhere else—is authentic. Any historian would want to know how the author of Mark’s gospel—written some forty years after the death of Jesus—knew what was said at the trial. Was there a transcript that Mark could access? It’s very doubtful, in the wake of the very destructive first Jewish-Roman war (66-73 CE). It’s much more likely that this author created scenes as he saw fit: he was writing to promote the beliefs of his cult. 

This is but one aspect of the problem of evidence that hobbles Christianity. The gospels are so highly esteemed by churchgoers, who have been raised to believe that these documents “got the story right.” But on close examination—with critical thinking skills fully engaged—it’s hard to make the case for that. There is wide consensus among devout scholars—outside of fundamentalist circles—that the gospels were written several decades after the death of Jesus. The anonymous authors never identify their sources, not even the author of Luke’s gospel, who claims in his opening verses that his stories can be traced back to eyewitnesses. But these are never identified. So historians are stumped: there is no way to verify anything we find in the gospels.

How do historians do their job? Here’s one example: in Helen Langdon’s 391-page biography of Caravaggio (1998), at the end we find a 27-page fine-print list of her sources: details about the documentation her work is based on. That’s how historians operate. But they can’t operate that way when they take up the challenge of accurately reporting the story of Jesus. There are no letters, diaries, transcripts, stenographer notes contemporaneous with Jesus that corroborate the gospel accounts. To make matters worse, these accounts are chock full of errors, contradictions, and conflicting agendas: the four gospel authors were intent on correcting each other, culminating with John, who created a very different Jesus. 

They couldn’t even agree on the resurrection stories. Just read the four accounts of Easter morning, and you can appreciate the mess. I suspect the apostle Paul would have been horrified by John’s account of Doubting Thomas sticking his finger in the risen Jesus’ sword wound. No, no, no: our risen bodies will be different: 

“Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (I Corinthians 15:51-53). 

Where is the evidence to verify Paul’s claim (I’m being generous: his delusion) that the dead will be raised imperishable? Where is the evidence that John’s Doubting Thomas story (missing from the other gospels) didn’t come from the author’s imagination? —after all, he was a master at making things up! There have been memes floating around Facebook and Twitter: “This comic book is the proof that Superman is real!” “These Harry Potter books are the proof that Harry is real!” The challenge for Christians is to show how and why the gospels deserve a higher historical ranking than comic and fantasy fiction books. No, I’m not kidding. Jesus studies have been in turmoil for a long time now—totally unnoticed by the folks who attend church— because devout scholars cannot agree on which gospels texts should/can be taken seriously. 

Richard Carrier has stated the problem:

“…the NT underwent a considerable amount of editing, interpolation and revising over the course of its first two centuries, and not merely as a result of transcription and scribal error, but often with specific dogmatic intent…This is not something to sweep under the rug. It makes a real difference in how we estimate probabilities. Unlike most other questions in history, the evidence for Jesus is among the most compromised bodies of evidence in the whole of ancient history. It cannot be said that this has no effect on its reliability.”  (On the Historicity of Jesus, pp. 275-276)

Are we going to have any better luck with evidence for god

I recommend a careful reading of a recent article here by John Loftus, Daniel Mocsny’s Rebuttal of Paul Moser’s Definitional Apologetics, Which Obfuscates the Fact That Christianity is Utter Nonsense! Loftus has repeatedly requested that Christian theologians and philosophers provide objective evidence that their god is real, can be verified by data. Moser faulted Loftus for not being precise about what constitutes objective evidence. But this is a dodge, indeed obfuscation. Since theists are those claiming that god exists, they should be fully prepared to specify the evidence they have—and show us where we can find it.  


A common claim is that their god is all-powerful, in fact mighty enough to have ignited the cosmos, and now to have billions of galaxies under management. Thus we can conclude that such vast power must be detectable by science. Edwin Hubble provides a good example of what can happen when smart humans look for data. Just about 100 years ago, using the new 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, Hubble determined that the Andromeda Galaxy is indeed a galaxy far beyond our own; a common view among astronomers at the time was that our Milky Way Galaxy was the universe. Hubble’s search for data, for objective, verifiable data, brought this important insight to human understanding of where we are in the Cosmos. 


Is it too much to expect that theologians should be able to tell us where to find crucial data about their all-powerful god? This is where they fumble. “Oh, but our god commands a spiritual realm that is undetectable by science.” Our next question then must be: “How do you know this?” Where is the reliable, verifiable, objective data that backs up this claim? If they continue to fumble and equivocate, then

we know for sure they have retreated to theobabble, i.e., a form of eloquence designed to cover up their lack of actual knowledge. The church has thrived on theobabble for centuries.  


Daniel Mocsny holds Paul Moser’s feet to the fire in the latter’s attempt to evade the call for evidence: “But most people don’t demand rigorous compact definitions of things like ‘chairs’ because most people have a working understanding of what a chair is, and it’s good enough. In other words there’s no need to play dumb about what a chair is, and similarly no need to play dumb about what evidence is.”


And Mocsny calls attention to the stark contrast between religion and science:


“I assume Moser plies his trade from an office and never applies his thinking to solving problems in the real world – such as how might we collect raw materials and transform them into a working smartphone. Given the astronomical number of ways to combine materials at random, the overwhelming majority of which will not result in a working smartphone, presumably Moser will agree that for scientists and engineers to manage this trick billions of times with a very low failure rate, they must have rules for evidence that are stupendously good.”


“It’s trivial to show that no religion has evidence as strong as either the law or science demands. No religion can prove its supernatural claims in a legitimate court of law, and no religion relying on faith builds anything like a smartphone. What has any religion produced besides words, and manipulating people? There is nothing to suggest that any religion has the kind of deep insight into reality that enables science to work actual near-miracles.”


Author Robert Conner (The Death of Christian BeliefThe Jesus Cult: 2000 Years of Last DaysApparitions of Jesus: The Resurrection as Ghost Storycommented on the Mocsny article: 

“If Paul Moser were to call AAA for roadside assistance with a flat tire, I’m fairly sure the receptionist wouldn’t engage him in a tiresome (see what I did there?) debate about what, epistemically speaking, constitutes a flat tire. The tire, after all, still appears to be about 70-80% round; it’s just flat in that one spot.”

“Most people who are not institutionalized realize almost without reflection that Moser’s schtick is insanity on roller skates; in any real occupation his ‘thinking’ would get a person fired on the spot and escorted from the premises by security. That in Moser’s case it’s a tenured position in a Catholic university should tell us everything we need to know about the philosophy of religion.”


Embarrassed by the lack of science-based evidence for their deity, theologians and clergy commonly resort to “rounding up the usual suspects” (that classic line from the movie Casablanca), e.g., revelation through scripture, visions, prayer-based insights about god. But these all fail to deliver: Christianity has splinted into thousands of conflicting denominations because—among other things—they disagree about the god, based on the Bible itself. And, of course, the “inspired” scriptures of Mormons and Muslims are rejected. Visions too have yielded vastly different images of god(s) and saints; Protestants commonly ridicule Catholic vision claims. Christians have prayed endlessly to their god, but hold very different views on what god wants and expects.    


Isn’t it so obvious that an all-powerful, competent, wise, caring god could have cleared up this mess a long time ago? “God can do anything!” devout believers claim. “Well, good, have him say Hi!” Let the evidence be clear and obvious. The gospel resurrection story itself fails by this standard. Why didn’t the resurrected Jesus show up at Pilate’s house on Easter morning? Why didn’t he appear to Caesar himself? 

“Better still, the resurrected Jesus could have gone on a Worldwide Resurrection Tour with stops in China and every city, town, and village in the world.” (Tim Sledge, Four Disturbing Questions With One Simple Answer: Breaking the Spell of Christian Belief, p. 63)

Especially since the all-power Christian god gets really furious when humans don’t obey and worship him, it is very strange that he has failed so miserably when it comes to the presentation of evidence. 
 

David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of two books, Ten ToughProblems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, now being reissued in several volumes, the first of which is Guessing About God (2023) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also now available. 

His YouTube channel is here. At the invitation of John Loftus, he has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.

The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here

Freedom requires education: There’s no choice without knowledge

Here’s the link to this article.

Avatar photoby ADAM LEE

SEP 07, 2023

Two doors of weathered wood side by side in a stone wall | Freedom requires education: There's no choice without knowledge
Credit: Tim Green/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Overview:

If you want to be free, you have to have an understanding of the choices. Conservatives who push book bans and rage against pluralistic education are fighting against their own stated goal.

Reading Time: 4 MINUTES

[Previous: No one has the right to starve a child’s mind]

Imagine you find yourself in a room, facing two doors.

One door is rough, weathered wood. The other is made of boards polished smooth.

There’s carved writing on both, but it’s in a language you don’t read, in characters you’ve never seen. There are chains of intricate symbols inlaid into the frames in gold and silver, but they’re utterly meaningless to you.

There’s just one thing you know. One door is the entry into a golden existence: a long life of peace, ease and good health, full of friends and love. The other opens onto a dark and gloomy road: a hard life of unhappiness, suffering, misery, loneliness, and early death.

Knowing that your fate is riding on the choice, which door would you pick?

The cosmic shell game

The correct answer—assuming you’re a rational skeptic—is that this isn’t a choice at all.

Making a choice implies reasons for doing one thing rather than another. You have to have some background knowledge, some way to evaluate which of the options before you is better. If you could read the language carved on the doors, or if you recognized any of the symbols, you might be able to make a better-than-chance judgment about the correct one. Without this knowledge, picking either door would be a blind guess. You might as well flip a coin.

Of course, in real life, we’re in an even worse place than this pared-down hypothetical. In the real world, there are more than just two doors. There are thousands, each one densely covered with their own writing and their own symbols (notwithstanding the evangelists who think there are only two choices: “My Religion” and “Everything Else”). In addition to that, each door is surrounded by a dense crowd of people yelling that their door is the one true way to happiness and all the others are pretenders.

Making a choice implies reasons for doing one thing rather than another.

Longtime readers may remember this as the scenario in my essay “The Cosmic Shell Game“. It’s a potent reason to distrust the truth claims of religious believers. No one can investigate all these options, and very few people even try. Instead, most people choose the faith they belong to because of an accident of birth. Their decision is effectively random, no more trustworthy than flipping a coin.

This argument doesn’t just apply to religions. It works equally well as a metaphor for philosophies, nationalities, political ideologies, and every other major life decision where making one choice forecloses others. How can anyone make any trustworthy or informed choices about anything, when the space of possibility is so large as to be unnavigable?

The lay of the land

It’s impossible to study every religion, philosophy and ideology in the universe to make a definitive ranking. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean there’s no point in trying. We’ll never have perfect knowledge, but we can always gain more knowledge. And the more knowledge we have, the better the choices we can make. It’s like trying to hike across uncharted territory. Even if you don’t have a complete map, the more you know about the lay of the land, the better able you are to find a safe path.

This goes for every field of inquiry. The more you know about history, the more you can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The more you know about science, the less likely you are to hold a belief that was already tested and disproven. The more you know about culture, the more capable you are of judging what is or isn’t natural for humans.

The more you know about culture, the more capable you are of judging what is or isn’t natural for humans.

For best results, this knowledge should be a broad cross-section of humanity, not limited to one gender or one race or one religion or one country. It’s the same reason why diverse groups make better decisions: it’s less likely that everyone has the same blind spots, so one person will see what another overlooks. You can achieve the same effect as an individual by stocking your mind with the widest possible selection of human thought and knowledge.

That’s why pluralism is so important in education. It’s the answer to conservatives who think it’s an underhanded liberal ploy—a way to instill leftist values to the exclusion of all others. Actually, it’s just an acknowledgment of a basic fact of reality: it’s really complicated, and figuring stuff out is hard!

Knowledge sets you free

Conservatives say that freedom is their number one value, the thing they care about above all else. Fair enough. Here’s what I say to that: Freedom is only truly possible for an educated person—and the more education you have, the more free you are.

Anyone can be “free” in the wild-animal sense of pursuing immediate desires without constraint. But the truest, most uniquely human kind of freedom is the ability to make decisions that steer the course of your life. Just as in the two-doors analogy, that kind of freedom is only possible when you have the knowledge to make responsible choices. Otherwise, it’s just random guessing or blindly following the path presented by birth or society.

It’s knowledge that sets you free: both self-knowledge, and knowledge about the world.

If you had a kitchen cabinet full of cans, some of which were nutritious and some were poison—but you had no way of knowing which is which—would you boast about your “freedom” to pick any one you felt like? Of course not, because no one values the freedom of ignorance or the freedom to plunge blindly into danger. The only kind of freedom anyone wants is the freedom to choose right—whatever you believe the right choice to be.

It’s knowledge that sets you free: both self-knowledge, and knowledge about the world. It’s knowledge that gives you the power to shake off indoctrination, recognize fallacies for what they are, and choose the worldview whose claims are borne out by evidence.

The Gateway to Doubting the Gospel Narratives Is The Virgin Birth Myth

Here’s the link to this article.

By John W. Loftus at 6/13/2020

There is an often repeated argument that marijuana is the gateway drug leading to dangerous drugs. [I think it’s largely false but don’t get sidetracked on it.] There is however, a gateway to doubting the whole Bible that I want to highlight here. Lately I’ve been focusing on the virgin birth claim because this is the gateway to doubting the gospel narratives, just as Genesis 1-11 is the gateway to doubting the Old Testament narratives. It was for me anyway. You can see this double doubting of both Testaments in the list of the five most important books that changed my mind, and the five most powerful reasons not to believe.

Apologists and theologians focus on the resurrection of Jesus primarily because they have studied it so much more than the virgin birth narratives. They now use the minimal facts approach of Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, and William Lane Craig, who want to sweep off the table a great deal of what atheists all agree on, especially their unanimous agreement that a virgin named Mary did not give birth to an incarnate god. The reason this atheist agreement should stay on the table is because it speaks directly to the credibility of the gospel narratives as a whole. Since there’s no good reason to believe the virgin birth myth, there’s no good reason to believe the resurrection myth either, despite any agreements atheist scholars and Christian apologists have about the resurrection narratives. After all, the virgin birth narratives are in the same gospels that contain the resurrection narratives (Matthew & Luke anyway). If the narratives about the virgin-born incarnate god can be shown to be non-historical myth, then so too are the narratives about the resurrection of this same virgin-born incarnate god. The virgin myth began as an concocted explanation for how an incarnate god came into human existence. So now without a credible virgin birth story, Christians are left with no explanation for how an incarnate god came into human existence!

So here’s the scoop on the virgin birth. See what YOU think! First read Part 1 (included below) then read Part 2 (included below). For the best book-length analysis of the virgin birth see Robert Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God. Miller wrote the chapter on Jesus fulfilling prophecy for my anthology, The Case against Miracles.

Part 1

Tonight’s Debate Opener vs William Albrecht On “Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?”

By John W. Loftus at 1/26/2020

My debate opponent believes a virgin named Mary gave birth to a divine child named Jesus over two-thousand years ago. The most significant problem is that theologians cannot explain how a human being and a god can be one and the same, that is, 100% human and 100% divine, with every essential characteristic of humanity and divinity included. How can a god be a god if he has a body? How can an infinite timeless god exist in time? Conversely, how can a human be a human if he or she doesn’t have a body? How can a finite human take on eternal godlike characteristics and still remain a human being? How can a human be perfectly good incapable of being tempted to sin, and yet also be tempted to sin? Christians themselves have shown the incoherence of a divine/human being by their 2000 year long disagreements over it.

Make no mistake about it. This is what my debate opponent is aiming at in this debate. The virgin birth is a first step toward claiming Jesus was God incarnate. My aim is to stop him short of this first step, even though his case isn’t done until he tackles the second step by dealing with some formidable philosophical objections to a divine/human being. With no such being there’s no virgin birth either.

Let’s start by talking about the kind of evidence we need.

All claims about the objective world require sufficient objective evidence appropriate to the nature of the claim. This applies to ordinary claims, extraordinary claims and miraculous claims. The amount and quality of the evidence required is dependent on the type of claim being made.

An ordinary claim is one made about events that are commonplace within nature, which require ordinary levels of evidence. Most all of these claims are based on testimonial evidence alone. That is, the trustworthiness of the person making the claim is enough to establish them, especially where there’s no reason to suspect deception and there’s no dispute by others as to the facts. [“Earlier today I was in Indiana.”]

An extraordinary claim is one made about events that are extremely unusual, rare and even strange within the world of nature. Mere testimonial evidence is helpful but not enough to establish these claims. They require some strong objective evidence for them. That is, the more unusual the claim is then the stronger the objective evidence must be for them. [“I was abducted by an alien”].

A miraculous claim is one made about events that are impossible to take place by natural processes alone, which requires a high level of strong objective evidence for them. As David Hume argued, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.” The fact that a miracle requires extraordinary evidence over and above the fallibility of ordinary human testimony is not an unreasonable demand. It’s the nature of the beast. A forensic TV show I watched had a character say, “The evidence doesn’t lie. People do.” If this is acknowledged in criminal investigations it should be acknowledged much more so in miraculous investigations. So mere testimonial evidence is insufficient when it comes to miracle claims, especially when it comes to miracle claims in the distant past from sources we cannot cross-examine for consistency and truth.

Tonight, I’m going to show that the required objective evidence for the miraculous birth of Jesus is not there, at all. Beyond this I’ll I’m going to show the testimonial evidence in the New Testament is insufficient. My main point is that if the gospels are inaccurate and untrustworthy in historical matters that we can check, then there’s absolutely no reason to think they are accurate and trustworthy when it comes to the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus either.

The most significant problem for my debate opponent is that there’s no objective evidence to corroborate the virgin birth stories in the New Testament. None. None at all! Where’s the evidence Mary was a virgin? We hear nothing about her wearing a barbaric chastity belt to prove her virginity. No one checked for an intact hymen before she gave birth either. Where’s the evidence that neither Joseph nor any other man was not the father? Maury Povich was not there with a DNA test to verify Joseph was not the baby daddy, nor did he test others.

We don’t even have firsthand testimonial evidence for it, since the story is related to us by others, not Mary, or Joseph. At best, all we have is the second-hand testimony of one person, Mary, or two if we include Joseph who was unreasonably convinced Mary was a virgin because of a dream, yes, a dream (see Matthew 1:19-24). We never get to independently cross-examine them, along with the people who knew them, which we would need to do, since they may have a very good reason for lying, like a pregnancy out of wedlock! Before there can be a virgin birth one must first show Mary wasn’t pregnant. One must also show neither Joseph nor any other man was not the baby daddy.

What we know is that neither of the two earliest New Testament writers refer to the virgin birth of Jesus. That’s very telling. Neither the apostle Paul nor the author of the gospel of Mark referred to it. It’s inconceivable neither of them mentioned it. The virgin birth story was an unimportant afterthought for the later gospels of Matthew and Luke. This only makes sense as a non-historical myth made up on hindsight to explain how Jesus came down from the sky above the clouds to earth.

Additionally, in the gospel of Mark the family of Jesus themselves thought he was crazy, not God’s son. “He is out of his mind” they said, and tried “to take charge of him (Mark 3:19–21, 31–35). This makes no sense if the virgin birth stories are true in the later gospels of Matthew and Luke. How could his mother Mary forget how her son Jesus was conceived, or what was said about him at the time of his birth? The angel Gabriel said he would be called “the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Her cousin Elizabeth said Mary was the “mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43), and she herself said, “from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). No mother would ever forget the circumstances of his birth, if it happened as reported.

In Luke’s gospel when Mary first hears from the angel Gabriel that she’s to give birth, she objects by saying, “How shall this be, since I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34). Surely Mary wouldn’t feel it necessary to inform Gabriel that she hadn’t had sex with a man. If this conversation took place at all, she would’ve said, “How shall this be, since I know not my husband.” The way it’s written in Luke is to justify Mary’s virginity to the reader, rather than to tell us what she said. So Mary’s stated objection to the angel is a literary invention.

Now one might simply trust the anonymous gospel writer(s) who wrote this extraordinary story down, but why? How is it possible that THEY could find out a virgin named Mary gave birth to a deity? No reasonable investigation could take Mary and/or Joseph’s word for it. With regard to Joseph’s dream, Thomas Hobbes tells us, “For a man to say God hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spoke to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man.” [Leviathan, chap. 32.6] So it’s down to unreliable hearsay testimonial evidence from Mary. Why should we believe her? Would you?

It gets worse. There are seven facts to consider.

1) The Genealogies are Inaccurate and Irrelevant. The royal genealogies of Jesus in the later gospels of Luke (3:23–37) and Matthew (1:1–17) have historical problems with them. For instance, Matthew’s gospel makes Jesus a descendent of king Jeconiah (1:11), even though the prophet Jeremiah had proclaimed none of Jeconiah’s descendents would ever sit of the throne of David (Jer. 22:30). Someone messed up big time here, don’t you think?

The genealogies of Jesus are irrelevant if he was born of a virgin. Jewish royal lineages are traced through men not women, so Luke’s genealogy is irrelevant since it traces the lineage of Jesus through Mary. Matthew’s genealogy is equally irrelevant, since it traces the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, who was not his father, according to gospel accounts. To desperately claim Mary’s baby was a new divine creation unrelated to the lineages of either Mary or Joseph, also makes the genealogies irrelevant. For then it wouldn’t matter which mother’s womb God decided to create his son inside.

Modern genetics decisively render the genealogies irrelevant since one cannot even have a human being without the genetic contributions of both a male seed and a female egg. To claim, as Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond Brown did, that Jesus was “technically” the adopted son of Joseph, is absurd and also irrelevant since only blood lines count in royal lineages. Adopted sons would never legitimately inherit any throne.

2) Jesus Was Not Born in Bethlehem. In Matthew 2:5 we’re told Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem. But the precise phrase “Bethlehem Ephratah” in the original prophecy of Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a family clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephratah (1 Chron. 2:19, 2:50–51, 4:4). Furthermore, Micah’s prophecy predicts a military commander who would rule over the land of Assyria (which never happened), and was certainly not about a future Messiah.

The earliest gospel of Mark begins by saying Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, not from Bethlehem (Mark 1:9). Let that sink it. The first gospel says he’s from Nazareth. In the later Gospel of John, Jesus was rejected as the Messiah precisely because the people of Nazareth knew he was born and raised in their town! That’s the whole reason they rejected him as the Messiah! They rhetorically asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee?” They said, “A prophet does not come out of Galilee” (John 7:42, 52). [He was from Nazareth. Therefore he’s not the Messiah.]

Since everyone knew the Messiah would not come from Galilee, Matthew and Luke invented conflicting stories to overcome this insurmountable problem. In Matthew’s gospel—the one most concerned with making Jesus fit prophecy—Joseph’s family is living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born (Matt. 2). In order to explain how Jesus got to Nazareth, Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt because of Herod (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph took his family to Nazareth and lived there (Matt. 2:21–23). Luke’s gospel, by contrast, claims Joseph and Mary lived in the town of Nazareth but traveled to Bethlehem for a Roman census, at which time Jesus was born (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After he was born they went back home to Nazareth (Luke 2:39).

When we compare Matthew and Luke’s accounts, Raymond Brown concludes, “Despite efforts stemming from preconceptions of biblical inerrancy or of Marian piety, it is exceedingly doubtful that both accounts can be considered historical. A review of the implications explains why the historicity of the infancy narratives has been questioned by so many scholars, even by those who do not in advance (i.e., a priori) rule out the miraculous.”

To make these stories work they invented a world-wide Roman census (per Luke), to get the holy family to Bethlehem, and the slaughter of the innocents by Herod (per Matthew), to explain why the holy family left Bethlehem for good. Matthew’s gospel invented a Messianic Star for emphasis, which was overkill, based on Numbers 24:17. But there was no census, no massacre of children and no Bethlehem star. [As we’ll see in the next three facts to consider].

3) There Was No Census. Luke’s gospel tells us something bizarre, that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register for the census because “he was from the house and lineage of David.” (Luke 2:4) According to Luke’s genealogy king David had lived forty-two generations earlier. Why should everyone have had to register for a census in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations earlier? There would be millions of ancestors by that time, and the whole empire would have been uprooted. Why forty-two generations and not thirty-five, or sixteen? If this requirement was only for the lineage of King David, what was Caesar Augustus thinking when he ordered it? He had a king, Herod.

Both Matthew and Luke said Jesus was born during the time of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5). Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus was born at the latest in 4 BC. The only known census of that period was a local one in Galilee which took place in 6 AD by Syrian governor Quirinius. There’s a gap of ten years between Herod’s death and the alleged census, which means there was no census at the birth of Jesus, if he was born during the reign of Herod. But Luke’s gospel said it was a world-wide census, not a local one. And that census didn’t take place at all, for as Raymond Brown tells: “A census of the known world under Caesar Augustus never happened” and he reigned from 27 BC to 14 AD.

4) There Was No Slaughter of the Innocents. In Matthew’s gospel king Herod was said to have ordered all the male children “in Bethlehem and all the surrounding countryside” to be slaughtered (2:16). But there is no other account of such a massacre in any other source. It’s clear that the first century Jewish historian Josephus hated Herod. He chronicled in detail his crimes, many of which were lesser in kind than this alleged wholesale massacre of children. Yet nowhere does Josephus’ mention this slaughter even though he was in a position to know of it, and even though he would want to mention it. So the story is a gospel fiction, like the virgin birth story.

5) There Was No Star of Bethlehem. Matthew’s gospel says: “The star, which they (the Magi) had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stopped over the place where the child was.” (2:9–10). There is no independent corroboration of this tale by any other source, Christian or otherwise. No astrologer/astronomer anywhere in the world recorded this event, even though they systematically searched the stars for guidance and predictions of the future. More significantly the author of Luke chose not to include the story of a Star, Magi, or the attempt on Jesus’ life, which is telling, since his gospel was written after “a careful study of everything” he says, so readers could know what actually took place from what didn’t. (1:1-4).

Theories for this Star include a comet, a supernova, or the conjunction of planets. The fatal problem is that none of them conform to what the text actually says in Matthew’s gospel. The Magi see the Star “leading” or directing them to Bethlehem from Jerusalem. Not only are moving stars pre-scientific nonsense, they would be moving in a southern direction, from Jerusalem down to Bethlehem. Stars don’t move in the sky, and they certainly don’t appear to move in a southerner direction. They all appear to move from the east to west, like the sun, because of the spin of the earth. Then we’re told the Star stopped in the sky directly over a place in Bethlehem. But there’s no way to determine which specific house a star stopped over, if it did! This is only consistent with pre-scientific notions of the earth being the center of the universe with the stars being moved by a god who sits on a throne in the sky.

6) The Prophecies Are Faked. In Matthew 1:20–23 the author claims that Isaiah 7:14 predicts Jesus’ virgin birth. The context for the prophecy in Isaiah tells us that before a son born of a “young woman” (not a virgin) “is old enough to know how to choose between right and wrong the countries of two kings (i.e., Syria and Samaria) will be destroyed” (7:15-16). The prophecy in the original Hebrew says nothing whatsoever about a virginal conception. Period. It says nothing about a messiah, either. The prophecy was actually fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3 with the birth of the son Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah. It’s used five times in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah 7:14 isn’t one of them. The word used in Isaiah 7:14 is ‘almah, which means young woman, or simply girl. It does not specify a virgin. Full Stop. The gospel of Matthew’s error was to use a 200 year old Greek translation of the Hebrew which used the word parthenos. Originally the Greek word parthenos meant “young girl,” but by the time Matthew wrote his gospel that word had been changed by usage to signify a “virgin” rather than a young girl. This is not unlike how the words nice and gay have changed in meaning over the years. So Matthew grossly misunderstood the original Hebrew text in Isaiah by incorrectly claiming Jesus was to be born of a virgin.

A second prophecy in Isaiah 9:6–7 reads: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” [See Luke 1:31-33] Any Jew writing at that time might express the same hope for a Messiah/savior who would rescue their nation from their oppressors. But an expressed hope for a future Messiah is not to be considered a prediction, unless along with that expressed hope are specific details whereby we can check to see if it was fulfilled in a specific person. Isaiah provides none. With no details there isn’t any real prediction.

German theologian Ute Ranke-Heinemann concludes after her own study: “If we wish to continue seeing Luke’s accounts… as historical events, we’d have to take a large leap of faith: We’d have to assume that while on verifiable matters of historical fact Luke tells all sorts of fairy tales but on supernatural matters—which by definition can never be checked—he simply reports the facts. By his arbitrary treatment of history, Luke has shown himself to be an unhistorical reporter—a teller of fairy tales.” [Putting Away Childish Things, p. 14]

7) The Virgin Birth of Jesus Has Pagan Parallels. Robert Miller shows us many important people in the ancient world were believed to have been the product of virgin births: “People in the ancient world believed that heroes were the sons of gods because of the extraordinary qualities of their adult lives, not because there was public information about the intimate details of how their mothers became pregnant. In fact, in some biographies the god takes on the physical form of the woman’s husband in order to have sex with her.” [Born Divine, p. 134] And then he proceeds to document some of these stories. There was Theagenes, the Olympic champion, who was regarded as divine for being one of the greatest athlete’s in the ancient world. Hercules was the most widely revered hero of the ancient world. He was promoted to divine status after his death, and it was said he was fathered by Zeus. Alexander the Great was believed to be conceived of a virgin and fathered in turn by Heracles. Augustus Caesar was believed to be conceived of a virgin and fathered by Apollo, as was Plato, the philosopher. Apollonius of Tyana was believed to be a holy man born of a virgin and fathered by Zeus. Pythagoras the philosopher was believed to be a son of Apollo. There were also savior-gods, like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, who were born of virgins and known to the Gospel writers centuries before.

Justin Martyr was a second-century Christian apologist who tried to convince the pagans of his day of the truth of Christianity. In his First Apology to Roman people he wrote:

When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter…Of what kind of deeds recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know…[I]f we even affirm that he [Jesus] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.

All that these virgin birth claims show is that someone thought these people were important, and that’s it. None of them are taken to be literal virgin births, probably not even in that day! So it should not come as a surprise that the early Christians came up with similar myths about Jesus. It’s myth all the way down with no historical reality to it. There’s no reason to accept this extraordinary claim at all.

To read my analysis of the debate see here.

Part 2

An Analysis of My Recent Debate On the Virgin Birth of Jesus

By John W. Loftus at 2/01/2020

I’ve already published my debate opener on the virgin birth right here. One of the best things about debates, for me anyway, is that they force me to write debate openers. They are succinct statements of why I don’t believe. They will stand the test of time, even if public debates allow for the irrelevancies and non-sequiturs of my debate opponents to muddy the waters.

To write them means I must also participate in a public debates, so I do. In this debate I had some problems with the logistics for several reasons. It was supposed to give presenters 30 minutes each for their opening statements. That’s was too long. So we agreed to limit it to 20 minutes just prior to the debate. I thought it would be better for the audience, and that I could fit my opener into that time. I was wrong. I was also wrong to ask my opponent to time it. There should’ve been someone chosen in the audience to time our debates, and to give us a 5 minute, 2 minute, then 1 minute warning. There should also have been a moderator during our cross-examination, and someone to field questions for us during the Q & A period. I wasn’t in charge of these details but I should have inquired. For without a moderator we interrupted each other far too often. That’s what happens without a moderator, and it sucked. Big Time! For I have a hard time listening and responding to utter nonsense.

I eventually got through my debate opener since during the cross-examination phase I finished it.

On the substantive issues I did well.

One of the most significant points made by my opponent was based on an early Christian forgery called the Proto-Gospel of James (Dated 140-170 AD) which was falsely claimed to be written by James the brother of Jesus. This Gospel was rejected as authentic by the early church. It’s supposed to provide the objective evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary, my opponent said. I didn’t respond too well, but I did respond adequately. I had said such an account is irrelevant to the case for the virginity of Mary.

The Proto-Gospel of James follows a lot of what we read in the canonical gospel accounts, which is significant, since it repeats some of the fraudulent claims in the gospels, such as the world-wide census under Augustus Caesar, the sign of the Star, the slaughter of the innocents, and Bethlehem being the birthplace of Jesus, which my opening statement debunks. It also repeats the claim that Joseph was initially convinced by a dream that Mary was impregnated by God. *cough*

In the Proto-Gospel of James both Joseph and Mary participated in a barbaric trial by ordeal (based on passages like Numbers 5 quoted below). After drinking contaminated water they did not show evidence of “sin”, that is, adultery or fornication. Exonerated, right? No, not at all. Trial by ordeals do not work. They’re barbaric and unbecoming of a God to require it. One might as well use it on people convicted of a capital crime to determine if juries were correct to find them guilty. If they pass the ordeal then free them, despite what juries had just determined. Why not? If the one in the Proto-Gospel of James is good, so is the other.

In the Proto-Gospel of James there was a midwife for Mary named Salome. She testified Mary was still a virgin afer she gave birth to Jesus, and by doing so, provided testimony that Mary was also perpetual virgin! Reminiscent of the tale of Doubting Thomas, who refused to believe Jesus was resurrected until he saw Jesus and touched his wounds, Salome refused to believe Mary was a virgin until she checked Mary’s hymen after the birth of Jesus! Upon testing Mary for an intact hymen her hand began to burn as if it caught on fire. Salome prays for forgiveness for questioning, and her hand was subsequently healed. [In the tale of Doubting Thomas we’re told to believe without seeing, whereas here we’re told God is displeased when we question–even though in this case it supposedly produced a good result!] You can read a summary of Salome’s bizarre story right here.

A late dated forgery containing an additional miracle such as Salome’s supposed healed hand doesn’t provide support for the original miracle claim of the virgin birth. It isn’t considered objective evidence nor is it considered good testimonial evidence. In fact, if it takes an additional miracle claim to support the original miracle claim of the virgin birth, then this compounds the problem of verification. That’s because Salome’s unevidenced miracle is not evidence for another unevidenced miracle of the virgin birth!

This forged gospel contains known historical falsehoods as it’s based on what we read in the gospels. It is late, untrustworthy and inauthentic. It doesn’t provide the needed objective evidence or testimonial evidence to support a miracle claim, as I mentioned in my opening statement. It is therefore irrelevant!

———————–

Follow this link to read the The Proto-Gospel of James.

Trial by Ordeal, Numbers 5:16-27

16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children.

Those First Copy-Cat Christian Theologians

Here’s the link to this article.

By David Madison at 9/08/2023

The imagined, invented Jesus of the New Testament 

The huge faith bureaucracy—aka the church—is guilty of many sins, but one of its major failings is deception. It specializes in diverting the attention of its faithful followers from what has been learned about Christian origins. Perhaps the greatest irony in this exercise in cheating is that major discoveries about Christian origins—including the unreliability of the gospel accounts of Jesus—have been made by devout scholars who had set out to prove that the gospels tell the true story of their lord and savior. 

But as professionally trained historians examined the gospels, it became clear that these documents fail to qualify as history. In 1835, David Friedrich Strauss published Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet (The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined), in which he argued that the miracle elements in Jesus stories were mythical. In 1933, Charles Guignebert published another major study, titled simply Jesus, in which he wrote: “It was not the essence of Jesus that interested in the authors of our gospels, it was the essence of Christ, as their faith pictured him. They are exclusively interested, not in reporting what they know, but in proving what they believe” (p. 53). He labeled the gospels “propaganda texts.”

In his 1988 classic, Gospel Fictions, Randel Helms stated: “The gospels are, indeed—to a much greater degree than those who read them with pious inattention even begin to realize—imaginative literature, fiction, and critics have been using such terms about them for a long time” (p. 11).                         

Those who read them with pious inattention. This is what the church and the clergy are counting on. Indeed, surveys have shown that most laypeople don’t spend a lot of time reading the gospels, let alone studying them. We can assume that the clergy do this kind of study, and know the problems presented—and they dearly hope the laity won’t notice. Again, Randel Helms:

“Perhaps the earliest revision of Mark is to be found in the Gospel of Matthew. Of the 661 verses in Mark, 606 appear in Matthew, many with deliberate stylistic and theological changes, others with fictional additions” (p. 35, Gospel Fictions). 

Thousands of Bible scholars in religious academia have examined the gospels thoroughly, and, as Helms notes, “have been using such terms [imaginative literature, fiction] for a long time.” But all of this has happened beyond the awareness of church folks, who might wonder, “What’s going on?” if they carefully considered what Matthew did with Mark’s text. And how shocking that the Jesus in John’s gospel is so very different from Mark’s Jesus. Comparison of the gospels is dangerous business, but studying the context in which Christianity arose even more so. 

The laity, however, treasure the “greatest story ever told,” without giving much—if any—thought to how the story was fashioned from so many different ideas that were circulating at the time. Nor do they want to think about it. Faith is commonly preserved by ignoring information that may jeopardize cherished beliefs—mainly, I suspect because doubts are not too far below the surface.  

Last March I published an article here in which I commented on some of the religious ideas in circulation in the first century, based on Richard Carrier’s massive documentation of these concepts when Christianity first emerged. In fact, he lists 48 elements that are crucial for an understanding of Christian origins.  See pp. 65-234 of On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for DoubtChances are close to zero that churchgoers would read this book, although Carrier has made a point of writing in an easily-accessible style—and he explains why in his Preface. 

In the March article, I focused on Elements 4, 15, 31 and 43. Let’s look at four more. 

Element 11, pages 96-107

“The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion. This is also beyond any reasonable doubt, yet frequently denied in the field of Jesus research, often with a suspiciously intense passion” (p. 96, OHJ). Of course, Christian apologists want to resist any suggestion that their faith is derivative. 

“If we then expand that definition to include a set of specific features held in common by all other mystery religions of the early Roman era, then Christianity becomes even more demonstrably a mystery religion, so much so, in fact, that it’s impossible to deny it was deliberately constructed as such. Even the earliest discernible form of Christianity emulates numerous cultic features and concepts that were so unique to the Hellenistic mystery cults that it is statistically beyond any reasonable possibility that they all found their way into Christianity by mere coincidence” (p. 96-97 OHJ). 

“…all [mystery religions] involve a ritual meal that unites initiated members in communion with one another and their god (1 Cor. 11:23-28). All of these features are fundamental to Christianity, yet equally fundamental to all the mystery cults that were extremely popular in the very era that Christianity arose. The coincidence of all of these features together lining up this way is simply too improbable to propose as just an accident” (p. 99, OHJ).

While such beliefs thrived in the milieu which gave birth to Christianity, some aspects were much older. Carrier notes later in the book that “…the savior cult of the resurrected Zalmoxis (of Thracian origin) is clearly attested in Herodotus centuries before Christianity; the imperial cult of the resurrected Romulus is likewise attested in several pre-Christian authors…” (p. 171, OHJ).

I recommend a careful reading of Carrier’s Element 11, paying close attention to the detailed information that he provides in the footnotes. These pages do a splendid job of destroying any claim that Christianity is the one true faith. 

It’s obvious how much early Christian theologians imagined/invented their Jesus according to ideas popular in other cults at the time. 

Element 16, pages 137-141

“The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth (only many generations later did Christian views on this point noticeably change)” (p. 137, OHJ).

“…people often received communications from Jesus via revelation (even if indirectly: i.e., through intuited feelings attributed to the holy spirit, or visions or prophetic messages communicated through angels or subordinate spirits), and no one thought this was unusual or inferior to any other source. To the contrary, Paul’s argument in Galatians 1 entails Christians had the opposite view: that information derived by revelation was more authoritative and trustworthy than any human tradition” (pp. 138-139).

A startling example of this is the Christian ritual meal, known as communion or the eucharist: Just where did it come from? “Well, Jesus at the last supper, of course,” is the natural response. But where do we find this Jesus-script for the first time? In I Corinthians 11:23:26, written by the apostle Paul—well before the gospels existed—who didn’t know Jesus, was not at the last supper. Paul bragged (Galatians 1:11-12) that he learned nothing about Jesus from the people who had known him. Paul claims in the opening verse of this text that he received these words “from the lord.” Which means in his visions, i.e., his hallucinations of the heavenly Jesus. It seems likely that the author of Mark’s gospel based his last supper Jesus-script on what he found in I Corinthians 11. Oh the irony: Mark invented a scene, using Paul’s words of Jesus that he imagined in visions. 

Element 16 illustrates the primary reason why secular—and even many devout—historians distrust the stories we find in the gospels especially. They cannot be verified by contemporaneous documentation, e.g. letters, diaries, transcriptions, interviews of eyewitnesses. The early Christian authors were okay with what they saw/heard in visions. Other religions do exactly the same thing, resulting in vastly different concepts of the divine. 

Ever wonder how Christianity ended up in such a mess today? By which I mean thousands of different denominations, divisions, sects, cults. It’s such a scandal that Christians have never been able to agree on their god, Jesus, and the proper forms of worship. 

Well, it was that way from the very beginning….

Elements 20 and 21, pp. 146-148

“Element 20: (a) The earliest known Christians proselytized Gentiles but required them to convert to Judaism. (b) Paul is the first known Christian to discard that requirement (having received a special revelation instructing him to), and he had to fight the earliest known leaders of the cult for acceptance of that radical idea. (c) But some books in the NT are from the sect that did not adopt this innovation but remained thoroughly Jewish (most obviously Matthew, the letters of John and James, and Revelation)” (p. 146, OHJ).

“Element 21: Paul and other NT authors attest that there were many rival Christian sects and factions teaching different gospels throughout the first century. In fact, evidence of such divisions and disagreements date as far back as extant records go” (pp. 146-147, OHJ).

“The epistles written during the first generation of Christians (from the 30s to the 60s CE) reveal a highly fragmented church already from the earliest recorded time, rife with fabricated new gospels and teachings effectively beyond the control of any central authority” (p. 147, OHJ).

It never dawned on these ancient rivaling Christians that their visions/revelations did not deliver reliable, trustworthy information about their god and his holy hero. And the failure of critical thinking continues to this day, when the devout are confident that they know god and Jesus because they “feel him in their heart.” Yet they fight tooth and nail against other devout Christians whose heartfelt feelings are so very different. 

It’s no mystery at all that Christianity remains such a mess.  

David Madison was a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, and has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. He is the author of two books, Ten ToughProblems in Christian Thought and Belief: a Minister-Turned-Atheist Shows Why You Should Ditch the Faith, now being reissued in several volumes, the first of which is Guessing About God (2023) and Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (2021). The Spanish translation of this book is also now available. 

His YouTube channel is here. At the invitation of John Loftus, he has written for the Debunking Christianity Blog since 2016.

The Cure-for-Christianity Library©, now with more than 500 titles, is here. A brief video explanation of the Library is here

The Mind Held Captive

Here’s the link to this article.

By Merle Hertzler / 2023-08-28

If you search for my site, The Mind Set Free, you are likely to first find a book and sermon by Jimmy Evans, A Mind Set Free. Evans promises mental freedom. Yet he relies on the theme verse, “Casting down arguments, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” That does not sound like mental freedom to me. That sounds like mental captivity.

By contrast, when I speak of the mind set free, I am encouraging intellectual freedom, which is the freedom to explore ideas that differ with your religious background or cultural demands. Evans, however, asks people to commit that they will listen only to that which is consistent with what he calls The Word of God. He asks people to consciously block out ideas that differ with that Word of God. That is mental captivity.

The Place of the Skull

He explains why he thinks they crucified Jesus at a location called The Place of the Skull. It turns out God chose this place, Evans tells us, because God wanted to show the inherent corruption of natural thoughts that takes place inside our skulls. How does Evans know this is the reason for the selection of this site for the crucifixion? He doesn’t know this. But it makes for a good story. And so, he tells it as truth, not merely as one possible explanation. We hear that Jesus died in the place of the skull so he could let us know he wanted control of what happens in the skull. Really? That explanation sounds contrived.

I know how this works. Years ago, I regularly taught Sunday School. One can simply make up an explanation that sounds feasible, and so that is what it is. There is no need to question it or say this is just one interpretation. We found an explanation, so that’s how it is. Onward.

We hear that the devil and others are corrupting our thoughts in our skulls. What is his solution? He asks us to cast those thoughts out. We cannot allow ourselves to listen to anything that differs with The Word of God, which is, or course, his name for the Bible.

Why listen to The Word of God? He explains that the words in the Bible are so powerful, they even brought into existence the very matter that forms the pulpit from which he is preaching. That is quite a stretch. First, nobody knows how the universe came into existence, but most likely the ultimate cause of the universe did not even have a mind. But even if the ultimate source of the universe had a mind, and we choose to call that mind God, we are still a long way from proving that this cause revealed himself in the ancient Hebrew scriptures and that the Bible contains his words. But even if that book contains God’s words, those words wouldn’t be the same words that created the atoms that made up his pulpit. Nevertheless, Evans somehow equates the words of the Bible with words that created all the matter we see. So, listen up!

He tells us to force ourselves to live by these words that he finds so powerful. “Every thought that comes into my mind,” he argues, “I need to point a spear under its neck and say ‘You are going to listen to what Jesus has to say’…Any thought that does not agree with the Word of God, I take it out.”

A lot of thoughts pass through my mind each day. Even if I wanted to avoid thinking them, how would I prevent my mind from thinking about these things? I don’t even know what my next thought will be. How can I prevent it from being one that opposes the Bible? He proposes that we block out those thoughts through biblical meditation.

Biblical meditation, as he defines it, is quite different from Eastern meditation, which is a process by which one empties the conscious thought stream while observing the thoughts that enter the mind outside of the normal stream of conscious thought. Some find that emptying the conscious mind this way is an effective method to see what is really going on inside the mind outside the clamor of everyday life. Others use relaxing vacations to do the same thing. The whole idea is to give the mind a little freedom to generate its own thoughts.

But biblical medication, as he proposes it, is the opposite of emptying the mind to give it freedom. Instead, he argues for purposely filling one’s mind with a particular set of thoughts. He asks us to force these thoughts from The Word of God into our consciousness night and day, constantly ruminating on them, constantly forcing the consciousness to dwell on the desired thoughts. We overcome atheist thoughts, he says, by forcing the correct thoughts–the thoughts that supposedly created atoms–into our minds.

To illustrate this, he tells us that, if we are told we should not think about a yellow elephant, we would find it hard to keep thoughts of yellow elephants out of our minds by sheer willpower. But if, instead, we force ourselves to think about purple lizards, then we won’t be thinking about yellow elephants. And so, he tells us, if we constantly think about the Bible (or purple lizards), then we won’t be able to think about atheist books (or yellow elephants).

The whole idea of trying to suppress certain thoughts often has paradoxical results. In psychology, Ironic Process Theory suggests that trying to suppress thoughts actually makes them stronger. In a famous experiment Daniel Wegner found that subjects who tried not to think of white bears later found themselves thinking of white bears even more. In another experiment subjects listening to a story on a tape were divided into three groups that were each instructed either to a) deliberately not think about the tape, b) think about anything at all, or c) think about anything including the tape during the time the tape played. After the story finished, those who had been asked not to think about the story were more likely to talk about the story compared with those in the other groups. Similarly, another experiment found that subjects with a spider phobia, who were told not to think about spiders for five minutes, found themselves more likely to speak about spiders after that period was over. In yet another experiment, subjects with chronic low back pain were asked to play a computer game against a harassing opponent. Some subjects were told to suppress feelings of anger during the game. Those subjects who were told to suppress feelings of anger were later more angry and more aware of their chronic back pain after the game was over.

All these experiments show it is not easy to suppress thoughts and feelings. Attempts to do so can have paradoxical effects. The suppressed thoughts often later rebound to become very strong. The person who is going to continually suppress thoughts against his religion and force himself to think only thoughts in line with his beliefs, can find himself needing ever larger efforts to keep the unwanted thoughts out. The result is not mental freedom. It is mental captivity.

When we hear new ideas, and our minds are interested, then it is fine to listen. That is what I refer to as the mind set free. It is simply observing that some new way of viewing the world has stimulated our thinking and then taking the time to understand and analyze that new view. If we find the new thoughts helpful, we can incorporate them into our worldview. If we find the new ideas worthless, we now understand why we don’t want to pursue those ideas further. If the ideas come up again, we know immediately why we rejected them before. No need to pursue them further. We already thought it through. Those thoughts already had their day in court. We move on. That is true mental freedom.

But Evans apparently would not have us take time to understand opposing thoughts coming from the world. He tells us instead to take those thoughts out. When the atheist speaks, we should apparently metaphorically clap our hands over our ears and shout the thought down: “I don’t hear you! I don’t hear you! Thus saith the Lord…Be gone, yellow elephant. Purple lizards, purple lizards, I am thinking of purple lizards. I don’t see no yellow elephant!”

That is not mental freedom. It is mental captivity.

Self-Esteem

One thought stream he tells us to avoid is thoughts of low self-esteem. I agree that self-esteem issues can lead to depression and anxiety, so yes, it is important to have a healthy self-esteem. The combination of our biology and previous experiences can sometimes lead many of us into dangerously negative self-thoughts. That is a real problem. To overcome this, Evans resorts again to his self-brainwashing technique, in which one overflows the mind with thoughts he considers proper such that the negative thoughts don’t even have a chance.

With his technique, we endlessly concentrate on The Word of God. One verse he suggests is Psalm 139:14, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” So, if you are feeling down, just keep repeating this verse? I can tell you from experience this does not work for me. Constantly repeating a verse that tells me what to think does not overcome what the mind wants to think.

Yes, we are wonderfully made. Any biology book will tell you the amazing details of human biology. And many books talk about the marvelous things that we can do. But, of course, our biology is also deeply flawed, leaving us susceptible to diseases and unnecessary limitations, and our inner selves can also be flawed. But still, the overall being is good. And so, we can find many reasons to view ourselves as something worthy of value and respect. If we understand those reasons, we can truly feel good about ourselves, while balancing this positive view with realistic knowledge of our limitations. Such understanding is far more fruitful than repeating that an ancient book says I am wonderfully made. We overcome low self-esteem by understanding what it means to be good as a human. We cannot overcome it by drowning out reason with a steady stream of preferred thoughts.

Evans turns to another verse to build our self-esteem: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13) Here we have a statement that is simply false. You cannot do all things, even if Christ strengthens you. You are human. You have human weakness. You are limited. Endlessly repeating that we can do all things is simply brainwashing ourselves to believe something that is not true. If you truly force yourself to believe that you can do all things through Christ, then you have an unrealistically high view of yourself, a view that others that see you can easily interpret as hubris.

If your solution to negative self-thinking is unrealistically positive I-can-do-all-things thinking, it is no wonder that such positive thoughts don’t do well at crowding out the negative. Eventually those suppressed negative thoughts push their way to the forefront of consciousness. It is better to instead understand the many facts about the whole self that are both realistic and positive.

In the popular secular treatment, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, patients learn about negative thoughts that distort reality, such as, “People always focus attention on me, especially when I fail, ”  “Only my failures matter. I am measured by my failures,” and I am responsible for every failure and every bad thing that happens.” These are distortions of reality. In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, one learns to identify these distortions that are clouding the thinking and learns to view things more positively based on realistic assertions. Such therapy is far different from the therapy that simply brainwashes one’s self into thinking one set of thoughts that is not exactly true in the real world.

Evans tells us that it is the devil that is telling us to have low self-esteem. One wonders then why the Westminster Confession of Faith says, “We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,” and why John Calvin taught that self-love was a noxious pest. Were these people doing the work of the devil? Faced with the facts, Christians simply abandoned the historical Christian teaching on self-esteem, and conveniently find that thoughts which promote self-esteem were in their Bible all along. But the positive thoughts they are finding in the Bible are often far from reality.

Lust

Evans turns next to a discussion of sexual desire. He tells us that, when he was young, sexual thoughts overwhelmed him. He doesn’t tell us if his desires were for men or women, and I don’t care. Sexual thoughts are totally normal in young people. I have no problem with a person having and enjoying thoughts of sexual arousal, provided one doesn’t then behave and talk in ways that are inappropriate.

How did Evans conquer his lusts? “I began to meditate on scripture,” he tells us. “I got set free that quick,” he says with a snap of his fingers, “It didn’t take two seconds.”

Somehow, I don’t believe it was that simple. If sexual thoughts come to my mind, then no, constantly repeating “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” (Matthew 5:28) does nothing to help me. Instead, I could simply acknowledge the thoughts and find ways to act morally and respectfully in the situation. If the drive becomes strong, there are ways for people to later relieve the urges in the privacy of one’s bedroom or with a consensual adult partner. But if one insists on removing the thoughts through self-brainwashing alone, then I doubt this will do the trick in two seconds as claimed. When faced with sexual desires, endlessly repeating Bible verses until the thought goes away only induces guilt without addressing the thoughts. Such attempts at mental freedom do not work.

Suppressing sexual desires can have all the familiar paradoxical effects of suppressing any thoughts. The suppression can lead to the thoughts becoming stronger. By contrast, understanding, accepting, and dealing rationally with the desires can break the power of those thoughts.

Bruce Gerencser has documented countless times that members of the clergy have been charged with black collar crimes, often involving sex. No doubt many of these people knew verses about sexual purity, preached them, and thought about the verses often. But in the end, somehow the urges allegedly drove these people to immoral activity. Endless meditation on commands does not end the desires. Understanding the desires and appropriate responses is far better.

Conclusion

Evans promises that his technique of metaphorically shouting down every idea that differs from the Bible is guaranteed to free you from fear, anxiety, depression, and lust, and that any Christian who does not know such verses is bound for defeat. He is simply wrong. Ask any good psychologist. There is simply no evidence that forcing yourself to think about how Jesus does not want you to fear, become discouraged, or lust will solve your problems. There are plenty of other good psychological options.

If you agree with Evans’ technique of closing your mind to every idea that differs with the Bible, it is doubtful that you have read this whole post. The words written here are specifically words he probably wants you to avoid. It is your choice. If you want to allow only those thoughts that say the Bible is God’s word, that say you can do all things through Christ, and that condemn any thought of sexual fulfillment outside of strict biblical norms, be my guest. But please, do not call that a mind set free. It is not. It is a mind held captive.

Bremerton’s praying football coach got what he wanted, so now he may quit for good

Here’s the link to this article.

Christian football coach Joe Kennedy returned to the field Friday night, perhaps for the last time

HEMANT MEHTA

SEP 2, 2023


Last night marked the first football game of the season for the boys at Bremerton High School in Washington—they won 27-12—but the majority of spectators were there to watch something else entirely: A post-game prayer from assistant coach Joe Kennedy. A prayer made possible by a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court that ignored the facts in order to let Kennedy have his moment at the 50-yard line.

After the game was over, Kennedy walked to midfield for a brief, uneventful prayer during which he wasn’t surrounded by anyone. He got the attention he wanted before heading back to the locker room.

For all the events that led up to that moment, it may have been his last time on the field.

Joe Kennedy delivers a performative prayer after Bremerton’s game (via @JeffGrahamKS / Twitter)

A quick refresher in case you forgot: Kennedy argued that he lost his coaching job in 2015 because he wanted to deliver a quiet Christian prayer at midfield after games. All of that was exaggerated or untrue. He was never actually fired. The prayers weren’t “quiet.” And the concern was far more about the coercive nature of his showboat prayers, not his ability to privately pray. But the only reason the Bremerton case was in front of the Supreme Court at all was because, theoretically, their decision was the only way Kennedy could regain his job and the right-wing justices were eager to jump into the fray.

In 2022, the Court’s conservative majority ignored the facts of the case and sided with Kennedy, further eroding church/state separation and requiring the district to give him his old job back. The district is now obligated to pay attorneys’ fees amounting to over $1.7 million, some portion of which will be paid through their insurance.

Despite Supreme Court win, Bremerton's praying football coach is long gone | Former Bremerton football coach Joe Kennedy

The irony with the Supreme Court’s decision was that it seemed hard to believe Kennedy was just going to waltz back onto the football field. He moved away from Bremerton to Florida years ago. Was he seriously going to move back for a low-paying coach position?

Last September, months after the decision came down, the Seattle Times reported that Kennedy was nowhere to be found. Was he too busy being a conservative celebrity to actually do the job he claimed he wanted (which is precisely what atheist groups predicted would happen)? Yes and no.

It’s true that Kennedy will soon release a ghostwritten memoir called Average Joe: The Coach Joe Kennedy Story. There’s also a movie about him in the works produced by the God’s Not Dead people; while he’s not directly involved with it, he’ll presumably be involved with the publicity campaign. But the delay on the field likely had more to do with paperwork than anything else. Only this past March did the district announce that everything was finally completed:

Mr. Kennedy will be an assistant football coach for Bremerton High School for the 2023 season.  Mr. Kennedy has completed human resources paperwork and we are awaiting the results of his fingerprinting and background check.  Mr. Kennedy will need to complete all training required by WIAA.  Football coach contracts are approved by the Board at the August 3, 2023 board meeting, and begin in mid-August. As with any other assistant coach, Mr. Kennedy will be included in coaching staff communication and meetings, spring football practice and other off-season football activities.

That’s why it took until last night for Kennedy to finally get back on the field. First Liberty Institute, the conservative legal group that backed him, urged other coaches to pray at midfield Friday night in solidarity, though it’s not clear if anyone did that.

But despite everything Kennedy went through to get back his position, it may also have been his final game because the pull of Christian celebrity is as strong as ever. Besides the book and movie, the Seattle Times notes that Kennedy gets paid to give speeches and that politicians like Ron DeSantis have attempted to get his endorsement. (Not surprisingly, Kennedy is a firm Donald Trump supporter.)

Need more evidence coaching isn’t in his future? He hasn’t bothered moving back to Bremerton.

He’s currently housesitting, and said he and his wife have talked about parking an RV on her sister’s property in the area during football season.

They’re not looking for homes in the community. They haven’t sold their property in Pensacola. Kennedy wouldn’t answer questions about his plans beyond Friday:

… Will Kennedy stick around after the first game?

On the last question, he’s not saying. Everything’s been leading up to Friday’s game, he said, “the fine bow” on top of his Supreme Court victory, which overturned lower court rulings and the public school district’s directive against overt activity while on duty that could be taken as an endorsement of religion. He insisted he can’t think further ahead than Friday.

What sort of football coach can’t see past the first game of the season? One who’s already heading toward the exits, that’s who. Kennedy also added that his future plans might include “some ministry or something.”

If and when he walks away, it’ll be definitive proof that he’s only coaching for the purpose of praying on the field. Does anyone seriously think he’s doing this for the students? How shitty must those athletes feel knowing that, regardless of how they play, all the media attention will be on a coach who has already planned a future without them?

As any high school coach could tell you, the job is a sacrifice. You don’t get paid much and it takes a lot of time, but you do it because you love the students. You do it because what you get out of it is more valuable than a paycheck. When Kennedy used his platform to advertise his religion, it was clear the students were not his main priority. It’s clear that hasn’t changed in eight years.

He never cared about the kids, the team, or the job. He only ever cared about himself.

Last night, the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced that they had placed a billboard about two minutes away from the high school. It says, “Wishing Bremerton High School a safe, secular & successful school year.”

It’s a fine message that capitalizes on the story, but it’s telling that the atheists are focused on what’s best for students while Joe Kennedy’s main concern is staring back at him in the mirror.

“Coach Kennedy’s antics are a desperate way of keeping his unconstitutional agenda in the spotlight,” says FFRF Legal Director Rebecca Markert. “We’ll be countering it whichever way we can.”

To their credit, the district issued strict guidelines about Kennedy’s prayers in accordance with the SCOTUS decision and the law as it stands: Any prayers (a.k.a. “personal conduct”) had to occur outside of game time when coaches were on duty, and only when students were at least 25 feet away at the start of it. In short, they were saying the prayer had to be a solo event after the game even if students decided to join in after it began. Looks like the students didn’t want to do that last night.

If Kennedy really cared about these students, he’d accept his SCOTUS victory and let the kids play without him there. He has no reason to be there other than a desperate desire for the spotlight—and to create a postscript for the movie version of his life. He could easily have stayed in Florida and said that God gave him the ultimate victory so now, for the sake of the children, he’ll stay put in Pensacola so that the attention remains on the student athletes where it belongs. He didn’t do that. He wanted to bask in the glory once more because he thinks high school football is all about him.

Once he’s gone, which could be very soon, the attention will finally be where it belongs: on the students playing the game, not the coach using them for his personal benefit.