Is It Anti-Semitism?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2000 July/August:

by Farrell Till

Soon after the May/June issue was mailed, I received the following e-mail comment from Sol Abrams, whose articles have appeared in TSR.

Your article on the front page of the current issue which I received today was excellent and right on target. You are 100% correct in your statement that the atrocities committed by Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, etc. were surely equivalent to the holocausts committed by the Nazis and Milosevic. I also pointed that out in my article, "Milosevic and Moses: Innocent or Guilty?" (TSR, September/October 1999, p. 11). It really amazes me that people who practice the religion of Judaism, who are very intelligent and rational in their everyday lives and in politics, have a complete blind spot when it comes to the so-called "Holy Torah," which in fact, not just my opinion, is the book of the five B's: Barbarism, Bestiality, Bigotry, Bloodshed, and Brutality.

Although I have never asked him, I have always assumed from his name that Mr. Abrams is ethnically Jewish, so I was glad to see that he had understood the intention of my article and did not see it as an ethnic slur.

A Legacy Of Human Sacrifice?

The following is from *The Skeptical Review*, Jan-Feb 2000:

by Farrell Till

The incineration of animals to appease the anger of the gods was an ancient barbaric belief that seemed to be almost universal. We know from reading the Bible that animals were sacrificed to Yahweh with the understanding that this was something that he not only wanted but had specifically commanded under pain of severe penalties if his various sacrificial commands were disregarded. The nations around Israel--Babylonia, Persia, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome--also practiced religions that required animal sacrifices. Cultures far removed from this region, such as the Meso-American tribes, also offered animal sacrifices to their gods.

The origin of the practice is probably forever lost in antiquity. Perhaps the idea began when the first humans lived together in one place and was then taken abroad as the adventurous ones migrated to other parts of the world, or perhaps the belief that gods could be appeased by burning animals in tribute to them was an idea that developed independently in cultures that were completely isolated from one another. Regardless of its origin, the sacrifice of animals in homage to the gods was an idea that obviously had wide acceptance.

Probably from the idea that the gods could be appeased by animal sacrifices, some religions evolved to include human sacrifices. We can only surmise how that this practice developed, but it isn't hard to imagine that primitive people who superstitiously believed that the gods could be appeased by killing animals in tribute to them could have eventually come to believe that a higher order of sacrifices would be even more pleasing to their gods. Regardless of how or where the idea of human sacrifice originated, it did become a common practice in primitive religions.

A Basic Logical Axiom

From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-26-99:

THEO
Then why does Till always complain that he shouldn't have 

to  prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?  If it is so easy, 

why does he not then do it?  Is it because he cannot?  

TILL
Theo, any rational person could show that it is so unlikely 

that fairies exist that the possibility that they do exist 

doesn't deserve even a measure of serious consideration, 

but,  of course, no one can prove absolutely and beyond all 

doubt that fairies do NOT exist.  The same can be shown 

about the resurrection of Jesus, but since I am not the one 

asserting that he rose from the dead, I really have no 

responsibility to prove that he did NOT rise from the dead.  

Do you feel any responsibility to prove that the angel Moroni 

did NOT appear to Joseph Smith? I don't think you do. 

You just can't seem to grasp the logical axiom that says he 

who asserts must prove, so when you issue demands that 

those who don't believe in your resurrected savior-god prove 

that  Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, to rational people, you 

come off looking as foolish as someone demanding that the 

nonexistence of fairies be proven.

Farrell Till

How Did The Apostles Die? (4)

From the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:

The Apostle Peter

GOODGUY
I think you have been looking in the wrong places for your "apostle data". (if you have looked at all) I would like you to start simple with the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Youll find that the British Scholar Herbert Workman describes Peters death. How does one look past the Encyclopedia Britannica when in the midst of research? 

TILL
Goodguy doesn't know that general encyclopedias, especially in religious matters, often present only what is popularly believed? It would have helped the discussion if he had stated what he "knows" to be the historical facts about the death of Peter, but since he didn't, I'll have to discuss Peter without the benefits of Goodguy's expertise on the subject. In his listing of the apostles below (which I will eventually get to), Goodguy stated that Peter was crucified. I assume that he also accepts the tradition that he was crucified upside down. The only problem is that Goodguy is again wandering around in the area of Christian tradition, and the traditions about Peter are the same as the traditions about the deaths of the other apostles: they are rooted entirely in biased sources.

Even Goodguy's own source (*Encyclopedia Britannica*) acknowledged early in the article about "Saint Peter" that "(t)he sources of information concerning the life of Peter are limited to the NT: the four gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, and the two letters that bear the name of Peter" (Vol. 9, 15th Edition, p. 330). In other words, what is known about Peter has been derived from biased sources; there are no disinterested sources that mention this man who was presumably the cornerstone apostle of the church. Traditions about Peter are another source of information, of course, but traditions are... well, traditions are traditions, and the various traditions about the apostles and the manners in which they died are so varied and so contradictory that no rational person can consider them sources of reliable historical information. Many of the traditions about Peter concern his alleged ministry, martyrdom, and interment in Rome, all of which are not the least surprising in view of the early movement to make Rome the headquarters of the Catholic Church. What better way to strengthen the claim that the church should be centered in Rome than to have this as the place where the chief of the apostles lived, preached, and died the death of a martyr? 

Goodguy's own source said of the traditions about Peter's tenure in Rome, "It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century" (p. 332). In dispute? Is Goodguy's own source telling us that the traditions about Peter's tenure in Rome are so unreliable that they are actually "in dispute"? Let's notice also that Goodguy's source uses the word "tradition" in the quotation cited above. That word "tradition" keeps popping up in everything that I read about the life of Peter, and I never seem to find any solid evidence from disinterested secular sources that would make the existence of Peter and the experiences that tradition assigns to him historically reliable. Certainly, traditions that developed two centuries after the death of a person cannot be considered historically reliable. 

Absence Of Evidence

From the the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion list, 4-22-03

DGM
Was it not Carl Sagan who said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

LK
Absence of evidence means there is no evidence to believe it's true. I'll give you a simple test so you can prove this too yourself. File in court that Bill Gates owes you a million dollars. Go to court and when they ask for evidence tell them, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." see how quickly your case is dismissed.

TILL
Depending on the claim, however, absence of evidence can be compelling evidence against the claim. If, for example, someone should claim that an asteroid struck Sikeston, Missouri, last week, the absence of any evidence of such an impact would be compelling evidence that this did not happen. In the same way, absence of evidence of extraordinary claims in the Bible, such as the midday darkness during the crucifixion, is evidence that this event did not happen.

Biblicists like to talk about archaeological discoveries that confirm the accuracy of the Bible, and there have been some discoveries that corroborate SOME of the information in the Bible. However, the discoveries have confirmed only ordinary events. I have never heard of an archaeological discovery that corroborated any of the numerous miraculous claims in the Bible, yet if all of these events happened, surely there would have been some evidence left of their occurrence.

Farrell Till

Jesus's Promise To Come Back Soon, 2000 Years Ago

The following is from the Alt. Bible. Errancy discussion group
April 22, 2003:

Gray:
Oh, in the 10 or 15 places where Jesus promises to come back real soon now, like in the life times of his believers. Surely you aren't ignorant of this, too, are you? Why don't you show a sliver of honesty and quote those "difficult" passages for us and explain them away?

DGM:
Jesus never made such promises. He never said in THEIR time.

TILL

Matthew 24:29 "Immediately after the suffering of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory.

31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

34 Truly I tell you, THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

A God Who "Really Care(s) About Others"?

"People who really care about others use their strength to help and protect them." ~ a comment about the Aurora, CO movie theater murders, July 20, 2012.

If it should be expected that people use their strength to help and protect others, what should be expected from an almighty God? Certainly not allowing the vast majority of people to suffer for eternity, MT 7:13-14, when he could have prevented it.

Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Archaeology And Biblical Accuracy

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1998 / March-April:

by Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

The Logical Aburdity That Is Christianity

The New Testament teaching that most of humanity will be among the lost, Mt 7:13-14, should be a teaching that gives Christians a lot of concern. But not for the reasons you might think. Currently the world population is about 68.5% non-Christian and few of these billions will ever become Christians. Obviously, Christian efforts to evangelize these billions of people are not getting the job done. Logically, this puts Christians in an an absurdly ridiculous position. From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-29-97:

Izz

Such a Lord, who murders innocent babies, is not good. God is not good. Of course, the story is a myth, it never really happened. That is besides the point. God, as described in the Bible, makes Hitler look saintly. Unfortunately, Hitler was real, but, thank God, God isn't. Still, how can you Christians worship a God who murders babies? Don't you people have any morals? Its bad enough you believe in God; what's worse, you are blind to his evil nature. You people worship an imaginary baby-killer.

Paul writes:

If this life were all of existance, you might have a point; however Christians believe that we are primarily "spiritual" creatures made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This life is not all that matters. How cruel it would have been to preserve all of those babies of hard-hearted idolaters to mature and become like their parents only to lose their souls in eternity; but a loving and merciful God now has in his care the souls of those innocent children.

TILL

According to this logic, God should see that the children and babies of all sinful people are killed before "the age of accountability" so that this loving and merciful God could have in his care the souls of "these innocent children"? What made the Amalekite children so special that God wanted to "preserve" them any more than the children of other idolatrous people? We know from archaeological discoveries that Aztecs and Incas were idolatrous nations, who even sacrificed children to their gods. Why didn't Yahweh "preserve" their children so that they wouldn't have grown up to be like their "hard-hearted" idolatrous parents?

This "explanation" of the many Yahwistic massacres recorded in the OT is simply a last-ditch effort to explain a problem that is completely incompatible with both the biblical inerrancy doctrine and the claim that God is loving and merciful. If for some reason the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc., had to be ethnically exterminated, there was no reason at all to massacre the children and infants too. Why couldn't they have been brought back as captives, adopted into Hebrew families, and reared in the way that Hebrew children were? That way, they would not have grown up to be "hard-hearted" idolaters, any more than the Israelites themselves were at times hard-hearted idolaters (but that's another story). I'd like to hear Paul's "explanation" of this.

Farrell Till