An Unlikely Story

Farrell Till makes some great points concerning the 
unlikeliness of the behavior of the Israelites during 
their exodus from Egypt and 40 years wandering in 
the Sinai desert. From the Alt. Bible Errancy discussion 
group, 3 Jan 1999:

helpu wrote:

>
>Farrell Till
>
>(Till asserts that since it is unlikely that given the miraculous evidence
>given to the Israelite during the Exodus from Egypt that 'it is unlikely '
>that the Israelites would have doubted God days later. This was a basis for
>proof that the bible is inaccurate or from human origin.)
>
>

HELPU

>I'm sorry to bring this to you seeing that you spent so much time writing
>all these proofs .. I wonder what motivates you to put in such effort?
>

TILL
What about a desire to help people see their way out of a religious
superstition that trapped me for 12 years of my life? If I, say,
volunteered to work at a literacy center to help adults learn how to read,
would you wonder what motivated me to put in such effort? Would it be so
hard for you to assume that I did this because I had the desire to help
people who need help? The desire to help, then, is just one facet of my
motivation.

...an impossible task...

From the Alt Bible Errancy discussion group, 
27 May 1998:

If proof of the ordinary is necessary to establish biblical 
inerrancy, then how much more would proof of the 
extraordinary be necessary to establish inerrancy? The 
Bible is filled with extraordinary claims, and inerrancy 
can never be established until "poof" of the accuracy 
of those claims is given. In other words, proving biblical 
inerrancy is purely and simply an impossible task, but 
that's not my problem. It's the problem of those who 
make such an absurd claim.

Farrell Till

This Generation

Till has to correct a biblicist's thinking on the Bible's teaching concerning when Jesus said he would return. From the Alt Bible Errancy discussion list, 31 May 1998:

Harry Staiti:

Mk 13.28-30, Mt 24.32-34 and Lk 21.29-32 all predict that

Jesus would return in a unspecified time and that time was to be 
within the first century.

>> 

All the authors state that Jesus would return in ~their~

generation.

>

TREVOR

I'm assuming you've recently joined the list, since this issue has 

been under discussion on other threads. The three passages you

cite above are from three authors, but they all record the same 
speech by Jesus. I just want to clarify that for anyone who has 
not taken the time to look them up. There are no significant 
differences between the three, so essentially we have but one 
statement to deal with:

>

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun

will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the 
stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will 
be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in 
the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and 
they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky 
with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels 
with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect

from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has 
already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know 
that summer is near; even so you too, when you see all these 
things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door. Truly I 
say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these 
things take place." (Matt 24:29-34, NAS)

>

Although there are some variations in the preceding discourse

between what each writer includes, these verses culminate in 
all three, to end up with the statement in question. Having thus 
identified the signs of His coming (in response to the disciples' 
questions at the opening of the chapter), Jesus illustrates a point 
with the fig tree. Just as it gives certain indications of the coming 
of summer, these signs will show that Christ's coming is quite near. 
In fact, He goes on to explain that the generation which sees "all 
these things" will not pass away. In the context, there is every 
reason to believe that "this generation" refers to those who see 
the signs. It is only the bias of those who want to see an 
implication of a first century return that requires it to refer to 
the generation alive at the time Jesus was speaking.

>

"Personal Experience"

The following editor's comment by Farrell Till is from the mailbag section of *The Skeptical Review* May/June 1994:

Ho hum, another Christian who has had a "personal experience"! If I had a penny for every Christian who has had a personal experience with Jesus, I could retire a rich man. The only problem, of course, is that "personal experiences" are purely emotional and psychological, so in terms of evidence or proof they are absolutely worthless. Muslims have "personal experiences" and so do Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs, and you name it. If it is a religion, it has its believers who have had personal experiences.

What Kind Of...Deity...?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 10-28-97:

TILL

...I have to wonder what difference it makes what the population of Bethlehem may have been. If the massacre actually happened [Mt 2:1-16], it would be bad enough if just one child was killed. Have you thought about posing these questions to biblicists: what kind of omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would cause his son to be born in a place and circumstances that would cause children to be massacred, and why would such a deity take special efforts to see that his son, who is omni-everything himself and therefore eternal, was saved from the massacre but leave the other male children to be killed? Didn't any of their parents merit dreams in which an angel warned them to take children and flee? Wouldn't raising issues like these be more likely to cause readers to question their beliefs on this moreso than speculations about how many male children were killed?

Ezekiel's Failed Prophecy Against Egypt

An excellent example of biblical prophecy failure--from the Errancy Discussion list, 29 June 1997:

Yet, another Christian with his prophecy fulfillment claims.

ROB
There are many religious books in the world that have many good things
to say. But only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies-with more fulfillments
still to come. The Bible has _never been wrong_ in the past, and it won't
be wrong in the future. It does not even abrogate itself.

TILL
The Bible has _never been wrong_ in the past? What planet has this guy
been living on? I'll cite just one example of many prophecy failures in the
Bible. Ezekiel prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and
that it would lay waste for 40 years, but this never happened.

The Bottom Line

The following are some of my comments from a discussion I had with a Christian:

You conveniently discard or have never even read the parts of the Bible that show Yahweh to be unjust, murderous and just a plain sick cad by any reasonable code of morality. I will bring some of these verses to your attention. I hope you will begin a critical analysis of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, because that is the only way you will arrive at the truth. [Only] looking for reasons to believe in any endeavor, religious or secular, is not a blueprint for finding the truth.

The Burden Of Proof Again

More common sense from the pen of Farrell Till.
From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-17-97:

TILL
Please get it right, Walt. I do not "maintain" that the universe is
eternal. I believe that matter itself is eternal and that this is a belief
that is more consistent with reality than the various theistic options.
(snip)

(DAVE 4/7) Farrell: Matter is self-existent? Prove it. 

TILL
Dave, God is self-existent? Prove it. 

(DAVE 4/16) Farrell: Ah yes, good proof. I guess I can play this 
game too - no, YOU prove it. Give me one LOGICAL or even 
REASONABLE piece of evidence to show that matter is self-
existent. If there isn't one, then why do you even entertain 
the idea?

TILL
There is a big difference here, Dave. You are asking me to prove 
the self-existence of something that we both know exists, while 
asking me NOT to demand that you prove the self-existence of 
something that cannot even be proven to exist. You can't see 
the difference? Just who has the greater burden of proof here?

Farrell Till

A Godoscope?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-18-97:

In my debate in Oklahoma City, I pointed out that existents that 
cannot be seen or otherwise detected with the senses can be 
confirmed by experimental evidence. An electron microscope, 
for example, can be used to magnify things that are undetectable 
by ordinary microscopes. I asked Lockwood if he knew of a 
godoscope that could experimentally confirm the existence of
God or angels, demons, and spirits. He never responded to the 
question.

Farrell Till

A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question?

The following is my reply to an answer to a question that I had asked the local Church of Christ preacher concerning the Bible doctrine of an eternal hell. He had enlisted the help of an older preacher in answering this question and he published this answer in his weekly publication. Quotes from this preacher's article are in bold black letters--by the way, the local preacher never did respond to my reply:

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne 

A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question, is an article written by Maurice Barnett published in the May 9, 2004, edition of Faith Builder. It was Barnett's attempt at answering this question that you presented to him (a question I had asked you): "Why would a God of love create a race of beings, knowing that He would have to sentence the vast majority of them to suffer forever in hell?" The question you presented to him is troublesome, but more important it is devastating to the truth of fundamentalist Christianity if it can't be answered satisfactorily. And Barnett has no satisfactory answer. He meanders around with a lot of irrelevant thoughts, but never even comes close to a satisfactory answer.

A Legacy Of Human Sacrifice?

From *The Skeptical Review* 2000 / January-February:

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.

What Would An Omni God Have Done?

How could a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent 
God who has no needs, Acts 17:24-25 [thus there was 
no need that hell even exist] create a humanity with 
free will and the ability to sin--knowing the horrific  
outcome Mt 7:13-14, when he could have created this 
humanity, like him, with free will and the inability to sin?
Thus in truly loving fashion, preventing billions of humans 
from suffering ETERNAL, unimaginable agony in hell-and 
the Bible actually teaches that he doesn't want anyone 
to go to hell 2 Peter 3:9! So there is no reason he couldn't 
and wouldn't have accomplished this--IF this alleged god 
of the Bible has all of these omni characteristics the Bible 
writers claim that he has.

From the Errancy  Discussion list, April 17, 1998:

Some Things To Consider

I left the Church of Christ and Christianity in 2006. The following is a letter I wrote to a member of the congregation that I was a member of shortly after I left--I never received a reply:

by Kenneth Hawthorne

I have some things I would like for you to consider based on our talk at Panera Bread in Sept. Plus some thoughts and questions on the eternal hell taught in the Bible. I have had most of this letter ready for some time, but have just now decided to send it. I have presented some of this information about an eternal hell to you before--with no reply. You have asked me, "Kenneth, how could you?" (i.e., leave Christianity). Well, contained in this letter are some of the reasons how I could and why I did. You obviously think I made a bad decision to leave Christianity; then I would appreciate it if you would tell me why you disagree with the information in this letter. I will be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. 

Why Didn't They Know?

From *The Skeptical Review*, Autumn 1991:

by Farrell Till

John's account of the resurrection has Peter and another disciple running to the empty tomb after hearing from Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus was gone. The unnamed disciple, outrunning Peter, arrived at the tomb first and waited:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes (20:6-10, NRSV).

Luke also indicated that the disciples of Jesus had not expected his resurrection, for Luke said that after Peter looked inside at the linen cloths, "he went home, wondering at that which had come to pass" (24:12). Numerous references to the apostles' skepticism of a resurrection appear elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 24:11,38; Jn. 20:24-25; Matt. 28:17).

George Carlin - God Loves You!

George Carlin in an hilarious clip from one of his comedy routines:

"but he loves you"

The Nature Of The Claim

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/March-April:

by Farrell Till

Christian apologists argue that skeptics are unreasonably illogical when they reject biblical miracle claims. They disdainfully refer to this as an "anti-supernatural bias." In my debate on the resurrection with Michael Horner, he said in concluding his first speech, "One cannot rule out the resurrection because of a prior assumption that miracles are impossible," and went on to say, "As long as it's even possible that God exists, miracles are possible" (The Horner-Till Debate, Skepticism, Inc., 1995, p. 8). Of course, Horner himself was arguing from "a prior assumption," because he was assuming that if a god exists, it is a god who intervenes in human affairs to perform miracles. Such a view would be contrary to Deism, a religious philosophy that believes in a creator who made the world to operate according to the natural laws instituted at the time of creation, so if assumptions are not allowed skeptics, we have to wonder why Christians think that they should be entitled to argue from an assumption that a god does exist and that he/it is their particular god. There is an inconsistency here that they need to explain.

Suffer, Little Children

From *The Skeptical Review* Jan/Mar 1993:

by Farrell Till

If you couldn't believe what you were seeing while reading the foregoing article [in The Skeptical Review, kwh] you probably have no background in Christian fundamentalism. A Christian writer who believes that the massacre of entire civilian populations in time of war, even to the point of genocide, is morally good! Is it possible that anyone living in a modern civilized society could really believe such a thing? Well, I assure you that your eyes weren't playing tricks on you. Bible fundamentalists really do defend all the bloody deeds that were presumably ordered by the Hebrew god Yahweh. Standing by this ancient war-god, even to the point of defending his commands to massacre babies, is an albatross that they must wear around their necks or else surrender their belief in Bible inerrancy. Apparently unable to bear the thought of life without their Bible-inerrancy security blanket, they choose to take a stand for killing babies.

Smorgasbord Debating

by Farrell Till

A reply to
OH-SIGH-RIS
The Pagan Origins of Resurrection Refuted!

by Mark McFall

Till's comment:

I can't help wondering about the title of McFall's response to my article. Is he claiming that the concept of resurrection from the dead did not originate prior to the advent of Christianity? Is it his position that prior to the resurrection of Jesus, there were no concepts of returning from the dead in any of the religions that had preceded Christianity? He needs to clarify his position.

New Testament Family Values (5 of 5)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

By request, the series on biblical family values is being extended another issue so that we can look at what the New Testament teaches us on the subject by both example and decree. For some reason, Christians seem to believe that Old Testament accounts of atrocious conduct on the part of God and famous biblical characters are unimportant, because, after all, those things were written in the Old Testament and not the New, as if the two testaments are not inextricably bound together in the traditional Christian claim that everything in the Old Testament happened to lead the way to God's plan of salvation in Jesus Christ. Christianity, then, must be held accountable for the god and biblical heroes in whom their own religion is firmly rooted. Christians can't just wave aside matters like those noted in previous articles in this series by saying, "Oh, well, that was in the Old Testament."

Family Values (4 of 5)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997 / March-April:

by Farrell Till

The Christian Right touts the need for biblical family values in modern society, but when the lives of famous biblical characters are examined, as was done in previous articles in this series, we quickly see that they were not the kind of role models that most parents today would like for their children to emulate. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob were all listed in Hebrews 11 as great "heroes of faith," but their individual stories in the Old Testament depict them as people who lied and practiced various other types of deception, who granted sexual favors for personal gain and sometimes engaged in polygamous relationships, who showed favoritism to their children, and did many other things that no decent family today would consider morality worthy of emulation.

Family Values (3 of 5)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997 / January-February:

by Farrell Till

Our last quest for biblical family values left us contemplating the public promiscuity, deception, sibling rivalry, parental favoritism, and ethnic prejudice of the family of Isaac and Rebekah. When we left them, Rebekah, fearing that her favorite son Jacob might be killed by his twin brother Esau for having cheated him out of his birthright, had convinced her husband Isaac to send Jacob to live with her brother Laban in Paddanaram, ostensibly to look for a wife among the daughters of Laban but actually to protect him from Esau, who had threatened to kill him.

Yahweh's Failed Land Promise

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1991 / January-February:

by Farrell Till

In their desperate efforts to prove that the Bible was verbally inspired of God, inerrancy believers often point to prophecy fulfillment. In my debate with Bill Jackson, he referred to "multiplied dozens of Old Testament prophetic utterances, fulfilled in minute detail in the New Testament, and in such a manner that there could be no contrivance at all," (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 3). As is true of all who use the prophecy-fulfillment argument, Jackson could only claim "multiplied dozens" of prophecy fulfillments; he could not cite a single verifiable example of a fulfilled OT prophecy.

Family Values (2 of 5)

From *The Skeptical Review* 1996/ November-December:

by Farrell Till

In our first article on family values, we left Abraham and Sarah in Gerar collecting the proceeds from Abraham's second attempt to pass Sarah off as his sister. Each time, she caught the eye of a king, and each time Abraham was given sheep and oxen and servants, both male and female, but the second time King Abimelech gave him a thousand pieces of silver as a "covering of the eyes to all that are with you" (Gen. 20:16). Hmmm, it sounds a lot like hush money, doesn't it? But such was the way of "family values" in those days.

Jacob an Old Geezer?

From *The Skeptical Review* 1996 / November-December:

by Farrell Till

There is no scarcity of fanciful tales in the Bible. An especially quaint one tells about the duel of the handmaids when Jacob, the grand patriarch of Israel, was siring his sons who subsequently became heads of the twelve Israelite tribes. It is a story that simply cannot pass the how-likely-is-it? test that was discussed in the Autumn 1993 issue and applied to the Israelite Exodus.

Did Marco Polo Lie?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996/July-August:

by Farrell Till

We often hear biblicists argue that there is as much proof for the historicity of Jesus and the events attributed to him in the New Testament as there is for the existence of Julius Caesar and other historical characters. They claim that those who reject biblical characters and events have no logical basis for accepting anything that we have learned through historical records. A recent controversy surrounding a well known historical character will illustrate the erroneous thinking of those who so argue.

Family Values (1 of 5))

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996 / September-October:

by Farrell Till

We hear a lot these days about family values. The Christian right has made this such an issue that political candidates have been conditioned to believe that mentioning family values frequently in their campaign speeches is an easy way to score points with voters. Of course, if a candidate also associates "family values" with the so-called biblical principles on which our country was founded, he is certain to score even more points with the Christian right. It has become a cheap way to get votes.

Talk to the Animals

Number 17 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone*series:

A silly tale about a talking donkey.

by Farrell Till

A popular movie last year [1996], which even received an academy-award nomination for best picture, was Babe, a story about a talking pig. Even with animated cartoons aside, talking animals have not been at all uncommon in movies and TV. Years ago we had Francis, the talking mule, and later came Mister Ed. Doctor Dolittle, a movie about a man with a special affinity with animals, even gave us the popular song "Talk to the Animals."

Child Abuse Yahweh's Way

Number 16 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:
A great "hero of faith" considered loyalty to an oath more important than the life of his own daughter.

by Farrell Till

Only in the Twilight Zone of biblical times could one become a "hero of faith" by killing his daughter in order to keep a foolish oath. In in our last trek through the twilight zone, we saw that vows were serious business in those days. None of the Israelite fathers, for example, felt free to give their daughters in marriage to the 600 males who had survived the massacre of the Benjamites, because "the men of Israel had sworn an oath at Mizpah, saying, `None of us shall give his daughter to Benjamin as a wife'" (Judges 21:1). In the law of Moses, it was written, "When you make a vow to Yahweh your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for Yahweh your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you.... That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to Yahweh your God what you have promised with your mouth" (Deut. 23:21,23).

Pioneers of Loophole Religion

Number 15 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:
The Israelite rationalization of a problem they had created shows that loophole religion is as old as the Bible.

by Farrell Till

Our last trip into the Twilight Zone left God's chosen people grappling with a terrible problem. They themselves had virtually wiped out the tribe of Benjamin in a battle described in Judges 20, only to realize that they were responsible for practically destroying a tribe of Yahweh's pet nation Israel. Six hundred had survived the Benjamite massacre, but these were all males, soldiers, who had retreated to the rock of Rimmon (20:47). Our last trip found the Israelites in the "house of God" pondering what they could do to rebuild the tribe of Benjamin. They couldn't give their own daughters to the Benjamite survivors, because they had sworn with an oath at Mizpah before the massacre that "(n)one of us shall give his daughter to Benjamin as a wife" (21:1,7), and neither could the Benjamite survivors violate Yahweh's holy law and marry foreign women (Dt. 7:3-4; Ex. 34:12-13).

The Last Hurrah of the Inerrancy Doctrine

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1990 / Jan.-Feb. Issue:

by Farrell Till

Many fundamentalist Christians sincerely believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired word of God. As believers in verbal inspiration, they see the Bible much differently from those who respect it as a book with only concepts and ideas that were divinely inspired. Christians who believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration think that God directed the writing of the Bible on a word-by-word basis so that the authors of the original manuscripts were protected from writing even as much as one word that might inadvertently mislead readers or incorrectly communicate the truths God wanted man to know.

The Evolution Of God

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2000 / Nov.-Dec. Issue:

By Farrell Till 

Biblical writers seemed unable to make up their minds about the nature of their god. In one passage, he is given a trait that contradicts the nature attributed to him in another. To some writers God was omnipresent, i. e., simultaneously present everywhere

Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast (Psalm 139:7-8).

To others, his presence was limited, and so he had to go from place to place as the need arose. When the descendants of the flood survivors were building a tower to heaven, "Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower" (Gen. 11:5), whereas an omnipresent entity would have had no need to "come down," since he would have already been present at the construction site. Prior to this, Adam and Eve, having broken Yahweh's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, heard Yahweh "walking in the garden in the cool of the day" and "hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden" (Gen. 3:8). Hiding from an omnipresent deity would have been impossible, so, unlike the psalmist quoted above, the writer of this story must have seen Yahweh as a god whose presence was limited to a specific location at any given time. When Yahweh exiled Cain for killing his brother Abel, for example, the Genesis writer said that "Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh" (4:16), but if Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, then Yahweh could hardly have been an omnipresent entity. Other biblical passages restricted Yahweh's presence in the same way, whereas others agreed with the psalmist who thought that God was omnipresent. The prophet Amos declared that no one could escape from Yahweh's wrath. Though they dug into Sheol, his hand would take them; though they climbed into heaven, he would bring them down; though they hid themselves on the top of Carmel, he would find them; though they hid in the bottom of the sea, he would command the serpent to bite them (Amos 9:2-3). There was just no place for Yahweh's enemies to flee from his presence, yet other writers presented him as a deity restricted in space. The Israelites, for example, thought that God sat enthroned on the mercy seat that was on the ark of the covenant (Ps. 80:1; 99:1; Ex. 25:22; Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4).

Even Holy Massacres Can Have Their Drawbacks

Number 14 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:
The silly results of an intratribal holy war are examined.

by Farrell Till

In the Twilight Zone of biblical literature, silliness occurs in direct proportion to the length of the story. Our last two journeys into the Twilight Zone concerned events that followed the rape and murder of the Levite's concubine. After twice having Yahweh's counsel lead them into military disasters inflicted by the Benjamites defending the city where the atrocity against the Levite's concubine had occurred, the Israelites directed a third inquiry to Yahweh that brought them success, if a victory that had cost 40,000 lives can in any sense be considered a success. Anyway, in their third attack against the city of Gibeah, the Israelites withdrew in apparent defeat to trick the Benjamite forces into following them out of the city and into an ambush where "ten thousand select men from all Israel" were lying in wait (Judges 20:32-34). We are told that the battle was "fierce" and that "Yahweh defeated Benjamin before Israel" (v:35).

The Truth Will Make You Free

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 /July-August Issue: 

by Farrell Till

A question we are frequently asked is, "Why are you doing this?" By "this," the questioners mean evangelical skepticism, so what they are asking is why we spend so much time promoting freethought philosophy and especially rationalistic approaches to biblical interpretation. The question implies that we are doing something wrong or at least something that we are not entitled to do. Christians can publish papers, preach their religious beliefs over the airwaves, go door to door trying to convert the unchurched, and maintain a high profile in the community through various other evangelical activities, and no one wonders why they are doing this or questions their right to do it. However, if an atheist or an agnostic attempts to promote his philosophical views, his motives are impugned, and he is viewed with suspicion and branded a troublemaker.

Why are we evangelical about our skepticism? There is no simple answer to the question. A skeptic may be evangelical in his attitude for several reasons, not the least of which would be the value that he puts on truth. If there is intrinsic value in truth--and we believe there is--any truth that the skeptic may know should be shared with others. If he keeps it to himself, he denies others the benefits of it. If one knows a medical truth but chooses to keep it to himself, his morality is suspect. We are where we are today, scientifically and technologically, because those who discovered truth shared it with the societies they lived in. Where would we be today if this had not been done?

Yes Ladies, Please, Read Your Bible

More scripture from the "good book":

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. I Cor 14:34-37 (NKJV)

How to Inquire of Yahweh

Number 13 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:
An incredible tale of how the Israelites kept inquiring of their god after he had twice led them into defeats.

by Farrell Till

The rape of the Levite's concubine, the subject of our last journey into the Twilight Zone, so enraged the Israelites that they "gathered as one man before Yahweh at Mizpah" (Judges 20:1). When everyone was assembled, the leaders said to the Levite whose concubine had been killed, "Tell us, how did this wicked deed happen?"

The Book Of Job

The following is an excerpt from Robert Ingersoll's lecture, *On Hell*. A shining example of the the twisted "morality" of Christianity's god:

Read the book of Job; read that! God met the devil and asked him where he had been, and he said: "Walking up and down the country," and the Lord said to him: "Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he is?" And the devil: "Of course he's good, you give him everything he wants. Just take away his property and he'll curse you. You just try it." And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been tried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still true. Then he took away his children [i.e., killed them, kwh], but he remained faithful, and in the end, to show how much Job made by this fidelity, his property was all doubled and he had more children than ever Job 42:12-15. If you have a child, and you love it, would you be satisfied with a God who would destroy it, and endeavor to make it up by giving you another that was better looking? No, you want that one; you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of children taught in the Bible (Applause.)

A Story Your Sunday School Teacher Never Told You

Number 12 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:

by Farrell Till

Once upon a time in the Twilight Zone, a certain Levite and his concubine, overtaken by darkness on a journey home from visiting the concubine's father, stopped in the town of Gibeah and found no one willing to give them lodging (Judges 19:10-15). Luck was on their side, however, because an "old man" returning from work in his field saw them sitting in the street and offered them shelter in his house (vs:16-21). So the kind old man took them home, fed their donkeys, washed their feet, and gave them food.

Love Thy Sister

Growing up as a Christian, I remember hearing preachers 
lament that people didn't read the Bible enough. That "God's 
word" should be venerated more and that people should 
know what was in "the book", because it was God's instructions 
to man concerning what he expected from man. I agree that 
people should read "the book" and know what is in it, because 
if they do and are honest with themselves they will find that the 
Bible is a book that is a 100% human production--with mind-
numbing absurdities and contradictions and unimaginable 
viciousness attributed to their allegedly omnibenevolent god. 

Number 11 of 17 in the *Twilight Zone* series:

by Farrell Till

In previous trips to the Twilight Zone, we looked at some of the strange laws of the people who lived there. One of their strangest was known as the "Levirate law." This was a law that prohibited a widow without a son from marrying until she had given her brothers-in-law a chance to succeed where their brother had failed. As the humorist Dave Barry often says in his column, I am not making this up. This was an actual law that the inscrutable Yahweh had given to his chosen ones: "If brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel" (Deut. 25:5-6). Nothing was said, of course, about whether the widow had given birth to daughters before her husband died, because in the Twilight Zone females just didn't count. The deceased husband had to have produced a son and if not, the widow had to give her brothers-in-law a shot (no pun intended) at it.