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.

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. 

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 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?

How Likely Is It? (1)

The following is a very thought-provoking post by the late Farrell Till (1933-2012) from the Errancy Discussion list from May 2, 1997. I will be posting a lot of the comments of Farrell Till from the Errancy Discussion list and elsewhere. Till was a former Church-of-Christ preacher; and being a former member of the Church of Christ myself, I appreciate his perspective on the errancy of the Bible. I hope to preserve many of his scholarly, insightful thoughts on this blog:
 
The postings I have been sending about absurdities in the stories of the

exodus and subsequent wilderness wanderings have not been intended to
establish contradiction but to show that the stories are so obviously
unreasonable that no rational person can believe that they actually
happened. Since ancient literature in particular is characterized by
widespread references to miraculous events, the only reasonable way to
assess the events is to critically examine each one in terms of how likely
it is that such events did indeed happen. When this principle is applied to
the conduct of the Israelites throughout the exodus and the wilderness
wanderings, rational people must conclude that it is not very likely that
most of these stories happened as recorded in the Bible.

A detailed analysis of Israelite behavior during and after the exodus may
take as many as two or three postings, but before I begin them, let's first
make a comparison that will help illustrate the problem. [Note: Please find 
under the label, *How Likely Is It?*, a 13-part series entitled *Tall Tales of 
Wilderness Wanderings*, kwh] On this list, we have seen that biblical 
inerrantists will cling to their belief in their god and the inerrancy of the 
Bible no matter how much compelling evidence to the contrary is presented. 
When confronted with glaring biblical inconsistencies or discrepancies, 
they will simply fabricate some how-it-could-have-been interpretations and 
stubbornly insist that biblical errancy has not been proven. Not a one of 
them has ever seen their god, talked to him, or seen him perform miracles 
like the parting of the Red Sea, bringing water from rocks, sending manna 
from heaven, and such like, yet despite the absence of such convincing 
evidence as this, they still maintain their belief that this god exists and that 
he verbally inspired the Bible.

Only very rarely is the faith of an inerrantist shaken badly enough to cause
him to reject his belief. On the other hand, we have the Israelites who had
their god going before them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night,
coming down and speaking to them, and performing all sorts of wondrous
miracles. Despite these amazing demonstrations of their god's presence
in their midst, they were constantly bellyaching and rebelling. My postings
that follow this one will be designed to show that it is not at all likely that reasonable people would have behaved as the Israelites did; hence,
it is not at all likely that these stories happened as they are recorded in
the Bible.

Farrell Till

Another Great Quote

When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized that I was talking to myself. 
                                               ~ Peter Barnes, The Ruling Class

Looking For The Truth About The Bible

"The interest I have in believing a thing is not proof of the existence of that thing." Voltaire

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Albert Einstein

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

If you haven't already guessed, the "it" in the blog title is the Bible. I named this blog after the 1926 classic by Joseph Wheless, Is It God's Word?, and I'm afraid most Christians have not done a real investigation into the answer to this question.

I was indoctrinated from an early age and always just accepted that the answer was yes, and as I got older I only looked for evidence to confirm what I already believed. Uncritical acceptance of the Bible as the verbally inspired word of God was strongly encouraged, and I accepted it as true doing a nominal rather than an actual investigation of the claim. Any of this sound familiar?

Evaluating Historical Claims

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1995/May-June:

by Farrell Till

The biblical characters presented as emissaries of God were almost always miracle-workers. They parted the water of seas and rivers; they walked on water; they commanded the sun to stand still in the sky; they healed the blind and the deaf; they raised the dead. Nothing, it seems, was impossible for them to do.

The Bible is filled with tales of such fabulous deeds as these, and fundamentalist Christians believe that every one of these stories of miraculous achievements is literally true. If the Bible says that the prophet Elisha retrieved an iron axe head that had fallen into the Jordan River by making the axe head float ( 2 Kings 6:7), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that the body of a dead man whom a band of Moabite marauders cast into Elisha's tomb revived and stood upon its feet when it touched the bones of Elisha ( 2 Kings 13:20-21), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that a donkey conversed with its owner in a human voice ( Num. 22:28-30), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says that an earthquake opened the graves in a cemetery after which the dead people in the opened graves revived and went into the city of Jerusalem ( Matt. 27:51-53), then fundamentalist Christians insist that this literally happened. If the Bible says... but why continue? We could fill this entire issue with examples of other events just as fabulous as these that the Bible presents as actual historical occurrences--all of which fundamentalist Christians believe literally happened exactly as recorded.

When I Was A Child...

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2002/July-August:

by Farrell Till

The apostle Paul once said something that makes me think of gullible Bible believers every time I read it: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11). Children believe many outrageous things. They believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and all sorts of things that they heard from their parents, who had read them fairy tales and other fantasy literature. As children grow older, however, they discard these childish beliefs, except for the fantasies they were taught in church. Somehow many children grow into adulthood and eventually die without ever giving up the religious fantasies they learned as children.

I often wonder why. I remember an early childhood trip that my family made from Southeast Missouri to Memphis. Christmas was approaching, so I suppose my parents were making the trip to buy presents for my brother and me that they would slip under the tree and fool us into thinking that Santa Claus had brought them. They didn't know that my brother, who was in the first grade at the time, had been telling me that he had learned at school that there was no Santa Claus.

Do We Have A Deal? I Didn't Think So

Does "God" want people like Farrell Till and me saved 
or not? It seems like "God" would value skepticism in 
regards to outlandish claims that are contrary to all of 
our experiences over rank gullibility. I think I know my 
own mind and I know what it would take to convince 
me of Yahweh's existence. And if I know what it would 
take then certainly Yahweh, if he's really "God", would  
know too. So what is he waiting on, he allegedly doesn't 
want me to be lost, I Timothy 2:3-4? Well, I think we all 
know the answer to that question, don't we?

From the Errancy Discussion list, 8-10-96:

PATRICK

And the sovereign God of the universe can perform to satisfy

your petty ratiocination. And would you be convinced?

TILL

Why shouldn't the "sovereign God of the universe" perform to 
satisfy my petty ratiocinations? He didn't seem to mind 
performing for the petty ratiocinations of others. Have you 
ever read the following story from the "inspired, inerrant 
word of God"?

Judges 6:11 Now the angel of Yahweh came and sat under the

oak at Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, as his 
son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press, to hide it 
from the Midianites.

12 The angel of Yahweh appeared to him and said to him,

"Yahweh is with you, you mighty warrior."

13 Gideon answered him, "But sir, if Yahweh is with us, why then

has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds 
that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, 'Did not Yahweh bring 
us up from Egypt?' But now Yahweh has cast us off, and given us 
into the hand of Midian."

14 Then Yahweh turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours

and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian; I hereby commission 
you."

15 He responded, "But sir, how can I deliver Israel? My clan is the

weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family."

16 Yahweh said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall strike

down the Midianites, every one of them."

17 Then he said to him, "If now I have found favor with you, then 
SHOW ME A SIGN that it is you who speak with me.

18 Do not depart from here until I come to you, and bring out my

present, and set it before you." And he said, "I will stay until you 
return."

19 So Gideon went into his house and prepared a kid, and

unleavened cakes from an ephah of flour; the meat he put 
in a basket, and the broth he put in a pot, and brought them 
to him under the oak and presented them.

20 The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the

unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour out 
the broth." And he did so.

21 Then the angel of Yahweh reached out the tip of the staff that

was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; 
and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the 

unleavened cakes; and the angel of Yahweh vanished from his 
sight.

22 Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of Yahweh; and

Gideon said, "Help me, Lord GOD! For I have seen the angel of 
Yahweh face to face."

23 But Yahweh said to him, "Peace be to you; do not fear, you

shall not die."

24 Then Gideon built an altar there to Yahweh, and called it, Yahweh

is peace. To this day it still stands at Ophrah, which belongs to the 
Abiezrites.

25 That night Yahweh said to him, "Take your father's bull, the

second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that 
belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole that is beside 
it;

26 and build an altar to Yahweh your God on the top of the

stronghold here, in proper order; then take the second bull, 
and offer it as a burnt offering with the wood of the sacred pole 
that you shall cut down."

27 So Gideon took ten of his servants, and did as Yahweh

had told him; but because he was too afraid of his family and 
the townspeople to do it by day, he did it by night.

28 When the townspeople rose early in the morning, the altar of

Baal was broken down, and the sacred pole beside it was cut 
down, and the second bull was offered on the altar that had been 
built.

29 So they said to one another, "Who has done this?" After

searching and inquiring, they were told, "Gideon son of Joash 
did it."

30 Then the townspeople said to Joash, "Bring out your son, so

that he may die, for he has pulled down the altar of Baal and cut 
down the sacred pole beside it."

31 But Joash said to all who were arrayed against him, "Will you

contend for Baal? Or will you defend his cause? Whoever contends 
for him shall be put to death by morning. If he is a god, let him 
contend for himself, because his altar has been pulled down."

32 Therefore on that day Gideon was called Jerubbaal, that is to

say, "Let Baal contend against him," because he pulled down his 
altar.

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

Miracle Claims

Farrell Till  discusses miracle claims with Theo, a Christian apologist. From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-25-99:

TILL
This shows how very little you know about historiography. Historians do not automatically assume that an ancient document is telling the truth unless there are reasons to suspect otherwise. The information in ancient documents is subjected to very rigorous methods of evaluation to try to determine if there are sufficient reasons to accept the information as historical fact. What serious historiography would accept as historical fact that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a man with a withered hand, just because both Tacitus and Suetonius reported that he did in their historical writings? I'm afraid you have been reading too many Josh McDowellian apologetic works.

THEO
Mr. Till, in your debate against Norman Geisler, you seemed to insinuate that we were to evaluate the evidence in the NT by the laws of jurisprudence used in the courtroom. You claimed that since the NT testimonies of the Resurrection of Christ are not(sic) eyewitness testimonies, then we are to reject them as hearsay.

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

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