Divine Hygiene?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2002 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

In the mailbag column of this issue (p. 12), Vallon England saw divine guidance in the Israelite Levitical law that required ceremonial bathing and various ritual cleansings. This is an argument that has made the rounds as long as I can remember. I even recycled it myself when I was a fundamentalist preacher. Usually, dietary restrictions are also touted as part of the divine guidance intended to protect Yahweh's "chosen ones" from diseases. He declared pigs unclean, so the argument goes, because pork can transmit trichinosis if it isn’t sufficiently cooked. If that was Yahweh’s concern in giving this law, one has to wonder why he didn’t just command that the meat be cooked thoroughly? Why ban the entire product when there is a simpler solution, but who am I to question the creative genius of the universe? 

 

If there is any merit at all to this argument, then surely there were health reasons for Yahweh’s ban on the eating of camels and hares (Lev. 11:4-6), fish without scales (v:9), and various birds like eagles, falcons, hawks, and owls (vs:13-19). What were these reasons? What risk to his health does a person take if he eats a catfish or a rabbit? Of course, we know that catfish and rabbits, as well as any other kind of food, would pose a health risk if it is contaminated, but the fundamentalist argument is that the danger from trichinosis was so overwhelming that Yahweh ordered "his people" not to eat pork at all. If this is so, then surely the omni-one had similar reasons for banning all the other prohibited foods in Leviticus 1l. What were they? Unless such dangers can be demonstrated, fundamentalists have no convincing argument in this matter. 

Probably nothing more than tribal custom and personal whims were involved in these dietary restrictions. As a nation, we avoid eating horse meat, whereas other countries consider it a delicacy. We don't generally eat insects either, but they are a staple in some parts of the world. The ancient Hebrews apparently ate locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers, because they were permitted under the dietary laws, whereas all other insects were prohibited (Lev. 11:20-23). Yuck! If I had written Leviticus, I would have banned all insects and thrown in broccoli for good measure. Whoever wrote this book had probably been conditioned by tribal customs to eat certain insects and not others, and so what he wrote reflected the tribal preferences and revulsions that he was accustomed to. In "Kosher Baloney," Dr. Tim Gorski, a physician in Arlington, Texas, wrote on this subject from a medical point of view to show that there is no basis at all for arguing that the Levitical dietary laws were Yahweh's way of protecting "his people" from health hazards. In his article, Dr. Gorski made a statement that is worth reconsidering.

Even allowing that these [previously listed examples] may be instances of kosher practices having some practical utility, this would hardly argue for their being of divine origin. The operation of natural selection on the simple process of trial and error would be sufficient to result in the prevalence of useful, and especially lifesaving traditions. Nor does anything in the Bible argue to the contrary. God never tells his "chosen people," for example, that the reason they’re to avoid pork or not mix milk and meat products is because of "creeping things" too small to see that can make them sick (The Skeptical Review, November/December 1998, p. 6).

If the Levitical dietary laws had contained any explanation for the restrictions, such as the one that Dr. Gorski mentioned above, that would have given biblicists a strong argument, because a reference to tiny or invisible "creeping things" that could cause illness would be hard to explain in a time when microscopic organisms were unknown. Without any direct reference like this, however, any apparent benefits that seem to be derived from some of the Levitical restrictions could be explained as nothing more than what Gorski mentioned above, i. e., the result of having learned through trial and error. After all, if even a primitive people observed outbreaks of illness (now known to be trichinosis) enough times after pork was eaten, it shouldn’t have taken them too long to conclude that eating pork was not a good idea. 

Fifteen Questions

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

These fifteen questions were presented to a Church of Christ preacher in 2011. He has made no attempt to answer them:

1. To what purpose does the New Testament teach that Yahweh created man, knowing that he would be sending the vast majority (multiplied billions) to suffer eternally in hell [Mt. 7:13-14]? (note: the word Yahweh is a transliteration of a Hebrew word for God).

2. How do you explain that an allegedly perfect and complete God (therefore, needing nothing) would allow this ghastly eternal misery to happen for a purpose that was not necessary?

3. Do you think Yahweh made a responsible choice in allowing this horrendous eternal tragedy to happen?

4. You were asked, do you believe that it could be said, with any believability, that I loved a child I allowed to come into the world knowing ahead of time this child would be tortured for eternity? You answered, "No." Do you believe that it could be said, with any believability, that Yahweh loved billions of children he allowed to come into the world knowing ahead of time these children would be tortured for eternity?

5. You correctly said that the Creator is greater than the creature. But since Yahweh allowed this inconceivably horrific tragedy to happen to multiplied billions of children, how can it be said, with any believability, that he is better than a human who wouldn't allow even one child to come into the world knowing ahead of time that child would be tortured for eternity?

The following ten questions were presented in their unrevised form subsequent to and with consideration given to the following quote from a Church-of-Christ website: "God has told us about [hell] because He doesn't want us to go there.":

1. You say that "God has told us about [hell] because He doesn't want us to go there." But he didn't tell Israel in the Old Testament about hell. Does that mean he wanted them to go there?

2. Since Yahweh knew, before he created the first human, that the overwhelming majority of his flawed human creation would be going to his eternal hell, and you say he told us about hell because he doesn't want us to go there; considering the New Testament (NT) teaching that few will miss going to hell, how much different would it have been if he had wanted us to go to hell?

3. If he doesn't want us to go to hell then why did he create man in the first place, knowing the vast majority would go to hell?

4. The Bible teaches that Yahweh has the following attributes: all powerful, all knowing, all-wise, loving, compassionate, merciful, sovereign, complete and perfect. You said that Yahweh doesn't want us to go to hell. If this is true and he has these attributes, he not only wouldn't have wanted man to go to hell, he couldn't have wanted man to go to hell and could have and would have come up with a plan whereby no humans would have wound up in an eternal hell. However, the NT teaches that Yahweh didn't do this, rather, he chose to create man, knowing that he would be sending the vast majority to suffer in his eternal hell (his "ultimate will", as you have called it). What is your explanation for this obvious inconsistency?

5. If Yahweh knew that the vast majority of his weak, error-prone human creation would wind up in his eternal hell if he went with the "plan of salvation" revealed in the NT, and if Yahweh is the sovereign God (def., sovereign: 6. having supreme rank, power, or authority. Dictionary.com), therefore answering to no one, he can't be forced to do anything against his nature, and if his nature is that he doesn't want us to go to hell, why didn't he create only those he knew would go to heaven and avoid the catastrophe of multiplied billions of his beloved creation suffering eternally in his hell?

6. If Yahweh is the sovereign God and he doesn't want us to go to hell, why didn't he truly create man in his image with the inability to sin, and thus avert an unbelievable eternal tragedy? If it doesn't detract from Yahweh's character to be unable to sin, why would it detract from man's?

7. When a choice is made, it tells us something about what is wanted and what is valued by the one making the choice. Since Yahweh chose not to do either one of these but could have--because of his sovereignty--what is a rational person to understand about what Yahweh wanted?

8. Why do you think Christians extol the virtue of Yahweh for "...lov[ing] the world so much, that he gave his only son..."(John 3:16 Phillips Translation), when he knew that it would be a failed mission, irresponsibly allowing the vast majority of humanity to suffer eternally, when if he has all of the divine attributes the Bible alleges him to have, and if he really loved the world so much, not only would he have willed that no human be sent to an eternal hell--he would have actually accomplished that will?

9. If Yahweh doesn't want us to go to hell, and he is infinitely "holy" and finite sinning against him is such an infinitely terrible thing deserving punishment in his eternal hell, then how could he, with all of his alleged divine attributes, put what he knew was a humanity that was so flawed and so ill equipped to react to such "holiness" in such an eternally precarious situation--a situational "test" that he knew the vast majority would fail and therefore wind up in "his infinite holiness's" eternal hell?

10. What all of this proves is that the Bible has at least one major contradiction in it, and this contradiction involves the impossibility of its god Yahweh being the true God. And because of this, shouldn't a reasonable person believe that Yahweh is, in reality, merely a fictitious product of the superstitious imagination of barbaric, ancient man? 

*[The following was added to this post, 1-10-15. It was part of the original post of the 15 questions in 2011]:

These questions, and more, must be satisfactorily answered if any rational person is expected to even begin to consider Yahweh as the true God. Yahweh's alleged divinely superlative and omni characteristics, and his eternal hell that he will allow the vast majority of his beloved (?) humans to go to are not compatible. It is the most troubling error recorded in the Bible, and it exposes the Bible (at least the New Testament--there are other reasons why the Yahweh of the Old Testament can't be God) as an obvious work of man and man only, laying bare its god Yahweh as a contradictory impossibility.

Addendum:
It is apparent that the New Testament doctrine of an eternal hell is an evolved concept. The fact that there was no warning by Yahweh in the Old Testament of such a place that man was in jeopardy of being sent to, should make this obvious to even the most closed mind (the only hint of such a place in the Old Testament occurs late, in Daniel 12:2. Pre-Babylonian-captivity Jews believed only in a shadowy existence after death in a place called "Sheol", but in Babylon they were introduced to the Persian concept of a final resurrection, followed by everlasting life for the righteous and everlasting contempt for the unrighteous). Writers of the New Testament progressed with this rather recent idea that some Jews had incorporated into their faith. But they forgot that it had not even been mentioned in the Old Testament (until the hint in Daniel). And they didn't think about the contradiction it would present between it and their god Yahweh and his alleged divinely superlative and omni characteristics. 

If anyone thinks they have reasonable answers to these questions that would successfully defend Yahweh's conduct and alleged characteristics, please, let's see them. Your silence will lead us to conclude that you don't. And if you don't, why do you remain a fundamentalist Christian?

Ezekiel's Failures

by Farrell Till

(excerpted from Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled)

Possibly the most pessimistic of the Old Testament prophets, Ezekiel proclaimed impending doom upon everyone from Judah itself to the enemy nations surrounding it. The failure of his prophecies to materialize as he predicted makes a compelling argument against the Bible inerrancy doctrine. In one of his doom's-day prophecies, Egypt was to experience forty years of utter desolation:

Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: "Surely I will bring a sword upon you and cut off from you man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall become desolate and waste; then they will know that I am Yahweh, because he said, `The River is mine, and I have made it.' Indeed, therefore, I am against you and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia. Neither foot of man shall pass through it nor foot of beast pass through it, and it shall be uninhabited forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and among the cities that are laid waste, her cities shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them through the countries" (29:8-14).

Talk about extravagant rhetoric, we certainly have it in this passage. No such desolation has ever happened to Egypt; there never has been a time in recorded history when Egypt was not inhabited by man or beast for forty years, when its cities were laid waste and desolate, when its people were all dispersed to foreign lands, etc. Bible defenders, of course, resort quickly to figurative and future applications, but their strategy just won't work. Future fulfillments are excluded by patently clear references that Ezekiel made to contemporary characters who were to figure in the fulfillment: "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him" (29:2). Although Egypt still survives as a nation, its rule by pharaohs ended long ago. Furthermore, Ezekiel identified Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, as the instrument Yahweh would use to bring about Egypt's desolation: "Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage, and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:19). Clearly, then, Ezekiel had in mind a contemporary fulfillment of this prediction. As for spiritual or figurative explanations of the prophecy, just what events in Egyptian history were so catastrophic in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs that they could justifiably be considered a figurative desolation of forty years? Unless bibliolaters can identify such a catastrophe, their figurative interpretations must be regarded as just more attempts to sweep aside another embarrassing prophecy failure.

The Impossible Voyage Of Noah's Ark

Farrell Till presents some interesting information concerning Noah's ark and the Genesis flood---from creationists. From the Errancy Discussion List, 1-5-97:

One of the best works I have read on Noah's ark is Robert Moore's 

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark," which was published in the

Winter 1983 edition of *Creation/Evolution.* I highly recommend 

it. So far, we have discussed only the 300-foot limit in our 

exchanges, but Moore discusses at length many problems that 

the ark would have encountered. While you are trying to find 

reputable naval architects who will confirm that the 300-foot 

limit would not have been a barrier to building a seaworthy 

barge 450 feet long, I want to present some of the other 

problems to you. You have insisted that the ark floated "gently" 

on the water, whereas the science of meteorology would require 

a scenario that would make hurricanes seem like mere soft 

breezes.

In "Impossible Voyage..." Moore presented the scenarios that even
creationists themselves have stated as the type of forces that the 
ark would have had to endure. In *The Creation Explantion,* 
Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves said this about the flood: 
"The Flood was accompanied by violent movements of the earth's 
crust and by volcanic activity of momentous proportions. 
Tremendous tidal waves and rushing currents scoured and deeply 
eroded the continental surface. Entire forests were ripped up and 
transported large distances to be dumped where the currents 
slowed" (p. 226).
  
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris certainly need no 
introduction to creationists. In "The Genesis Flood,* they 
presented the following scenario: "Even after the forty days, 
when the greatest of the rains and upheavals diminished, 
the Scriptures say that the waters 'prevailed' upon the earth 
for one hundred and ten days longer. This statement... would 
certainly imply that extensive hydraulic and sedimentary 
activity continued for a long time, with many earlier flood 
deposits perhaps re-eroded and reworked.... The only way in 
which land could now appear again would be for a tremendous 
orogeny to take place. Mountains must arise and new basins 
must form to receive the breat overburden of water imposed 
upon the earth" (pp. 266-267).
  
Would such forces at work on the earth's crust have caused 
turbulance? Whitcomb and Morris certainly thought so: "Yielding 
of the crust at even one point, with resultant escape of magmas 
and water or steam, would then lead to earth movements causing 
further fractures until, as the Scriptures portray so graphically, 
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' 
(Genesis 7:11). Truly this was a gigantic catastrophe, beside 
which the explosion of the largest hydrogen bomb, or of hundreds 
of such bombs, becomes insignificant" (pp. 242-243).
  
The creationist J. E. Schmich presented this scenario: "The 
worldwide ocean of the Genesis flood was swept by wind storms 
that would make modern tornadoes seem lik a zephyr" ("The 
Flood and the Ark," *Creation Research Society Quarterly,* 
11:2, pp. 120-122).
  
These are not the claims of despicable atheists. These are 
statements that have been published by men who are recognized 
as the foremost spokesmen for the scientific accuracy of the 
Genesis flood record. Some of us on the errancy list tried to get 
you to investigate the meteorological implications of a flood like 
the one described in Genesis, but you ignored our statements. 
Now I have presented to you statements from leading creationists, 
who agree with our claim that meteorological conditions in Noah's 
flood would have subjected the ark to unimaginable forces and
stresses. If anything, their scenarios are far more extreme than 
anything skeptics have proposed, because, of course, they are 
trying to present scenarios that would have the flood as an 
explanation for the geological record. If you want the discussion 
to continue, I am going to insist that you address this issue and 
present evidence that the leading arkeologists are wrong in the 
scenarios they presented and that the ark merely floated
"gently" on the water.

Farrell Till

Empiricism

From the II Errancy Discussion List, 1-1-07:

This is like the ivory-billed woodpecker example that I gave in an earlier reply to McDonald. If I were claiming that the ivory-billed woodpecker is extinct and McDonald knew that specimens of this species had been discovered in Arkansas, he wouldn't hesitate to counter my claim by producing an ivory-billed woodpecker or at least pictures of the discovery. The easiest way to prove the existence of gods or angels or miracles, then, would be to produce one.

You just can't beat empiricism for reliability. It beats all to heck holy books, visions, and such like.
-Farrell Till

When You Lack Evidence...

Just common sense, really. Something biblical inerrantists are woefully lacking in: 

When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen ( Carl Lofmark from What Is The Bible, pp. 41-42).

More Trouble For The Perfect-Harmony Theory

An absolutely devastating article for the perfect-harmony Bible theorists. From The Skeptical Review, 1995:

by Farrell Till

The Bible is so perfectly harmonious from cover to cover that only divine inspiration can explain its unity. You don't believe it? Well, just ask any Bible fundamentalist, and he will assure you that it's true. 

Critical works of the past two centuries have shot the perfect-harmony theory so full of holes that by now it should be lying rusted out at the bottom of an ocean of biblical scholarship. Instead, Christian fundamentalists continue to proclaim to gullible pulpit audiences that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible. As we have shown repeatedly in past issues of The Skeptical Review, this claim is patently false. Let's take as an example the fact that the Bible plainly teaches that God is no respecter of persons: "(F)or there is no respect of persons with God" (Romans 2:11, KJV). Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, and 1 Peter 1:17 all claim that God judges all men fairly without respect of person. In boasting of having stood his ground against the pillars of the Jerusalem church who wanted to force Titus to submit to circumcision, the apostle Paul said that the positions of prominence held by his opponents in the dispute didn't matter to him, because "God shows personal favoritism to no man..." (Gal. 2:6, NKJV). There is no doubt, then, that the Bible teaches that God is impartial toward all men. 

Well, okay, let's see how consistent the Bible is in presenting God as an impartial deity. We could begin by pointing out that God at one time favored an entire nation, because he selected the Israelites to be his chosen people "above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth" (Dt. 7:6). That certainly sounds like favoritism to me. If a teacher should select Bobby to be her chosen student above all students that are in the class and even proclaim to the world that she had done so, who would argue that she was not showing favoritism? 

Inerrantists are fond of arguing that God had a plan of redemption for mankind that required him to select a special people. Bible fundamentalists constantly use this marvelous "plan of redemption" to cover a multitude of divine shortcomings, and they apparently can't see that an omniscient, omnipotent deity would not have been required to select a plan of redemption that necessitated racial favoritism, because such a deity could have redeemed mankind in any one of several ways that would not have entailed racial favoritism and the various atrocities committed against the non-Hebraic people of biblical times. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omniscient and omnipotent. At any rate, this is the quibble that inerrancy defenders resort to in this matter, so I'll just let the readers evaluate the merits of it so that we can go on to other examples of divine favoritism that will give the inerrantists plenty more to cavil about.