The Preacher and the Skeptic

Is Intelligent Design Real Science?

2012-03-05T23:37:00.001+09:00

PREACHER: Current advancements and discoveries in science suggest that the universe was after all created by an Intelligent Being. There are competent scientists in almost every field that would agree that it takes more faith (a better word might be conjecture) to believe that there is no Creator God than to believe that there is.

SKEPTIC: When you say "discoveries in science," I assume you're talking about Intelligent Design. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that Intelligent Design is not really science at all, but rather a pseudoscience that is nothing but an attempt to dress up traditional creationism in a "scientific" package. Its only proponents come out of the Discovery Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank. The whole idea came about after the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism couldn't be taught in public schools because it was intended to advance a particular religion and therefore violated the separation of church and state. No problem, thought creationists, we'll just repackage creationism as "science" and leave the religion part out of it, and then we'll be able to sneak it into America's classrooms. Unfortunately for them, the courts weren't quite as gullible as they had counted on, and they were shot down in Dover, Pennsylvania when they attempted to introduce ID into the Dover school system in 2005. The judge stated that ID was NOT science, and ruled that it was unconstitutional because it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." D'oh! It's back to the drawing board...

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are a little out of date both from the science angle and the news angle. Furthermore, such good creationist groups as Answers in Genesis are not asking that Intelligent Design or creationism be taught in the public schools. An atheist science teacher would do a bad job of it, just as Christian science teachers probably do a bad job of teaching evolution. What they are asking is that students be allowed to use critical thinking in the science class, and be able to question the erroneous assumptions that are behind so-called molecule-to-man evolution, and competent biologists who are not religious would admit the problems (that which they just assume).

SKEPTIC: You say that creationists aren't asking for ID to be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be questioned in the science classroom. So the next step isn't to introduce the idea of a Biblical creation? Is that what you mean? You're willing to just leave it at having teachers introduce the idea that evolution could be wrong, with no reference to creationism or the idea that God (or an "intelligent designer") created the world? Forgive me if I find that hard to swallow. You want to teach creationism? Teach it in a comparative religion class, not a science class. And by the way, if a Christian can't find a way to teach evolution in a science classroom, he has no business being a science teacher.

PREACHER: Christians are indeed teaching evolution in the science classroom, but many times they tell their students that they don't need to believe it. They say that because they are not convinced that evolution is a proven fact. Shouldn’t science be about the real world that we can observe and about facts that are indisputable, that can be verified? Don’t all views about origins including the theory of evolution (since it can’t be verified) fit better in a comparative religion class? Evolution would be in the category of naturalism. I believe, and you do too, that science is about what is verifiable. Since evolution isn't occurring before our eyes, it is not verifiable by science. Whether you believe that the world came about by natural processes or by the supernatural creative work of God doesn't make you a better or worse scientist for neither are verifiable by experimental science. However, observable science suggests to me that there has to be a Creator. Everything is designed too well to have come about by natural processes.

SKEPTIC: Firstly, you're right that "evolution isn't occurring before our eyes." But it has been observed and recorded over time, and has been verified to the satisfaction of pretty much the entire scientific community around the world. Secondly, having a fundamentalist Christian science teacher telling his students that they don't need to believe in evolution would be a bit like having a history teacher telling his students that the holocaust didn't really happen. Finally, when you talk about "everything being designed too well to have come about by natural processes," you are invoking the well-worn watchmaker argument. Of course, the biggest problem with that argument is the question of "if complex organisms require a designer, then who designed the designer?

PREACHER: An eternal designer doesn’t need to be designed, He always existed. What has been observed is the genetic change in certain organisms, particularly microorganisms that change rapidly. These changes have always been a process of the loss or reshuffling of genetic information, not the attainment of new genetic information, so they are not the kind of process that leads from the simple to the complex as in molecule-to-man evolution. The assumption that at particular times in history new genetic information developed in organisms that caused them to advance is based only on conjecture. There is no way to verify that it actually happened. Evolutionists extrapolate on so-called genetic changes and figure that with a lot of time all species could have developed from the simplest kind of life form. Such an extrapolation is based on an unverifiable assumption that those genetic changes would actually produce more advanced kinds of organisms. History records for us that the opinions of much of the scientific community around the world have been wrong many times before. Add to that that many in the scientific community are professing atheists, it is not surprising that their worldview makes them jump to absurd conclusions.

SKEPTIC: Right, because if a scientist is an atheist, he naturally will jump to absurd conclusions. That's pretty insulting. The fact is that science has always represented man's best effort at finding the truth in a logical and methodical manner. When evidence is presented that science may have gotten something wrong, it is able to make a course correction - something which is virtually impossible to do when it comes to matters of faith, which rely heavily on rigid dogma.

PREACHER: You might be surprised to discover that it is the Bible that reveals a God who gave the universe order so we can understand it. It is because of the world view that is presented in the Bible that science works. It seems clear to me that neither science nor reason are aligned with atheism. How can atheists in sincerity claim that what they believe is at all scientific or reasonable? How do you know that atheism isn’t just an absolute lie?

SKEPTIC: Why do I believe in atheism? It's not a question of believing in atheism - it's a question of what makes more sense when it comes to the question of evolution versus creationism - that we have arrived at where we are today through a series of infinitesimal changes over billions of years, or that some sort of magical, supernatural being just one day a few thousand years ago commanded that everything appear and "voila" - humans, animals and all living things just suddenly appeared on the earth? Natural vs. supernatural, reality vs. myth, science vs. religion...

PREACHER: It looks to me like you don’t understand the difference between science and history. Scientific method only deals with the present, what you can actually measure and observe now. History tells of the past through written documents, and cannot be verified by the scientific method. We must trust those documents based on the character of those who wrote them. So called, supernatural events in the past are attested by written documents. Using the scientific method to verify those events is about as absurd as using bathroom scales to measure the distance between Okinawa and Okayama. So, why did you decide to be an atheist?

SKEPTIC:You know, I remember when I was ten I asked my Sunday School teacher, "If there are all those other people in other countries who believe in a different religion, how do we know that ours is the true religion? Her answer was, "we just have to have faith!" It was a less than satisfying answer. Even as a dumb ten-year-old kid, I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith. So it became clear to me that not all religions could be true, but that all religions could certainly be, and probably were, false.

PREACHER: Your Sunday school teacher gave you a correct answer in as much as faith pleases God. And of course that faith has to be towards the right Object of worship. Faith in a lie doesn’t please God. But, I can see that her answer wasn’t sufficient for your inquisitive (not dumb) mind. I can see that even at the age of 10 you had some unverified assumptions about reality. Your statement: “I was smart enough to know that those people who belonged to other religions probably also claimed to have an equal amount of faith” is very telling! Even at that early age it sounds like you placed more credibility in the opinions of men than in the revealed Word of God. I asked the same kind of questions to my Sunday school teacher when I was that age. He gave my mind a lot more information to chew on than your teacher did. And did that make a difference!

Is Planned Parenthood Good or Evil?

2011-05-08T21:18:00.003+09:00

SKEPTIC: So it is your position that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization? Seriously?

PREACHER: Planned Parenthood encourages minorities to have abortions, thus keeping their population down to more manageable levels, which presupposes that minorities are less evolved than the majority (white) population, and need to be treated as such. From a truly biblical persective though, all mankind is one race with equal dignity.

SKEPTIC: Planned Parenthood doesn't "encourage" anybody to get an abortion. They offer medical options to people. Where do you get this shit? Never mind...I know where you get this shit.

PREACHER: So ... one man's rational conclusions are another man's shit.

SKEPTIC:There's nothing rational about saying that Planned Parenthood "encourages" minorities to have abortions. It's a vicious smear and unless you have some actual evidence (I know that's a pretty rare commodity in rightwing world), then I think that "shit" is an accurate characterization.

PREACHER: But, isn't Planned Parenthood's position on abortion pretty clear - that it is the right of every woman to have one. Furthermore, tax dollars can be used for it even though many people object to the practice. In my mind that IS encouraging its practice. And, they work a lot with minorities.

SKEPTIC: It's not only the position of Planned Parenthood that women have a right to control their own bodies - it's the position of the majority of Americans. But saying that someone has a right to do something is a long, long way from "encouraging" someone to do something. And saying that they encourage it because they receive some tax money makes no sense at all. Like you said - it's only in YOUR mind.

PREACHER: It is not just the woman's body. There is another human being's life involved here. Aside from the fact that the polls are pretty close, since when is public opinion a gauge for morality? Isn't that tyranny of the majority? Planned Parenthood indeed does encourage abortion, just by saying that a woman has a right to control her own body, ignoring the rights of the human developing inside her. Public funding of abortion is definitely endorsing it as a necessary practice. Why do you not want to say that Planned Parenthood encourages abortion? According to your worldview, what would be wrong in encouraging abortion? Neither are other kinds of human life termination necessariy wrong, and may be even the best thing to do according to your worldview.

SKEPTIC: The major focus of Planned Parenthood is on women's health (not only reproductive health), with a major effort at providing and educating women about birth control - with the aim being to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's why it's called PLANNED parenthood! By preventing unwanted pregnancies, they help to dramatically REDUCE the number of abortions - which would actually be the OPPOSITE of "encouraging" abortions! And by the way, abortion services make up only 3% of their services (not 90%, like a certain lying GOP senator would have you believe), and a total of ZERO tax dollars are used for abortion services. Sorry to have to bother you with facts again.

PREACHER: I already knew the facts you gave about abortion. I recognized that Planned Parenthood is doing some good things (by biblical standards), too.

SKEPTIC: You apparently believe that those who are pro-choice really love abortion, and think that all women should give it a try. That is why I object to the term "pro-abortion." Abortion is a gut-wrenching decision that no one should have to make. But that's not how life usually works. The difference between your position and mine is that I believe that the choice to carry to term is between the woman and her doctor, and you believe that the government should step in and force every woman to give birth, no matter the circumstances. You would have no problem sending the doctor to prison, and perhaps the woman as well. A pretty odd position to take for folks (conservatives) who believe that the government should stay out of people's lives. I'm glad you recognize the good that Planned Parenthood does, however. Does that mean you also agree that, on balance, they help to reduce the number of abortions?

PREACHER: They may certainly help to reduce the number of abortions, however as long as they say that abortion is a woman's right over her own body and ignore the rights of the unborn child I have to take issue with them. It isn't about having the government step in to punish those that do choose to get/perform abortions, it is an educational issue that so far Planned Parenthood has not addressed properly. The organization would be much more effective in reducing abortions if they taught unequivocally that abortion kills a human life. That would give the woman and her doctor much better information for making a decision about a pregnancy.

SKEPTIC: So bottom line this for me. Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal? Legal in certain circumstances or illegal no matter what? If you think it should be illegal, how severe should the penalty be for the doctor and/or the woman involved in the procedure?

PREACHER: That is a difficult question to answer. As far as government intervention is concerned, that is already happening when Planned Parenthood offers advice about abortions. So for the government to place a penalty on abortions doesn't increase government interference - it is already there. I would think that for most people, proper education about abortion is enough to deter anyone from doing it. The minority of those that insist on having the procedure done despite thorough explanation of the consequences of abortion should be penalized. But to ask me how severe the penalty should be is beyond my pay-grade, to quote our president.

SKEPTIC: What are you talking about? PP is not a government agency, and they're not intervening in anybody's life. They are providing counseling and medical services for those women who need them. By "proper education," I'm assuming you mean the biblical view of the world. But I'm still not clear on what you think legally speaking. Are you saying that all abortions should be illegal across the board, and the doctors AND women should both be penalized?

PREACHER: By "proper education" I do mean the biblical worldview, there is no other. All other views are arbitrary based on human opinions. And, my issue is with Planned Parenthood is not the government. Let the the government leaders who represent the citizens decide what is legal. I want Planned Parenthood to be clear that the life inside the mother is a separate human being with the same rights as anyone else.

SKEPTIC: "There is no other worldview" - and you wonder why folks think Christians are just a tad too arrogant sometimes? It's remarkable to me that you assert that an embryo should be considered a human being and yet you have such a lassaiz-faire attitude when it comes to actual abortion laws ("let the government leaders decide"). If you truly believe that abortion is the pre-meditated killing of a human being, then surely you must believe that the killer/doctor should be put in prison for life or maybe even given the death penaly. I mean, that's what should happen when someone kills another human being, right? And since the woman aided and abetted this "murder," clearly she should also be thrown in prison. The major thrust of the pro-life movement, obviously, is to make abortion illegal - increasingly with no exceptions. My guess is that you're afraid to say out loud that you think a 14-year-old girl who was raped by her father and gets an abortion should be put in prison. You're afraid of your own beliefs if taken to their logical conclusions.

PREACHER: Isn't submitting to an Authority a sign of humility and insisting that your opinion is right a sign of arrogance? I dare not stand as an authority over the US government that doesn't claim the Bible as its authority. Biblically speaking, yes, abortion would be taking a human life, and when done with full knowledge of the consequences would require the death penalty just as murder would. So, how many 14 year old girls really get raped by their fathers and then get pregnant?

SKEPTIC: So if it was up to you, doctors who provide abortion services would be sentenced to death, along with their patients, I guess. And if it was up to you, people who were gay would be stoned to death, too, right? Hey, it's in the Bible! And despite your apparent belief that teenagers being raped by their fathers is not really much of a problem, "studies have found that between 11 and 20 percent of pregnancies in teenagers are a direct result of rape." (Wikipedia - Teenage Pregnancy). Oh, and by the way, you do understand that if abortion is made illegal, it won't go away, it'll just go underground, right? And we know from experience that many more women will die as a result.

PREACHER: I think that you are getting a theoretical theocracy that is in your head based on just certain Bible passages mixed up with the real situation in the US, both Christian and secular. I don't really expect the US to become subservient to Old Testament law ever. Even in the Old Testament there was a place for mercy for sinners. Victims of rape shouldn't be treated as criminals. Like I have said before: I have issues with Planned Parenthood (not the present legal system) when they tell young women that terminating their pregnancy is not also terminating the life that has developed within them. I also have an issue with them when they recommend an abortion to a young rape victim without consulting her family.

SKEPTIC: Stop trying to confuse me! So you DON'T have issues with the present legal system? So you're okay with Roe v. Wade, and do not favor repealing it? Well, great then, I applaud you!

PREACHER: Thanks for finally figuring me out. Abortion is prevented best by good education about the sanctity of life, not by laws that penalize people for making terrible mistakes.

SKEPTIC: So you think Planned Parenthood is helping to reduce the number of abortions and you don't think abortion should be illegal. It sounds to me like you're closer to a pro-choice position than a pro-life position.

PREACHER: No. Your perception of what pro-life is exist only in your head as an extreme position. Pro-choice assumes that abortion is OK. I don't think that abortion is OK. I am pro-life, but obviously not according to your definition.

SKEPTIC: Is it not generally true that a pro-life person is in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, while a pro-choice person is against repealing it?

PREACHER: I am for repealing Roe v. Wade. However, the scenario that you paint of the consequences is not what I envision. I am thinking about the process of repealing it, not just woodenly repealing it under present circumstances. Making abortion illegal doesn't have to mean that there is no mercy for those who mistakenly choose it. Rather those that promote the lie of pro-choice need to be held accountable.

SKEPTIC: Yeah, that's what I thought - you weren't fooling me with your dancing all around the issue. We know what happens when safe abortion services are not available - there is a pre-1973 history of back-alley butchery that is a reliable indicator. Many women will die if abortion services are forced underground. Does this fact not give you pause? Would we as a nation not be better off putting our focus on doing all we can to reduce unwanted pregnancies while keeping abortion services in the hands of medical professionals? "Rare but legal" is the position of most pro-choice people. What is this dark pro-choice "lie" that we need to be held accountable for?

PREACHER: What is the message that PP gives to women? It would be nice if they are saying that abortion should be rare but legal. However, the word pro-choice conjures in my mind the right to end the life of the human in your body if you so choose. Why not just say that abortion is illegal, but on the basis of mercy towards extenuating circumstances, it is provided with the utmost caution.

SKEPTIC: So you're in favor of making abortion illegal EXCEPT in certain extenuating circumstances? Is that your final answer?

PREACHER: I think you've finally got it. Thanks for your patience.

SKEPTIC: Rape, incest, life of the mother? Are those cases where you think abortion should be legal?

PREACHER: Possibly.

SKEPTIC: So then you're saying that there could be some cases where a woman had been raped, was the victim of incest, or whose pregnancy endangers her life - and yet you would still deny her a legal, safe abortion. You'd make a lousy legislator - I'm pretty sure you can't vote "maybe" when passing new laws.

PREACHER: It is not a case of passing laws. It is a case of offering mercy to those who are clearly an exceptional case under the law.

SKEPTIC: Well, I beg to differ. It's all about the laws. Either abortion services will remain legal or they will go underground with devastating consequences.

PREACHER: It sounds like you really believe that the majority of the millions of abortions that are performed in the US every year are for victims of rape and incest or the woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy. You also refuse to even allude to the value and rights of the person who will be killed by the abortion. To only think of the "rights" of the mother and not of the person inside her is arbitrary and immoral.

SKEPTIC: No, I never said I thought the majority of abortions were due to those circumstances. I'm just trying to locate whatever parameters you might have regarding the legal aspect. I DO NOT believe that an embryo has the same rights as an actual person. An embryo is not a "person" - it is a potential person. I believe a woman has complete sovereignty over her body, and the government has NO RIGHT to force any woman to bring a pregnancy to term against her will.

PREACHER: So do you believe that passing through the birth canal mysteriously gives personal rights to individuals or is it that "viability of the fetus" theory that you hold to? Isn't your position on the matter relative depending on your own opinion? In certain situations wouldn't you change your opinion? Why not reconsider the so-called right to life of the extremely handicapped and the terminally ill elderly, as well? If a woman is supposed to have "sovereignty over her body" then why could she not prevent a pregnancy from happening in the first place? Your belief is absurd.

SKEPTIC: No, my belief is not absurd. I believe the government has no right to force a woman to give birth against her will. Period. End of discussion.

PREACHER: Yes, your Majesty.

SKEPTIC: Thank you. You can go now.

Where is the Book of Jesus?

2011-04-14T23:26:00.001+09:00

SKEPTIC: How come there's no Book of Jesus in the Bible? Since Jesus is the central character in the Bible, it might have been nice if he had actually taken the time to write down a few of his thoughts himself, instead of relying on other folks to do it decades later. It certainly would have given more credibility to his words.

PREACHER: So you admit that Jesus' followers wrote his words only decades (two or three at the most) and not centuries later. There is hope for you yet!

SKEPTIC: Did I say otherwise? So how come Jesus didn't write a book?

PREACHER: He probably didn't have time to, since He was busy speaking and doing. But actually, His voice is recorded quite often. Look at all the direct quotes in the Gospels. Why do you ask such an irrelevant question?

SKEPTIC: So Jesus didn't write anything because he was too busy? He just couldn't find the time to make a contribution to the book that is the "inspired Word of God" and the cornerstone of the Christian faith? He was the Son of God, but was just really bad at time management? Really? Seriously? And you think it's irrelevant that I've raised the question? I think it's very relevant in that it creates real doubt about the historicity of Jesus. If he was a real person, why don't we have any writing from him at all - not a letter, not a note, not even a grocery list?

PREACHER: Actually He did write in the sand when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Him. My point is that there are a lot of people who haven't made a literary contribution in the past. Therefore, to infer that they didn't really exist because they didn't leave behind something written is jumping the gun to say the least. I also get amused at those who don't trust the actual Gospel accounts, but let their imagination run wild about what they think might have happened. An imaginary savior can only give an imaginary salvation.

SKEPTIC: Well, I can certainly agree with your last thought in regard to an imaginary savior. But I'm not saying the fact that he didn't write anything proves he didn't exist - I'm just saying that it creates doubt. I mean, when your father is God, you outta be able to put down a few thoughts on papyrus for the ages. If I was God, I would've just had Jesus write the whole Bible and forget about all the other pretenders. And if my son had dedicated the book to his old man, I might have even written a really nice introduction.

PREACHER: Your problem is God didn't consult you when He decided to reveal Himself through the Bible. You weren't around then. After all, by your own admission, aren't you a just a temporary existence? Why should He submit to you?

SKEPTIC: You're right. God didn't consult me and he definitely didn't submit to me - because if he did, I guess that would make ME God, and cool as that would be, I'm not sure I'm ready to handle that much responsibility. But to tell you the truth, the whole idea that the one and only God, creator of the universe - THE UNIVERSE - would decide that the best way to reveal himself to earthlings would be to have a bunch of guys write down some semi-coherent thoughts and then make a book out of those thoughts just strikes me as kinda silly. I mean, he's God, for cryin' out loud - surely he can come up with something more creative than being a cosmic publisher of a book that is certainly less than crystal clear.

PREACHER: I have thought before that you are a god-wannabe. That would make you have great significance. However, your worldview calls you just the result of random natural processes over a long period of time that only exists for a minute fraction of time, an extremely insignificant existence. The great contrast between what you want to be and actually believe about yourself strikes me as absurd. The Book is very clear about some things like who we are and who God is. God is creator and does whatever He pleases and is always good and right. We humans are created in His image: that is what gives us significance. That is why He loved us enough to sacrifice His own Son for us.

SKEPTIC: "God is creator and does whatever He pleases and is always good and right." Hey, that pretty much describes me, too (except for the creator part)! So I guess maybe I really am God! Awesome! (By the way, it would be helpful if you would use more emoticons. I have trouble sometimes knowing when you're serious and when you're putting me on.)

PREACHER: So...your words confirm my great fear that atheists suffer from megalomania. (This technically challenged image bearer of the Creator doesn't know how to post emoticons. But, thou "O Great One" surely knowest all things.)

SKEPTIC: Fear not, my humble servant, for I carry my burden not with sorrow, but with great joy. I grant you peace and wisdom. May you someday come to understand that there are many paths to the truth. Love, God cc: Jesus

PREACHER: So...how long will it be till you publish your revelatory work? Do I get a free autographed copy since I helped you discover yourself?

SKEPTIC: Sure. You'll be the first to get a copy.

Repent! The End is Near!

2011-01-24T00:08:00.003+09:00

SKEPTIC: I guess it's a good news / bad news kind of thing. The good news is that Jesus is coming back to Earth on May 21 - just a matter of weeks from now. The bad news is that apparently he's not all that happy - because he's going to destroy the world on October 21. You may have seen the news plastered on a giant billboard near you and become either alarmed or amused.

The man behind all the hoopla is Harold Camping. He has made these bold predictions based on some sort of mathematical formula based on numbers in the Bible. He and his followers at eBible Fellowship are preparing themselves for the big day in May and warning the rest of us to get our act together. The fact that Harold had previously predicted that the world would end back in 1994 doesn't faze them. Just a slight miscalculation, we are told. But now, apparently the technology has improved to the point that we are able to pinpoint the big day exactly. In fact, Harold has even managed to figure out that The Rapture will occur on May 21 at sunset, Jerusalem time (check your newspaper for local times).

PREACHER: The first question we need to ask ourselves is: How does Harold come up with an exact dates for the rapture and the end of the world? His calculations are probably fine if you accept his assumptions. He even in some sense seems to accept the Bible as authoritative. His problem though, lies in how he erroneously chooses to interpret and apply Scripture. One example suffices to point that out: 2 Peter 3:8 says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." From the context we can understand that the writer is pointing out that God is eternal and that His timetable is different than ours. What may seem like a long time to us isn't for Him. Harold makes the mistake of assuming that this sentence is a formula for calculating the length of history, which was never intended by the writer. Once you do away with Harold's assumption about this verse alone, his eschatological theory falls apart. (I could go on and on about his misinterpretations and misapplications, but that would get too long for this post.)

A comment about salvation: Harold seems to assume that only those who believe his theory about the end of the world are the "true believers", and only the "true believers" get to go up in the rapture. That being the case, his requirement for salvation now is believing in his view of the end times. Scripture is very clear that the requirement of salvation is accepting by faith that Christ died for your sins. Believing something to be true (i.e. the existence of God) cannot save you anymore than not believing it. If you have by faith accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, not having your eschatology down right won't disqualify you from attaining salvation. Harold Camping's teaching is so far off that most of the Christian community don't even take him seriously.

SKEPTIC: Well, good, we can both agree that Harold Camping is nuts. I do find it odd that he insists that if you don't buy into his prediction, you're not really a Christian. But he has also preached that everybody should stop going to church, so he clearly appears to be out of the mainstream. But here's the thing - if you, as a Christian, look at Harold and think he's deluded, then perhaps you have an idea of how the rest of the world views Christians who believe in the rapture. I mean, both you and Harold believe in the idea of the rapture - you just disagree about whether or not the precise time can be known.

The fact is, the word "rapture" appears nowhere in the Bible, and wasn't really articulated as a doctrine until the early 1700's, when Philip Doddridge and John Gill developed the idea in their New Testament commentaries. Jesus, however, did say that he would return within the lifetime of his apostles. In Matthew 24:34, he said, "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Whoops! Just missed it!

PREACHER: Although the word "rapture" isn't in the Bible, the event is clearly predicted both by Christ (e. i. John 14:1~3) and the apostle Paul (e. i. I Thessalonians 4:13~18) In the Old Testament such an event happened to Enoch and Elijah. Theologians and church leaders have referred to the "blessed hope of His appearing" more or less all through history. So, yes the use of the word "rapture" may have started in the early 1700's, but to say that the doctrine wasn't really articulated before then is incorrect.

Although you can make a case that the apostles expected Jesus to return during their lifetimes, the "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 could hardly refer to them. Looking back at verse 4 Jesus says that first the Gospel would be preached to the whole world before the end came. The apostles made a great effort, but they didn't begin to reach the whole world. In fact, most of the world was not reached with the Gospel until the end of the 20th century. And, even now there may be a few places that might need to hear still. Verse 32 may be of some insight. The fig tree is thought to be a symbol for Israel. Since 1948, Israel has become a nation again. So some of us Christians believe that "this generation" refers to the generation (ours) that has seen Israel become a nation again. We are the generation that "shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." We haven't missed it, it is very soon!

SKEPTIC: Well, if you're going to change the definition of "this generation," I guess you can make any point you want. It's interesting, though, that even someone like C.S. Lewis called Matthew 24:34 "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible," because it had Jesus wrongly predicting his own second coming (perhaps he just forgot to mark it on his calendar). Of course, there are those Christians (preterists) who believe Jesus DID come back in the first century, just like he said he would - except he came back spiritually, not physically. They find themselves at odds with futurists, who believe Jesus is coming back in the future. To me, if you've got Christians in different camps (preterists vs. futurists, premillennialists vs. postmillennialists) debating each other, each one believing something different, it indicates that nobody really knows what the heck they're talking about. Does God enjoy watching believers fighting it out and playing these kinds of guessing games - looking at the Bible as some big puzzle? If Jesus really is coming back, couldn't God just make some sort of cosmic announcement to the universe? That way everyone could make the appropriate preparations, and we could stop playing all these parlor games.

In any event, for the last 2000 years, people have predicted the end of the world, but we still seem to be hanging on - even though each generation of Christians has managed to see "signs" of the return of Christ in the news - the latest example of such hysteria being the dead birds and dead fish that have been cropping up in various places. Christians, of course, look to the Book of Revelations as their blueprint for the end of the world. But is it really realistic to believe that Revelations lays out an actual scenario of the end times - or does it make more sense to look at it as an elaborate revenge fantasy written at a time when Christians were being severely persecuted by the Romans? When you read about "a woman sitting on a beast with seven heads and ten horns drinking the blood of the saints," that should be your first clue that what you're reading is science-fiction. L. Ron Hubbard couldn't have done a better job.

PREACHER: So, you are intrigued that Christians keep believing in the rapture/the second coming of Christ. I am not surprised. You probably also wonder why we keep believing in the Biblical account of creation, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel, all the miraculous events that occurred as Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ. We believe these things because they are recorded in an account that is much more trustworthy than the opinions of elite secularists.

SKEPTIC: Well, firstly, thank you for acknowledging that secularists are elite. We'll try to remain humble, however. And yes, I do kind of wonder how anyone can take the Old Testament stories literally, when it's been pretty clearly shown that they are the stuff of mythology.

PREACHER: Your secularist bias is showing. If anything is pretty clear, it would be that the Old Testament stories are true history. Secularism has trouble with events recorded in the Old Testament simply because the unproven assumptions of secularism say those events could have never happened.

SKEPTIC: But to get back to our friends who insist that the rapture is coming on May 21 - I hope they have enough integrity to issue some sort of apology on their website on May 22 for getting people all excited and freaking them out. But I'm guessing they won't - they'll probably just say they miscalculated - again!

PREACHER: It would be nice if they apologized, but people don't like to admit it when they are wrong. Secularists should apologize too for making grandiose statements like, "it's been clearly shown" when they really have no way of knowing. I won't hold my breath for that, though. Of course the apology should really be directed towards their Creator. And, someday that will be what they have to do.

SKEPTIC: Okay, allow me to apologize for all secularists everywhere for saying, "It's been clearly shown." What I should have said is, "No viable archaeological evidence has ever been dug up to prove that O.T. stories like Moses actually occurred in history. Furthermore, most Biblical scholars accept the O.T. stories as legend and mythology." I hope that clears things up.

PREACHER: Apology accepted. Actually, it is quite amazing how much of Old Testament history is verified by archaeological evidence. Furthermore, those Biblical scholars who think that the O. T. stories are legend and mythology, accept the unproven assumptions of secularism without question.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is Dead!

2010-12-27T16:33:00.020+09:00

SKEPTIC: America took a giant leap forward in civil rights when the congress voted in favor of and the president signed into law the repeal of the oppressive "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military. No longer will gay Americans who put their lives on the line be forced to live a lie. Of course, true to form, leaders on the religious right then proceeded to throw a collective hissy fit, warning that this change will lead to the demise of America and claiming that now "we are no better than Sodom and Gomorrah."

PREACHER: Since when is the expression of your sexual attraction and the right to serve in the military a civil right? Are you so sure that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is oppressive? Weren't those with alternate sexual attractions already allowed in the military as long as they had kept their sexual feelings private? Is one really forced to live a lie when he is required to not publically reveal his sexual attractions? I don't think so.

SKEPTIC: Thousands of highly qualified gays in the military were booted out, not because they told everyone they were gay, but because they were outed by others. Some, however, publicly proclaimed their sexual identity in order to challenge the DADT policy - something which to me is a mark of courage on their part. So yes, I'm sure that DADT was oppressive. I certainly didn't see anyone kicked out of the military because they were busted for being straight.

PREACHER: There would be some for whom sexual attractions have become their primary identity, therefore more important than defending our country. Really, should such a person be trusted with that kind of task? Who are these thousands of highly qualified gays? It seems when we say "gay" that you and I aren't even talking about the same group of people.

SKEPTIC: So your point is that gays can't be trusted to be good soldiers because they're more concerned about their sexuality than about defending the country? Seriously? That's where you're coming from? These are highly skilled young men and women who voluntarily joined the military and are willing to die in order to defend your freedom. They are honorable and in many cases highly decorated soldiers who have earned the respect of their brothers-and-sisters-in-arms. When you question their commitment and ability based solely on the fact that they're gay, you totally disrespect their service to America. Apparently you're willing to support our troops - but only if they're straight.

PREACHER: I am willing to support them even if they are gay as long as they keep their sexuality to themselves while they serve. What they do on leave is their own business. I don't really see that repealing the policy improves anything. Indeed, there are a number of officers in the military that are considering resigning over this. My son who is in the military says that almost no one he knows likes the idea of repealing the policy. Not only are they wary of a Sodom and Gomorrah situation, they really believe that people who insist that they have a right to a lot of sex in their favorite color whenever they get the drive, would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the armed forces. One would also wonder if someone who requires sex in his favorite color on a regular basis, and would value that more than protecting his country would even want to join the armed forces in the first place.

Unfortunately for the secularists, a large number of those who are patriotic enough to join the armed services are also of the religious right persuasion. Secularists are very good at posing themselves as some sort of moral authority, trying to tell other people what is right even when they espouse moral relativism. Very hypocritical! The religious right rejects secularists as their moral authority.

SKEPTIC: First of all, I don't believe that you'll see a significant number of officers resigning in protest. If any of them do resign - fine - the fewer homophobes in the military, the better. Second of all, I don't know what "sex in your favorite color" even means, but apparently you believe that gay soldiers are just a bunch of sex-crazed perverts who run around molesting every guy they can get their hands on. If that's your contention, then you need to provide some evidence of that. But you won't, because you can't. It's ridiculous and insulting. If any sort of sexual offense does occur, then that person should face the consequences - whether they're gay or straight.

And nobody's "posing themselves as some sort of moral authority." DADT was repealed because it was the right - the moral - thing to do. President Obama got it exactly right when he spoke these words when signing the repeal:

"We are not a nation that says, 'Don't ask, don't tell.' We are a nation that says, 'Out of many, we are one.' We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal. Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals that we upheld today."

PREACHER: As soon as someone states that something is the right - moral - thing to do they are posing themselves as a moral authority. For the record, the religious right doesn't recognize president Obama as our moral authority either. And, in this next year as Congress will have become a more conservative body, they will probably reverse the decision made by this lame duck Congress. It is not about just repealing or keeping "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It is a clash between two divergent worldviews that is much bigger than just a policy that the military has.

"Sex in your favorite color" is a phrase that I am using for illicit sex which includes gay sex. So, you really believe that there are very honorable and qualified gays (meaning those who are regularly sexually active; those who choose to abstain are not a problem)that should serve in the armed forces. Let them state their case!

SKEPTIC: Well, they have stated their case, and their case has been validated by both the military and the American public, who have indicated in polls and surveys that they are overwhelmingly in favor of this change.

I get that you want to divide the gay community into two camps - the good gays (those who don't have sex), and the bad gays (those who are sexually active). Do you then want to base policy on this distinction? Do you want to have sex police in the military whose job it is to find out if soldiers are having sex and with whom? This doesn't strike me as a very realistic (or legal) approach to making policy.

As to your contention that the new congress will repeal the repeal - if that's what you want to hang your last hope on, please feel free to dream on. But it ain't gonna happen, because history goes forward, not backward. Gays won't ever again have to be afraid that their sexual preference will get them kicked out of the military, just as blacks will never again be segregated, and women will always have the right to vote. Welcome to the 21st century. Time marches on!

The War on Muslims

2010-08-31T00:56:00.010+09:00

SKEPTIC: It's election season in America, so of course it's time for the GOP to drag out a new boogieman to scare up some votes. This season it appears to be the Muslims' turn to play the villain - which of course doesn't mean that Republicans won't find time to scare white folks about blacks, gays, immigrants, atheists, or those damn socialist-communist-fascist-liberals as well.

PREACHER: Predictions are that liberals are going to lose big in the next election. The reasons are not the scare tactics of the GOP so much as a lot of good folks are just tired of the incompetence of secular liberalism. Secularists have the audacity to claim that theirs is a neutral position in the competition between worldviews. However, theirs is only another worldview among several that are vying for the allegiance of the population. Right now secularists are twisting themselves in knots to not be Islamophobic, and in so doing become Christophobic.

SKEPTIC: The latest non-story from the right has to do with the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" - a perfectly accurate description of the proposed project, except for the "ground zero" and the "mosque" parts. An "Islamic Community Center located near ground zero" is what we're talking about - and it's the latest evidence of a particularly virulent strain of Islamophobia that seems to be sweeping the nation. Opponents are trying to close down the project before it ever gets off the ground.

PREACHER: I would not deny the Muslims in this nation the right to build a place of worship. However, building it so close to 9/11 ground zero isn't a very good idea. To build a mosque right near the place where Muslim extremists committed one of the worst hate crimes in recent history is bound to incite bad feelings from the rest of the population. For the sake of tolerance it was a really foolish thing to do. To not offend is a responsibility that Muslims, gays, liberals, and blacks, need to take seriously, too. I would never want to say that they are less capable of that responsibility than the rest of us.

SKEPTIC: So I guess religious freedom in America doesn't apply to Muslims - is that the deal? Sure, they're free to build their little mosques - as long as the location doesn't offend anybody. Is that how it works? By taking the position that it's offensive to build this community center a couple of blocks from ground zero, you're implying that the entire Islamic religion was responsible for 9/11. FOX News has even proclaimed that the project is going to be a "Terrorist Command Center!" But hey, let me know if al Qaeda wants to put up a building in New York City and I'll jump aboard the bandwagon to shut it down.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Islamophobia is breaking out all over. Proposed mosques in other parts of the US are also being opposed by people who truly believe that all Muslims are terrorists - and that our president is some sort of "secret Muslim" out to destroy the country from within.

PREACHER: Statistics clearly show that 1 in 5 Americans think that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. A lot more are just not sure what he really is, even though he claims to be a Christian.

SKEPTIC: There is a hardcore 20% of Americans who, shall we say, are not all that bright (I'm trying to be polite). They're the same 20% that clung to the idea that George Bush was a great president until the day he got booted out of the White House. They probably also believe that the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.

PREACHER: You were trying real hard to be polite, weren't you! That hardcore 20% would probably have a few things to say about your level of intelligence, too. Better to be not so bright and have a few facts not straight, than have your great intellect entangled in inexcusable foolishness.

But in regard to Mr. Obama, hasn't he gone out of his way to reach out to Muslims and Muslim nations? In a speech, didn't he basically give a government endorsement of the mosque at ground zero? Wasn't that an infringement on the principle of "separation of church and state?" Or does that rule only apply to Christian churches?

SKEPTIC: Yes, Obama has "gone out of his way to reach out to Muslims and Muslim nations." It's called "getting along with the rest of the world." Apparently conservatives don't like that concept - they'd rather be at war with the rest of the world. In fact, I think another war between Christians and Muslims is just what many Christians are itching to see happen. And he didn't endorse the project per se - he endorsed the idea of religious freedom and non-discrimination in America, which by the way, has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. But you seem to be dancing around what you really think. Are you saying that these things are evidence that Obama is - or might secretly be - a Muslim?

PREACHER: I would commend Obama on his efforts to get along with the rest of the world. However, so far, his gestures of good will towards Islamic nations such as Turkey and Iran have not been taken very seriously. The problem is that secularists (and Mr. Obama) fantasize about a world where humans get rid of their differences and live together harmoniously all on their own. Such a world has never existed, doesn't exist now, and never will. Now, Christians and Moslems believe that God (Allah) will someday intervene and bring in an age of peace, but secularists have no such hope.

SKEPTIC: Well, I'll tell you what - secularists would have a lot more hope for an age of peace if the world's religions didn't insist on having perpetual wars. But I really don't understand how you can take a position against religious freedom in America. If you deny it to Muslims, Christians may be the next group to be discriminated against.

PREACHER: This isn't a question of religious freedom, but of tactics used by opposing worldviews. I believe that Mr. Obama is trying to be religiously neutral. Though he tries, he really cannot be neutral. I see him vacillating back and forth. Both Christianity and Islam are evangelistic faiths. They want to increase their followers. By their very nature they bump into each other. Secularism is just another worldview that is vying for influence.

So the question is not about religious freedom, but is "which one of these opposing worldviews do we want to have as the dominant worldview in our society?" That choice is made by the people and not the government or some self-appointed elite. I don't want Islam to be the dominant worldview in our society. Where it is dominant, freedom of religion and speech don't exist. Punishment for crimes are extremely harsh. Women are treated like animals and you should be concerned that there is no tolerance of sexual deviation. (Just think! The free sex lifestyle you as a secularist love would have to be terminated.) I don't want secularism to be the dominant worldview either. It has no moral authority, and therefore has no basis for calling anything right or wrong. It is a recipe for moral and legal chaos. I think I will stick with Christianity, thank you. Christianity is broad enough that it doesn't force its views on others. And I think that the majority of the population in America would agree with me.

SKEPTIC: Okay, I get it now. You don't want Islam or secularists to be the "dominant worldview in our society." So I guess the way to do that is to shut them down and deny them their rights at every opportunity. Apparently, for Christians, religious freedom is a swell concept, as long as we're talking about Christians being on the receiving end of it. Everybody else is clearly out of luck. And for the record, my "free sex lifestyle" has ended. I'm strictly pay-as-you-go now.

PREACHER: You should realize that historically, societies where Islam or secularism have been the starting base and the dominant worldview, religious freedom doesn't exist.

SKEPTIC: Clearly what's happening in America is that the War on Terror is rapidly morphing into a War on Muslims. It's a vicious and dangerous turn of events, and plays right into the hands of the terrorists, who can go out and proclaim to their potential recruits, "You see, Americans really do hate all Muslims. You must join us in our cause!"

One very clear indication of this morphing is the incident in New York City recently when a taxi driver was stabbed after telling the attacker, a young man named Michael Enright, that he was Muslim. Anti-Muslim violence and attitudes are escalating at a dangerous rate.

PREACHER: Michael Enright is not your typical fundamentalist conservative that would be incited to violence from the Islamophobic influences that he got at his church or from the conservative media. He was a sophisticated honors college student, well-studied in post-modernism, that did volunteer work in Afghanistan with Intersections International, an organization committed to breaking down walls of fear and prejudice. His actions seem quite definitely out of character from what you would expect.

Why did he do what he did even after being involved in an organization that stands for peace and tolerance? Could it be that during his time in Afghanistan, working alongside the US military, that he developed a deep hatred for Muslims as he saw the carnage there? Add to that the fact that he was apparantly intoxicated when he committed the crime. Wasn't he just living out his version of the moral relativism that he had been taught in secular schools? Do whatever comes naturally and label it OK after the event (except this was definitely not OK). Isn't he just an example of moral relativism gone amuck?

SKEPTIC: No, he's an example of anti-Muslim hysteria gone amuck. You know, I thought we were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to help Muslims to have a better life. How are we supposed to win hearts and minds in those countries when they see the blatant anti-Muslim feelings on display by a large segment of the American people?

PREACHER: Then the Muslims certainly have their public relations work cut out for them. Why aren't they demonstrating to us how nice they are? Why aren't the Mullahs preaching peace in the mosques instead of incitement? Why is the whole country of Saudi Arabia off limits for Christian mission work? Why don't oil rich Moslem countries take care of their own people better? It is traditionally Christian countries (United States, Canada, ...) not Moslem countries that are sending most of the aid to the victims of floods in Pakistan. Like that poor taxi driver there are many Muslims who are decent people who want to get along with Christians and Jews. However, the message that I get from their world- renowned religious leaders is the United States is the big Satan and Israel is the little Satan. And Allah commands that both be converted to Islam or destroyed.

I also find it very intriguing that so many secularists are making such a big fuss over trying not to be Islamophobic. Why not also be careful about not being Christophobic. Become a bridge between the two religious groups instead of criticizing what you don't understand.

SKEPTIC: Well, I'll tell you what. You Christians go ahead and fight it out with all those other religions that you hate so much. We secularists will watch from the bleachers and pick up the pieces when you all are done - if there's anything left to pick up.

What Was Dr. Laura Thinking?

2010-08-25T14:47:00.002+09:00

SKEPTIC: Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a prominent, socially conservative talk-show host who has been doling out advice to women about their relationships for the last 3 decades. She got in big trouble recently when she went nuts and used the n-word 11 times in a 5-minute span (CLICK HERE TO LISTEN) - with many people observing that that was the LEAST offensive part of her rant. It was her whole tone that peeled back the onion and revealed the ugly racism residing in her heart. So she made a big apology, and then surprised everyone by telling Larry King that she was quitting her radio show when her contract expires in December, because she wanted to "get back her free speech rights," which made no sense to anyone (except Sarah Palin, of course, who felt compelled to defend her).

Before we start, maybe we should establish a working definition for racism.

PREACHER: According to my definition of "racist" one needs to believe and promote the idea that different skin color denotes inferiority. Some have in the past even suggested that certain "races" are not as far along on the evolutionary scale and still would be technically animals, hence not too long ago certain humans were actually put on dislay in zoo cages by the leading evolutionists of the day. I don't think Dr. Laura really believes that blacks are inferior, she was just frustrated with how some blacks persist in making themselves victims of the rest of society. Too bad she let out her frustration on that particular caller.

SKEPTIC: I would broaden the definition of racism to include language or behavior that shows disrespect for someone based on their race. Such disrespect could certainly stem from feeling that the person is inferior, but not necessarily so. I think Dr. Laura showed a tremendous amount of disrespect in her approach to the caller.

So would you like to join Sarah Palin in defending Dr. Laura, or are we both on the same page in thinking that Dr. Laura is a clueless racist who deserves all the criticism she's received?

PREACHER: I don't really feel like defending her, but I wouldn't call her a clueless racist either. It seems to me that she got herself into a pickle with the caller who was already carrying a chip on her shoulder. Having grown up in a country where my skin color was a novelty, I can identify with the caller. But, I can agree with much of what Dr. Laura said, too. I do think both of them let their emotions go beyond what is cordial. I find it interesting that you either want me to be a racist bigoted conservative or a bleeding heart liberal. Sorry, I am neither.

SKEPTIC: No, I don't want you to be either a "racist bigoted conservative or a bleeding heart conservative." I was just trying to get a read on where you stood, and now I know.

How on earth do you perceive the caller to have a chip on her shoulder? That's what Dr. Laura accused her of, too, and it's ludicrous. She called to get some advice for a very specific problem - she was offended by what she perceived to be racist behavior on the part of her husband's friends, and she wanted to know how she should deal with it. But the good doctor had no interest in helping her with her problem - she was more interested in showing her ignorance by insisting that the caller was being "hypersensitive." (Oh, you silly black people - a black man is president now, so just shut up and stop your complaining!)

PREACHER: What you say about their interaction is precisely why I wouldn't defend Dr. Laura. I think she put her foot in her mouth big time. She should have been more sensitive to the caller, after all the caller was asking for help with a problem in reference to skin color. If Dr. Laura had spent some time in a place where she was the minority skin color she may have been more sensitive to the caller, but she probably never had that experience. However, to assume that Dr. Laura is a racist because of her remarks is like trying to read her mind. Her point, well made, is that sometimes blacks have been hypersensitive towards comments made by whites that were never intended as racial slurs. That was the issue that ticked Dr. Laura off. My answer to the caller would have been: Yes, I understand that it is hard to take. I have been the minority skin color before and know a little how it feels. Talk about it when you can. Sometimes, though, you just need to ignore it.

In my own experience (about twice) I have felt that a black person had been hypersensitive towards me. As a 13 year old I was punched by a black guy just because I mentioned that another fellow's skin was darker than his. And, my brother and I, as teenagers, had rocks thrown at us by black guys while we were walking down the street. We had pointed to and talked about an interesting looking car on the street and didn't see the black guys behind the car. They felt we were talking about them I guess. These were painful but valuable learning experiences for me.

SKEPTIC: To tell a black person that they're being hypersensitive when they perceive racism is to dismiss their feelings as not important. The problem, of course, is that many people say racist things or engage in racist behavior with absolutely no awareness that it's racist. That's what happened with Dr. Laura. Her whole attitude was racist, from not understanding the difference between a black comic using the n-word and a white radio host using that same word, to her comment that if the caller was hypersensitive, she "shouldn't marry out of her race."

And exactly how is telling the caller to ignore racist comments any kind of solution to the problem? A better answer would be to insist that her husband take his friends aside and tell them to knock it off!

PREACHER: Of course talking with her husband would be an appropriate way of dealing with the problem, while talking directly to his friends may egg them on (ignore is better here). The goal is to not give offense or be offended. Offense leads to offense leads to offense....

SKEPTIC: The problem with Dr. Laura is the opposite of hypersensitivity - she needs to educate herself and learn how to be more sensitive to her own racist attitudes, and maybe become a better person in the process.

PREACHER: Without excusing Dr. Laura, are you saying that the feelings of black people are more important the feelings of those who are not? Dr. Laura expressed her feelings in an inappropriate way, but nonetheless she had them. Who made you her judge? Are you suggesting that you have supernaturally read Dr. Laura's mind and know for a fact that her inappropriate words were motivated by deep seated feelings of racism? I have black friends and have learned to be on guard around them with my choice of the words, not because I need to hide any racist feelings I have towards them, but because I respect them for who they are and would never want to offend them. I learned that by interacting with them, not by "educating myself" or self-mortification. We live in an imperfect world where the mistakes of the past have left scars that are still festering. Responsible people regardless of skin color, sex, culture, nationality or religion should be working at not offending and not getting offended, building bridges rather than walls.

SKEPTIC: No, I'm not saying that the feelings of black people are important, but they certainly are more attuned to what constitutes racist behavior.

Who made me Dr. Laura's judge? Well, she did - by putting herself on the public airwaves every day. When you publicly put forth your opinions, the public is entitled to judge those opinions. It's part of the bargain you make when you do a radio show. And I certainly don't need to "supernaturally read her mind" to know that she's a racist. I mean, geez, she practically screamed, "Hey, world, look at me - I'm a big, fat racist!" - which is precisely why her entire radio empire has come crashing down.

But I can certainly agree with you that we should be "building bridges rather than walls." Unfortunately, Dr. Laura hasn't contributed to that goal.

PREACHER: Very true!

George and the Rentboy

2010-05-18T14:51:00.015+09:00

SKEPTIC: Oh dear - another high-profile, anti-gay crusader has been busted for being gay. George Reker, 61, a Baptist minister and a co-founder (along with James Dobson) of the moralistic Family Research Council, was caught coming back from a 10-day trip to Europe with a gay prostitute that he hired from a website called rentboy.com. After the news got splashed all over the media, ol' George dug deep and relied on his skills as a professional liar to come up with these doozies:

LIE #1 - He said he didn't realize until half-way through the trip that he had hired a prostitute. LIE #2 - He said he only hired him to help him carry his luggage. LIE #3 - He said he spent "a great deal of time" trying to convince the prostitute to give up his gay lifestyle and come to Jesus. His latest attempt at damage control is to point out that Jesus hung out with prostitutes, too.

Now you're perfectly free to believe his lies, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not that naive.

George was also on the board of directors of NARTH (he has recently resigned), an organization dedicated to praying the gay out of this world. But I'm guessing he can kiss his career as an "expert" on all things gay goodbye. No more testifying in court for $87,000 against the right of gays to adopt kids. No more preaching against the evils of gayness. Probably no more preaching at all. This guy is gonna make Ted Haggard look like an alter boy (okay, maybe that's a bad analogy!)

PREACHER: I think that Dr. Rekers exercised very poor judgment by contacting a male prostitute in the way he did. Christians are to avoid even giving the appearance of evil. He messed the situation up even more by the lies you mention. (Lie #1 and #2 are substatiated, but lie #3 is not. In order to prove it a lie you would need to have had access to what they did in private.)

This scenario reminds me of something I heard about in college. Two Christian guys were meeting in one of their rooms in the dorm in college. They were meeting for Bible study and prayer. However, since they didn't have girlfriends and weren't active in the dating scene, some of the partying scene guys in the dorm concluded that they were gay, that their regular private times together were engaged in sex. They cleared that up by meeting in a public place for the rest of the semester, so that everyone could see what they were really doing.

If Dr. Rekers had the foresight, he might have videoed all of his private time with the male prostitute. My point is, when people accuse others of sexual activity in private, it reveals more about the accuser than the accused. And, since you really believe that fulfilling the sex drive according to ones sexual orientation is necessary for true happiness and should never be suppressed, Dr. Rekers would have no doubt done just that, finally succumbing to his sexual orientation that he had been suppressing for years.

SKEPTIC: I'm guessing that George is glad he DIDN'T videotape his encounters with the rentboy, especially after the graphic descriptions of what occurred.

But you must be concerned at the damage these people are doing to the credibility of the whole Christian anti-gay argument. Why should anyone take seriously anything that these people have to say on the matter? Rekers, Haggard, Craig, Foley and the rest were not your run-of-the-mill Christians - they were leaders of the movement and men of great power. If even they can't change their sexual orientation, how can you make the argument that sexual orientation is something that is chosen and can be changed?

I will admit to some feelings of schadenfreude, but I also have a certain amount of pity for Rekers. He is, after all, a victim of his own upbringing and theology. If I may engage in a bit of pop psychology, he is probably filled with self-loathing and guilt about his sexual orientation and has overcompensated by aggressively opposing civil rights for the gay community. Now he's paying the price for the naked hypocrisy that is the natural result of such actions.

PREACHER: I would be critical too of Rekers (for hiring a male prostitute) for what was obviously a bad slip of judgment. But to call him a hypocritical gay-basher who is actually a closet gay is blatant gossip. There is no way to prove that unless one can supernaturaly read his mind. And you would claim that would be impossible, right? Those who spread such gossip are showing more about there own lack of character than of the one whom they accuse.

SKEPTIC: So let me get this straight...

Rekers has the rentboy sign a contract that requires him to give him daily massages in the nude. These massages included what Rekers called "the long stroke," which was a motion across his butt, thighs, and penis. This is the account from the rentboy and Rekers doesn't deny it. So how exactly is this gossip? Are you seriously maintaining that Rekers isn't gay? He hired the guy from a freaking gay prostitute website!! He says he's going to sue for defamation, and I hope he does - because I want him to have to spout his bullshit in a court of law. But he never will. If he's smart, he'll just shut up and fade into oblivion.

PREACHER: If I didn't know any better I would think that you hate Rekers.

SKEPTIC: What I hate is blatant hypocrisy and attempts to find excuses for it because he's a "man of God" - especially when he's hurt a whole group of people with his attempts to deny them their civil rights.

PREACHER: So, you have expressed your opinion about Rekers. Now, exactly what is your point that you want to express to me re: the gay lifestyle through your comments about this man? Are you trying to say something about sexual orientation that you don' think I already know?

SKEPTIC: Nope, I think I understand your position pretty well now: Jesus Good - Gay Bad.

PREACHER: No. you don't understand my position. I believe that a particlular sexual orientation is neither good nor bad in itself. It is only when that sexual orientation is expressed in an immoral way (according to Biblical standards) that it becomes bad.

SKEPTIC: Right. It's okay to be gay as long as you don't have sex. That's a bit like saying "Sure, it's okay to be a Christian as long as you don't go to church."

But look, here's my radical thought: let's recognize that we live in the 21st-century - not the first century. And we live in a democratic secular society - not a Christian theocracy. America is a melting pot of different races, religions, and sexual orientations. But we are all people who deserve to be happy and deserve to treated equally when it comes to our basic rights as citizens. Christians should live their lives according to their principles, but they should stop insisting that the rest of the world has to adhere to those principles as well - especially when those same Christians are leading double lives.

PREACHER: Secularists seem to always forget that they owe the freedom that they enjoy from a Christian world view that values all men as equal in the sight of their Creator (even if they act and believe a lie). As a matter of fact it is the only social context in which they can flourish. Only as long as they are still influenced by that way of valuing, that they owe to Christianity, will men continue to treat those that they disagree with with respect. When the assumption of man as created in the image of his Creator and therefore of intrinsic value is thrown out, suddenly we are left with no reason to value the dignity of other humans any longer. That is why Joseph Stalin chose to exterminate millions of people he considered as problematic. Secularists assume that their position is neutral. It is not. It is only another world view in competition with others to be in control of human society. And, it doesn't really have a very large following.

It is interesting what is happening in the bastions of secularism such as France and England. The fastest growing religion and world view in those areas is now Islam. Many experts predict that Islam will be the dominant religion in Europe within a generation. I don't think I need to remind the skeptic about how Sharia law treats gay people. I suppose there will always be a minority of the population that feels a same-sex attraction, however I think that the gay rights movement as we see it today (demanding "civil rights" to call their lifestyle good and acceptable) is a passing fad that will fade into oblivion.

SKEPTIC: Civil rights has nothing to do with "calling their lifestyle good and acceptable." It has everything to do with giving them the same rights that every other citizen enjoys, including the right to marry, the right to not be discriminated against in hiring or housing, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and much more. These are rights that make a real difference in people's lives. They hardly constitute a "passing fad."

And I'm not sure that you want to brag about the fact that Christian homophobia isn't as bad as Islamic homophobia. You may be right, but it just proves that religionists, in general, bound to their ancient books as they are, have a lot tougher time than secularists accepting people for who they are.

Also, I don't accept the notion that secularists owe their freedom to Christianity. That strikes me as more than a little arrogant. The Christian worldview "values all men as equal in the sight of their Creator?" That certainly didn't seem to be the case in the Old Testament, which didn't appear to have any problem with slavery.

Can Jennifer Knapp Love Both God and Women?

2010-04-29T23:46:00.009+09:00

(The video above is Part 1 of the Jennifer Knapp interview. Click here to watch the entire show.)

SKEPTIC: In what just might be one of the signs of the apocalypse, a prominent Christian singer, Jennifer Knapp, admitted that she is a lesbian. Not only did she admit it, but she didn't apologize for it and has no intention of repenting of her "sin." In fact, she doesn't even consider it to be a sin. She says she's still a "person of faith" and believes that there should be room for her in a church that preaches love as the ultimate value. So the question is being asked: Can someone truly be a Christian and an unrepentant gay person, or is "gay Christian" an oxymoron?

The Internet has been on fire with Christian angst over this fallen woman, with people condemning her and telling her that she's headed for the fiery furnace. Christian love on full display. A few days ago, she appeared on Larry King Live, alongside a conservative Christian preacher named Bob Botsford, who continually tried to insist that she must repent of her evil ways. She remained remarkably calm in the face of his less-than-loving onslaught.

Here's a typical reaction from the conservative Christian community. It was written by Mario Herrera at biblicalthought.com...

Jennifer, there is no escaping what the Scripture reveals. You laugh and smile about the sin you are in. In reality, you have faith, but not a faith that originates from the God of Scripture. Your leadership is deceived and if you and they do not repent, I will tell you what Bob Botsford did not tell you, you will suffer eternal perdition in Hell along with them. Your homosexuality is an outward manifestation of your unbelief. You do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God and because of this you have a God made in your own image; an idol. The Lord is a loving and gracious God, but He is also Holy and Just!

I don't know, it just seems to me that Christians (particularly of the conservative bent) are WAY too hung up on sex. You guys would do the world a giant favor if you would just stop trying to tell everyone else WHO to have sex with, WHEN to have sex, and even WHY to have sex. If Jennifer Knapp were smart (and she certainly appears to be), she would run as far away as possible from this howling pack of judgmental bigots that are attacking her. I know that's a loaded word, but many Christians fit the dictionary definition to a T: A bigot is “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Being intolerant of anyone who is not like you is bigotry, whether it’s in regard to race, class, or sexual identity. Christians, however, are so hung up on the idea that an ancient book is the final word on on every aspect of life that they can’t even recognize intolerance when they’re guilty of it. Imagine how much nicer the world would be if people lived their lives the way they see fit, and allowed others the liberty to do likewise (as long as they do no harm to others). But apparently it makes many Christians feel better to judge, berate, ridicule, and demean people who are gay. It’s a sad state of affairs.

PREACHER: Being a Christian doesn't stop you from doing wrong things, whether it be immoral sex or hating those who do immoral sex. Hating anyone, however they act, is wrong. We are supposed to love our enemies, even more so when it comes to those who may be confused or in denial about sexual morality. When Christians go after Jennifer Knapp, it has to do with them seeing how her lifestyle doesn't fit Biblical morality and commenting (sometimes with strong emotion) on it. Jennifer has twisted (not interpreted) Scripture in order to justify her lifestyle. She should be held accountable for that.

The bottom line is this: The Bible condemns homosexual acts, and no amount of reinterpreting it can change that. God loves all sinners, including those with same sex orientation. The problem comes when those who have developed a same sex attraction decide that they should embrace that and convince the rest of the world that it is good, even going so far as twisting the Bible's clear position to accomodate their lifestyle. They have a more serious problem than their sexual orientation. It is called lack of integrety. We may not agree on sexual morality, but I think we can agree on being honest, can't we?

SKEPTIC: Sure, I'm all for honesty. And so is Jennifer Knapp. It takes a lot of "integrity" to be open about who she is, knowing that she'd be creating this firestorm. I certainly admire her for that. But here's the problem - Christians always say they "love" gays, but then insist that they must repent and give up their whole identity, essentially, to get right with God. Unsurprisingly, that message doesn't usually feel like love - in fact, it usually feels like the opposite of love, and in fact, constitutes intolerance.

PREACHER: Why does sexual orientation have to define who someone is, anyway? Just because someone has a certain sexual orientation doesn't demand that they embrace it and act it out. We are more than our sexual orientation. It should and can be put in its place with all of our other appetites. Some people might find that more challenging than others. We Christians should be helping each other out rather than just judging those who have fallen into following their sexual orientation into immorality.

Suffice it to say that a Bible believing Christian is being inconsistant with his source of Truth when he calls same sex attraction good and normal. Now if you don't accept the Bible as your authority, then of course you can do whatever feels natural and label it "good" after the event.

SKEPTIC: So then why is it that many liberal Christian denominations have no problem accepting gays into their church - without the need for shame and repentance? In these churches, they are accepted for who they are - for how "God" made them. Are these churches not really Christian?

But I do agree with you when you say that "we are more than our sexual orientation." That's certainly true. Yet Christians often seem to have trouble seeing beyond that one aspect of a person.

PREACHER: I just recently read the doctrinal statement of a liberal Christian denomination. Although it says that they consider the Bible to be their authority, they also claim that it has error and out of date assumptions in it. How can something that is mistaken on major issues such as the origin of the universe and sexuality also be trusted as an authority? What they really do is pick and choose only the parts of the Bible that they feel good about and reject the rest. This is essentially what Jennifer has done. She likes the part that says Jesus has died for her sins and gives her eternal life. She doesn't like the part that says her lifestyle is sinful. It doesn't take too much wisdom to know what her real authority is. It is her opinion, isn't it?

SKEPTIC: Seriously? You're accusing them of picking and choosing from the Bible? Seems to me that that is clearly what you do when you assert your positions. But actually, I think the problem is that different people interpret the Bible in different ways. Sometimes much different. You'd think any God worth his salt would have come up with a way to communicate to the masses without causing so much confusion. So are you saying that liberal Christian denominations are not true Christians? Are they headed for hell?

PREACHER: There is a line between interpreting and twisting the Bible. When what you believe contradicts itself, that is you claim the Bible to be your authority when it really is not, you are no longer interpreting the Bible, you are making the opinions of men the final authority. God has communicated quite clearly, it is us sinful human beings who have difficulty sorting out what the Bible actually says from our opinions. I challenge you to point out how my insistence that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong is a case of picking and choosing or my opinion. I don't hate gay people, but if they insist that the Bible says their lifestyle is OK, then I know that on that point at least they have put their opinion above what the Bible says. If they also say that they accept the Bible as their authority then they are being inconsistent, contradicting themselves.

I don't think you can make a very strong case from the Bible that gay or liberal Christians will go to hell. The epistles of the New Testament are full of warnings to Christians, those who are of the faith, about falling into sin and unbelief, and losing their reward (not losing their salvation). The gift of salvation (getting into heaven) is free to all who believe that Jesus died and rose again paying the penalty for their sins, but those who believed but didn't live a life that pleases God will certainly shrink back in shame in His presence when they realize that they have lived a lie.

SKEPTIC: So I guess that's good news for gay and liberal Christians. They still get to go to heaven, but they will experience some shrinkage.

PREACHER: That is shrinkage in the sense of wanting to find a hole in the ground to hide in out of embarressment when they realize how foolish they were.

SKEPTIC: Well, let's just hope there are enough holes to hide in once they get to heaven. As to your challenge, you pick and choose from the Bible every time you insist that the biblical injunction against homosexuals be followed, but show no concern for the myriad of other silly prohibitions - like those against wearing certain kinds of clothes or eating certain kinds of food.

PREACHER: You fail to see the distinction between the moral laws that are continued in the New Testament and apply to all of God's children versus those that only applied to the nation of Israel. For instance, I am not picking and choosing when I follow what the New Testament says that we no longer need to follow the Old Testament dietary laws, circumcision, etc.

SKEPTIC: So I DIDN'T have to get that circumcision?? Damn, I wish my parents had read that verse before I got the old "snip snip." That was not fun. Not fun at all.

I had to smile, though, when you said that "God has communicated quite clearly, it is us sinful human beings who have difficulty sorting out what the Bible says from our opinions." You can't really have it both ways. If God had communicated quite clearly, then no one should be having even a little difficulty understanding the meaning. But maybe God just enjoys watching all the confusion. It might just be a form of cheap entertainment for him.

PREACHER: May I suggest that before you call the Bible unclear and silly that you refresh your memory by reading it. It is mostly unclear to those who don't want to believe or obey it.

SKEPTIC: I dare say that I'm more familiar with The "Good" Book than many Christians. But may I be serious for a moment? Thank you.

Imagine that you're the Christian parent of a beautiful 22-year-old daughter. She's a fine Christian girl who is the apple of your eye. She has lots of fine Christian friends and nobody has anything bad to say about her. She is cherished by one and all.

One day she comes to you and tells you that dark secret that you had kind of suspected, but had never asked her about. She's in love with another woman. She's a lesbian. She explains to you that she's felt drawn to women for many years. Although she has some male friends, she has never had any romantic attraction to them.

You, as a Christian parent, now have 2 distinct options. Let's follow them to their logical conclusions...

Option A: You can talk to her about her feelings in a non-judgmental and caring way. You can perhaps assure her that God still loves her and watches over her. You can maybe even say that you love her just as much as before, and in fact, you're happy that she's found a wonderful partner to share her life and dreams with. The natural result of this option would be for her to feel much relief now that she has finally come out to you and to the world with her true self - and she would no doubt go on to live a happy and healthy life with a person she cared deeply about. Plus she would have a very healthy relationship with you, her father.

Option B: You sit down with your daughter and explain that the Bible says it's a sin to be a lesbian - and that she must break off her relationship at once. Furthermore, she must repent to God and ask his forgiveness. She must understand that it's unnatural for her to love a woman, and it means that Satan is attacking her. She must NEVER give in to those feelings for women. If she does, she risks the eternal wrath of God and may end up in hell. The natural result of this option would be for your daughter to feel immense guilt and shame. She'd probably try to change her feelings - maybe even go to some church-sponsored program that promises to make her straight. She reads her Bible and prays about it every day. But nothing works. She longs for the woman whom she cast out of her life. As she experiences more and more rejection from her family and friends, she falls into a deep depression, begins to look for solace in a bottle or with drugs, and one day a few years later, jumps from the 20th-floor window of a hotel room.

PREACHER: You have presented me with a false dichotomy. Either I need to accept her homosexuality as good, or at least OK, or I can reject it and risk having her feel rejected and maybe even committing suicide. Can't I choose a middle ground that affirms her as my beloved daughter, while still agreeing with the Bible that her lifestyle is immoral? I know of conservative Christians who have done just that, and their son or daughter are getting along fine with them, still caring for each other just the same. Christians have the assurance that Christ's grace covers everything about us, including a sexual orientation which we cannot seem to change.

I see that you dogmatically hold to your false assumption that sexual orientation is a "sealed in stone" fixed trait that can't be altered. And, if it is suppressed or controlled will lead to severe psychological damage. Therefore it is healthy to embrace and express it. However you allow that only for same-sex attraction. I guess pedophiles have no choice but to suppress their sexual orientation, commit an offence and be put on the sexual predator list, or go out and commit suicide.

So what exactly is "sexual orientation" anyway? There is no evidence of a "gay" gene. (That is why I call your assumption false.) It seems to me that the concept is very much a product of our present feel-good psycho culture.

Everyone is taught that they have a sexual orientation (gay or straight), and it is too wonderful to not express and embrace. Every relationship seems to be sexualized. If you say you love someone, it is almost assumed to be a sexual relationship. Is that really healthy? Is the sexual experience really that central and crucial for human happiness? Or, probably this present obsession with it is nothing more than a passing fad.

Skeptic: Firstly - YES, the sexual experience really is that central and crucial for human happiness. I think that's actually kind of obvious. And what happens with most people who feel pressured to change their sexual orientation is that they end up being celibate rather than embracing what they are being told is "unnatural" and "sinful." Do you think they are happy? I seriously doubt it.

Secondly - I don't know how a son or daughter can have a healthy relationship with their parents if accusations of "immorality" are constantly swirling about them.

But if you think changing your sexual orientation is so easy, imagine for a moment that you live in a different society where heterosexuality has been labeled "sinful." Their sacred book says that men loving women is an "abomination." How easy would it be for you to change your orientation to become gay? How would you go about that, exactly? A person is either attracted to men or attracted to women. You can't force someone to just flip a switch and change that. Of course, some people are apparently attracted to both - which just gives them a lot more options, I suppose.

How to Use the Bible Like Flying Ninja Stars

2010-04-23T14:58:00.012+09:00

SKEPTIC: I recently had a very strange email exchange with an old friend from my high school days - more than 40 years ago. Her name was Kathy, and she was part of the group I hung out with at church - back when I was a churchgoer. I remembered her as a really fun and vivacious girl, and so when I acquired her email address through a mutual friend, I was excited to get in touch again.

I sat down and penned a very long and friendly email, catching her up on what I've been up to for the last 40 years. Along the way, I briefly explained that my worldview vis a vis God and religion had changed quite considerably in the last four decades. I sent the email into cyberspace and waited for her reply.

Finally, after one full month had passed, I received a reply. A pretty weird reply, but a reply nonetheless. The whole email consisted of a series of Bible verses, flung at me like those little flying ninja stars. The verses were definitely not very friendly. They contained words like "godlessness," "wickedness," "unrighteousness," and "depraved." There was no message, no greeting, no signature. Just the Bible verses. Apparently she had decided that since her and I no longer shared the same belief system, I was not worthy of her attention, even after 40 years, and it was her solemn responsibility to put me in my place.

PREACHER: Well, it looks like she is definitely giving you the boot, at least for as long as you hold to your "enlightened" world view. It is typical of Christians to respond with Bible verses since we believe that the Word of God is the most powerful tool to convict sinners. It would have been nice of her to respond personally, but I suppose she didn't feel up to discussing the issues with you.

SKEPTIC: Well, I didn't even indicate that I wanted to discuss it. It was just part of my life story that I thought she might be interested in. I wouldn't even have minded a couple of Bible verses thrown in to illustrate a point she wanted to make - but to reply with nothing but very angry and accusatory verses was pretty strange, I thought. I was confused at first, then insulted, and then angry.

PREACHER: It is unfortunate that some Christians feel intimidated by non-believers. I think that is what happened with her, and so her response. A lot of Christians, particularly in the United States, rather than being a witness to their faith, react by trying to protect themselves from the "onslaught" of secularism and the influence of other religions. In this day they seem to be particularly afraid of Moslems (hence classes on how to befriend Moslems offered at some churches). Such reactions of fear speak of a weak faith and ignorance of basic Biblical truths.

That being said, wouldn't you admit that atheists have a lot to do to improve their public image? Still, for a lot of church-going folks the word "atheist" conjures up such names as Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler. I'm sure you would agree that getting insulted and angry doesn't do much for that image either. You might have made a better reconnect with her if you hadn't introduced your new found understanding to her quite so soon.

SKEPTIC: So Christians defame atheists by linking them to Stalin and Hitler, but it's atheists who need to improve their public image? Seems to me that the poor image of atheists was created by the religious community - and it's up to them to stop unfairly demonizing atheists. If atheists were to continually assert that Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity, you would be within your rights to demand that they stop making such an unfair linkage. And it certainly wouldn't be fair for atheists to insist that, because of McVeigh, Christians need to "improve their public image." And for the record, while there is conflicting evidence, it appears that Hitler was much more sympathetic to Christianity than to atheism.

Also, why do you say that "getting insulted and angry doesn't do much for that image, either?" If someone disrespects me, don't I have a right to have those feelings? It's human nature to react that way. It has nothing to do with atheism or religion. And as to your suggestion that I shouldn't have told her my deep dark secret so soon - well, perhaps I might not have if I had known that she wasn't mature enough to handle it - but it's a new day for atheists - we're coming out of the closet, we're speaking out, we're not hiding from the world. "We're here, don't fear, get used to it!" (Hey, that's kind of catchy!)

PREACHER: So, the religious community have made atheists their victims! How pathetic! I heartily encourage and applaud atheists for coming out of the closet and with their "greater enlightenment" getting over and beyond being unfairly demonized by the "unenlightened" religious community.

However, your worldview does present you with some challenges. If indeed we are nothing but the product of natural processes over the eons, how does that process of origin give us any rights or dignity in the first place? Since I believe that you are created in the image of God, I really do believe that entitles you to some kind of dignity and rights. But, as I understand, your worldview doesn't require me to give you any dignity and rights. Neither does it require you to give me dignity and rights. Joseph Stalin consistently lived out that worldview by putting to death millions of people whom he considered problematic. Wouldn't you agree that Timothy McVeigh and Adolph Hitler did not consistently live the Christian worldview?

I appreciate "good" atheists. But, I am quite sure that they are "good" because of the influence of Christian ethics and morality in the society that they grew up in, not their worldview. Is there a new day coming for atheism? Maybe temporarily. From the point of view of eternity, it could never be more than a temporary glitch in time.

SKEPTIC: So dignity and rights are only available or required if they come from God? That's a novel idea.

But you seem to have missed my point regarding the image of atheists. I wasn't claiming victimhood - I was merely pointing out that it's silly to tell atheists that they should "improve their image" when it's the religious community that has created that false image.

I love the way you always put quotes around words like "enlightened." You obviously consider your belief system the only one worthy of consideration. And I'm really happy that you appreciate "good" atheists, as if such a thing is some kind of bizarre anomaly. But then to claim that the only way atheists can achieve goodness is courtesy of Christianity is yet one more example of how Christians view themselves as better than "the others."

Which brings us full circle to my old friend, Kathy. Both her and you demonstrate such arrogance in your worldview. Christians have turned self-righteousness into an art form - to the point where anyone who doesn't agree with you is not just wrong, but headed for eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell. It's not a very attractive quality, but I suspect that you can't do much about it, since it's kind of built into the theology.

In any event, I'm glad to see that you have apparently moved Hitler from the "atheist" column into the "Christian" column. (Watch the above video for an interesting discussion on Stalin and Hitler.)

PREACHER: As an atheist who considers himself truly superior, wouldn't you consider it your perogative to do all you can to correct that false image created by the religious community? That is what I really welcome, and some of you are trying to do that! Yes, that "superiority" you find in Christians is built into the theology. After all, Christ who is eternal has given us eternal life and significance. By your own admission your opinions, even your very existence, are only extremely temporary and therefore insignificant.

SKEPTIC: So my existence and my opinions only have value if they are eternal, but if they come with an expiration date, then they are completely insignificant. Have I got that part right? Do you know how many times I was taught in my church that this life on earth is "insignificant," and that it was merely a "dress rehearsal" for the afterlife? (Answer: a lot!) So then it would follow, would it not, that anyone who didn't believe in an afterlife would attach considerably more significance to this earthly life. So whose existence is more "significant?"

And, no, I don't consider myself to be superior, while you have just admitted that you, indeed, do. Thinking you have all the answers is what breeds arrogance. Someone once said that "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered, while religion is answers that can never be questioned." Atheists are asking questions, looking for answers, and willing to change their worldview if the evidence merits it. Christians, on the other hand, are given the answers and told not to ask questions. Just accept it. And if you come across contradictory evidence, just ignore it.

So, my old friend Kathy, thanks for the flying ninja stars. If you ever want to have an actual conversation, you've got my email address. I won't bite. Really.

Does Immorality Cause Atheism?

2010-03-07T18:00:00.013+09:00

PREACHER: I challenge you to read this book: The Making of An Atheist by James S. Speigel. And make sure that you read it all. I am thoroughly disgusted with those who refuse to even read what their opponents say.

SKEPTIC: Okay. I've put it on my Kindle. I must say, though, that the title seems to be intentionally deceptive. "The Making of an Atheist" sounds like a book written by an atheist about atheism, not a book attacking atheism. And I've already taken offense to his description of atheism in his summary:

"I give an account as to how the delusion [atheism] occurs, showing that atheistic rejection of God is precipitated by immoral indulgences, usually combined with some deep psychological disturbances, such as a broken relationship with one’s father."

Seriously? Atheists are immoral and psychologically disturbed people? I wonder if he could be any more insulting. "A broken relationship with one's father?" Isn't that the same causation that Christians attribute to gays (sorry...homosexuals)? Imagine the poor gay atheist! What a tragic messed-up life he must have had!

PREACHER: The title is not deceptive! The front of the book says, "How Immorality Leads to Unbelief." What did you think that meant? And yes, it's true! Gay atheists do have tragic messed-up lives. Even if they are having fun in the present, their futures are very bleak (unless they get the grace to repent). You really need to get over being offended and insulted by what your opponents say. We have no law that it is immoral to offend a non-believer. If offending you helps you come to the truth, then wouldn't it be good for you? And for the record, what you say sometimes offends and insults us, too. So get over it. We do.

SKEPTIC: Fine, if Speigel wants to call me a moral degenerate just because I don't believe in his fairy tales, I'm sure he won't get offended if I call him a pompous jackass. And by the way, atheists do not "reject God." How can you reject something you believe doesn't exist? Atheists reject the IDEA of God. Christians seem to think that atheists secretly believe in God, but have decided to tell The Big Guy, "Thanks, but no thanks."

PREACHER: Rejecting God and rejecting the IDEA of God sound the same to me. I suppose that the latter is a less emotionally charged way of rejecting. No real difference.

SKEPTIC: As long as we're recommending reading material, I'll recommend to you Bertrand Russell's classic essay from a lecture he delivered in London in 1927, the much more honestly titled "Why I Am Not a Christian."

PREACHER: Bertrand Russell was quite the intellect, activist, and "free thinker". He is also a textbook case for James Speigel. The web site you directed me to says that "He was married 4 times and had 3 children." Another source calls him a "misogynist and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age". Also, his father died when he was 4 years old.

SKEPTIC: First of all, who is this mysterious source that called him a "misogynist and a serial adulterer?" Not a fan of his, I'm guessing.

PREACHER: If you had actually read Spiegel's book you would know.

SKEPTIC: May I have more than a couple of days to finish it? But I guess your point is that all atheists must be degenerates, which apparently is also the point of the book, which claims that atheists "reject God" because of immorality in their lives. But come on, if I were to point out examples of prominent Christians who have had similar life experiences (and they wouldn't be hard to find - Ted Haggard comes immediately to mind), would that then prove that all Christians are degenerates, or that immorality caused them to become Christians? Of course not. As for his (Bertrand Russell) seducing young women into old age - Hey, that sounds like me, so I guess I'd have to consider him a role model!

PREACHER: Actually, ones own sinfulness (immorality) is a very good reason to become a Christian. Romans 3:30 says that all mankind have sinned. There is no one who is not degenerate. Unlike atheists, we don't have to maintain a facade of "I'm okay the way I am." We admit that we need a Savior.

SKEPTIC: Ah yes, original sin. We're all born degenerates. Only Jesus can save us from ourselves. Gee, if only God had had the foresight to make Adam and Eve perfect!

PREACHER: After reading his essay, I was struck by one of Russell's statements. He said, "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy." Is this not the clearest confession of a man's rebellion against his Creator, or what?

SKEPTIC: I believe that a careful re-reading of that quote in its proper context will reveal that he was talking about the church's attitude towards morality, i.e. the church doesn't equate happiness with morality. He wrote:

It [the church] is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

PREACHER: That is in accordance with his twisted view of the church. Actually Divinely revealed morality is for our happiness in the long run. Man's rewriting of that morality to his liking will always lead to his own destruction. Russell's view of happiness is limited to just the temporal.

You may be right about the context, but my point still stands. Russell says:

"There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering."

Christians would counter him by saying that their morality is not by choice, but by Divine decree. Russell sees that morality as causing unnecessary suffering. One such suffering that is very personal for him is that that morality condemns his sexual lifestyle and many other practices that he would like to condone. If there is indeed no Divinely given law then he has a point, but he must first prove that the Divine hasn't communicated moral laws to us and probably doesn't exist. He hasn't done that. Rather, as Speigel would agree, he starts with his opinion and lifestyle as the ultimate authority and rejects anything that contradicts it. In so doing, he elevates anyone's opinion, including people like Adolph Hitler (unless he claims to be the moral authority for all men) to an authoritative status. Besides a sexually promiscuous lifestyle you share something else in common with him. You both don't really know for sure if anything is right or wrong. You just have your temporary opinions that have actually been quite influenced by Biblical morality. I am thankful for that. In another life context, completely void of Christian moral consensus, you could be a cannibal, or a Stalin.

This is getting interesting.

SKEPTIC: I agree, if by "interesting" you mean "tiresome." All this nonsense about Christians possessing the only true "authority" when it comes to morality is exactly the kind of thing that turns people against the Christian religion. When you boil it down to its essence, Christianity tells people, "We're the only true religion. All you other guys are nuts. You've been duped by Satan and you're all going to hell. And furthermore, if you're not a Christian, you can't really be a good person. We Christians are the only possessors of goodness."

PREACHER: Let me congratulate at getting the point at least partially right. Oh yeah, Divine decree is absolutely unthinkable to you. So it always ends up being the opinion of Christians rather than the decree or revelation of God. Now, what makes your opinion anymore compelling than ours? What is your source of authority in moral matters? As someone who really believes that his existence is temporary, what right do you have to oppose that which is eternal?

SKEPTIC: Look, you say I don't have a moral authority and I say you have a made-up moral authority. We're both still entitled to our opinions on the subject. In any event, I don't believe Russell would describe his lifestyle as "suffering," and when he talks about the church inflicting suffering on people, I suspect he's talking about things like their doctrines on birth control and such, not to mention all the wars that have been fought in the name of God.

PREACHER: Listening to guys like Russell, and many other of his types, would make you think that the church has some kind of a monopoly on inflicting suffering on people. LOL

SKEPTIC: And by the way, I WISH my lifestyle could be described as "sexually promiscuous!" I'd be having a lot more fun!

PREACHER: Maybe you should write James Spiegel and he can add you to his list of famous atheists like: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Aldous Huxley. Here is the link to his blog: http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/

Mother Nature or Father God?

2010-01-15T15:32:00.005+09:00

SKEPTIC: The horrific earthquake in Haiti has people once again asking the question, "Why does God allow suffering in the world?" Pat Robertson believes that Haitians are being punished by God because they made a pact with the devil hundreds of years ago, which seems nutty, but the idea of divine punishment is one of the common Christian responses to the question of suffering. According to the priest in the video above, we're just too stupid to understand why God allows suffering. We are to God as cats are to us. He may have a point, though. I've often thought that my cat sees me as a god.

PREACHER: Atheists claim that God mustn't exist or else there wouldn't be so much suffering in the world. It would be a much nicer place. This argument is flawed from the start. It assumes that in order for God to exist, He has to meet certain arbitrary human standards. It would be like if I had a first time visitor to my home who has come unannounced. On seeing the dirty dishes in the kitchen, a pile of dirty laundry in the utility room, and stuff scattered in all the rooms, he assumes that since a wife must be clean and neat, my wife certainly doesn't exist.

The argument also assumes that God is in some way accountable to humans to perform properly for them. God is in no way obligated to be good and loving to us. And, since He is the final and absolute authority on all things, He can call Himself good and loving, and objectively be so, without human approval.

SKEPTIC: So God is like a messy housewife? I guess I'm surprised that your wife is apparently such a poor housekeeper, but perhaps even more surprised and somewhat dismayed that you apparently are not in the habit of lending her a helping hand. Typical husband!

PREACHER: Thank you for acknowledging man's (husband's) responsibility in the mess the world is in. However, the visitor is an intruder into the private life of a family. How clean the residents of the house keep their home is really none of his business in the first place. Of course, if their mess becomes a public nuisance then he can call the health department and have them required to clean up the mess or else. That is what you call appealing to an authority that has the power to correct a problem. And, this is where the atheist is out of luck. Since he believes in a universe that came about by just natural random means where no moral authority exists, he has no moral authority to say that something is truly right or wrong. He is a temporary intruder into God's world, since he doesn't acknowledge Him. It is really none of his business. And, although I may acknowledge his opinion as having some sort of meaning, it is only temporary. Don't you believe that every adult alive today will cease to exist before this century ends?

SKEPTIC: Well, yes, I guess I do believe that, but you lost me. What's the point of your question?

PREACHER: The point of the question is that since you consider your existence temporary, your opinions about the situation in the world are also temporary and therefore ultimately meaningless.

SKEPTIC: Oh, that again. Well, look, if my opinions are meaningless, I'm not sure what the point of debating you is. Maybe you should just debate yourself.

But getting back to the question of suffering - the most popular arguments from the pro-God side usually have to do with free will or suffering as a punishment from God - or sometimes even that suffering is redemptive, in the same way that Christ's suffering supposedly redeemed man of his sins. Some even argue that God allows suffering in order to bring about some sort of "greater good." (Try telling that to the mothers whose babies are buried in the Haitian rubble.)

But your argument seems to be different. You seem to be saying that God allows suffering because he can (and apparently wants to), and who do we think we are to question him! He's God, and so he can do whatever the heck he wants, and we should just shut up and accept that fact.

PREACHER: I would like to commend you on your knowledge of the most popular arguments on the pro-God side. That will save me time in repeating them here. You seem to think that suffering is bad. Your amoral universe doesn't rationally allow you to pronounce suffering as either bad or good.

SKEPTIC: I see. So I'm not "allowed" to say that suffering is bad because I live in an amoral universe. Right. Of course, all this arguing is somewhat futile. Christians, when faced with these tough questions, tie themselves in knots trying to explain it. But once you can accept that God is just a concept invented by man, it's easy to explain why bad things happen. They happen because life is a series of random events. Good things and bad things happen to everyone at some point in their lives. It's irrational to try to blame (or credit) some sort of invisible magic spirit for everything that happens.

PREACHER: Funny, but I don't feel like I have tied myself in knots. God's explanations seem very rational and logical to me. He is beyond just being blamed or credited for how things are. He set the agenda before we existed and had anything to say. You might like to explain to me how you get order out of randomness, personality and rationality out of impersonal irrational forces, and morality out of an amoral universe. Talk about tying yourself in knots!

SKEPTIC: Well, okay, you can believe that God's explanation is rational and logical and that science is just a bunch of crap. That's certainly your prerogative. When it comes to the question of suffering, I'll admit that I do have a certain amount of admiration for the ability of Christians to make excuses for their God when faced with logical conundrums. As for me, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that there was no God who decided to punish and exterminate all those poor Haitians for whatever reason he might have. I believe that it was Mother Nature, not Father God, who was responsible for this disaster.

PREACHER: Although a lot of scientists happen to be atheists, science assumes a Biblical world view that guarantees that the world of nature can be understood. A universe of random events by its very nature cannot be understood by the rational human mind. Therefore to assume that the universe came about by random natural causes is irrational. That is one reason why many scientist who started out as atheists have become believers. Atheists do a lot of speculation about how the world may have come about, but in the final analysis they can't really know anything for sure, since they deny the very One who gives them and their research meaning. They have no moral authority. My Moral Authority calls such irrationality inexcusable foolishness (Psalms 14:1, Romans 1:20).

I am comfortable not knowing for sure who is responsible for the many disasters that have happened in history. Those who lost their loved ones in Haiti don't really need to know that. They need real practical help to survive, and especially know-how to be better prepared for the future. Even if we may be upset with God for allowing such tragedies, you will have to admit that He is faithful and true. Jesus promised that there would be disasters like earthquakes, famines, and pestilences throughout history. So, I am not particularly surprised (though saddened) when such disasters occur. I trust Him even when I don't understand.

SKEPTIC: Well, given that I don't believe in God, I'm certainly not upset with him and likewise, I don't have to admit that he's faithful and true. And to claim that science is irrational when they attempt to explain the universe, but Christians are totally rational when they claim that the universe is run by some sort of supernatural being that can't be explained or understood by the mind of man is, well, ridiculous.

You know, even though I say I don't believe in God, I don't know absolutely, positively if he exists or not (and neither do you, by the way). But watching the devastation in Haiti isn't putting any points on the board for The Big Kahuna.

Hell: Fact or Fiction?

2009-12-21T13:49:00.015+09:00

SKEPTIC: It seems to me that Christianity is based on a system of bribes and threats. If you believe, you get to live in heaven forever after you die and if you don't, well, sorry, but God will torture you forever in a fiery pit called hell.

It's the latter option that I think is particularly offensive, and which is a giant disconnect for many people who might otherwise be open to joining the ranks. I have a really hard time trying to get my head around the idea that a "just" and "loving" God wants to forever torture a good and loving person just because he believes in a different religion or no religion at all. Seriously? God is so spiteful that he will torture billions of people forever? If our earthly father acted in such a heinous fashion, he'd be arrested for child abuse.

PREACHER: What is the difference between a bribe and a reward, or of a threat and a warning? Is it not based on the authority and character of the one giving it? When the IRS warns me to be honest in my tax return, I take it seriously because there are stiff penalties based on law if I am caught cheating. Likewise, when the IRS allows tax deductions for charitable giving I see it as a reward for doing something the IRS recognizes as worthwhile. If some incredulous person tried to lure me to do something wrong to get money, that would be a bribe. If someone with no credentials told me to pay them money or else ...., that would be a threat. The only reason you see God's promises and warnings as bribes and threats is because you have rejected His authority and don't believe that He exists.

Doesn't atheism come with its own set of bribes and threats? If you assume that your Creator doesn't exist, then you can enjoy lots of sex in your favorite color without feeling guilty. Atheism's ultimate threat is, "If you've believed in God all your life and He doesn't exist after all, won't you be very hurt and disappointed?" Quite an empty threat for someone who knows God personally!

I don't think you can equate God's judgment of guilty sinners (and since all men are sinners His judgment is just) with child abuse. We don't become His children until we believe on His name and accept Christ's substitutionary death on the cross for our sins (that act demonstrates His love). Otherwise we are just His creation. Since He made us, He has the right to do with us as He chooses. If you believe it is a woman's right to terminate the life of her child in the womb, shouldn't God have the right to withhold eternal life and blessings to those who refuse to seek and acknowledge Him?

SKEPTIC: "Bribe/reward" - "threat/warning", you're arguing semantics. But the bottom line remains (according to mainstream Christian theology), God is going to punish billions of very nice earthlings by torturing them over a fiery flame in some sort of demented barbecue for all eternity. Just because they didn't find their way to the one and only "true" religion - Christianity. Sorry mormons, muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists. Pack your bags and get your passport stamped - you're goin' to hell.

This doesn't seem just a wee bit sadistic to you?

As far as your contention that atheism employs comparable bribes and threats, you're saying that getting to have lots of sex is comparable to going to heaven? Hmm...okay, you got me there. That's a perfectly solid comparison. I'm down with that. Seriously. But to then compare being "hurt and disappointed" to being baked alive in an eternal oven - I dunno. I'm not quite seeing the equality there.

PREACHER: I think you missed my point. It wasn't about equality, it was about the disparity between our views that I was talking about.

SKEPTIC: I'm still looking for some sort of logical justification for this horrendous theology. You justify it by saying that "Since He made us, He has the right to do with us as He chooses," which I suppose is the justification that any abusive parent would make, to use an earlier analogy.

PREACHER: He is not a parent under the authority of the state or human opinion, He is the Creator - the ultimate authority.

SKEPTIC: Well, I suppose you're right. It would be hard to drag God into a court of law and hold him accountable for his transgressions, since he gets to overrule pretty much anything in the universe. I guess it's the ultimate veto. He's God and so if he wants to torture billions of people for eternity, I guess that's just fine with you. You'll just trust that he knows what he's doing.

You conclude by arguing, in some sort of odd comparison to abortion, that God should "have the right to withhold eternal life and blessings to those who refuse to seek and acknowledge Him." Once again, we are in agreement! If Christian theology taught that non-Christians wouldn't get an invitation to the big party in heaven - fine. That's fair. But to then require them to be tortured forever seems a bit rude.

PREACHER: Certainly from a secular humanistic perspective God is not good. (You probably have a book with that as its title sitting on your bookshelf.) And, not only is the final state of unbelievers unbearably cruel, history is full of terrible sufferings of humanity - disease, natural disasters for which it would seem reasonable to blame the Almighty directly.

Then there is man's inhumanity to man. That God doesn't seem to intervene suggests that if He exists at all He mustn't be very great. And, the state of man doesn't seem to improve. The 20th century has been labeled the most violent of all history. I don't see a change for the better in the 21st century so far. Even today a growing majority of the human race barely eeks out an existence while a privileged minority like you and I can enjoy a life abundance. Isn't that reality? And, those who try to make this reality better are called "good". How ironic for you that very many of those who are trying to make the world better are also followers of this evil religion that says there is a day of Divine judgment on all of humanity and those who are not acceptable to Him (that includes everyone who have not accepted His Son) have a very uncomfortable eternity.

The eternal all-knowing almighty God who has revealed Himself in creation, history, and more specifically in the Bible doesn't really need our seal of approval. He can do whatever He wants (even what may seem sadistic to us) and still pronounce only Himself good. (It is interesting that Jesus said that there is no one good except God.) Our opinions about how He manages the universe are irrelevant to Him. And if we cease to exist when we die as you believe, then our complaints are at most only a temporary annoyance to Him.

I find His revealed explanation about why the world is in such a big mess very reasonable. He created a perfect world that He called very good. It was ruined by man's choice to rebel against Him, but He promises to restore everything to perfection again. What is really amazing though is that He promises that those of us - part of this ruined creation that needs to go to the incinerator, who put our trust in His Son and what He sacrificed for us, get to stick around with Him for the rest of eternity enjoying His restored creation. He is more than just good. He is unbelievably merciful.

SKEPTIC: You begin by making a pretty good case for atheism, but then conclude that all the horrible things that happen in the world can be laid at the feet of man. God is just an innocent bystander. If Adam and Eve had just had the good sense to not eat that darned fruit, all the horrible things that have befallen mankind would never have happened. D'oh!!

I'm not at all sure why you would consider it ironic that many of the people who try to help make the world a better place are Christians. Of course, there are many individual and groups who do good work in the name of Christ, just as there are many secular and humanistic people who do the same. All should be respected for the work they do.

But I do agree that you can't blame God for all the bad things that happen - since God is just someone we as a species have made up. Once you accept the fact that there is no God, you finally realize the simple truth -bad things happen sometimes, and good things happen sometimes. It's called life.

Why Do Christians Hate Gay People?

2009-11-11T22:46:00.026+09:00

SKEPTIC: I came across the above video on Tangle (formerly GodTube), a Christian video sharing site that is normally pretty conservative in its viewpoint. However, in this particular video, a Christian experiences an amazing epiphany after a gay business friend asks him, "Why do you Christians hate us so much?" As he ponders the question, he comes to realize that it's true that "Christians have treated gay people with distain and with hate." He goes on to reflect that "when someone doesn't agree with my Christian worldview, I can become unloving." And not once did he bring up the nonsensical "Love the sinner, hate the sin," which is the standard Christian canard used to explain their attitude toward gay people.

The problem with that, of course, is that by labeling gay people as "sinners," you are judging them and setting yourself up as morally superior to them. And that sort of judgment can lead to all sorts of bigotry and discrimination against gays. In any event, my hat is off to this man for his ability to come to grips with the true nature of his feelings and his apparent willingness to try to change them.

PREACHER: I can agree with the guy in the video. I am also very ashamed of the "Christians" who call gay people bad names, pick on them, and go around with placards and bumper stickers that say, "God Hates Fags." I believe they are reacting in fear to how the gay community might mess up our world for future generations and call down God's judgment. Unfortunately, their foolish actions and words are just causing more alienation, and not really helping the problem they are trying to address. (You may notice that I don't include myself with them. I am not aware that I have ever called a gay person names, picked on them or said that God hates them. I would never want to.) It is very unfortunate that Christians who are reaching out to gay people in love and helping them in many practical ways (I personally know of many who do) don't get very much publicity.

The guy in the video did say that you should stand up for what you believe. He was confessing his and many Christians unloving actions, words, and attitudes towards the gay community. But he wasn't saying that homosexual acts and gay marriage were good things. Although he didn't use the words, I believe he would agree with "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That phrase is only nonsensical to those who find their identity only in what they think, feel, and do. I believe one's identity is much more than just those aspects. (Though maybe, as an atheist, that is all you have to go on.)

Those who find their identity only in what they think, feel and do, get bent out of shape even when someone lovingly points out something about their behavior that is wrong. Love wants the best for other people. Accepting unhealthy immoral behavior is not love, it is indifference.

SKEPTIC: Well, it's great that you don't call gay people names or pick on them, but that's not really the issue. The issue is tolerance and acceptance of a group of people who are different from you. Unfortunately, Christianity (more often than not) becomes a barrier to real tolerance because it is so condemning and fearful of gays. When you say that their behavior is "unhealthy" and "immoral," that's not tolerance. That's a very harsh judgement which is based solely on your Christian worldview. Imposing that judgement on someone who is merely living out who he (or she) truly is (not who they suddenly decided to become) is destructive and hurtful. A truly tolerant person's attitude would be "to each his own." A truly tolerant person would congratulate a gay couple for finding someone to love and express support for such a union. But I don't see that happening within the Christian community anytime soon. They're too busy trying to deny rights to gays.

I guess that's the dilemma the guy in the video faces. While he understands that he has been unloving in his attitude, his religion prevents him from truly accepting gays. And while many Christians speak of wanting to show love, when someone accuses a gay person of immorality (like you just did), I suspect that feels more like hate.

And by the way, there is a lot of evidence that points to gay relationships in the Bible, especially the relationship between David and Jonathan.

PREACHER: Frankly, I think that those who see homosexual relationships in the Bible (the writer of the article forgot to mention the relationship of Jesus and the "beloved" disciple John) aren't able to discern between what is actually written in the text and their own imaginations. Even if any of those relationships actually had sexual acts in them, they still wouldn't be justified since other passages in both the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn such acts. Was physical attraction a factor in these relationships? Quite possibly. Did they stimulate each others sexual organs to enhance physical pleasure towards orgasm and demand that the culture of their day call that good, even allowing them to get married? I don't think so.

I prefer not to use the word "gay". Besides the fact that the word's original meaning had nothing to do with sexual preference, it labels a very nebulous group of people as shameful and sinful (according to conservative Christians) and as oppressed and righteous (according to liberals). It also discriminates against more unusual sexual orientations such as feelings of attraction to animals or feelings of attraction to minors. Do you believe that homosexuality is a good thing, but bestiality and pedophilia are wrong? If you were truly a moral relativist, you wouldn't make that distinction. Making that distinction makes your opinion a "moral authority." And, since you claim that there is no Moral Authority in the first place, your shaking of the finger at Christians who do have a Moral Authority and call homosexual acts wrong based on what that Authority has revealed, is only an expression of your opinion, which I don't recognize as a moral authority and is essentially meaningless.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn feelings of sexual attraction. When Jesus said that if a man looks on a woman with lust that he has already committed adultery, I am sure He wasn't referring to the feeling of "Isn't she beautiful," but to thoughts of "I want to have sexual contact with her, let me see how I can accomplish that." When the Bible condemns homosexuality or any other kind of sexual contact for that matter, it refers to the actual act, not the initial feeling. So I make a distinction between what is called sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sexual orientation simply determines what arouses a person sexually. I bet that is different for each person. What you actually act out with your sexual orientation, that is where good or bad are determined based on what our Creator has determined and not on the finite opinions of men.

SKEPTIC: Your response pretty much makes my point. You tie yourself in knots in an attempt to justify your intolerance. When you assert that gay relationships are no different than bestiality or pedophilia, you expose your true feelings about gays. You can claim that you don't hate them, but that kind of rhetoric doesn't qualify as any kind of love in my book. You claim you don't hate gays, and yet you hang a sign outside your Christian faith that says, "Gays need not apply," and I'm pretty sure that you also believe that an "unrepentant" gay person won't be admitted to heaven. Personally, I think it's Christians who need to "repent" for their bigotry and intolerance against their fellow human beings who happen to to be gay. But I'm not holding my breath on that score.

In regard to David and Jonathan's "friendship" in the Bible - I guess no one will ever know for sure what went on in the privacy of their room, but when David says of Jonathan in II Samuel 1:26, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women," I think it's not unreasonable to wonder about the nature of their relationship.

As far as lust goes, I'm in favor of it. The biblical injunction against it is ridiculous. If men and women didn't lust for each other, the human race would soon die out. Is that what you want?

One final question for you: What do Christians think gays should do? Stop being gay? That's like asking someone to stop being left-handed. Now I know that most Christians believe that people aren't born gay - that it's a choice. Of course, they have to believe that, otherwise they'd have to admit that God created them gay, and that would blow their mind. I also know that Christians believe that God can remove the gayness from a person, an idea which is ridiculous on its face. Just ask Super Christian Ted Haggard, who still struggles with his sexuality. Is he really better off now, having hidden and suppressed his true sexual feelings all his life?

Here's an idea: maybe Christians could just start to accept and respect their fellow travelers on this planet and stop trying to impose their two-thousand-year-old code of morality on everyone else. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)

PREACHER: Again I see you like to use that "gay" word. It is used to separate out a group of people that have a particular way of feeling called sexual orientation, who may or may not actually act on it. It is a dastardly word that stigmatizes people and puts them in a contrived minority so they can be victims of the rest of society. I make a distinction between two groups: those who simply have a physical attraction to the same sex but use self-control versus those who commit immoral sexual acts and demand that everyone else call what they are doing good. (I make the same distinction with heterosexuals, too: married couples vs. flagrant adulterers.)

The first group I welcome with open arms to join the Christian faith. I respect their willingness to be honest about their feelings and would stand up for them against the shameful castigation that the majority in society might throw at them. The second group may come to my church, too. However, I wouldn't allow them to be leaders in my church, especially with the youth. That is because I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, based on the moral Authority, not just my opinion, that I trust. (You certainly realize that "hating gays" is not a Christian monopoly. I know plenty of Moslems, Buddhists, and even atheists who find homosexuality disgusting and wrong.)

From your comments, it seems to me that you place great value in sexual fulfillment. You seem to make it the apex of life, as if it were the ultimate good. I would even go so far to say that you have made it your "god". I suppose that anyone who makes sex their "god" would want to have that completely fulfilled. And, that would include being able to satisfy those irrational feelings that we call sexual orientation. Your sexuality then becomes your primary identity. Instead of being something you do, it becomes you.

SKEPTIC: Sex is my god? Well, I have been known to utter "Oh my God!" when having particularly good sex, so you may be on to something.

PREACHER: For me, the sexual experience spices up the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Otherwise, it is nothing but a cheap thrill. It seems to me that those who insist that fulfilling and acting out their sexual orientation as the greatest good have made a cheap thrill the central meaning and purpose of life. When you think that way, it will be assumed that every endearing relationship must have a dominant sexual element to it. How absurd!

SKEPTIC: Okay, first of all - a cheap thrill is better than no thrill at all. But no one is talking about sex being "the central meaning and purpose of life." It's Christianity which has elevated the subject to sacred status and written a bunch of rules to be followed and declared that if you don't follow the rules, you're immoral and are going to burn in hell forever.

PREACHER: It is clear to me that proper expression of and about sexuality is intricately connected with morality. I say that homosexual acts are immoral. You say that my intolerant position on homosexual acts is immoral. I base my position on what the Bible teaches (it happens to be my final moral Authority), the opinions of the majority of humanity, and the "what if everyone did it" test. (Of course, some of your ecological extremists might applaud the decimation of the human population.) You have your opinion, the opinions of the gay community and some liberal thinkers, and the results of some controversial research done by the gay community.

Now, you claim to be a moral relativist, and don't claim to have any moral authority, nor do you set yourself up as a moral authority. It seems to me that you have abdicated your right to call anything immoral or wrong. You are able to express your opinion about whether you like something or not, but you cannot speak with authority and say that anything is really right or wrong. Hence, your complaining about my intolerance towards "gays" is meaningless, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

But I will keep my peace with the "gay community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

SKEPTIC: So in conclusion, you don't like the word "gay" because you've assigned some sort of nefarious special meaning to it; my opinion is meaningless and yours is the only one that matters because you got it from The Magic Book; you're cool with gay people as long as they don't "do the deed" or spread the gay virus to the young 'uns, and it's okay that Christians hate gays because lots of other people hate gays, too.

But I guess maybe I should be grateful that so many good Christian folk are willing to take upon themselves the thankless task of telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

So I'll make you a deal...

I will keep my peace with the "Christian community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist and that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live

2009-11-01T23:52:00.016+09:00

SKEPTIC: Halloween has come and gone, and the witches have all gone back home.

Now I don't know a whole lot about witches. I know that the Wicked Witch of the West was not a very nice person, but that Glinda, the Witch of the North, was beautiful and kind. But I'm a little confused as to the Christian view of witches. I know that the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18). I know that Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin apparently believe in witches. And I know that the Puritans were instrumental in bringing about the Salem Witch Trials.

But I was stunned to read recently of the atrocities being carried out in Africa in the name of Jesus. Christian pastors, taking the Biblical exhortation to heart, have been implicated in the torture and murder of hundreds of children who had been accused of being witches. I'm having trouble getting my head around that.

PREACHER: If you want to know more about witches you could probably even meet and interview someone who at least calls himself or herself that in many parts of the world. There would be a great variety, including those that would be considered benevolent, and those that would be considered malevolent by the various cultures that they live in. But, one thing they all would have in common would be their claim that they can manipulate the spiritual world to make things happen in the physical world. The "good" witches might be able to improve the weather or heal sickness, while the "bad" witches would be blamed for illnesses and natural disasters. The reason that the Bible condemns witchcraft is that it attempts to bypass God and tries to employ the cooperation of other spiritual forces to get what is wanted.

In seminary I was privileged to study under a sociology professor who was quite an expert on traditional African religions. He said that it was very common when there was a sickness or some other mishap in a village that it would be blamed on witchcraft. Many times vulnerable children or women would be picked out as the witch causing the problem. So, their deplorable application of Exodus 22:18 has mostly to do with their traditional world view. Here we have the terrible results of syncretism. They just added Jesus on to their old religious system without changing their core values. From the article you refer to, it says that the churches had proliferated so fast that the leadership in the organizations had not kept up with what kind of people were pastoring the churches. When there is poor teaching of Christian doctrines and principles, it is very possible for even pastors to have decided to be "Christians" only for material gain, kind of like the cargo cults in Papua New Guinea except with much more tragic results.

Yes, I am stunned and sickened, too by the atrocities that these pastors committed. As a Christian who believes in the absolute value of these children who have become their victims, I encourage all the church in that part of Africa to wake up to this terrible problem and put an end to it as soon as possible. And, I am sure that the real Christians there are already working hard to help the situation.

SKEPTIC: I can certainly understand how African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities, but is there not some sort of heirarchy within the church or a government authority to step in and put a stop to it? Unfortunately, the problem with the government, as seen in the Nightline videos above, is that they claim that accusing a child of being a witch is illegal "unless you have proof" that the child is a witch. Well, gee, that's helpful. I wonder exactly what kind of proof is required. Maybe we should employ the Monty Python method.

The heros in this story are those people who are providing safe havens for these child victims. But where is the voice of the church, either in Africa or elsewhere? Where is the condemnation and outrage? I don't see it.

The problem, of course, is that the Christian religion, with its beliefs in witches, evil spirits, demons, and other supernatural boogeymen, is a perfect fit for scam artists who see an opportunity to marry Christianity with traditional African beliefs for their own personal gain.

PREACHER: Well, I am glad that you realize that African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities. Unfortunately the government authorities in the country (Nigeria) where this is happening are having so many problems and many times are so corrupt that they aren't able to even keep up with a lot of the violence and injustice that is happening on a daily basis in their country. Since a lot of these churches are independent, they have no church hierarchy to answer to, or the church hierarchy if it exists at all is much like the government, inadequate and corrupt. I frequently read the reports from missionaries who actually live in this part of the world, and realize that chaos and ignorance reigns everywhere most of the time. There is a lot more bad stuff going on all the time in this area besides these pastors who have mistakenly accused children of witchcraft and tortured them. Then, Nigeria is one of the better countries to be in. I suppose when you are living in an environment where atrocities have become the norm, you just become numb to it. That may explain the apparent lack of condemnation and outrage. However as the news spreads - the date of the news article is rather recent - there will more appropriate reactions and action. I have included this link. It certainly is a start.

I am sure that many of those heroes who are providing safe havens for these children are Christians. There probably would be some good non-religious folks like you, too. I disagree that the problem is the Christian religion. The problem is the greed and ignorance of men. You certainly would disagree too if I said that your hallowed atheism with its belief in molecules-to-man evolution was the problem behind the mass murders committed by the command of notorious fascist and communist dictators in the twentieth century because they also believed what you believe.

SKEPTIC: You seem to have divided the Christian world into "real" Christians and "fake" Christians, and whenever a Christian does anything really bad (like torture and murder) he gets moved into the "fake" column. But I'm assuming that all Christian pastors (even these African pastors) preach the same core Christian message, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the atonement that it provides. But then, maybe that's the problem. When you've got a religion that celebrates the torture and murder of its central figure and whose most important icon is a torture device, maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when some pastors go off the deep end.

By the way, I'm still not clear if you personally believe in witches or not.

PREACHER: You seem to think that Christians invented torture. You certainly know that torture has been practiced all over the world from far back in history in almost every culture. If anything, Christians have been in the forefront of alleviating torture. Those pastors were doing what was just common practice in their culture, not getting their inspiration from the gruesomeness of the cross.

You also seem to be setting yourself up as a moral authority over the Christian religion. I don't think your world view qualifies you to be a moral authority. You can't even prove that torture or witchcraft is really wrong or not.

When you can meet a witch on the street, it isn't necessary to "believe in" them. Whether they have supernatural powers or not is another question. I don't think they really do.

SKEPTIC: Well, no, I don't think Christians invented torture, and I'm not setting myself up as a moral authority on anything. I'm perplexed as to why you assume such things, unless perhaps you're reading a different blog entirely.

Is the Bible Too Liberal?

2009-10-09T01:57:00.010+09:00

SKEPTIC: Conservative Christians can rest easy. Their interests are being looked out for by one Andrew Schlafly who has come to the obvious conclusion that the Bible is way too liberal, and needs to be changed. As a result of his "revelation," he has come up with something called The Conservative Bible Project, and it's about time. Who needs all that talk about "social justice" and all that other liberal nonsense? Just get rid of it. And since we all know that liberals used way too many words in the Bible, the CBP will set about combatting "liberal wordiness," apparently by using fewer, shorter words that most conservatives can understand. The Biblical saboteurs do note that "liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds." So there you go - the secret is out. The real purpose of this project is to get those godless liberals to read their Bibles. I just hope they ran this by God before embarking on their little project. I'm not sure he'd approve.

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are setting up a "straw man" here, at least to an extent. Bible scholars would agree that our best translations are not perfect. I would welcome this project to get another translation with yet another slant. I find comparing translations very helpful in understanding the text, even the ones that I know are not very good. And, aren't all translations from whatever political or theological slant they are from, prepared with the hope that they will be read? The secret is already out, so there is no deception here.

I find it very amusing that one who doesn't believe that the Almighty even exists would think He would approve or disappove of any project men may do. Assuming that you think what they are doing is wrong, then you have placed yourself as a moral authority over them. What are your qualifications?

SKEPTIC: I don't think what they're doing is wrong - it's just stupid. How can Christians believe that it's okay to desecrate their sacred book by deleting and changing the text to fit a conservative ideological viewpoint? But you bring up an interesting point when you talk about translations not being perfect and even slanted. Since the Bible is considered by Christians to be the inspired word of God, doesn't that mean that all the translations of that inspired text need to be inspired, too? And if the translations are inspired by God, how can they be imperfect or slanted? If I'm a Christian, why would I even want to read translated versions that aren't inspired by God - that are, essentially, just someone's imperfect opinion of what the text means. Does this mean that the only way to understand God's true meaning is to read the original Greek and Hebrew texts? Are they the only texts truly inspired by God?

Of course, once you realize that the Bible was written by men with political agendas who didn't actually have any God looking over their shoulders to make sure they got it all right, your brain won't have to hurt so much trying to figure everything out.

By the way, I'm glad you found my reference to God not approving this project amusing, because that's what I intended - or did you think I momentarily forgot that I didn't believe in God? But my point is valid, I think. If you believe in God, do you think he would approve of this drastic alteration of his sacred book?

PREACHER: You might be interested to know that good translators use very scientific methods to translate the Hebrew and Greek into our vernacular. (This is why I don't go along with the King James version only crowd.) As one who trusts in science (almost makes a religion out of it), shouldn't you appreciate that? Wouldn't you agree that the more scientifically the translation is done the better it is. Still the translations are done by men so no scholar would consider any translation without defect. They would all agree that only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were inspired. (Yes we have to take that by faith, just as you take by faith that God doesn't exist and the text is only the accounts of men back when it was written.) When the translators take too much liberty in expressing their bias, their translation is usually not accepted very well. One example in the past was the gender neutral bible. The Lord's prayer started out with, "Our Parent which art in Heaven." Before I can make a good judgment on the new conservative bible, I would like to get reviews from those who know their Hebrew and Greek better than I do.

SKEPTIC: So do you consider this conservative Bible to be a "good" translation? This guy wants to completely edit out the story of Jesus and the Adulteress because he thinks it's too liberal! (Funny, I always thought compassion, forgiveness and redemption were good Christian values. Apparently, they're just good liberal values. Go figure.) And by the way, this new conservative Bible is not being translated from the original texts, but rather from the English King James Version.

It's fascinating to me that you admit that only the original Greek and Hebrew texts were inspired by God, and that all the translations have "defects" in them. So I guess that Christians who rely on the various translations of the Bible to guide them are reading the uninspired and defective word of God. Maybe the Bible should be more accurately known as The Approximate Word of God.

To me, this project seems like a bastardization of the Bible, more than anything else. It's one man's attempt to force the Bible to conform to his political and cultural prejudices. I would think most Christians would be appalled at the nerve of this guy.

Letting Women Vote: Good Idea or Not?

2009-10-08T01:00:00.010+09:00

SKEPTIC: Okay, this falls into the category of "crazy things conservatives say that even The Preacher couldn't possibly agree with."

John Derbyshire is a conservative writer over at National Review. He was interviewed recently on the Alan Colmes radio show and took the courageous position that this would be a better country if the right to vote for women was repealed. He claims that "women lean hard to the left" and reasons that we "got along like that (women not voting) for 130 years." So apparently he doesn't really mind if women vote, as long as they don't vote for Democrats. But at least he draws the line at bringing back slavery. I guess that's something.

PREACHER: You said it! I thnk the guy is totally out to lunch.There are plenty of women who are very conservative on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. You would think that he never heard of Sarah Palin.

SKEPTIC: I don't think he's talking about women candidates (although I'm sure he's against that, too). He's just saying that women shouldn't vote because they tend to vote Democratic (a contention which doesn't prove to be true historically, by the way). The still-crazyAnn Coulter said basically the same thing a couple of years ago. Conservative Gary D. Naler recently wrote a book called The Curse of 1920 (a reference to the year when women were given the right to vote),in which he explains how the women's rights movement (along with rock music) has completely destroyed the fabric of American life. The truth is, the Republican party is not all that woman-friendly. There are plenty of misogynists who, given their druthers, would insist that all women stay barefoot and pregnant at all times - and who wouldn't be marching in the streets if women somehow lost the right to vote.

PREACHER: If you look hard enough I suppose you can find both liberals and conservatives that are so busy countering their rivals that they begin saying and doing things that seem almost psychotic to the rest of us. The other day I saw clip of a religious service of people praying to President Obama, saying "Obama help us" instead of "Lord help us". Then we can make a "straw man" of our opponent and criticize him for what he isn't in the first place. If you listen to those speaking on both sides of an issue long enough, you discover a lot of "straw men" out there.

SKEPTIC: Truthfully, it's not all that hard to find conservatives who appear to be psychotic these days - from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to the teabaggers insisting that Obama is worse than Hitler and hey, he wasn't even born in America. And when the right claims to spot signs of psychosis on the left, more often than not, it turns out to be nothing like what it was represented to be.

Take your "Oh my God, they're praying to Obama" video as a perfect example. First of all, they are not saying "Obama," they are saying "O God." (I'll admit - even I was fooled the first time I watched the tape.) The only reason you hear "Obama" is because you want to hear "Obama" and "Obama" is printed on the screen. It's the power of suggestion. It's no different than how people hear messages when a tape is played backwards, but only after being told what to listen for. Also, the only reason it's not crystal clear is because people are not speaking in perfect synch, which allows people to imagine they're hearing something different. (By the way, even the website that originally posted this video has backed off their claim.)

Try this experiment. Close your eyes and tell yourself that you're going to hear "Obama." No doubt you'll hear "Obama." Now listen again, but this time tell yourself you're going to hear "O God." Guess what? You'll hear "O God," because that's what they were saying!

Here's the thing - liberals do NOT worship Obama. That is a meme that the right has been pushing incessantly in an attempt to denigrate the enthusiasm of those of us who support Obama. If you're wondering what actual presidential worship looks like, however, check out this clip from the documentary "Jesus Camp."

("Jesus Camp" can now be viewed online, in its entirety.)

The Evolution of God

2009-10-08T00:25:00.007+09:00

(In the video above, Robert Wright is interviewed by Bill Moyers about his new book, The Evolution of God.)

PREACHER: I would like to commend Robert Wright on his definition of religion. It fits well with what I have always thought, that no one is really non-religious, because we all value something. I see religion simply as a way of valuing. And, since that way of valuing inevitably includes presuppositions about reality that can't be proven true or false for the time being, it also includes faith or believing something without conclusive evidence. The word non-religious can only be ascribed in the sense that one is not an adherent to a particular religious organization or tradition. Even Richard Dawkins materialistic belief system is compellingly religious and he is deluding himself to say it is not.

I also appreciate Robert's air of humility in admitting the inability of the human mind to really comprehend ultimate reality. It is too bad though that he has exchanged the One who communicates quite clearly about Himself for the meditation techniques of some Buddhist monks and a vague recognition that there might be something out there. He is a textbook case of a person who went through the motions of becoming a Christian at an early age and then rejected that tradition after he was exposed to "education". If when he was struggling with the creation vs. evolution issue, some real scientists with PhDs instead of a preacher with a Bible school education had come to talk with him about the issue he might have remained a Christian.

When we use such phrases as "the evolution of God", it assumes that God really doesn't exist, or if He does he has no connection with us. All our thoughts about Him start with us. And, those thoughts have evolved over the years to what they are today and they will continue to develop through a process of natural selection. This is a religious statement in the faith of a god that only exists in the minds of men. I choose to have faith in the One who has revealed Himself apart from the limitations of our minds, and He has progressivily revealed Himself to mankind at certain times in history, and will continue to do so in the future.

SKEPTIC: I think your definition of religion is interesting, but seems overly broad. I think the more common definition would be something like "a set of beliefs that are accompanied by certain dogma and usually has some sort of sacred text." So if that's the definition, it's clear that there are lots of non-religious people in the world. Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what purpose is served in trying to delineate the matter further.

I'm confused when you talk about the Christian God as "the One who communicates quite clearly," when it's pretty obvious that the meaning of God's message is seen differently even within the Christian community, from denomination to denomination - a point Wright was eager to make in the video. If God has given us such a clear message, it's a mystery to me why there is such an abundance of different understandings of it.

I'm confounded by your third paragraph. First, you seem to denigrate "education," implying that it's fatally flawed or something, then you claim Wright might have remained a Christian if only some real scientists had explained evolution to him, instead of a preacher. Am I to understand that by "real" scientists, you mean scientists who have twisted themselves in knots in an attempt to reconcile scientific evolution with biblical creationism?

I think Wright's book sounds intriguing, and I plan to pick up a copy. I think it's clear that his bottom line is that he believes that Man created God and not vice versa. His explanation that religion first appeared on the scene as an attempt by Man to try to "explain to people why good things happen and why bad things happen, and how you increase the number of good things and the number of bad things" sounds pretty reasonable to me. More generally, I think it's a fair statement to say that religion came out of man's desire to understand those things that seemed incomprehensible to him. These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing. Wright's purpose appears to be to explain how man's perception of God has changed as our understanding of the world and the culture has changed.

PREACHER: I would contend that your atheism does fit your definition of religion. It is a set of beliefs and dogma that claim that God doesn't exist. One of many sacred texts would be Darwin's Origin of Species. Since it attempts to explain the origin of life forms apart from a creator, it is your account that replaces the first chapter of Genesis.

I would agree that there are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand and Christians differ on the what they mean. However, my point is that there are doctrines in the Bible that are very clear and Christians who still accept the Bible as their rule of faith and don't twist what it says agree on them. I suppose though, for someone who chooses to be blind, even that which is clear seems unclear.

I would consider any education that leaves out the Creator is fatally flawed from the start. I have listened to scientists who are from all sorts of persuasions within those who accept evolution (atheist to progressive creationism). They don't speak so confidently about evolution as you do. You are expressing a faith factor there, so that is what I call your religion. To say, "These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing," assumes that the ancients were all ignorant superstitious people. I don't believe that. Man's need for religion hasn't decreased, but its content (including what G(g)od is supposed to be like) has changed. Isn't that what Wright is writing about?

SKEPTIC: I'm not sure exactly why it's so important for you to believe that atheism is a "religion." How does that bolster your position? To me, calling atheism a "religion" is a bit like calling baldness a hairstyle. And it seems rather Orwellian on your part to call me "blind" because I choose not to believe in fairy tales and then label my belief in evolution "faith." My dictionary says that "faith" is believing something to be true without evidence. I've got plenty of evidence to back up my belief. You have none. In fact, what you demonstrate is "blind faith."

As to your belief that ancient people were not ignorant and superstitious, I think it's pretty clear that they were. Not ignorant in the sense of being stupid, but ignorant in that they lacked a very large body of knowledge that we are fortunate enough to possess in the times we live in. And they certainly were superstitious in the way that they created the different religious myths, although perhaps not that much more than many people today.

PREACHER: I call atheism a religion because that is what it really is by the definition that I use. It is the definition that I have used ever since I took college level courses in comparative religions. It is a definition that fits all, so I like it and will continue to use it. My faith is not blind. Blind faith twists reality. True faith should and will be in alignment with reality. As for evidence, I use the same evidence that you use. The difference in our conclusions is based on the interpretation of that evidence. We both look at this visible world: I see an invisible Cause and you see nothing. We both look at science: I see a difference between scientific fact and scientific speculation, you lump them both together (not very scientific). We both look at history: I accept what it says unless proven wrong, you rewrite anything that doesn't fit neatly into your limited world view. Another aspect that we would consider to be more subjective would be personal experience. I can honestly say that I have experienced God. You can claim that I am deceived, but all you have is your inexperience.

Kirk and Ray's Excellent Adventure

2009-09-23T14:49:00.007+09:00

SKEPTIC: The world's wackiest creationists, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, have decided that the best way to convince people that Charles Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about in Origin of Species is by giving out 100,000 free copies of Darwin's landmark book to college students around America. The only difference is that Comfort has written a 50-page "introduction" to the book explaining why the book the reader is about to read is totally bogus. It's a "Trojan Horse" approach to getting their message out, as the book appears to be a genuine "150th Anniversary Special Edition" with Charles Darwin's name the only one appearing on the book's cover. Some nonbelievers have suggested that perhaps they should pass out free copies of the Bible with a 50-page introduction by Richard Dawkins explaining why the book that follows is completely bogus. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

PREACHER: As the son of a PHD biologist who taught assuming evolution for most of his career, I appreciate this endeavor by Kirk and Ray to get Origin of Species into the hands of college students, so they can find out what it really says, beyond the simplistic explanations that they get in freshman biology. I would encourage non-believers to hand out free copies of the Bible with Richard Dawkins intro. Maybe they can try to look more honest by putting a disclaimer on the front cover in fine print. My point is there are too many college students out there that have never read either book. The only reason Kirk and Ray are wacky to you is because of your wacky world view. You assume that the physical realm is all that there is. I could never be so conceited and deluded as to claim that that which I cannot know by my senses doesn't exist.

SKEPTIC: Luckily, I guess I'm just conceited and deluded enough to rely on my senses to determine reality. Call me crazy. If God had really wanted everyone to believe in his existence, I guess he should have given us more than just five senses. I'm glad, though, that you agree with me that Kirk and Ray are being dishonest (not a very Christian virtue)by attempting to conceal their true agenda. Hopefully, college students are smart enough to know when they're being punked. By the way, there is a fascinating online project called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, in which every verse is scrutinized and thoroughly analyzed from a skeptic's point of view. Nothing covert about it. The intent is right in the title. Let Kirk and Ray write The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species. That would be lot more honest, not to mention more interesting.

PREACHER: As one who in a previous post suggested that he would be glad to have people worship him, I see that the "shoe" fits very well on you. I'm reminded of the blind man who was too proud to ask for help as he walked along a narrow road with ditches on both sides. After falling in and wallowing around in the mud for a few hours, he finally got humble enough to ask for help.

Thanks for the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It will be a very useful tool for me. I see that there are a number of good Christian sites that answer the writers claims. Eventually there may be a site that is called Answers to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Some of the categories might be: 1) scientifically unprovable assumption 2) seeing a problem that isn't really there 3) invalid claim to moral authority....

Although I don't know of a complete version of The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species yet, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ would be a good site to go to for such information. Their News to Note articles are always revealing the false assumptions in scientific articles that are written from an evolutionary bias.

SKEPTIC: I believe my point was that it's great to be worshipped, but kind of ridiculous to require anyone to do it. It would be like me requiring my cat to worship me in return for my affection (although I suspect he may see me as a God - after all, I am pretty awesome the way I can walk around and talk and use kitchen utensils. Not to mention the fact that I'm his sole source of food - he really should say grace to me before he chows down).

By the way, the imaginary website you describe actually exists (kind of). It's called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, although it's not available online. The site is just selling his CD.

In any event, this kind of debate is perfectly legitimate. What's not legitimate is when you try to disguise what your true intent is. ("Here, kid, have a free copy of Origin of Species! Pretty good deal, don't ya think?") It's not all that different from the pervert who tries to lure a child into his car with a promise of free candy. Or the Mormons who lure Japanese students into their lair with a promise of free English lessons, for that matter.

When Pastors Go Bad

2009-09-06T20:40:00.012+09:00

SKEPTIC: The above video is about a recent sermon by Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." In it, he explains exactly why he hates the president (because he's a murderer) and how he is going to pray that Obama dies and goes to hell. Am I safe to assume that we can both agree that this kind of hate speech is dangerous (especially given the recent rise of extremism on the right), and that Pastor Steven has no place behind any pulpit? I'm hopeful that most Christians would condemn this kind of preaching, knowing that it does their cause no good to have lunatics like this representing the faith. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he really does represent the emerging new face of Christianity in America today. That would be truly disturbing.

PREACHER: Pastor Steven Anderson is definitely over the top for most Christians. Even though we don't agree with Barack Obama on a lot of things and maybe even consider him our enemy, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The apostle Paul taught to pray for those in authority, and in those days that was for the Roman government that was persecuting Christians. Extemists on both sides of the spectrum do no service to the causes that they intend to support. It is good to personally know those who are on the opposite side. I don't agree with you on many things, but I know we can live at peace with eachother.

SKEPTIC: Is that as far as you're willing to go in response to Anderson - he's "over the top?" Are you willing to say that he doesn't represent true Christianity and that his ticket to heaven should be revoked? And you can seriously consider the President of the United States your "enemy?" Jeez, I considered George W. Bush to be an incompetent boob, but I never thought of him as my enemy. I know Christians are supposed to "love your enemies," but that seems a bit silly to me. I mean, if you love someone, then they're not your enemy anymore, unless you want to change the definition of the word. My creed is "love your friends and ignore your enemies."

PREACHER: I wouldn't consider anyone's ticket to heaven revoked (not even yours) since I am not God and don't know what the rest of their (and your) story is. Anderson seems to be a very angry man, more emotions than reason. I agree with him that abortion is wrong, but anger and hateful threats don't change anything for good. You claim that you "love your friends and ignore your enemies," so why are you paying attention to him anyway? I think ignoring an enemy isn't very smart when he is making death threats and looks like he really can accomplish them. Loving your enemy is seeking what is best for him, not just making him feel good. It should make him change his mind about you so he can become your friend.

I think there are a lot of people that are very disappointed with president Obama, because he isn't coming through with all the naive promises that he made during the campaign. And, his liberal positions on abortion, gay rights, religion, education, and medical care really don't sit well with mainstream America. I doubt seriously that he will be in for a second term.

SKEPTIC: I guess I'm a bit dumbfounded that you seem unwilling to state clearly that you condemn this kind of behavior on the part of someone who claims to be a man of God. You seem intent, instead, on focusing on President Obama, whom you call your enemy. This is a Christian preacher who stands up in front of his congregation and tells them that he hates the President and prays to God to strike him dead. And by the way, he's not alone. Here's another Christian preacher engaged in the same reprehensible conduct. Is this how you "love your enemy" - by praying that he dies? Can you begin to understand why so many people are turning away from a religion that is capable of producing these kinds of leaders?

And to respond to your political point - you're right that there are people who are disappointed in Obama, from both sides of the political spectrum. I suppose that is to be expected of any president. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But it seems a little silly to write his political obituary after only seven months in office. The problem for conservatives is that they have yet to understand that the American mainstream has moved to the left, so when you say "his liberal positions...don't sit well with mainstream America," I think you're wrong.

PREACHER: Let me make myself clear. I condemn the behavior of praying for the death of individuals that you consider to be promoting evil. I condemn the sin (actions and words) not the sinner (the extremists on the far right and left). It isn't the Christian religion that produces leaders that advocate killing their enemies, it is only those few leaders' anger that has gotten away from them. Listening to the two preachers you have referred me to has convinced me that they need to have some kind of professional help. And of course, these angry preachers get to be on the news because they are so sensational. Actually, they are quite marginal in the mainstream Christian community. Those who turn away from Christianity because of such preachers were probably already looking for an excuse to prove that they were better than religious people.

What you and I consider to be mainstream America seem to be very different. Isn't your mainstream America concentrated in the big cities mostly on the east and west coast, including certain notorious cities like San Francisco and New Orleans. My mainstream America is everywhere else, including the people I rub shoulders with on a daily basis here is the rural Midwest and the South (I am presently in the USA).

SKEPTIC: Thank you for clarifying your position vis a vis these preachers. However, I think I'll go ahead and condemn the "sinner" as well as the "sin," since you can't really have one without the other.

I'm confused when you say that "those who turn away from Christianity because of such preachers were probably already looking for an excuse to prove that they were better than religious people." As one who has turned away from Christianity, it certainly wasn't because I wanted to prove that I was better than religious people. It was a natural process that resulted from a lot of study, debate, and critical thinking on my part. I think your description may be more applicable to many (not all) Christians who perceive of themselves as better than those of us that they consider "lost," "unsaved," and headed for the fiery pits of hell.

As to what constitutes "mainstream" America, I define it as where the majority of people are politically and culturally at a given point in time. If the last election can be used as a barometer (and I believe it can), then it's clear that mainstream thought has shifted to the left. (And as a former citizen of the beautiful city of San Francisco, I'd like to take exception to your description of that city as "notorious.")

One final point: You want to separate those in mainstream Christianity from those who advocate violence, and I'll grant you that - but Christianity has a long and dark history of violence, beginning with an Old Testament God who ordered genocide at every turn. Maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when pastors like these end up going off the deep end.

The Mysterious Case of Adam and Eve

2009-08-21T01:39:00.024+09:00

SKEPTIC: You mentioned in the previous post that you have recently decided that the creation account in Genesis is a literal account. (Did you not believe that before?) Does this mean that you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is the true account of how the human race began - talking snake and all?

PREACHER: I used to believe that the days in Genesis 1 were ages, now I believe that they are actual 24 hour days. As for the account of Adam and Eve, I have always believed that to be historical.

SKEPTIC: I'm always perplexed by how anyone could think that the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally. I mean, why should this story be given any more credence than any of the dozens of other creation myths that have grown out of various cultures through the ages? Beyond that, why is it so important to believe that the story is literal? What would be so horrible if it was just meant to be symbolic in some way?

Besides, the story itself doesn't really seem, to me, to put God in a very good light. If we were to think of God as the parent and Adam and Eve as the children, it's essentially the story of a mother who told the kids "Whatever you do, don't eat those delicious cookies I just baked." But of course, kids being kids, when their big brother tells them, "Hey, you know how mom is. She just said that because she wants to eat the cookies herself. Go ahead. Go for it." So the kids chow down on the cookies, only to face the wrath of mom, who flies into a rage when she returns and throws the kids out of the house forever and puts a curse on all of their descendants. It's probably just me, but God doesn't seem to exhibit very good parenting skills.

PREACHER: To be consistent with the rest of the Bible, I need to accept the account of Adam and Eve as real history. Incidentally, Jesus and the apostle Paul accepted the account as real history. The account of Adam and Eve explains the origin of the problem of sin. Without it, Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection loses its complete meaning. If sin is only our natural immaturity or imperfection, doesn't it seem cruel that God would demand eternal death? Wouldn't He as a loving God be more patient with us? Satan or the tempter (who takes the form of a snake in the account) is hardly a big brother. He is an evil spiritual being who God created and then who rebelled against Him, to the point of desiring to becoming equal with God. It wasn't so much that the fruit of the tree was so tempting as that Satan promised that eating it would make Adam and Eve like God, knowing good and evil. When they accepted what the snake said and ate the fruit, they rebelled against God. In so doing they tainted all of their offspring and all creation with their rebellion against God. That is what started the process of death (both physical and spiritual) which humans can't reverse. All men are infected now with sin, that is like a cancerous disease that is so utterly detestable to their Creator that He has to cast us out from His presence. In His great love, God sent His Son Jesus to die in our place (both physically and spiritually) and rise from the dead, in order to reverse the process of death so that all who stop rebelling against Him and trust Him can have eternal life (spiritual immediately and physical later). In 1 Corinthians 15:22 the apostle Paul wrote that for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. God is a "parent" who willingly gives the ultimate sacrifice for His children. Sounds like a pretty good parent to me.

SKEPTIC: So Adam and Eve's rebellion against God is what "started the process of death which humans can't reverse?" So I guess that means that if they HAD obeyed God and NOT eaten from that darn tree, people would have never died. They would have just lived forever right here on earth. I guess then that we'd all be living in some pretty crowded conditions by now, considering that there'd be something like a 1000 gazillion people on the planet. So I guess we all owe a debt to A and A for biting into that apple and making our lives rather more manageable.

But I think you may have stumbled onto what's going on when you talked about the death of Jesus being a direct result of Adam and Eve's original sin. In other words, if they hadn't disobeyed God, that would have messed up the whole story. There wouldn't even be a need for religion. In fact, the reason Christians try so desperately to attack scientific evolution is because it proves that Adam and Eve is a fairy tale, therefore there was no original sin, and therefore there was no need for redemption through Jesus's death. Game over.

In any event, for me, the talking snake is a dead giveaway that what we're looking at is a very clever fairy tale. And if you expect me to believe that this is how the human race began and it had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, then you've got your work cut out for you. And by the way, how exactly is it fair that all mankind should be "tainted" because of Adam and Eve's taste in fruit?

PREACHER: You seem to have great difficulty even imagining that your Creator exists. An all knowing and all powerful God would have already had a solution for the problem of overpopulation. Actually, the world He created was very good and would have had no problems to begin with. Adam and Eve's rebellion was indeed what made religion necessary. Without their rebellion we would have been able to relate to God just as we would relate to another human being, seeing Him face to face and hearing His audible voice. There would be no need for faith. So, yes there would have been no need for religion.

There are other places where beasts have appeared to talk to men in the Bible, so I don't find the snake a problem. There are plenty of other supernatural happenings in the Bible that I know you can't believe, all because of your world view. You assume that the universe is a closed system and that without exception it has always been subject to the laws of nature that science recognizes today. You refuse to believe in the God who created those laws and is also able to circumvent them whenever He chooses.

Evolution (and what I mean is big bang-molecules-to-man so that a banana is my distant relative) is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the secular scientific community. It is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe and life completely by natural laws that scientists have agreed do exist. The present system is always assumed to be absolute and used to explain the past. It is also assumed from the start that the existence of a Creator is unthinkable, or if He does exist, He is very disconnected with the universe. In so doing they have to rewrite history so it fits into their paradigm.

Adam and Eve knew and experienced only good until they ate of the tree. From then on they found out what evil was too for the rest of their lives. I see how you feel it is unfair that we should all be tainted by the choice that Adam and Eve made. But then, the choice that Jesus Christ (referred to as the second Adam) made, made it possible to be untainted by sin and have eternal life. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." We have a choice to remain tainted by sin or be set free from it through Jesus Christ. That sounds pretty fair to me.

SKEPTIC: When you say evolution is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the secular scientific community," that kinda blows my mind and reinforces my belief that there really is no way to reconcile science and religion. Actually, I would agree with your statement with just a slight change - Creationism is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the Christian community. Bottom line for me is if you've got two conflicting ideas about the creation of man, and one has tons of actual evidence to back it up, while the other one has no real evidence at all and is based on a book written two thousand years ago...well, you get my point.

And the fact that there are other animals who talk in the Bible doesn't really make me more open to the idea of a talking snake. It just reinforces my belief that the Bible is not to be taken literally. And the way that Christians always fall back on the "God can do anything" argument to try to explain things that make no sense is a pretty convenient escape hatch.

And yes, you're absolutely right when you say, "you seem to have great difficulty even imagining that your Creator exists." I guess that's why I'm The Skeptic and you're The Preacher.

PREACHER: You should know that both creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence (fossils, layers of sediment etc. ) to back up their very different views of how the universe came into existence. For more details please check out the sites of Answers in Genesis and True Origins. The difference is how they interpret the evidence. Creationists, many who are PhD scientists, accept the Bible as their final authority and evolutionists accept the current opinions of certain scientists who don't believe the Bible as their final authority. I see no conflict between true science and true religion. Evolution is an attempt by these scientists (many who are atheists) to explain the origin and history of the universe without any divine intervention. The only way to verify it would be to go back in time, which you can't do. True science is verifiable. Evolution is not true science, it is history. The Bible is history, too. Our disagreement is on which history we believe to be true. I am very happy with a God who can do anything, and sorry that you don't trust Him.

SKEPTIC: Well, first of all, you say that many creationist are PhD scientists. There may be some scientists in various fields who subscribe to the biblical view, but I seriously doubt that there are more than a tiny fraction, especially in biology, which is the relevant field of study when we're talking about evolution. Evolution is certainly true science. You only pretend it's not because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. One of the big differences between science and religion is that science has the ability to change and refine its findings as new evidence becomes available, so that we are able to get as close as humanly possible to verifiable truth. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are so set in stone that believers are usually unable or unwilling to change their beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence.

As to your final sentence, I'm glad that you're "happy with a God who can do anything," but there really is no need to feel sorry for me. To my ear, that sounds just a tad condescending. And it's not that I don't "trust" God. I don't believe God exists, so the question of trust becomes moot.

What's the Deal with Billy Graham?

2009-08-18T02:18:00.009+09:00

SKEPTIC: In a 2006 Newsweek interview, Billy Graham angered some Christians when he seemed to make a couple of major changes in his theological point of view. First, although he'd always been a literalist when it came to the Bible, he now says that he is "not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord." Also, even though he had always preached that you must be a born-again Christian to go to Heaven, he now seems to be open to the possibility that those of other faiths may also be granted entrance, saying that God "loves everybody regardless of what label they have" and "it would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't."

What is your take on these statements?

PREACHER: I have a profound respect for Billy Graham who has done an excellent job of keeping his humility and integrity. One thing he has tried very hard to do is to contend for the Gospel without being contentious, and that is a very thin line to walk. I hope and pray that I can do as well as he has. If in his younger years he had a tendency to err to one side, he has probably erred to the other in his later years. However, I think you are reading too much into his statements that you quote. I also keep in mind that they are quotes in an article that a Newsweek reporter wrote, who probably has views more similar to yours than mine, and whose bias is quite evident in the article. To say that "not every jot and tittle is from the Lord" may be just acknowledging that there are minor variances in the many manuscripts (copyist errors). To say that God "loves everybody regardless of what label they have" is in complete compliance with a literal understanding of Scripture. To say that "it would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't" is a humble acknowledgement that as a man he can't really know what is in the heart of men nor understand everything that God is doing. Some Christians have been labeling Billy Graham as a liberal for decades, but he certainly isn't becoming a post-modernist.

SKEPTIC: I'm not sure why you say the article is biased. I thought it was a very fair and largely favorable retrospective on Graham's life and the changes he's experienced. Can you point out examples from the article that you think are biased in some way?

Your attempt to minimize his change in thinking regarding the literalism of the Bible as a reference to "copyist errors" seems like wishful thinking on your part. The article gave no indication that such was the case. Indeed, it states clearly that Graham has acknowledged that this represents a change in his thinking and he now believes that some parts of the Bible should be taken figuratively, not literally.

And you must admit, his "hands-off" position on the question of who gets into Heaven is a big change from what he preached most of his life, i.e. that only Bible-believing, born-again Christians will get the "golden ticket" to Heaven. If his current position were so benign, you wouldn't have so many Christians screaming for his head on a platter (if I may invoke a John the Baptist reference). The same thing happened more recently, you may recall, when Joel Osteen took pretty much the same position and was roundly pilloried by true believers.

PREACHER: Doesn't everyone approaching any subject come with their particular bias? I would agree that the article was quite fair, but as demonstrated in the quote below, the author asks questions that are emotionally loaded revealing his bias.

When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Such an ecumenical spirit may upset some Christian hard-liners, but in Graham's view, only God knows who is going to be saved.

If Graham had said no those "good people" wouldn't get into heaven, he knows that the author and much of the media would have labeled him a narrow-minded bigot. So, he gave his answer in a more ambiguous way. That of course offended some Christians, but Graham has always made it a priority to reach out to those who are outside the Christian faith. If the author had asked him if he thought that salvation through Jesus Christ was the only hope for eternal life, I believe he would have said yes. His point would be that God loves everyone, and all are saved by faith in the grace of God through Jesus Christ no matter what label they may have had in this life. And, only God is the true and final judge.

Ok, so he did move away from Biblical literalism some. To a point that is a good thing as there are parts of the Bible that were not intended to be taken literally (i.e. certain phrases in "The Song of Solomon") Then there are parts of the Bible that he takes figuratively that I have recently chosen to take literally. Such examples would be the creation account in Genesis 1 and some of the prophesies concerning the future of Israel and the Millennial Kingdom. In reference to Genesis 1, I think he isn't up on the scientific and Biblical research that is recently being done. The prophesies? Time will tell. I don't agree with him completely (neither does his son nor his grandson who is also an evangelist).

So, I see that he has become more flexible in his beliefs and interpretation of the Bible in his later years, but any suggestion that he has radically changed his theological views is wishful thinking on your part.

SKEPTIC: I wouldn't characterize the question about Heaven being closed to certain people as "biased." To me, it's more of a bottom-line kind of question. My favorite kind. In any event, even though I don't agree with Graham's belief system, I do respect his willingness to re-evaluate his beliefs when something no longer makes sense to him (something most Christians seem unwilling or unable to do).

What's the Point of Prayer?

2009-08-14T22:53:00.018+09:00

SKEPTIC: A Wisconsin man and his wife were recently convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year-old daughter. When the girl, who suffered from undiagnosed diabetes, couldn't walk, talk, eat, or drink, the parents didn't take her to the hospital. They just stood around and prayed for her, believing that God would heal her. When she stopped breathing, someone finally called 911, but it was too late. What is your opinion of this case? Do you think the verdict (and a possible 25-year prison sentence) is justified?

PREACHER: The couple were obviously misguided and did what seemed right in their own eyes. I think that they failed to understand that God is Lord of everything and uses the medical proffession to heal, too. Reputable faith healers that I know of encourage the ones they pray for to also get medical help. I am reminded of one of the temptations that Jesus faced when the Devil tempted Him to jump off the pinacle of the temple. The Devil even quoted Scripture to Him, but He answered that you should not tempt the Lord your God. I really wonder what the underlining motive was for this couple to choose to not seek medical help. It could have been just to save money since medicine is so expensive these days. Was there an underlining mistrust of doctors? The Bible does teach to pray for the sick, but the apostle Paul prayed for healing of his "thorn in the flesh" and never got it, so doctor Luke was with him most of his journeys. It think the verdict is a bit harsh, but it should stand.

SKEPTIC: To me, this case is a good example of the danger of believing in prayer. If you believe that God will perform miracles or somehow change the laws of nature to accommodate your wishes, you're setting yourself up for a big fall. But on the other hand, why shouldn't the father rely on prayer? Doesn't the Bible say that God is able to do all things for those who believe in him? Is God not powerful enough to cure a small girl of her diabetes? Why should God need helpers in the form of doctors?

And what exactly is the deal with religious faith healers like Oral Roberts and others who claim to be able to heal folks of just about any physical malady through faith only? Are they for real or are they frauds? (I'm gonna go with the latter.)

To me, praying is just basically just the manifestation of the power of suggestion. And sometimes it even works. But it's just the power of your mind and not some mystical communication with the creator of the universe.

PREACHER: You have two assumptions that you can't prove. One, you assume that the Creator of this universe doesn't really exist. And, if He did, He would have to be one who would always be accommodating to the wishes of men. God listens to us, but has a mind of His own that doesn't always jibe with our thoughts whether we believe in Him or not. He may also choose to do things that seem cruel to us in our limited understanding. Two, you assume there has to be a dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical. Interestingly, that was the same mistake that the father of the girl made. He assumed that God (the spiritual) would not want him to use the work of doctors (the physical) who were also created by God to do His will.

SKEPTIC: Well, Christians have certainly done a good job at putting God in a win-win situation: If you pray for someone to get better, for example, and he does get better, it's an answer to prayer and proves how great God is. But if the person gets worse or maybe even dies, it's because God has a greater plan, or there's a reason for everything he does, or it's all beyond our "limited understanding." Win-win for the Big Guy. But here's the key point: You said that God has "a mind of his own." So if God's gonna do what God wants to do, no matter what, then there really is no point in praying, is there? God's already made up his mind.

As to your point that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, you're right - just as you can't prove that he does exist. Of course, normally, the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person making an extraordinary claim, doesn't it?

PREACHER: Since God is the creator and the Lord of the universe, He doesn't need to play games (win-win situation etc.) with us. He already knows about everything. Jesus even said that He knew our requests before we asked. So,what is the purpose of prayer anyway? It is more to develop our relationship with Him than to get something from Him. That relationship is so fulfilling and wonderful that even if all the people in the world had it, it would still be extraordinary. Since the majority of people who have ever lived on this planet believe in some kind of diety, simple belief in God is just ordinary. Unbelief should be labeled sub-ordinary. The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person taking the greatest risk.

SKEPTIC: Of course God doesn't need to play games. I'm sure he's got better things to do. My point was that Christians are very good at justifying whatever happens in regard to God and prayer in order to put God in the best possible light. Of course, what they're really doing is just making excuses for God when things don't go their way or don't make any sense.

In regard to your contention that "the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person taking the greatest risk," that sounds suspiciously like something you just made up. And I find it interesting that you're willing to enlist the rest of the world to your side in their belief in a deity, but then you turn around and say to those other religions, "Sorry, but you all believe in the WRONG God and are going to Hell." In reality, though, as you can see from this pie chart, the number of "nonreligious" people in the world represent a pretty sizable chunk and, indeed, is rapidly growing larger.

Did Jesus Really Die?

2009-08-06T01:31:00.023+09:00

SKEPTIC: Before he was crucified, do you think Jesus knew that he would be resurrected in 3 days?

PREACHER: Jesus knew that he was going to be resurrected in three days. In Mark 9:31 and Luke 9:22 He is quoted, saying that He would be killed and would rise again on the third day.

SKEPTIC: If Jesus knew that he was going to be resurrected in three days, what exactly is the sacrifice he made? How precisely did Jesus "die for my sins" if he jumped out of the tomb after 36 hours? That's not dying - that's more like being in a coma. If you're really dead, you're dead. Like forever.

PREACHER: Aren't you limiting reality to just this material world? A Biblical view of reality says that there is a spiritual world that transcends the material. When one dies he is only physically dead and the spiritual part of the person continues to exist forever. That eternal existence is "life" if you are in fellowship with your Creator, and "death" if you are separated from Him. Since all men are sinners and born separated from God they are facing that eternal spiritual death when their physical life ends. Christ died on the cross both physically and spiritually. Being the infinite God he was able to come back to life from that, also having suffered death (separation from God) sufficiently enough to have taken upon Himself the judgment of all who would believe in Him. Facing that terrible judgment, He was in fear of it in the garden the night before, but as it says in Hebrews 12:2, He willingly went to the cross because of the joy of the outcome, the salvation of all who believe in Him.

SKEPTIC: So are you saying that Jesus was resurrected spiritually, but NOT physically?

PREACHER: He was raised both spiritually and physically. What made you think that it had to be one or the other?

SKEPTIC: In doing a bit of research, it seems that Christians can't even agree among themselves whether the resurrection was physical, spiritual, or both. But nonetheless, my original point still stands. Jesus didn't really die. Death is permanent, unless you want to change the definition of the word.

PREACHER: I think you have a different definition of the word death than I do. As a materialist don't you see death as the final end, extinction with nothing after it, and any return to life is impossible? That is not my definition of death. Death from a biblical standpoint for humans is both physical and spiritual. Physical death is when this body quits working and can't start up again until God performs a miracle of new life. He promises that those who believe in Him will rise physically again to live forever with Him, and He promises that those who have rejected Him will be raised physically to experience eternal death (not cease to exist). Spiritual death is the state in which we are separated from our Creator. You can be spiritually dead and physically alive. Jesus experienced physical death. They took Him down from the cross and put Him in the tomb because He was obviously dead. He experienced spiritual death when He cried out, "My God, why have You forsaken me." That He rose again from the dead and then ascended to His Father is proof that He regained His spiritual life as well as His physical life. So, Jesus died and rose again both physically and spiritually.

SKEPTIC: My definition of death is the one from the dictionary: "the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism." Permanent. I understand the Christian theology that you talk about, but you really are changing the definition to suit your theology. If you want to be a little more honest, you should change the theology to something like "Jesus temporarily died for your sins."

Of course, the whole original sin idea is operating on a pretty convenient closed loop. Christianity invented the notion that we're all born full of sin, but Jesus saved us by dying on the cross. It's not much different than a doctor who makes you sick so he can make you well again and stay in business.

PREACHER: I am in compliance with the definition of death you give. "Organism" refers to only the physical. That is what happened to Jesus. It doesn't refer to the spiritual. The spiritual part of Jesus never ceased to exist, it was temporarily separated from the Father. After He paid the penalty for sin the spiritual gave life again to the physical and He was resurrected. Of course if you believe as typical materialistic atheists do, the spiritual does not really exist anyway. It is only conceptual.

When Jesus rose from the dead, he appeared to his disciples and encouraged them to touch Him, saying that a spirit does not have flesh and blood, but He did. That in no way denies that He was also spiritually alive. Later on in the epistles of Paul He is referred to as a life giving Spirit. That does not deny the physical life either. You are insisting on a either-or-only view of spiritual and physical. I believe that both are parts of reality.

Materialistic atheism also works within a closed loop. It says that anything that man cannot sense or measure scientifically doesn't really exist. Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about the spiritual world. So, the reader of this blog can make the choice between your partially educated opinion that the spiritual doesn't really exist, or can consider that God has really spoken to us and revealed Himself in the man Jesus Christ, who both physically and spiritually died and rose from the dead.

SKEPTIC: Fine. You're right. The reader of this blog can agree with my "partially educated" opinion, based on science and reason, or they can agree with your apparently fully educated opinion, based on ancient myths and superstitions.

PREACHER: Ancient myths and superstitions don't recall history accurately nor do they tell the future accurately. The Bible does both of those, so I don't put it in that category. I am probably not as educated as you are. But, I place more stock in revealed Truth than someone's opinion. Do you really think that your opinion is infallible? Science and reason assume that the universe is understandable to the human mind. That makes sense to me because a God who communicates with us in an understandable way created it. A universe that started by chance and random events wouldn't be understandable to the human mind.

SKEPTIC: If God communicates to us in an understandable way, why are there so many different understandings of the Bible? You know, Nostradamus supposedly told the future, too. Maybe you should worship him, too.

(Go here for an interesting debate on the historicity of the resurrection.)

(Please join the debate by leaving your comments below!)

The Fine Art of Fake Outrage

2009-06-16T00:40:00.010+09:00

SKEPTIC: Republicans have made a fine art out of pretending to be outraged. Here's the formula: take something your opponent says, distort it beyond all recognition, and then feign outrage in an attempt to score a few cheap political points by riling up the base. The classic example of this was the "Lipstick on a Pig" episode during the presidential campaign when Obama used the common idiom in a speech when talking about politicians who pretend to want change. Time to crank up the fake outrage. Since Sarah Palin had referenced lipstick while making a lame joke in her big speech at the Republican convention, wasn't it obvious that Obama was calling Palin a pig?

So apparently Palin, having refined the art of fake outrage during the campaign by continually saying that Obama "palled around with terrorists," thought she'd give it another shot. When David Letterman recently made a joke about Palin's 18-year-old daughter Bristol (who famously had gotten herself "knocked up") getting "knocked up" at a baseball game by Alex Rodriquez, dear sweet Sarah managed to morph it into "David Letterman made a joke about raping my 14-year-old daughter," and insinuated that he was some sort of creepy pedophile. Even Letterman's apology was not enough to get her to back off, not when she thought she could score more political points. Talk about lame-itude.

PREACHER: I guess you caught me sleeping on some of the incidents you mention in your comment above. But doesn't David Letterman kind of make a living on making fun of people anyway? A lot of folks seem to enjoy hearing those on the far left and right get enraged with each other. I find it kind of boring. So the media makes a big deal of it to get the ratings up. Letterman did need to get some some of his viewers back from the new guy on the NBC late night show. What better way to do it than get Sarah Palin riled up with some sexual innuendo? Ladies don't like to be the brunt of men's seedy jokes. As for the fine art of fake outrage, I have had some comments made to me on this blog by a rather left-leaning lady that make me out to be a male chauvinist pig all because I guessed that she was much younger than she really was. Different political leaning, but same lame-itude.

SKEPTIC: I guess you missed the big Letterman-Palin brouhaha. I've included the video above to show how far some people on the right were willing to go to make their point. It wasn't really the media at fault here, though. It was Sarah Palin who made really over-the-top comments about Letterman and the joke in what was a transparent attempt to keep her face in the news, and then she went out of her way to stoke the fires every chance she got. The odd thing was that Letterman was hardly the first comedian to make a joke that referenced her daughter and the situation regarding her pregnancy, but Palin saw an opening and went for it. One has to wonder, though, if her political instincts are really that sharp when she attacks a popular cultural figure in such a way.