The first four days

Posted: August 22, 2014 in Uncategorized

Day One

In the beginning God created the heaven (the celestial dimension) and the earth (this universe, “the deep,” or “the waters above,” consisting of nothing but a giant blue ocean). And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Andreas Levers, "Black water"

Andreas Levers, “Black water”

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light, even though there were as yet no stars or other light-producing objects. And God saw the light which existed independently of any light sources, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God established that the light should last for a twelve hour period encompassing the entire universe, and should be followed by the darkness for a twelve hour period encompassing the entire universe. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day, even though there was no Sun and no Earth.

Day Two

And God said, Let there be a firmament which humans will someday call the atmosphere in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters of the giant ocean above us from the waters below that will eventually be the Seas. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so, explaining the fact that the sky is blue, since outer space is actually a giant blue ocean that the firmament keeps from flooding us. And God called the firmament Heaven.

And the evening and the morning were the second day, though still lacking a Sun and an Earth.

Day Three

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven, our Seas, be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the grass, herbs, and fruit trees did not need sunlight, since the universe was lit every twelve hours by Day, which had been created two days prior. And the evening and the morning were the third day, though still lacking a Sun.

Day Four

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light, the Sun, to rule the day, and the lesser light, the Moon, to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. So the stars, which are nothing more than pinpricks of light, were created within the Earth’s atmosphere, along with the Sun and the Moon.


And the evening and the morning were the fourth day, and both the Sun and the Earth were actually present for this one.


Right to Bear Arms

Posted: July 21, 2012 in Uncategorized

The right to bear arms. Translated to mean the right to own guns. Protected by the Second Amendment, the handy slogan, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” and sometimes even by the Bible.

The only way in which the Bible can be used to justify gun ownership is by reducing its message to meaningless drivel. For example, Jesus taught restraint and humility. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus teaches:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And even this strong commandment gets reduced to meaningless drivel in the effort to use the Bible to justify the right to bear arms. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, somehow interprets these two verses to mean that individuals should carry guns:

God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage.

In other cases, the “sell your cloak and buy a sword” verse is used to justify gun ownership. As an example of the this. Dr. Robert L. Dean Jr states that Luke 22:36 (“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”) means Jesus felt people should be permitted by law to carry concealed weapons:

It may surprise a generation brought up on a liberal interpretation of the Bible that emphasizes pacifism, a wimpy, effeminate Jesus, a sentimental, non-ethics based concept of love. Remember, liberal protestant theology has its starting point in a high view of human reason, and a low view of sin and a view of the Bible as just another book. In fact, one thing liberal political philosophy and liberal protestant theology share in common is the presupposition of the innate goodness of man, in contrast to the biblical view of the total depravity of man.

The Bible also justifies and assumes the right to life and self-defense, and the right to private ownership of property and the right to protect that property. This is seen not only in the OT but in the Gospels when the allegedly wimpy Jesus of the Protestant left made sure his disciples carried personal, concealed weapons, when they went to the Garden of Gethsemane, to protect his life from an overly aggressive Roman soldiers (Luke 22:36-38).

Conveniently, Dr Dean forgets to mention Jesus’ other teaching on the subject of swords:

Matthew 26:52

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Either Jesus went a bit loopy between Luke 22:36 and Matthew 26:52, or we have to understand that in Luke 22:36, he was speaking figuratively or working to fulfill a prophecy.

More disturbing is the fact that a minister and doctor of theology feels that fortitude in the face of adversity equates to wimpiness. Dr Dean explicitly states that the concept of Jesus as a pacifist and man of love turns Jesus into an effeminate, sentimental wimp. He fails to recognize that responding to violence with violence is easy! It takes strength and character to stand up to adversity without resorting to violence.

The irony with Dr Dean’s statement is that he simultaneously believes in the total depravity of man and that God wants these totally depraved men to be able to own weapons that can kill using just a trigger finger. You would think that someone who believed in the total depravity of man would be in favor of keeping destructive weapons out of the hands of men.

In the wake of the 2012 Aurora shooting, I can’t help but wonder if Dr Dean may inadvertently be on to something, however. According to Wikipedia, only two female school shooting incidents have been documented. And according to Katherine Ramsland, female mass murderers have received very little attention in part because there have been so few. As another blogger stated:

Then I began to think about the list–the horrible long list–of similar incidents in the last decade of young people being massacred at the hands of an insane murderer. I tried to come up with one female involved in one of these mass killings. And I couldn’t think of a single one.

So perhaps the problem here is that men are allowed to bear guns at all. Perhaps this is a right that should be reserved for women, since it seems women are much less inclined toward this sort of depravity. And it would definitely help prevent violent crimes against women if there were a greater chance of any particular woman having a gun than any particular man.

Sanctity of Marriage

Posted: February 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

A pastor is calling for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks because of Starbuck’s support of same-sex marriage. Given my love of coffee, this of course leads me to ask what America’s favorite holy book has to say on the subject.

We find Leviticus 18:22 condemning homosexuality as an abomination. This is, of course, the same book that condemns shellfish as an abomination (Leviticus 11:11). The anti-shrimp movement hasn’t caught on nearly as well as the anti-same sex marriage movement, however, leading one to question such selective Bible use.

On the other hand, the Bible condones a number of non-traditional marital scenarios, as summarized in this borrowed image below (hopefully SOPA/PIPA won’t be shutting my page down because of this unauthorized reuse). We have men with wives and concubines, rapists and their victims (the rapist must pay the victim’s father and marry the daughter), soldiers and their prisoners of war (liberated into the holy bonds of marriage), and last but not least, polygyny (notably absent, however, is polyandry).

If marriage is a biblical institution, then why are proponents of its sanctity not fighting for a definition of marriage along the lines of: “Marriage is a union between one man and one or more women”? Why promote such an unbiblical definition that insists only one woman be included in the marriage to one man?

But we should question that initial assumption – that marriage is a biblical institution. If marriage were a biblical institution, then justices of the peace should not be permitted to marry people. Nor, for that matter, should anyone other than a Christian minister be allowed to marry anyone (which I suppose would mean that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and so forth would have to be required to return to their country of origin if they want to get married outside of the eyes of Christianity). And it should not be legal to marry someone without a mention of God at all; an atheist marrying another atheist at an outdoor venue should be a complete travesty of a biblical institution. The fact that all of these things are perfectly valid shows that marriage is a state institution, not a biblical institution.

The very sanctity of marriage itself denies it a place in our secular government. Secularism protects everyone, and as the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Legally defining marriage on a religious basis is quite simply against the highest law of the land.

If the sanctity of marriage is paramount to Christians, then why are atheists among the lowest divorcees in the country? There are many things that are legal that Christians may choose not to practice (premarital sex, the sanctity of the Sabbath day), but this does not mean that our secular government should be establishing Christian morality as the law.

New Testament Politics

Posted: January 28, 2012 in Uncategorized

Jesus, the Apostles, and most of the other members of the early Christian Church were not politicians. Their worldview and aims transcended government and politics and aimed at something more meaningful and everlasting. But today, religion is often the basis for decisions in the political arena. The Bible is grounds for political platforms and social commentary.

If we were to create a political platform on what is actually in the New Testament, what would it resemble? Here are a few Bible verses that are instrumental in answering this question, along with the context from which they are taken.

  1. Matthew 19:16-21. Jesus is speaking to the multitudes in Judaea. One of them comes forth to Jesus to ask what he must do to have eternal life.

    Matthew 19:16-21
    16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

  2. Matthew 19:24. A young man with great possessions turns away from Jesus after being told he must sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor in order to have eternal life (see above). Jesus then says the following to his disciples.

    Matthew 19:24
    24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

  3. Acts 2:42-45. The Holy Spirit causes the devout men of Jerusalem to speak in tongues. Peter stands up with the disciples to explain to the multitudes how this has come to happen. The multitudes ask Peter what they must do. Peter tells them to repent and be baptized, and 3000 people do so.

    Acts 2:42-45
    42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

  4. Acts 4:32-37. A multitude of believers are assembled together, and after praying are filled with the Holy Spirit.

    Acts 4:32-37
    32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

  5. Luke 6:24. Jesus is giving the Sermon on the Plain. After saying how the poor, the hungry, and those reproached for their belief in Jesus are blessed, he says the following.

    Luke 6:24
    24 But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

  6. Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus is talking about Judgment Day, when the Son of Man returns in Glory, and compares the judgment on those who gave to the destitute and those who did not.

    Matthew 25:31-46
    31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

  7. Luke 14:13-14. Jesus is presenting a parable to the Pharisees.

    Luke 14:13-14
    13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

  8. James 2:15-16. James makes the point that faith, like charity, is meaningless without works.

    James 2:15-16
    15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

  9. Luke 1:49-53. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is glorifying the name of God.

    Luke 1:49-53
    49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

  10. Matthew 21:12-13. Jesus enters the temple of God in Jerusalem.

    Matthew 21:12-13.
    12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

The New Testament describes a religion of equal sharing and helping those in need, a religion that should be in full support of socialism. So why do we find Christians supportive of capitalism? Why has Christianity become associated with the Republican party, a party that favors the upper middle class and wealthy?


I took the question to Google, to see how this question is resolved. Here are some of my favorite responses.

The Story of: The Eye of the Needle

The “eye of the needle” mentioned in the Bible, was one of the many gates providing passage through Jerusalem’s massive walls. The “Needle Gate” was used when the city’s main gates were closed at night. It was designed for security so that enemies could not simply ride into the city. The gate was so small, that a rich man would have to unload his camel and then with great effort, lead his camel through –a slow & difficult process. Jesus likened the process to entering heaven: we must come to God stripped of all our importance –a seemingly impossible task until we realize with God, all things are possible.

Rich Christians-An Oxymoron?

I think Jesus was trying to correct these beliefs concerning the spiritual state of the rich. I think he was pointing out that the rich were no more likely to go to heaven than anyone else, and that they might even be less likely than others to go to heaven because their riches might distract them from seeking the kingdom of heaven.

When/How/Why did Christianity become pro-Capitalist?

Capitalism does not equal wealth. Capitalism equals freedom with money. It is completely Biblical, so I doubt it is anything new.

Stop viewing the government as your own personal charity. It isn’t.

All of the above answers, however, are flawed. First, while the non-literal interpretation, “We must come to God stripped of all our importance” is a convenient way to avoid the message, it falls flat because it has no basis in reality. There is no evidence to suggest that the supposed “Needle Gate” ever existed. Second, while it’s fun to argue semantics and say, “The rich were no more likely to go to heaven than anyone else,” the message of this verse is that it’s impossible, not unlikely, for the rich to go to heaven. Don’t believe me? Push a camel through the eye of a needle first, then we’ll talk. And third, freedom with money is not biblical at all. The above verses demonstrate appropriate and inappropriate uses of money, putting significant restraints on this so-called “freedom with money”.

Pivotal Movements

If capitalism is biblical and socialism is anti-biblical, then why would the early Christian religion distance itself from materialism? A Brief History of Christianity and Capitalism suggests that the early Christian religion did indeed distance itself from materialism:

The early Christians took these sayings very seriously. The first century Didache said, “Do not claim that anything is your own.” Around the year 200, Clement of Alexandria said, “All possessions are by nature unrighteous; when one possesses them for personal advantage and does not bring them into the common stock for those in need.” Basil the Great, about 400 A.D., said “That bread which you keep belongs to the hungry; that coat in your closet, to the naked.” St. Augustine said, “Business is in itself an evil.” Jerome, who disagreed with Augustine on many things, did not on this. He said, “A man who is a merchant can seldom if ever please God.” St. John Chrysostom put it this way, “How did you become rich? Can you show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice.”

For 1500 years, the church banned charging interest. The reason Jews got such a bad reputation as bankers and merchants was that they were engaging in practices forbidden to Christians. (The irony is that all the Biblical passages against interest are in the Hebrew scriptures, not the New Testament. For some reason, the Christians took them more seriously than the Jews, at least for a while.)

In 1635, a Boston merchant was convicted of greed because he sold goods at a 6% markup — 2% higher than allowed by law. The charges against him were brought by the elders of the church, who said he had defamed God’s name. But the fact that he was allowed to make any profit at all was a change brought about largely by the Protestant reformation.

Apparently, the early Christian religion was not biblical! Of course, this might not pose a theological problem for some Protestants, who to varying degrees feel that the Christian religion was not biblical until the Protestant Reformation (more accurately, that at some point after its founding, Christianity digressed from being a biblical religion, and that the Protestant Reformation recovered its biblical nature). But this is at least consistent with capitalism and Christianity becoming a match made in heaven because of Calvinism, as postulated by Max Weber:

Lecture 3: The Protestant Reformation

Calvin also introduced his concept of the “calling.” Some men and women seemed ill-fitted for life on earth. They were avaricious, slothful, amoral. However, there were others who seemed to work happily in their lifetime, accomplishing much and in the right spirit. In other words, they had been “called” to do a certain thing here on earth.

Of course, we wake up early, work at your calling, are thrifty, sober and abstain from frivolity, there is an unintended consequence. That consequence was the acquisition of wealth. So, while Calvin did not invent free enterprise, nor did he invent capitalism, or the desire for wealth, he did rationalize that desire by arguing that certain men are imbued with the spirit of acquisition, the correct spirit. That spirit has often been called the Protestant Work Ethic. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904), the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) asked why it is that the world’s most wealthy men were of Protestant origin. His answer was that it was these men who were also Calvinists, men who had internalized the religious code set down first by Calvin and then by the Puritans of 17th century England. In other words, the ethic says to work hard, save what you have made, and reinvest any profit in order to increase wealth. That is capitalism in a nutshell. Calvin does not invent this idea, he simply rationalizes it by ascribing a certain spirit or calling to certain men of his own age, all of whom just happened to be Calvinists. Of course, such a scheme could and did lead to tension, conflict and anxiety. How much of a calling was a good thing? When did one know when enough was enough? Anxiety and its sister guilt, then, seemed to become one of the guiding principles of Calvinism.

The principle of working hard is a good principle. But this isn’t an attitude that need be restricted to capitalists, nor is there any reason to assume socialists wouldn’t share it. No matter what your job is, who your employer is, and under which economic system you live, diligence is a virtue. One of my own spiritual principles is to do a good job on a project, regardless of reward or recognition, just for the sake of doing a good job. A litmus test of your character is to think to yourself – “Would I still work hard, even if my efforts weren’t rewarded or recognized?” The Bible wants your answer to this question to be “yes”.

Opposition to Socialism

You would think that Christianity should at least be receptive to socialism, given the biblical support for it. But what we find is that socialism is considered anti-biblical, anti-God, by many Christians.

Socialism: The Anti-Christian Utopian Revolution

The secular socialist’s believe in the utopian man, the masters of the universe. Utopian man is the perfected man, or the god man. Educated from childhood to believe in the evolution of man from savage beast to enlightened being, socialists believe in the social engineering of the humanistic god man…. The socialist revolutionary also looks to the State, in our case the federal government, rather than God as its source for education, food, labor and leadership.

It’s interesting that Clark (above), in referring to socialists pejoratively as “revolutionary”, forgets that the Founding Fathers were quite literally revolutionaries. And in claiming that “the socialist revolutionary” looks to the State “as its source for education, food, labor and leadership”, he forgets that capitalists in the United States take these very things for granted from their government. The government of the United States provides public education, allots agricultural subsidies, accounts for 8% of the jobs in the United States, creates policy to lower unemployment, protects the rights and safety of workers, and leads the country. I guess Clark believes the United States is a socialist utopia that should be abolished? This is probably how the American Revolutionaries must have appeared to the entrenched nobility of Europe back in 1776.

But addressing the spirit of Clark’s post. Whether or not there’s a god or an afterlife, humans should be good stewards of this world, and should try to make it a better place to live. Pursuing this goal does not mean that you are playing God or hate God, any more than the Founding Fathers were playing God or hated God when they engaged in their own violent act of social reform.

Why socialism is anti-God

Jesus spoke a parable to His disciples about a master who had three servants and had entrusted them with his business while he was away. Now of course when Jesus told a parable He was speaking of spiritual matters but spoke of things in everyday life so men would understand.

[Matthew 25:14-30]

Who was rewarded? The one who produced the most “capital” or the wicked lazy servant who did little or nothing?
So today’s standards of taxing the rich and taking from those who produce more and giving to those who do little or nothing so everyone is “equal” is absolutely wrong.

Ron (above) errs grossly on the side of literalism here, by taking what is emphatically a parable about spiritual rewards and assuming it is nothing more than a speech to potential investors. Not only does he kill the verse with literalism, but he then applies a liberal helping of literalism on top of that in order to invent a new context for the parable.

Socialism is Evil:

I don’t know that it is Russia destroying us, but it is at least socialism that is destroying the United States. Socialism is an evil in this world. It seeks to deprive us of our God-given rights and it has been infiltrating our society little by little for over 100 years.

Despite the tinfoil hat attitude of Matt (above), there is no such socialist conspiracy. Socialism and secularism are entirely different subjects, and Matt should be thankful every day that he lives in America that he has secularism to protect his freedom of religion. I’m not sure how Matt feels socialism is infiltrating our society (he only says that “it walks around the United States as a wolf in lamb’s clothing parading itself as social justice when in actuality it is government wanting to control every aspect of people’s lives”), but it is government intervention that keeps our water drinkable, our houses safe from fires, our workplaces safe, our children healthy, our air breathable…. the list goes on and on.

But the main argument I’ve heard against socialism is that God doesn’t want people to be forced to help others by the government; God wants them to do so willingly. The problem with this argument is as follows. First, the Bible clearly wants believers to help others, though of course it also wants believers to want to help others. And second, it is judgmental and unfair to assume that those whom we help are lazy (with an unemployment rate just shy of 10% just a couple years ago, can you really claim that 1 out of 10 Americans were just too lazy to work?). The people who want to help others should consider the government as helping them do what they already want to do. Christians who don’t want to help others are not acting in accordance with their own religion, and non-Christians who don’t want to help others have no interest in serving God anyway.

So who is left right?

The bottom line is that there isn’t a black and white answer. The Bible doesn’t hate socialism; in many cases, it actively encourages socialism and discourages capitalism. And socialists don’t hate God, nor are they any lazier than capitalists. Economy doesn’t make the person. Diligence is a virtue no matter who you are or where you live.

The latest

Posted: January 18, 2012 in Uncategorized

Most Christians are familiar with the account of Moses in the book of Exodus, at least up until the part where Charlton Heston Moses breaks the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in righteous wrath. However, few Christians seem to be aware of the atrocities Moses commits while leading the people in the desert later on. In particular, Numbers 31 gives an account of the genocide that the Israelites perform:

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian.

7And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

To summarize this event, Moses ordered the Israeli soldiers to kill all the adult Midianite men. After the soldiers brought the women and children back as prisoners, Moses ordered them to kill all the male Midianite children, then to kill all the Midianite women who were not virgins, and then to divide up all the virgin women and children among the Israeli soldiers.

I think it’s safe to assume they didn’t keep the virgin Midianite women for their scintillating conversation.

Horrible, right? But in keepin’ it real, mainstream Christian apologists justify Moses by saying that the children of sinners can be spared suffering by being murdered before the age of accountability. Don’t believe me? See for yourself.

In The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel writes:

…you need to understand the situation among the Amalekites. In that thoroughly evil and violent and depraved culture, there was no hope for those children. This nation was so polluted that it was like gangrene that was taking over a person’s leg, and God had to amputate the leg or the gangrene would spread and there wouldn’t be anything left. In a sense, God’s [orders to kill the Amalekite children] was an act of mercy…. According to the Bible, every child who dies before the age of accountability goes to heaven to spend eternity in the presence of God…. Now, if they had continued to live in that horrible society, past the age of accountability, they undoubtedly would have become corrupted and thereby lost forever.

In an article, Apologetics Press states:

However, to allege that the God of the Bible is some sort of “monster” for ordering Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan exhibits an ignorance of biblical teaching. Those inhabitants were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). Complaining about Jehovah’s order to destroy innocent children is a vain gesture when one realizes that the children were spared an even worse fate of being reared as slaves under the domination of sin. Instead of having to endure the scourge of a life of immorality and wickedness, these innocents were ushered early into the bliss of Paradise. If the male children had been allowed to mature, they most likely would have followed the pagan ways of their forefathers, and eventually would have taken vengeance on the Israelites. Killing the males not only prevented them from falling into the same abominable sins as their parents, but also kept Israel from having to battle them later

And in an essay, Evidence for God states:

In some instances, God ordered the killing of entire populations, presumably including the killing of babies and children. Isn’t God unrighteous in killing these innocent little ones? First of all, the Bible indicates that all people are sinners, including babies, and worthy of judgment. However, the Bible also indicates that children are incapable of making moral choices, so that they are automatically rewarded with heaven.

You have to know you are taking literalism too far when your answer to the question, “How can the murder of defenseless children be justified by a merciful God and his prophet?” is, “Killing the children of sinners is more merciful than allowing them to grow up and become sinners themselves.”

There are two huge problems here for apologists. The more obvious one is that there has never and will never be another circumstance where the wholesale slaughter of people based on their nationality or religion has been considered a kindness. The second problem is that it’s hard to argue a pro life stance while you’re simultaneously claiming that it’s moral under any circumstances to murder defenseless children. Ironically, both Evidence for God and Apologetics Press hold a pro life stance.

Apologists, I find it genuinely disturbing that you could seriously claim under any circumstances that genocide is moral. Genocide is heinous, whether or not a deity tells you to do it. Your stance reflects poorly on other Christians. Please stop swinging the Hammer of Literalism before somebody gets hurt. Don’t you think there’s a better answer here?

As we know it

Posted: January 2, 2012 in Uncategorized

Less than 12 months til the end of the world! This apocalypse owes its origins to the Maya calendar, the ending of which apparently indicates that the long-awaited fiery inferno will destroy the world as we know it.

Of course, this is a misinterpretation akin to saying, “The Gregorian calendar ends on December 31st! This means the world ends on that day!” When the current b’ak’tun of the Maya Long Count Calendar ends, the Maya civilization would have just started a new one, just as we all pulled out our 2012 calendars yesterday.

It’s easy to laugh at the Maya apocalypse theorists, but Christians have been guilty of many more apocalypse predictions over the centuries. Religious has put together a number of these failed end of the world predictions from 30 to 1920, starting with Matthew 16:28:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

and Matthew 24:34:

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Even as recently as 2011, Harold Camping was making predictions that the Rapture would occur on May 21st. This wasn’t some spurious campaign, either; Harold Camping spent $100 million to advertise this claim.

There is something going on here in human psychology with regard to apocalypse predictions. It’s something bigger than just religion, as the 2012 predictions, having nothing to do with theism, indicates.

Americans have more leisure time than ever before, according to a recent study. Leisure time is essential unnatural. It barely existed as a concept for medieval peasants (the gentry, of course, were notably different), and in nature, leisure time doesn’t exist at all. Leisure time and specialization (and, of course, necessity) have allowed for a constant stream of new inventions, and we see the rapid growth of human society, knowledge, and technology over the centuries. Human society is evolving much faster than humans. Infinitely faster, if you’re one of 40% of Americans who deny evolution. Humans have created society in the same manner in which Dr Frankenstein created his monster, and just as similarly, for better or for worse, we seem unable to control our creation. And as human society continues to grow, what we find is that it actually controls us.

Don’t get me wrong for a second. Despite this raging beast of human society, it’s actually a fairly benevolent beast. We don’t have to worry about smallpox or the bubonic plague. In the west, we can count on sanitation, plumbing, and electricity. In many places, infant mortality rates are at their lowest levels ever. So while it’s scary to think of how our welfare depends on electricity and bureaucratic red tape, it’s also amazing just how good our lives are on this very day as compared to any other point in human history (or even as compared to many other countries in the world today).

But our brains, which really haven’t evolved all that much since the day a human first threw a curse instead of a stone, can’t accept the overwhelming quantities of information or the rapid pace of change. So our brains develop a defense mechanism. We think back on “the good old days”, which in many ways weren’t better days, but just were days each of us understood better. Or we think that society can’t possibly keep growing and changing at this speed. And when we put it all together, our intuition tells us that the end of the world (be it a whimper, or the opening of the seven seals of a divine book, or the end of an extinct civilization’s calendar) must be nigh.

But here’s the terrifying thing. We are nowhere near the end of the world. With so many people on this planet, it’s the job of every one of us to make the world a better place. We can’t revert to black and white absolutes in order to deal with the overwhelming quantity of gray out there. We can’t fall back on ancient “silver bullet” prophecies. Every one of us has to start assuming that the world is not going to end for a very, very long time, and that when it does, it won’t benefit anyone.

Society is bigger now than you can possibly imagine. Accept that and move on. Don’t make the mistaken assumption that because you can’t fit all of human society inside your own intellect that it is therefore broken or needs to be divinely redressed.