Category Archives: Uncategorized

Why Not Call What God Does “Magic”?

Posted on by

Many Christians say that the supernatural wonders in the Bible performed by someone on God’s team must be called “miracles.” But look at the currency of these godly people—magic words and curses, talismans and charms, prophecies, life force, potions, divination, numerology, and more—and see if they don’t sound like magic.

Potions

Jesus healed a blind man by making mud with his spit and putting that on the man’s eyes. After he washed his eyes, the man could see (John 9:6–7). This was a tricky potion even for Jesus, because in the earlier parallel story, Jesus needed two tries to get it to work (Mark 8:22–5).

A more complex potion is needed in the trial by ordeal used to test a wife’s faithfulness (Numbers 5:11–31). Curses were written on a scroll, and those words were rinsed into a potion made of dirt and water. The accused woman had to drink the potion. She would miscarry, but only if she had been unfaithful.

Magical names

The Ten Commandments prohibited misusing the name of God, but what is a misuse? Frivolous, careless, or blasphemous use was one concern. That’s why “Yahweh” is avoided within Judaism in favor of Adonai (“The Lord”) or HaShem (“The Name”). When writing in English, Jews might go as far as to write “G-d.” By camouflaging a name that is itself a euphemism, they put themselves two steps away from using the sacred name of Yahweh.

But there’s another angle, explained in Wikipedia:

The ancient Jews considered God’s true name so potent that its invocation conferred upon the speaker tremendous power over His creations. To prevent abuse of this power, as well as to avoid blasphemy, the name of God was always taboo, and increasingly disused so that by the time of Jesus their High Priest was supposedly the only individual who spoke it aloud—and then only in the Holy of Holies upon the Day of Atonement.

This helps explain why God told Moses that his name was “I am” (Exodus 3:14). God was evasive because a name gave someone power. It also helps explain why we call the Christian god “God.” (It’s not like calling your cat “Cat” since “Yahweh” has power.)

Another example is Jacob wrestling God (Genesis 32:22–31). At the end of the contest, God blessed Jacob with the new name of Israel, but God refused to give his name to Jacob.

In the Garden of Eden story, Adam was granted the privilege of naming the animals.

Names having power is a popular idea outside the Bible as well. We see it in folklore, literature, and legend. In Homer’s Odyssey, Odysseus used both a false name and his true name in his fight with the cyclops Polyphemus. Closer to our time, characters that could be controlled by their names include Rumpelstiltskin, Mr. Mxyzptlk (an enemy of Superman), and Beetlejuice. TV Tropes has a long list of additional examples of the power of names in literature, popular fiction, and real life.

Medicine and health in the Bible

We know that bacteria and viruses can cause disease but demons and sin can’t. In Jesus’s time, it was the other way around, and Jesus cured disease by expelling evil spirits (Mark 9:25). Disease was also a consequence of sin (John 5:14; Mark 2:2–12).

We’re told that the touch of a holy man can cure. That’s how Jesus cured a leper, a person with a fever, and two blind men. He raised two dead people by touching them. And the holy man doesn’t even have to be alive! “Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet” (2 Kings 13:21). Touch can also work the other way, and a woman was healed by touching Jesus (Mark 5:30).

Jesus doesn’t even have to be there. He healed the centurion’s servant remotely (Matthew 8:5–13). (More on Jesus’s relationship with medicine here.)

Then there’s the pseudoscience that like cures like. This is the idea of using “the hair of the dog that bit you” as medicine, and we see hints of this in voodoo dolls and homeopathy. The Bible has an example in the Nehushtan, a bronze snake, erected at God’s command, that cured bites from the snakes that God sent to punish the Israelites (Numbers 21:4–9). More here.

Taking the energy from living things

Sacrificing living things can give power to a god. In around 846 BCE, the Israelites and their allies were attacking Moab, destroying city after city as they closed in on the king. The king had one final, desperate ploy, and he sacrificed his son, the future king, to his god Chemosh. The result: “There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland” (2 Kings 3:27, NET). More on God’s weaknesses here.

Another illustration of the mojo from a sacrifice are the dozens of references to the “pleasing aroma” of a burning sacrifice. These are identified as food offerings, and the energy was conveyed up to God through the smoke. Here, too, we see the extra value in human sacrifices. Sometimes God demanded just the firstborn of the livestock, but not always. In Exodus 22:29 we find, “You must give me the firstborn of your sons.” More on human sacrifice here.

Relics and charms

Can you say “acheiropoieta,” boys and girls? That’s a hard word! This is the category of icons made without hands—basically, icons that are not manmade artwork. The Shroud of Turin is probably the most famous one, but there are more. The Veil of Veronica is an image of the face of Jesus imprinted on a cloth when, according to legend, St. Veronica used it to wipe the sweat and blood off the face of Jesus while he was carrying his cross. The Image of Edessa (the Mandylion) is another example. You’ll be relieved to know that the International Institute for Research on the Face of Christ now exists to study these important icons.

Relics of any sort became increasingly important during the Middle Ages. The Second Council of Nicaea decreed in 787 that every church must have a relic—something physical from a saint or Jesus like a possession or a body part. Relics were already moneymakers since they brought pilgrims into town, and this decree increased the demand, both for real relics and fakes. It has been joked that there were enough pieces of the true cross to build an ark and enough nails from the crucifixion to hold it together.

The Roman Catholic Church says that the communion wafer and wine turn into the body and blood of Jesus, which makes them something of an icon.

As an aside, isn’t this reverence of sacred objects unseemly? The second commandment technically is against artwork (“You shall not make for yourself an image. . . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them.”), but this idolatry does seem like a violation.

Up next: curses, magic words, divination, and more.

Concluded in part 2.

For God so loved the world
he couldn’t be bothered to come up
with a decent argument.
— commenter MR

.

Image from Augsburg Book of Miraculous Signs
.

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 5)

Posted on by

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative Christian radio host Frank Turek provides most of the arguments. (Part 1 here.)

12. It’s a slippery slope!

Today same-sex marriage; tomorrow, who knows what?! Frank demands:

Why are [homosexual activists] so “bigoted” to rule out groups and other arrangements they disapprove of? The same logic that seeks to justify same sex marriage—“I should be able to marry whomever I love”—can be used to justify any preferred arrangement.

We don’t need to worry about what would happen if the definition of marriage changed since it already has changed—for example, in the cases of mixed-race marriage, no-fault divorce, and laws against marital rape. Frank makes clear that he’s glad that it changed to allow mixed-race marriage. With no concern about change, where’s the problem?

Frank says that everyone puts limits on the definition of marriage, and again we agree. No definition of marriage would make sense if it weren’t clear what things were not included in that definition. Since the conservative and liberal positions are now symmetrical—both limit the definition and both accept that the definition changes—how does he imagine that the slippery slope problem applies only to liberals? When there is a critical mass demanding another change to the definition, let’s consider it. Until then, this is just an irrelevant red herring.

The slippery slope hypothetical put forward by conservatives usually involves incest, pedophilia, or other relationships that cause harm. Yeah, I get it—things that cause harm are bad. Let’s continue to prohibit harmful relationships. Since consensual homosexual sex or romance cause no more problems than the heterosexual kind, this objection fails. (More here and here.)

13. The gay argument defeats itself!

Frank opens a can of logical whoop-ass on same-sex marriage proponents. So there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, you say? Then consider this:

If men and women were really the same, the activists would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it. The very reason they are demanding same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different.

Yes, men and women are different, and homosexuals are romantically attracted to one and not the other, just like you.

14. Don’t like divorce? Same-sex marriage will make it worse!

Before no-fault divorce, one party in a marriage had to show that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, a felony, or a similar offense to get a divorce. Frank prefers those good old days.

[No-fault divorce] laws make dissolving a family too easy and should be repealed. They also help teach people that marriage is only about the desires of adults, not the needs of children. If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I’m not “happy.” . . . Making marriage genderless through same sex marriage will further hurt children by annihilating their connection to marriage completely.

Marriage is about a lot more than children, as we discovered in argument 5. Sometimes a bad marriage should be endured for the sake of the children, and sometimes it’s best for everyone if the marriage ends. I’m surprised to hear a conservative like Frank advocate for a nanny state solution, where laws tell people how to live their lives, rather than encourage them to be responsible adults and decide for themselves what’s best.

Divorce laws aren’t the reason why marriages suck. They’re a symptom, not a cause. And at last we’ve stumbled across something that actually is an attack on marriage. Why not focus on the social conditions that injure marriage rather than on homosexuals, a category of people trying to embrace marriage?

Same-sex marriage is a celebration of marriage, not an attack. It’s divorce (actually, the poor conditions that bring on divorce) that is the attack on marriage. Go worry about that.

15. Homosexuality causes health problems!

Frank doesn’t want to hear that homosexual sex is about love.

What’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8–20 years? . . . If the sex act is medically dangerous, the best way to love the other person is not to have sex with him. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.

Presumably the issue Frank vaguely alludes to is AIDS, but he seems to imagine that AIDS is a gay men’s disease. No, it’s a sexually transmitted disease. Worldwide, almost as many women as men are HIV positive.

But let’s find the silver lining here. Frank is encouraging everyone to practice safe sex, and that’s good advice. There you go, Frank—problem solved.

But what’s that last line, the one about “most of our loving relationships are non-sexual”? When Frank’s “marriage is all about screwing and making babies!” argument is inconvenient, he suddenly becomes reasonable. That’s right, Frank—the relationship between two loving adults is important and should be supported by society.

16. There goes free speech!

According to [homosexual activists], same sex marriage is now not only a “right,” no one has the right to oppose it. This new right is so powerful it has completely wiped out the old rights that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I suppose Frank’s breathless anxiety helps wind up his supporters, but Constitutional freedoms are still firmly in place. Frank frets that the right of free speech is gone and same-sex marriage can’t be criticized . . . while he’s speaking freely and criticizing same-sex marriage.

Tell you what, Frank: you show me any instances where your free speech on this subject has been prohibited, and I’m on your side. When your free speech rights are curtailed, impositions on mine are likely to follow. Note, however, that public critique of your position doesn’t count, getting your feelings hurt doesn’t count, and not being able to impose your will on others by law doesn’t count.

Liberals can’t justify why same-sex marriage is right. Nevertheless, they want to legislate it as a right and will convict you of heresy if you fail to bow to it.

It’s amusing how Frank is all a-flutter with fears that he will be imposed upon. In fact, legalized same-sex marriage does nothing to him. He won’t be forced to have gay sex or get gay married. The only risk of imposition is his eagerness to impose his views on others and constrain others with his definition of marriage.

Concluded in part 6.

The Bible is basically the longest set of Terms & Conditions ever,
which is why so many people agree with it
without knowing why.
— seen on /r/atheism

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/19/15.)

Image credit: Wikipedia

.

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 4)

Posted on by

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative radio host Frank Turek provides most of the arguments. (Part 1 here.)

9. Human rights are God-given rights!

Rights are not based on human opinion, but on an unchangeable authoritative standard beyond human opinion. That’s why human rights cannot exist unless God exists. Without God everything is simply a matter of personal preference. . . . Human laws can only recognize God-given rights.

Frank needs to study up on how human rights come about. To take one example, voting rights have changed over time in the U.S., and God didn’t play a role at any stage.

As for God giving rights, he’s hardly a good moral model (more here, here, and here). The Bible isn’t law in the United States; the Constitution is, and Christianity is legal in the United States courtesy of the (secular) Constitution. “Because the Bible says so” is an inherently impotent argument in this country.

But let’s go there anyway and see what the Bible says. The Bible doesn’t directly address same-sex marriage. It does, however, make clear its disapproval of mixed-race (or intertribal) marriage. Here’s a modern rejection of interracial marriage from Bob Jones University built on an honest reading of the Bible.

Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man. (1998)

The statement is unnecessarily hesitant. God plainly forbids intermarriage with foreign tribes (Deuteronomy 7:3). The prohibition against intermarriage is also given in Ezra (9:2, 10:10) and Nehemiah (chapter 13). King Solomon was also chastised for his foreign wives (1 Kings 11).

The apologist might respond that the prohibitions against intermarriage were meant to avoid temptations to worship other gods. That’s true to some extent but irrelevant—they’re still anti-miscegeny laws. If they’re wrong today, why excuse them back then? The Bible’s version of “God-given” rights and demands isn’t a morality than we can tolerate.

To understand the Bible on homosexuality, consider its stance on slavery. Some Christians say that slavery in the Old Testament was just God adapting to the imperfect, wicked customs of the time. All right, but take the same approach toward homosexuality. If God’s attitude toward slavery was adapted to the times (though that attitude makes no sense today), then maybe God’s attitude toward homosexuality was similarly adapted to the times and makes no sense today. These Christians might respond that the Old Testament was wrong on slavery but right on homosexuality, but what—besides personal opinion or preference—would they base that on?

The Bible gives no support to Frank’s “marriage = babies” argument (argument #5 in our critique). One kind of marriage we do see, however, is the marriage of Jesus to the church (as in Ephesians 5:25–27). In this marriage, it’s love that is central, not babies.

Paul is no asset to the Christian position either. He said, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). This applied to married couples as well (1 Cor. 7:12)—so much for the celebrated role of procreation. He discouraged marriage (7:8–9) and rejected divorce (7:10–11). Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament in the Church until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. I’m not surprised that Frank hides from this part of the Bible since it defeats his position.

10. Because morals come from the Creator!

Forget about the “separation of church and state” objection. It doesn’t apply here. . . . [The founders] recognized our moral rights come from the Creator and founded the country on “Nature’s Law” consistent with Christianity.

Since the Constitution is explicitly secular, history revisionists like to go back to references to a “Creator” and “Nature’s Law” in the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is an important historical document, but that’s it. These references impose nothing on American society today, and they’re not even Christian references but are deist.

The DoI makes clear that “Governments [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed,” not God. And when a government becomes abusive, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” The government answers to the people, not God. Frank can’t find much support in this argument. More here.

11. My standard can beat your standard!

Frank next appeals to objective morality. You gotta have an objectively correct moral stance to make any moral claim, Frank tells us, and such a stance admits a god to ground it.

Homosexual activists say we’re wrong. But we can’t be “wrong” unless there is a real standard of “Right” from which we deviate.

Frank adds qualifiers—a real standard or something being truly right—to refer to objective morality, but I doubt that such a thing exists. I impatiently await evidence that there are moral truths that would be true whether anyone believed them or not (explored more here, here, and here).

So we should ask same sex marriage advocates, “What’s your standard? Who said same sex marriage is a ‘right’?” You and your friends? That’s not a right. That’s an opinion.

It’s like Frank isn’t aware of how social change works. You have a moral belief because you’ve concluded that it’s correct. You can then explore the why, but in the end the buck stops with you. It is your opinion.

That may not be much, but it’s all we’ve got. Groundless handwaving that God agrees with you counts for nothing.

So liberals can believe in and fight for same-sex marriage, but they can’t justify it as truly being a right without reference to the Creator. If they do reference the Creator, then they have the rationally dubious task of arguing that God affirms same-sex marriage.

I don’t claim that my conclusions are objectively true, and your claims to be able to tap into objective moral truth are backed up by nothing more than wishful thinking. I agree that God doesn’t affirm same-sex marriage, but God does affirm polygamy. You still want to model marriage after what God says?

Continued in part 5.

Little Girl: “I’m so glad I don’t like asparagus.”
Friend: “Why, my dear?”
Little Girl: “Because if I did like it,
I should have to eat it, and I can’t bear it!”
— moral difficulty proposed by Lewis Carroll

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/15/15.)

Image credit: Wikimedia
.

Missionary John Chau Died for Nothing: Why the Great Commission Didn’t Apply to Him (or to You)

Posted on by

John Chau, missionary killed Great Commission

John Chau, the missionary who was killed a few weeks ago by the inhabitants of a small island in the Indian Ocean, was arguably brave and selfless in his desire to spread the gospel. The tragedy was that his sacrifice was for nothing, even within a Christian context. The Great Commission, the charge Jesus gave to spread the gospel, wasn’t given to him. In fact, it wasn’t given to anyone now living, and the Bible makes that clear.

Here are six reasons why Christians should ignore the Great Commission.

1. Jesus wasn’t talking to you.

Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), but he was speaking to his disciples. Don’t flatter yourself—you’re not Luke or Peter or John.

Some might assume Jesus had more in mind. After all, he had to be thinking about who would carry on the evangelical task. Who would take up the challenge in the next generation and the next? The answer: nobody. Jesus wasn’t thinking about Christian evangelism centuries in the future. He saw the end within the lifetimes of his hearers.

Other chapters in the Bible make clear that Jesus was not addressing today’s Christian. An earlier commission also charges the disciples to spread the word, but this time Jesus gave them superpowers. They had “authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” (Matthew 10:1).

Jesus also said to his disciples, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). Binding means to forbid and loosing means to permit, both by an indisputable authority. We see something similar in another gospel, a power you’d think would be reserved for God himself: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23).

If the commission comes with superhuman powers to help carry it out but Christians today weren’t given those powers, then they probably weren’t given the commission either.

2. Christian leaders acknowledge the difference.

The Bible shows the disciples performing healing miracles. The book of Acts has Paul healing a lame man, Ananias curing blindness, and Peter raising the dead. “Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles” (Acts 2:43). In John, Jesus said, “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.”

Another aspect of miracles is the amazing claims made for prayer. In Matthew, Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” In Mark, Jesus says, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”

But it doesn’t work that way for Christians today, and everyone knows it. Christians can’t reliably heal, and prayer doesn’t “work” like a light switch or a car works. To get out of this bind, Christian apologists sometimes sidestep the problem by saying that times have changed, and these remarkable abilities were available only to the disciples.

That works, but then the Great Commission reasonably falls into the same category. Only the disciples had these amazing abilities, and only the disciples were given the burden of the Great Commission.

3. You can’t have confidence that your interpretation is correct

Christianity has 45,000 denominations, and it’s budding off new ones at a rate of two per day. There are a lot of fundamental doctrines that separate these denominations. You may be confident in the rightness of your views on those important matters, but you can have no certainty that you’re right. There is no objectively correct way to interpret the Bible. When your Christian views differ from your neighbor’s, how can you prove which one is right? How can you insist that yours are correct?

4. It’s not everyone’s job to evangelize

Paul says that we have different gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4–11). Yours isn’t necessarily to evangelize. And don’t take on the teaching role lightly: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).  

5. When the Bible makes a crazy demand, Christians ignore the demand

Christians casually dismiss aspects of the Bible that don’t translate well into modern Western society—God’s support for slavery, polygamy, genocide, human sacrifice, and so on. The Bible makes God’s position clear, but loftier principles override the Bible, and Christians (correctly) take the sensible approach where there are conflicts. If pushing your beliefs on others also doesn’t feel right, maybe that’s because it isn’t.

And what’s the point of evangelization anyway? Fundamentalists will tell you that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the work, not your evangelization, “so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Surely the omnipotent Holy Spirit has the capability to save souls and isn’t constrained by what people do or don’t do.

6. There’s no need for the Great Commission

Christians have been told that it’s their duty to save people. Just imagine if your neighbor went to hell simply because you were too lazy to convince him that he was a broken sinner who needed what your church was selling.

Paul makes clear that this fear is unfounded. Comparing the symmetry of Adam’s sin with Jesus’s sacrifice, Paul said, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). The price has been paid, so you’re good.

We see a similar attitude in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. The King gives eternal life to those who lived honorable lives on earth. Evangelism and mandatory beliefs aren’t necessary.

Christians, discard the great baggage of the Great Commission. There’s work enough to just live your life as a good Christian. If someone asks, you can give the “reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

If you want to more closely follow the lead of Jesus, he spoke at length about helping the disadvantaged. That’s a charge that makes a lot more sense.

When Christians tell you that they’re confused
with how the Bible seems okay with slavery and polygamy,
don’t tell them not to worry and that 2+2=5 after all.
2+2=4, and the work of Christianity
is learning how to deal with 4.
— Laura Robinson, quoted here

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2/2/15.)

Image from Wikipedia, public domain
.

A Very Zeitgeist Christmas: Rebuttal to the Astrology Claims for Jesus

Posted on by

I summarized the astrological interpretation of the New Testament from Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) here and responded to the star of Bethlehem argument here. Let’s wrap up with a critique of the movie’s astrological interpretation of the meaning of Jesus on earth.

Jesus

Zeitgeist says that the plane of the sun moves south from June through December. The sun stops this motion for a few days around the solstice (December 22–24) near the constellation of the Southern Cross. It moves again, back to the north, starting on December 25. The sun dies on the cross and is soon reborn, which parallels the son dying on the cross and then rising after three days.

  • The most glaring problem is the son/sun parallel. Saying that the Son dying on a cross actually meant the sun dying on the Southern Cross is clever, but this homonym only works in English. Son/sun sounds identical in modern English, but this is irrelevant because (everybody say it with me) the New Testament wasn’t written in modern English! Take away the homonym, and this story largely falls apart.
  • Can you can see the constellation of the Southern Cross from the Middle East? Jerusalem is north of latitude 31°, but you must be at 25°N or lower to see it. However, precession has changed this. In the time of Jesus, this constellation would’ve been visible in the Middle East, so this (surprisingly) isn’t a problem.
  • But even with the Southern Cross visible, would the sun ever be “on” the Southern Cross? No, for two reasons. There are lots of constellations, but the twelve astrological constellations are on the ecliptic, the path that the sun makes through the sky. The Southern Cross is about 50° south of Virgo, so while the sun can be “on” Virgo, it will never touch the Southern Cross. Second, the sun is in Virgo in September. It then passes through Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius by the time of the winter solstice. Imagine an observer looking at the Southern Cross on December 25 and hoping to see the sun on it. If they tipped their head to make the ecliptic the horizon, the sun would be about 90° too far left at that moment, and it would always be about 50° too far up.
  • When was the Southern Cross seen as a distinct constellation and not part of something else? Ptolemy in the second century CE saw these stars as part of a larger constellation, that of Centaurus. The first documentation of the Southern Cross as a separate constellation was in 1592. In other words, there was no Southern Cross at the time of Jesus.
  • Why the interest in December 25? If the topic is resurrection symbology—Jesus dying on the cross and rising again—that happened at Easter.
  • The winter solstice happens not on a day but at a precise moment. Before that moment, the plane of the sun was tipping to the south, and after that it tips north. If you must imagine a rest period (which doesn’t actually happen), that would not be December 22–24 but would more plausibly be December 20–23, the date range for the solstice.

After the spring equinox (around Easter), light finally becomes greater than dark. Jesus is born again with the rising of the sun every morning.

  • The sun is “born again” every day (or, if you prefer, once a year on the winter solstice), but being born again wasn’t a thing for Jesus, just for his followers. Jesus resurrected, and that supposedly happened just once. And even a Christian being born again is supposed to only happen once.
  • Easter is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox. This means that it varies within a 34-day window. Easter is only roughly tied to the equinox.

Ages

Zeitgeist says: an astrological “age” is one twelfth of one cycle of the precession of the earth (26,000 ÷ 12 = 2150 years). We’re nearing the end of the Age of Pisces (0 – 2150 CE). Moses represented the new age of Aries the Ram (2150 BCE – 0) and a rejection of the previous age, that of Taurus the Bull.

  • “Ages” in the New Testament isn’t a reference to astrology but to Apocalypticism. When Jesus said, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age,” he was talking about an age that would end soon—in years or decades, in the lifetime of many of his hearers. Apocalypticism was a religious view popular in Judaism during the time of Jesus and before.
  • Did the ancients know about the precession of the sun through the zodiac that makes the astrological ages? Hipparchus (second century BCE) could’ve known, but this is disputed. Even if he did, he had only a rough idea of the rate of change, which is a long way from the astrological idea of 2150-year-long ages known in the Middle East.
  • Moses was probably a legendary figure, but even if we ignore that, he was said to have been born in the 1500s to 1300s BCE, many centuries after the start of the Age of the Ram in 2150 BCE. Any imaginary Aries vs. Taurus friction would’ve been in the distant past, so why would Moses want to make the point? And who would need to hear that Aries had firmly supplanted Taurus?
  • Many civilizations saw constellations, but they didn’t see the same ones. Did the Taurus/Aries/Pisces astrology that we know today exist in the minds of the authors who wrote about Moses in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), probably around 900 BCE? All these questions must be answered with good evidence before this argument is worth considering.

Zeitgeist: Jesus was born at the start the Age of Pisces the Fish. We even see a hint of the next age with the reference to the water bearer, Aquarius.

  • If this point of this verse is that Aquarius will be the next age, how would this be newsworthy? It is debatable whether people of that time shared our conception of astrology and the zodiac, but if they did, they would already know this. When the Age of Pisces has just started, why waste the ink getting people excited about the Age of Aquarius, which wouldn’t arrive for more than 2000 years?
  • What kind of theology changes with the zodiac sign? Aries introduces Moses, and Pisces introduces Jesus . . . so then the unchanging Truth will change again with some new guy for Aquarius?
  • Jesus was short-term focused. The Apocalyptic end of the age was to happen soon. There was no concept of a perpetual cycle of ages.

Conclusion

Many people have found this popular video compelling, and yet a little skepticism and research defeat this Christian astrology section many times over. Skeptical atheists and Christians will both see this as a shaky argument. Perhaps that agreement could lead to the question, why is the Christian story any less so?

It is not a book to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force.
— Sid Ziff, Los Angeles Mirror-News

.

Wikimedia / Image public domain
.

What Is a “Real Man,” According to the Bible? (2 of 2)

Posted on by

In response to a list of biblical rules for a real man, let’s scour the Bible for more rules (part 1). If the original conservative agenda can guide a selection of rules, then anyone can play the game. Here’s the continuation of our list of 10 More Traits of Real Men.

5. Real men can personally perform miracles

Jesus made clear that his miracles were just the beginning.

Whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these (John 14:12).

We see something similar with the Great Commission. It’s pretty clear that Jesus wasn’t giving it to ordinary Christians today but rather the apostles, but for Christians who imagine that Jesus was talking to them, they should expect to get “authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” (Matthew 10:1) and the authority to decide which sins can be forgiven (John 20:23).

6a. Real men insist that their sassy children be stoned to death

The Bible says that there’s nothing wrong with a good thrashing (“Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being,” Proverbs 20:30), but it gets a lot worse than that.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die (Deuteronomy 21:18–21).

That’s effective! I can’t imagine the son misbehaves after that.

6b. Real men stone non-virgins, too

And by “virgin,” of course, we’re talking about virgin women. Virginal purity isn’t a thing for men—and how fortunate for you gentlemen out there! The Bible has a kind of honesty-in-advertising guideline for women. Fathers, if you offer your daughter as a virgin and she isn’t as advertised, you’ll have to take her back:

[If] the tokens of virginity be not found for the bride, then they shall bring her to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).

The good news is that the problem of feeding another mouth has been addressed.

7. Real men take sex slaves

Israelite forces were successful in battle against Midian. They killed all the men, destroyed all their towns, and returned with women, children, livestock, and other plunder, but Moses greeted them with anger. He said, in effect, “What part of ‘kill everyone’ did you not understand?!” His resolution of the problem:

[Now] kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (Numbers 31:17–18).

 8. Real men never sin

We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them (1 John 5:18; see also 1 John 3:6, 3:9).

9. Real men abandon reason and evidence

The Bible is supposed to be confusing, didn’t you know? Here’s Jesus praying to God:

I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children (Matthew 11:25).

It’s best to check your brains at the door and just have faith:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5–6).

10. Real men keep slaves

But of course real men conduct slavery in a godly way, and the Bible is a helpful resource. For example, can you keep slaves for life?

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life (Leviticus 25:44–6).

Slaves need to know their place, but how much punishment is too much?

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property (Exodus 21:20–21).

We find support in the New Testament as well:

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh (1 Peter 1:18).

Hallelujah! How thoughtful of God to clarify. More.

And, of course, there’s more. A real man doesn’t mix things like wool and linen or two different crops in a field, and he doesn’t yoke together different animals like an ox with a donkey (Deuteronomy 22:9–11). A real man doesn’t put up with mixed-race marriages (Deut. 7:3, 23:3). And so on.

Admittedly, I’m picking verses following a let’s-make-the-Bible-look-foolish agenda, but that’s no less honest than the original article’s conservative Christian agenda. The Bible’s wisdom doesn’t look so timeless when you imagine it applied today.

To any Christians annoyed at my list, I encourage them to stop having such a hateful holy book.

So far as I can remember,
there is not one word in the Gospels
in praise of intelligence.
— Bertrand Russell

.

Image from TK Hammonds, CC license
.