Six Christian Principles Used to Give the Bible a Pass

Posted on by

In Christians’ Damning Refuge in “Difficult Verses,” we looked at a Christian response to the well-known Dawkins Quote (“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction . . .”). This response tried to distinguish between “clear” and “hard” passages in the Bible. But is the problem that some verses are unclear or that they’re actually unpleasant, with clear/hard simply a misdirection to justify ignoring verses where God’s barbaric behavior is on display?

Christians will tell me to look without bias at what the Bible says and I’ll do my best, but I have no patience for when they don’t follow their own rules. Or when their own rules demand that they be biased.

Principle #1: The Bible is always right

(So principle #2 must be: if the Bible is ever wrong, see principle #1.)

This is from the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (at least they admit that it takes an entire encyclopedia to document all the Bible difficulties).

Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it.

Nope. If you want respect for your holy book, you can earn it. I won’t just give it to you.

This one is too stupid to respond to, and “What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” (Hitchens’ Razor).

I’ll critique five additional Christian recommendations for how to interpret the Bible that are arguably more reasonable. We’ll start with an elaboration of the one we’ve just seen, “take the clearer passages to interpret the harder passages.”

Two of my sources are “How to Interpret the Bible” and “Ten principles when considering alleged Bible contradictions.” From this point forward, I’ll abbreviate these as HIB and 10P. (I’ve responded to 10P in depth here.)

Principle #2: Let the Bible clarify the Bible

Or, as HIB puts it, “The Clear Must Interpret the Unclear”:

Murky passages can often be clarified by other scriptures which address the particular topic in a more straightforward way. For example, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John’s apocalypse [that is, the book of Revelation], may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul’s epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence clearer.

Here’s another way to see that clear/unclear simply means pleasing/displeasing. When someone says that verse A is clear and B unclear (so we should focus on verse A, ignore verse B, and pretend we didn’t notice any contradiction), ask why that’s the order. Why isn’t B the clear one? For example, Paul says, “[All I’ve been saying is] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23). But this is contradicted by (1) the zombies that came out of their graves on the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:52), who were actually the first to rise from the dead, and (2) the gospels themselves, which say that Jesus had a long ministry before his resurrection, not after as Paul says it. Why do the gospels trump Paul?

Or take the duration of Jesus’s time on earth after the resurrection. Why is it popularly seen as forty days (Acts 1:3)? Why not one day (Luke 24:51)?

Here’s another example. Harold Camping famously made a fool of himself when he predicted the Rapture on May 21, 2011. The first lesson from the Camping fiasco is that testability is not the prophet’s friend. If you’re going to predict something, make it vague to give you plausible deniability after your inevitable failure. (John Hagee didn’t get the message when he said in 2013, “The coming four blood moons points to a world-shaking event that will happen between April 2014 and October 2015.” Whoops—wrong again.)

But the second lesson is that the Bible is a sock puppet that can say almost anything you want. For example, Christian apologists, embarrassed by Camping’s date for the Last Days®, quoted Paul speaking about the end: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. . . . Destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman” (1 Thessalonians 5:2–3). That is, the end must be a surprise, and Camping couldn’t have correctly calculated the date of the Rapture.

Camping trumped that by quoting the very next verse: “But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.” That is, the chosen won’t be surprised by the end.

The lack of biblical clarity and the inadequacy of Principle #2 are made particularly clear by Christianity’s 45,000 denominations (and counting). If the Bible were the clear message from an omniscient Creator, there would be just one message. Christians should stop granting themselves license to harmonize conflicting passages and realize that the Bible is simply a collection of manmade books that, being written by different people at different times, align imperfectly.

Continue with part 2.

You give me the awful impression,
I hate to have to say it,
of someone who hasn’t read
any of the arguments against your position ever.
— Christopher Hitchens

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2/15/16.)

Image from Forsaken Fotos, CC license
.

BSR 14: A Loving God Wouldn’t Send People to Hell

Posted on by

Most teachers pass a higher fraction of students than God allows into heaven. For those people who don’t deserve heaven, don’t blame them—blame their Maker.

Summary of reply: Christians need to rethink the entrance requirements for heaven, since Jesus made clear that most of us won’t make it in. And why should someone be punished for failing to seek the Christian god instead of any other?

(These Bite-Size Replies are responses to “Quick Shots,” brief Christian responses to atheist challenges. The introduction to this series is here.)

Challenge to the Christian: A loving God would not send people to hell.

Christian response #1: You can’t expect everyone, good and bad, to get the same treatment in the afterlife. “A loving God must also be just or His love is little more than an empty expression.”

Does that apply to Grandma as well? Is her unconditional love an “empty expression” since it’s not tied to justice? Uh, no—this lockstep connection between love and justice is imaginary.

The apologist wants to explore different entry requirements for the afterlife. How fair would it be if the same afterlife were given to Jeffrey Dahmer (sentenced to 16 life sentences for many murders) and Anne Frank (died at age 15 in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp just weeks before liberation by the Allies)?

But if you think that’s unfair, consider the Christian view: Dahmer, who became a born-again Christian in prison, is now in heaven, while Anne Frank, a Jew who never accepted Jesus as her savior, is in hell. How fair is that?

And the Bible is inconsistent about how one gets into heaven. If God is offended by our sin, he could just forgive, like we do. In fact, he does forgive. In one instance, God says about Israel, “I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” The parable of the sheep and the goats says that good works get you in. And anyway, everyone already has a ticket to heaven. Paul in Romans 5:18–19 says that no one had to opt in to get Adam’s sin, so no one needs to opt in to get Jesus’s salvation.

You get into heaven if you’ve accepted Jesus, not if you’re a good person? Christians need to work on that story. [Click to tweet]

Christian response #2: God doesn’t send people to hell, and he won’t force people to live with him in heaven.

Jesus said about the afterlife, “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” This is God’s perfect plan? Most teachers pass a higher fraction of students than God allows into heaven. God made hell knowing that most people would end up there, and yet somehow he gets no blame for creating this catastrophe. Nope—if people are imperfect, blame their Maker.

A popular Christian rationalization is that God wants us in heaven, but he’s not going to force us there. And yet in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man is sent to hell after death, it’s clear that he really doesn’t want to be there. No, you wouldn’t have to drag him to the Good Place.

Sending people to hell isn’t the loving thing to do. This “God is a gentleman and won’t force himself on anyone” argument is ridiculous. God should know how relationships work, and this isn’t it. If God wants people to love him, he can be worthy of love. Being indistinguishable from nonexistent isn’t the way to get there.

Most teachers pass a higher fraction of students than God allows into heaven. For those people who don’t deserve heaven, don’t blame them—blame their Maker. [Click to tweet]

Christian response #3: People in hell aren’t tortured, though they will be tormented. Denying God’s offer of heaven becomes your choice to go to hell.

Tortured, tormented—whatever. Either one is bad, and God is to blame.

If heaven or hell is our choice, not God’s (charging God with sending us to hell is against the rules, apparently), why the secrecy? Why doesn’t God lay his cards on the table to let us make an informed decision?

“Just read the Bible” is no answer, because the Bible is unclear. God should make himself known, convince everyone that heaven and hell exist, and explain the entrance requirements. No one should be expected to believe the unbelievable.

Why elevate the Christian claim of heaven over the afterlife claims of any other religion? Alternatively, why should someone be punished for failing to seek God rather than failing to seek Allah, Xenu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or any other god? See the questions as merely cultural—in the West, most believers are Christian—and Christianity dissolves into just a local custom.

Why the secrecy surrounding hell? God should make himself known, convince everyone that heaven and hell exist, and explain the entrance requirements. No one should believe the unbelievable. [Click to tweet]

(The Quick Shot I’m replying to is here.)

Continue to BSR 15: Jesus Didn’t Even Think He Was God

For further reading:

If God exists, I hope he has a good excuse.
— Woody Allen

.

Image from Jaroslav Devia, CC license
.

BSR 13: The Bible Condones Slavery

Posted on by

If Christianity were a powerful force against slavery, we would have seen slavery overturned when Christianity became the state religion in Europe, not 1400 years later.

Summary of reply: Slavery defined in the Bible came in two forms, indentured servitude for people in our tribe and slavery for life for people outside our tribe, just like slavery in America. And Christianity doesn’t deserve credit for outlawing slavery in the West two centuries ago—it was Christians who did some of that, not Christianity.

(These Bite-Size Replies are responses to “Quick Shots,” brief Christian responses to atheist challenges. The introduction to this series is here.)

Challenge to the Christian: The Bible condones slavery

Christian response #1: New World slavery was very different than the servitude described in the Bible.

Wrong. They were basically identical.

Slavery in America came in two forms: voluntary indentured servitude of Europeans (people in our tribe) for a limited time and involuntary, slavery for life of Africans (outsiders). Slavery documented in the Bible also came in two forms: voluntary indentured servitude of fellow Israelites and involuntary slavery for life of people from other tribes. European indentured servants served their time to repay the cost of their transport to America, and Israelite indentured servants served their time to repay their debts.

This apologetic wants to imagine that the Chosen People only had indentured servitude, but the Bible says otherwise. God says, “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. . . . You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.”

Even if we tried to accept this apologetic argument as its author wants, is that the best God can do? He can speak the universe into existence, but he can’t improve the economic condition of one tribe on one planet in one galaxy?

Biblical slavery and American slavery were basically identical. Each had indentured servitude for people like us and slavery for life for Others. [Click to tweet]

Christian response #2: We have Christians to thank for the elimination of slavery in the West. And they grounded their arguments in the Bible.

Christianity is a force against slavery? One wonders why the New Testament mentions slavery a number of times but is never against it. For example, “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.” The lack of any prohibition against slavery is also a glaring omission in the Ten Commandments.

If Christianity were effective against slavery, we would’ve seen slavery eliminated in the Roman Empire after Christianity became the state religion in 380 CE. True, some of the big names pushing against slavery in the West (William Wilberforce and others) were Christian, but if Christianity were the cause, we would’ve seen this push in the fourth century, not the nineteenth.

Yes, those Christians pointed to the Bible, but so did the Southern pastors during the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s. With a careful selection of verses, the Bible can be made to say just about anything. Read honestly, the Bible gave stronger support for the Southerners’ stand for slavery.

If Christianity were a powerful force against slavery, we would have seen slavery overturned when Christianity became the state religion in Europe, not 1400 years later. [Click to tweet]

(The Quick Shot I’m replying to is here.)

Continue with BSR 14: A Loving God Wouldn’t Send People to Hell

For further reading:

The difference between art and science
is that science is what people understand well enough
to explain to a computer.
All else is art.
— Donald Knuth

.

Image from SHTTEFAN, CC license
.

Christians’ Damning Retreat into “Difficult Verses”

Posted on by

Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction that takes off from Richard Dawkins’ famous quote:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.  — Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

In his book, Barker’s theological expertise shows that Dawkins’ eloquent summary is actually understated.

What’s curious, though, is that Christians seem to cite the Dawkins Quote more than atheists. On the Unbelievable radio show for 12/7/13, Christian Chris Sinkinson gives his critique:

[The Dawkins Quote] is clearly a very slanted view of how to read the text of the Old Testament. Most of us would take the clearer passages to interpret the harder passages. We would be talking about Leviticus 19 “Love your neighbor as yourself” before we look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We would have an approach to scripture that would weight things in such a way that that description of God just does not sound like the god who I believe in or the god who I worship. (@ 36:23)

For starters, “Love your neighbor as yourself” means, “Love your fellow Jewish neighbor as yourself,” so let’s not imagine a big worldwide hug from Yahweh.

But set that aside. I can see that Christians prefer “love your neighbor” to death and destruction, but they make a mistake when they call the former a “clearer” passage when it’s actually just a more pleasing passage.

You can see that in the last sentence: “We would have an approach to scripture that would weight things in such a way that that description of God just does not sound like the god who I believe in or the god who I worship.” It’s clumsily worded, as live radio often is, but he’s saying that he adjusts how he interprets the Bible to preserve his preconceived God belief. That is, he hammers the copper of the Bible on the anvil of his belief, not the other way around.

I see this approach frequently, though it’s unusual to see it so plainly stated.

Thought experiment

My study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I’m researching at the moment. But suppose I wanted to improve my understanding by reading the Bible cover to cover. I might find an experienced Christian friend who will mentor me and give me their interpretation when I’m puzzled.

At any point, I might have a question about social customs at the time, or I might complain about the miracles. But things get interesting when we get to the morally questionable activities—God hardening Pharaoh’s heart to prevent him from giving Moses what he wants, demanding genocide, supporting slavery and polygamy, insisting on a human sacrifice to satisfy his divine wrath, and so on.

When we hit one of these, my mentor will probably say something like, “Okay, now let’s slow down and unpack this one.” But what’s to unpack? Seen from the standpoint of modern Western morality, God is obviously a savage Bronze Age monster. What’s confusing or difficult? It’s just that my mentor doesn’t like that.

He can respond by saying that God is unjudgeable or that God’s ways are not our ways so it shouldn’t be surprising that we don’t understand. He can say that that reading of the passage is displeasing. What he can’t say is that it’s unclear. He can say that acceptance of chattel slavery (Leviticus 25:44–6) is unpleasant or disturbing and “For God so loved the world” (John 3:16) is happy or satisfying, but only an agenda would cause him to say that those verses are unclear and clear, respectively.

Next up: Let’s critique six popular Christian guidelines for biblical interpretation that are variations on this biased approach to the Bible here.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
if we’ve been bamboozled long enough,
we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.
The bamboozle has captured us.
It is simply too painful to acknowledge—
even to ourselves—that we’ve been so credulous.
(So the old bamboozles tend to persist
as the new bamboozles rise.)
— Carl Sagan, “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection”

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 2/13/16.)

Image from Marcin Chady, CC license
.

BSR 12: The Bible Condones Genocide

Posted on by

A dictionary will tell us that God did indeed order genocide, and that convicts him, whether the Israelites completed the job or not. While the Canaanites might have sacrificed children, God ordered the same thing. And isn’t genocide an overreaction to child sacrifice?

(These Bite-Size Replies are responses to “Quick Shots,” brief Christian responses to atheist challenges. The introduction to this series is here.)

Challenge to the Christian: The Bible condones genocide

Christian response #1: Are you saying that God killed for no good reason? And don’t complain when God doesn’t stop evil (pandemics, earthquakes) and then complain when he does (killing evil Canaanites).

The reason doesn’t matter. Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” It’s a crime against humanity, regardless of the reason.

The author complains that the Canaanites sacrificed some of their children, but he forgets that God did the same: “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah.”

And what solution to the problem of the Canaanite’s child sacrifice occurs to God? More of the same, of course. God demands that they all be exterminated—adults and children. You’d think that a god who could speak the universe into existence could think up a more moral solution.

The Christian challenge ends with apparent atheist hypocrisy. Atheists demand God stop evil (this is the Problem of Evil) but then are outraged when God cleans up evil in Canaan. My response: God is welcome to address the evil in Canaan, but he needs to do it in a humane manner. Do I really need to explain the irony of solving Canaanite child sacrifice with genocide? An omniscient god could think up dozens of solutions that were actually moral.

The Canaanites sacrificed some of their children. God responded by killing *all* their children … and all the adults. See a problem? [Click to tweet]

Christian response #2: The God of the Bible never commanded genocide. That was hyperbole.

And yet God did command genocide. Here’s one instance: “So Joshua subdued the whole region. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord had commanded.”

The apologist will say that later in the Bible, that tribe reappeared. Clearly they were not totally destroyed; therefore, no genocide; therefore, God is off the hook.

First, what this shows is that the Bible is unreliable. If “He totally destroyed all who breathed” is hyperbole, who decides what else is hyperbole? And second, the point isn’t who the Israelites killed or didn’t kill. The point is that God commanded genocide! How thoroughly the Israelites followed his commands isn’t important. God’s own holy book convicts him.

The Bible records Joshua destroying a tribe, but then that tribe appears later in the Bible. But this doesn’t exonerate God because he ordered the genocide. His own holy book convicts him. [Click to tweet]

(The Quick Shot I’m replying to is here.)

Continue with BSR 13: The Bible Condones Slavery

For further reading:

One indication of the validity
of a principle is the vigor and persistence
with which it is opposed.
In any field, if people see that
a principle is obvious nonsense
and easy to refute, they tend to ignore it.
On the other hand, if the principle is difficult to refute
and it causes them to question
some of their own basic assumptions
with which their names may be identified,
they have to go out of their way
to find something wrong with it.
— Charles Osgood, psychologist

.

Image from Arisa Chattasa, CC license
.

BSR 11: It’s Narrow-Minded to Think Jesus Is the Only Way to God

Posted on by

This isn’t an argument I make, but let’s have some fun with it. We can’t forget that the gospels are stories, not history books; “What if it’s true?” is a dishonest question; religions are cultural; and Pascal’s Wager makes a fundamental error.

(These Bite-Size Replies are responses to “Quick Shots,” brief Christian responses to atheist challenges. The introduction to this series is here.)

Challenge to the Christian: It’s narrow-minded to think Jesus is the only way to God

Christian response #1: Let’s be clear: Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. What if that’s true?

Let’s be clear: the story says that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. The gospels might contain history, but we don’t assume that from the start. “Because it says so in a gospel” counts for little.

Jesus did say, “No one comes to the Father except through me,” but that’s only in John. We don’t find the same claim in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Also exclusive to John: “I and the Father are one” and “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” If Jesus actually made monumental claims like these, what does it admit that the other gospels don’t repeat them?

Let’s analyze the challenge, “What if that’s true?” That’s a crazy question when you think about it. Maybe we should take supernatural claims from a thousand religions and ask if they’re true. But who would do that without considering how likely they are to be true?

“What if that’s true?” cheats by bypassing the evidence phase. We just hypothesize that it’s true and see what the world would be like in that case. But who does that? Who cares about the consequences of a hypothetical before they know how likely that hypothetical is to be true? “What if an unknown relative died and left you ten million dollars?” isn’t worth wasting time on until you have good evidence for it.

Remember that the gospels are stories. Don’t claim they’re history without providing good evidence. [Click to tweet]

Christian response #2: You can’t be saying that all religions lead to God equally? Given their contradictions, all are wrong or one is right.

You’re right—religions are contradictory. They don’t lead to the same place. Worse, they aren’t even consolidating in response to some dimly felt cosmic truth. They continue to diverge.

Religions are cultural. People in Thailand tend to be Buddhist, not because Buddhism is true, but because that’s what they’re brought up to accept in Thailand. Same for Islam in Yemen, Hinduism in Nepal, and Christianity in America. Religions are just another local custom.

I’ll also agree that all are wrong or one is right (discussed in BSR 6), but which option seems likelier? Consider the Monty Hall problem, the game show where you pick from three doors, only one of which has a prize.

Here’s a variant. There are not three doors but a thousand, and each represents a religion. Again, you pick your door randomly, since it is typically selected for you by the accident of your birth. The host opens all the other doors, revealing nothing behind each one. Why imagine that the one remaining door has a prize?

There was no guarantee before you started that any would be true, and since humans have invented religion by the hundreds, why imagine that you got lucky?

Religions are just one more category of local custom. Helping a lady with her chair and bowing toward Mecca are examples. [Click to tweet]

Christian response #3: You’re saying it’s narrow-minded for me to think Jesus is the only way to God, but then aren’t you likewise narrow-minded for holding your own views as correct? Let’s just investigate these two different beliefs.

“You can’t charge me with error X, because you do the same thing!” is the tu quoque (“you, too”) fallacy. In this case, the Christian is saying, “You’re calling me narrow-minded? Look at your own actions! You’re just as narrow-minded.” Perhaps the charge is hypocritical, but that’s not the point. The charge of narrow-mindedness stands.

As for investigating two different beliefs, there are far more than just two beliefs, even within Christianity. This is how Pascal’s Wager gets it wrong. Pascal’s Wager says that it’s smart to bet on Christianity over atheism since the downside of betting wrong if Christianity turns out to be true are so huge. But this assumes just two options. Suppose the correct path turns out to be Tibetan Buddhism (to pick one out of a thousand other religions). In this case the Christian and the atheist both bet wrong.

Pascal’s Wager (it’s smart to bet on Christianity) fails because it imagines only Christianity and atheism. In fact, the Christian has bet against a thousand other religions. [Click to tweet]

(The Quick Shot I’m replying to is here.)

Continue with BSR 12: The Bible Condones Genocide

For further reading:

Did you ever notice that science
doesn’t require apologists and apologetics?
Apologetics, of course, is the art of defending
and convincing others for one’s sect-specific faith.
Scientists, on the other hand, just do science
based on experimental observations and math.
The evidence does the convincing.
There are no college classes or degrees offered
in the art of defending and convincing others
of the results of science.
— ORAXX (quoted by John W. Loftus)

.

Image from Gregory Morit, CC license
.