Dating Advice: the FIRST Thing to Figure Out in a Relationship

KissHave you heard the story of star Notre Dame football player Manti Teʻo? His girlfriend died after a battle with leukemia. Instead of withdrawing due to sadness, however, he led his team to an upset victory shortly afterwards. Sports website Deadspin called it “The most heartbreaking and inspirational story of the [2012] college football season.”

But as the story evolved, we gradually discovered that the girlfriend didn’t actually die of leukemia. In fact, she didn’t die at all. She didn’t even exist. She was a hoax.

An old rule in journalism states that a story about a dog biting a man isn’t much of a story. It’s commonplace. But a man-bites-dog story—that’s something people will want to read about. Equally rare is a story about a nonexistent girlfriend.

Christian analogy to God

Christians often say that a relationship with God is like a relationship with another person. Like our relationship to God, marriage, for example, is built on faith. You can’t be certain that your marriage will last. You don’t know that a better partner isn’t just around the corner. But you evaluate the evidence and take a leap of faith.

This analogy completely misses the mark. The relationship between two romantic partners isn’t at all like that between you and God because you know that the partner exists. The unfortunate experience of Manti Teʻo underscores this point. That was the glaring, embarrassing, almost unbelievable error that he made: not being sure that the other party even existed. This is the error that Christians make and, here too, it’s glaring, embarrassing, and almost unbelievable.

The Christian might respond that, sure, the girlfriend/wife analogy isn’t perfect. Heck, what analogy is? But it’s still useful.

Uh, no. This analogy is completely, totally wrong. The question of existence shouldn’t even come up in a personal relationship, and yet with God, it’s the primary question. This analogy is useful only to tamp down questions, and it should be discarded by any honest Christian.

Forced into belief?

One of the more ridiculous responses I’ve gotten to this problem is that for God to make his existence obvious and eliminate the need for faith would be an imposition. He would force belief on me, whether I wanted it or not.

But I’m “forced” to accept the existence of new people and new things all the time. That’s reality. No one considers that an imposition.

What makes a good friend?

I believe it was physicist and priest John Polkinghorne who also tried to salvage the analogy. He argued that continually testing a friendship or setting traps to verify that someone is truly a friend is no basis for a friendship. A good friendship needs trust.

Yes, it’s bad form to frequently say, “How about now? Am I still your friend now?” But here again this misses the point. You know your friend exists, while that’s the fundamental issue in the God “relationship.”

Alexander vs. Jesus

Atheist philosopher Stephen Law explained the pro-Jesus stance this way:

There is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for the existence of a great many other historical figures whose existence is never seriously doubted. . . . What we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper, yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.

Evidence for Alexander? You mean like coins with his name and likeness? Statues of a man with the inscription “Ἀλέξανδρος”? Twenty new cities named Alexandria, all dating from about the same time and consistent with his travels? Perhaps there are even reports of his conquests from hostile sources. No, no one doubts the existence of Alexander, but that’s because have a very different kind of evidence with Alexander than with Jesus. (Note also that all supernatural claims about Alexander are dismissed in the historical accounts. Are Christians sure they want the historical Jesus treated the same way?)

Augustine

Church father Augustine said, “Seek not to understand so you may believe, but believe so you may understand.” I guess you could just walk the walk and try to build up a belief, but why? I could work really hard to convince myself that unicorns or fairies exist, but why would I do that? Any Christian faith that’s built up this way—just believe for no good reason until you believe by habit—is built on nothing. I’d rather build my beliefs on evidence.

Many analogies have been tossed out to rationalize God’s existence. God’s relationship to us is like king to subject, judge to defendant, parent to child, or, as in the case of Manti Teʻo, boyfriend to girlfriend.

No, these analogies don’t work. Where God analogies are accurate, they’re not necessary. And where they’re necessary, they’re not accurate.

I refuse to prove that I exist,
for proof denies faith,
and without faith I am nothing.
— God (as quoted by Douglas Adams)

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 11/11/13.)

Image credit: Iqbal Osman, flickr, CC

Why is God Hidden? (2 of 2)

problem of divine god's hiddennessThe Problem of God’s Hiddenness is the most powerful argument against Christianity. In part 1, we considered a defense of God’s hiddenness by Christian apologist Jim Wallace, written several years ago. Let’s conclude with a second argument Wallace wrote recently, “God’s Hiddenness Is Intended to Provoke Us,” which has a new approach to the problem.

God’s hiddenness? It’s a test.

I believe the answer [to this problem of God’s hiddenness] lies in God’s desire to provoke us; His desire to elicit a true, loving response from His children. This goal of producing something beautiful (a genuine, well-intentioned, loving response), requires Him to hide from us.

You’ve created a trickster god. God appears nonexistent, so you must invent outlandish reasons why he might be hiding instead. Is it better to have a trickster god than to admit that your god doesn’t exist? I don’t think so.

Wallace wants us to believe that God must be hidden even though that is a feature of no healthy relationship we have with other people.

He introduces an analogy: consider a “gold digger,” a beautiful woman who marries a much older rich man, not for love but for greed. Suppose a rich man wants an old-fashioned marriage based on love—how can he find a partner who wants to get married for love rather than money? He could conceal his wealth (and maybe his identity) so that no gold digger would consider him.

That is how Wallace sees God. God is the rich guy who’s hiding his wealth to get our honest, authentic reaction instead of one distorted by his majesty. He gives several Old Testament examples, but he forgets that sometimes God isn’t at all overpowering: “The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11). Even the people overwhelmed by God didn’t develop a superficial relationship with God as a result—they already believed.


See also: The Most Powerful Argument Against Christianity


What is the equivalent of the big reveal (“I have a confession to make, my dear—I’m not an appliance salesman but am actually Byron Rachmaninov, billionaire industrialist”)? It’s not like believers don’t already know of God’s attributes. Wallace seems to imagine that we’ll develop a relationship with God, only to get a happy upgrade once we’ve settled into a comfortable relationship, where God says, “I’m not just a Class C phantasm, as I’ve pretended, but I’m actually the Creator of the universe.”

But Wallace sells God short. Surely God could see your honest intentions to root out the gold diggers. (This is also the failure of Pascal’s Wager. God isn’t so stupid that he couldn’t see through someone simply going through the motions.)

Wallace confuses evidence for God’s existence with secondary matters such as specifics of God’s nature, how or whether we will worship him, God’s desire to have a relationship based on love, and so on. I suspect that he actually understands this, and his confusion is a deliberate sleight of hand on his part.

Atheists are just asking for God to be apparent, which is not an unreasonable request. That apologists can only give vague clues for God, for which a naturalistic explanation is the better explanation, means we are not justified in holding the God belief.

No one would bring out this argument except to justify belief in a god that didn’t exist.

Theology is guessing about what an imaginary being is thinking.
— commenter Michael Neville

Image credit: Peter, flickr, CC

Do We Get More Awe from Christianity or from Science?

You may be surprised to learn that not everyone is convinced by the arguments of New Atheism’s Four Horsemen. It certainly shocked me.

One negative review of Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great  said:

Hitchens claims that, “As in all cases, the findings of science are far more awe-inspiring than the rantings of the godly.”

Is he serious? I doubt that even Hitchens would find re-runs of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos “far more awe-inspiring” than Michelangelo’s vision of God creating man.

And can this author be serious? He’s saying that the awe from science is dwarfed by that from religion?

Science in Palestine

Here’s a brief caricature of what I imagine “awe” meant in the Old Testament. Imagine a Jew and a non-Jew meet 2500 years ago in Palestine. They’re comparing gods.

Jew: And strong! Let me tell you how strong Yahweh is. See that rock over there? The one as big as a house?

Not-a-Jew: Okay.

Jew: Yahweh could pick it up and throw it just like you’d throw a pebble.

NJ: Wow!

Jew: Yeah, and that mountain over there? He could pick it up and move it across the valley without even trying.

NJ: Impressive.

Jew: And did I tell you that he created everything? And I mean everything! This was thousands of years ago—he formed all the land from the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia; from Egypt to Greece. He created the sun and moon. Rainbows, earthquakes—everything!

NJ: I didn’t know that . . .

Jew: Yeah, so don’t mess with us ’cause he’s on our side.

Yahweh was like a superhero—stronger than Hercules, with better generalship than Alexander, and wiser than Solomon. The Jews needed a big brother to help with all their difficulties with neighboring tribes and countries. It’s nice to have a superhero on your side when there are bullies around (who each have their own superhero protectors).

The imagination of a primitive desert tribe 2500 years ago wasn’t that broad, and that superhero concept of God was probably as much as they could imagine.

… vs. science today

Compare that with what modern science has given us in the last few hundred years. Let’s ignore the advances that make our lives much more bearable (vaccines, antibiotics, anesthesia, energy, transportation, engineering, etc.) and focus on the cerebral stuff. The mind-expanding stuff. The awe-inspiring stuff. Things like the age of the earth and the universe, the huge distances between stars and galaxies, or the amount of energy stars produce.

Try this experiment: on a clear night, go look at the stars. Now extend your arm and spread your fingers. The nail of your little finger covers one million galaxies. In each galaxy are on average 100 billion stars. This gives a good perspective on the tiny space our earth occupies in the universe.

Or look at the small scale and consider the complexity of a cell. The Creationist who argues that evolution is counterintuitive should focus instead on quantum physics.

And notice the irony in the author’s “I doubt that even Hitchens would find re-runs of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos ‘far more awe-inspiring’ than Michelangelo’s vision of God creating man.” Yes, the Sistine Chapel fresco is marvelous, but it was created by a man! Can he be saying that a work of a man trumps nature’s marvels?

The author lists other great works inspired by religion: “Giotto, Bach and Handel, Chartres and St. Peter’s.” Art, music, and architecture—here again, these are all made by humans.

Who, exactly, do you give praise to?

I can’t resist an aside on the topic of what God does vs. what people do. You’ve probably seen the iconic woman who survived the big disaster (hurricane Katrina’s rampage through New Orleans, for example) and is now back on her feet. “Thank you Jesus!” she says. “I lost everything, but now I have clothes and an apartment and a job.”

She seems to forget that Jesus didn’t lift a finger to give her those things—she’s doing well thanks to other people. Her thanks should be aimed at the combination of government aid and charitable donations that helped her out. And while we’re talking about Jesus, he was the guy who brought the disaster in the first place. What she should have said was “Thank you America! And Jesus, we need to talk . . .”

Of course, this doesn’t address the “Does God exist?” question. Maybe God does exist, and he produced the amazing things we see in nature. But it’s through science that we see these awe-inspiring things, not through the Bible. This marvelous universe is not at all what the early Jews, living on their small Mesopotamian disk of a world with the sun rotating around it, imagined it to be.

The awe we get using religion’s Glasses of Make Believe can’t compare to the awe from the glasses of science.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, 
he would have existed. 
— Linda Smith

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/23/13.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

 

Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him

The Combat Myth is a supernatural battle between order and chaos (or good and evil) that we see in mythologies of civilizations throughout the Ancient Near East, culminating with Judaism. Yahweh isn’t a remarkable god, different from the made-up gods in surrounding cultures. Instead, his story is just one stage in a long line of mythology. If the Akkadian god Anzu or the Babylonian god Marduk are obvious myths, Yahweh is the same.

While the Mesopotamian myths are unfamiliar to most of us, we see a hint in Greek mythology. Zeus wasn’t always the chief god of the Greek pantheon but took that role from his father Cronos. And Cronos succeeded his own father, Uranus. Though there are important differences, this succession is common to the Combat Myth.

1. Akkadian myth: Ninurta defeats Anzu

The Akkadian Empire followed Sumer as the primary Mesopotamian civilization. This myth developed about a thousand years before the Yahweh story in the Old Testament.

In the Akkadian pantheon, Enlil was the king of the gods. Kingship was invested in the god who possessed the Tablet of Destinies, which showed all that has happened and all that will happen.

The griffin-like Anzu, assistant to Enlil, steals the Tablet and flies away. Chaos threatens the order of the gods. Kingship will go to the god who restores order, but none steps up to respond to the challenge. Finally, Ninurta, an unimportant god to that point, volunteers.

Besides being able to fly, Anzu has two useful powers. One is that he can make all his feathers fly out and then come back, which distracts his opponents. The other is that he can disassemble things (such as arrows shot at him) into their component parts. And, of course, he has the Tablet, which is handy for seeing what an opponent is about to do.

The first battle is a stalemate. Anzu is able to disassemble Ninurta’s arrows. But Ninurta enters the second battle with a new stratagem. He shoots an arrow disguised as a feather at just the right moment so that it’s lost in Anzu’s cloud of feathers. Anzu pulls the feathers back in and is killed by the arrow. Order is restored, and Ninurta ascends to become the king of the gods.

The Combat Myth

From this, let’s distill out the Combat Myth. It begins with a chaotic threat to the council of the gods. None of the gods from the older generation is willing to face the challenge, but one young god steps up. He defeats the monster and becomes the new chief god. This structure is constant, though the details are customized in subsequent civilizations.

Two features are not shared by all examples. In some, we see the hero god dying and being reborn in the process. Also, our human world is sometimes created from the carcass of the slain chaos monster.

2. Babylonian myth: Marduk defeats Tiamat

This story comes from the Enuma Elis, the Babylonian creation epic. In the beginning were Tiamat, the female serpent or dragon who was salt water, and Absu, the male god who was the fresh water.

(I’ve written more about how the Genesis story parallels the Mesopotamian myth of a saltwater dome above the primordial earth and a fresh water ocean underneath.)

Tiamat and Absu create a generation of younger gods who become too noisy for Absu’s liking. He plans to kill them all, but they learn of his plan and kill him first. Tiamat is furious.

Marduk the storm god steps up to respond. He kills Tiamat, forms the universe from her body, and installs himself as king of the gods.

3. Ugaritic myth: Baal defeats Yam and then Mot

This myth comes from Ugarit, just north of Israel. It’s dated to roughly 1300 BCE. This is the environment from which Judaism emerged.

Our historical record is fragmentary, but El is the chief god, and Baal (“Lord”) volunteers to fight the chaos threat. (Yes, these are the same El and Baal mentioned in the Old Testament.) He uses a supernatural club to kill Yam (“Sea”), the serpent-like sea god. Some variations give Yam seven heads and use Lotan and Leviathan as synonyms.

Next, Baal fights Mot (“Death”), another threat to order. Baal dies in this battle but is brought back to life to finally overcome Mot.

4. Israelite myth: Yahweh defeats Leviathan

Early Judaism had the same council of the gods as in Ugaritic mythology. (I’ve written more on Israelite polytheism here.) Yahweh is a son of El (also called Elyon) and was just one of many in the council of the gods.

When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance. (Deuteronomy 32:8–9)

Yahweh was assigned Israel, and other gods in the council were given their own tribes to rule.

We see the Bible’s version of the Combat Myth in Psalms 89:5–12. First, Yahweh has taken his place as king of the council of the gods.

The heavens praise your wonders, Yahweh, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with Yahweh? Who is like Yahweh among the heavenly beings? In the council of the holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him.

Yahweh has slain the chaos monster Rahab (yet another name for the sea monster).

You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them. You crushed Rahab like one of the slain; with your strong arm you scattered your enemies.

Finally, Yahweh created the earth.

The heavens are yours, and yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it.

We read a similar retelling in Psalms 74, where Yahweh is credited with creation. But first, he defeated the monster(s):

It was you who split open the sea [Yam] by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave it as food to the creatures of the desert. (Ps. 74:13–14)

We see this multi-headed dragon both looking back as Lotan in Ugaritic mythology and looking forward as the sea dragon in Revelation 13.

With Yahweh as just one more step in the evolution of the Combat Myth, little besides wishful thinking supports the idea that he alone is for real.

And that’s the point about beliefs—they don’t change facts.
Facts, if you’re rational, should change beliefs.
— Ricky Gervais (The Unbelievers movie trailer)

Acknowledgment: My primary source for this post was a podcast episode by Dr. Phil Harland (York University, Toronto) “Podcast 7.2: Origins part 1 – Ancient Near Eastern Combat Myths.” I recommend his “Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean” podcast.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 10/11/13.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

 

Simplicity: the Trait Missing from Christianity

Ficus treeThe Bible in English has nearly a million words. Have you ever stopped to marvel at that? Why did God need so much space?
Let’s explore the idea that not only is this a surprisingly large number of words, but it’s a clue that Christianity is false. Why would a perfect god need a million words? Couldn’t he have gotten his message across at least as clearly (or more clearly) with a tenth as many words? Or even a thousandth as many?
Just a page or two of instructions would be enough to teach you how to be a vegan. That’s a lifestyle with strict rules—why would it be any more difficult for a perfect god to convey its message in the same space?
For comparison, the U. S. Constitution was written by humans and has defined the government for several centuries. It has just 4500 words. The U. N. Declaration of Human Rights has less than 1800 words. The Humanist Manifesto, 800.

The constitution of a god

Pare away the fluff and think about what a perfect god’s constitution might convey.

  • Personal details about the supernatural: the number of gods, name(s), and relationship to each other if more than one.
  • The fundamentals of non-obvious morality: slavery is good/bad, abortion is okay/forbidden, vegetarianism is mandatory/optional, and so on
  • The afterlife: what happens, if anything, when people die? If there’s a supernatural realm that we should know about, how does it fit with and interact with our own?
  • The god(s) purpose for each person. What, if anything, should we be doing to satisfy them?
  • What, if anything, we should know about the future

This addresses world religions’ primary concerns—morality, purpose, how to please the god(s), and the afterlife—though this is obviously just a guess. A real god might have a different list.
One additional point is why you should believe. This must be somewhere, and it might be conveyed through personal appearances or demonstrations. Could the evidence be included in this constitution? Before you say that it’s impossible to put something convincing in so short a document, don’t underestimate the capabilities of a god a trillion times smarter than any person.
Regardless of how it does it, this religion must have a mechanism for convincing everyone with evidence and argument that it is correct, unlike the myriad manmade ones.

Compare to the Bible

Categorize every verse in the Bible, and then sieve out everything that wouldn’t fit into the categories above. What would be lost?

  • The history of the Israelites and then the Jews and then the Christians. This does nothing to help understand god’s constitution.
  • Examples of God’s actions. With many questions raised but not answered by the Bible, believers scour every verse for clues.
  • Just so stories. For example: did you ever wonder why we hate the Moabites and Ammonites? Because they’re the result of Lot having sex with his own daughters—yuck! Or: ever wonder why this place is named this? Here’s the story behind that name.
  • Ideas borrowed from other cultures. For example: the Sumerian cosmology of water above and below the earth, a world-destroying flood, and a dying-and-rising god.
  • Contradictions. When not guided by a perfect hand, the more you write about your religion, the more contradictions you introduce.
  • An evolving message. Changes to the message from a god who doesn’t change can be embarrassing. For example: we used to sacrifice animals but not anymore; we used to have a works-based view of God but now it’s faith based; Jesus didn’t exist before, but now he’s mandatory.


See also: Christians’ Damning Refuge in “Difficult Verses”


The Bible is just a rambling story that goes on and on. It was written by people and looks like it. There’s no hint of any supernatural guidance.
Take the book of Revelation as an example, a psychotic, Dalí-esque horror show. There are 24 elders around the throne of God, with the four living creatures. There’s a scroll with seven seals and different events with the breaking of each. There’s the seven trumpets and different disasters with the sounding of each. There’s the seven bowls with different disasters with the pouring of each. There are four horsemen and seven spiritual figures including a dragon and the Beast. Each punishment is lovingly detailed, as the novella drones on and on.
Or look at the practice of Christianity today. Why is there a Bible Answer Man—shouldn’t God’s message be so clear that there would be no questions to answer? Why are there 45,000 denominations of Christianity today, and why were there radically different versions of Christianity such as the Marcionites and Gnostics in the early days? Why did Paul have to create Christianity—shouldn’t Jesus have done that? Jesus wrote nothing.
The more involved the story, the more you need to explain. Did Jesus have a human body or a spirit body? Why does God do immoral things in the Old Testament? Why isn’t God’s existence obvious? Why does God care just about the Israelites but later decide to embrace the whole world? Why doesn’t the world look like it was created by an omniscient and loving god? And what the heck is the Trinity?
The church convened 21 ecumenical councils to try to make sense of this. The discipline of systematic theology tries to tie up all the loose ends, but why would the study of a perfect god need this?

Rebuttal

The Christian rebuttal is obvious, and I’ve already gotten a lot of this in response to a recent post: How do you know that this is what a god would do? How do you know that a perfect god would even want us to clearly understand his plan?
This is true and irrelevant. I’m given the claim that the Christian god exists, and I must evaluate it. I can’t peek at the answer in the back of the book, and I can’t give up and get the answer. The buck stops here. It seems to me that a god that chose to make itself known would do so simply and unambiguously. There would be a clear statement of his plan, like the constitution above. Contrast that with the Bible—the entire story about all the stuff God did and how he got angry and then the Israelites did something stupid and then Jesus saved the day is unnecessary. Maybe it’s inspiring and maybe it’s great literature, but the entire Israelite blog is not needed to serve a perfect god’s goal.
Another possible response: But the core of Christianity can be distilled into a tract! If you insist on a brief version, there it is.
But this merely hides the problems. The Bible is still there, and it being a composite of manmade books, picked from an even larger set of candidates, means that the contradictions, tangential history, and unanswered questions remain.
I’m arguing for a different genre. A perfect god would itself give us a simple, unambiguous constitution. We have instead a book written by and focused on the people rather than the god, which is strong evidence that there is no actual god behind it.
See also: The Bible Story Reboots: Have You Noticed?

Living forever with God is the endgame,
so what’s the point of creating this elaborate,
blink-of-an-eye, soul-filtering machine called Planet Earth,
where beings have temporary bodies made of meat?
WTF?! Just create everyone in “Heaven” to begin with,
and none of the rest of this horror-show ever has to happen.
— commenter Kingasaurus

Inspiration: John de Lancie at the 2016 Reason Rally said that religion for him fails the KISS test, which inspired this post.
Image credit: olivier bareau, flickr, CC

Christianity Needs Promotion, Like Soft Drinks

In 1977, the Dr Pepper soft drink was promoted with the slogan, “Be a Pepper.”
The marketing campaign behind that slogan had television commercials with hip, cheerful, attractive people dancing through life with the lines,

I’m a Pepper, he’s a Pepper,
She’s a Pepper, we’re a Pepper,
Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?
Be a Pepper. Drink Dr Pepper.

Parody
A few years later, the Saturday Night Live sketch comedy TV show did a skit* with Laraine Newman playing a teenage girl named Jennifer, sitting on the floor in the family room with the telephone. She calls up strangers from the phone book and encourages them to drink Dr Pepper and asks, “Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper, too?” She gets the polite brush-off that you’d expect from such a marketing call.
After listening to a few of these calls, her parents tell her that she’s changed ever since she became a Pepper. She’s always at Pepper meetings or calling strangers on the phone or going door to door to encourage people to drink Dr Pepper. She doesn’t see her old friends anymore.
After the father says that it would be different if she got paid, she says, “A Pepper would never accept money for this!”
It’s like she’s in a religious cult. What could be crazier? We have consumers of a commercial product spending their own time and resources increasing the sales of that product, with the only compensation being accolades from fellow believers or perhaps just the knowledge that important work had to be done, and they pitched in to help.
Christianity
We’re more familiar with earnest evangelists within Christianity, but that doesn’t make them any more sensible. They’re told to get out and increase Christianity’s market share, and many do it without pay. Does this make any more sense than Jennifer’s project?
Would you be motivated if the paid staff of Dr Pepper encouraged you to spread the word? Why be any more motivated if the paid staff of the Catholic church or Baptist church or Lutheran church made the same request?
The Great Commission
The typical response is that Christians are obliged to spread the word, but average Christians shouldn’t flatter themselves that Jesus gave them the Great Commission. The gospel of Matthew ends with the eleven disciples at an offsite with Jesus. Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:18), but this was clearly addressed to those eleven disciples.
To Christians who think that evangelism is important, remember that it was important to Jennifer, too. Is your project any better supported by logic?
See also: The Great Commission and How It Doesn’t Apply to You

Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside 
our best weapons of logic and evidence, 
thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us.
— William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith

* The skit is from s5e16 on 4/12/80. The video is here (skip to 49:00), but Hulu Plus is required.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 7/17/13.)
Image credit: Ben Sutherland, flickr, CC