Faith & Reason

...I’ve been exposed to many points of view, including the Christian Fundamentalist point of view.  Absent the introduction of heretofore unknown evidence, the likelihood that I will say that the Bible either can or should be interpreted literally is extremely remote.  

BACKGROUND

To begin with, I don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, nor do I believe that it is divinely inspired.  A literal interpretation presents me with far more problems than it solves.  Therefore, right from the start, I can tell you that citing something from the Bible as evidence of its truth won’t convince me of anything.

The Bible has been cited throughout history as justification for all sorts of unacceptable positions.  It’s been used to justify the Divine Right of Kings, oppression of women, slavery, racial segregation, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the killing of non-Christians, the persecution of Christians who said that the earth revolved around the sun, and, yes, the burning of suspected witches (the real legacy of the Wiccans in history).  There are many other examples, and plenty that one could easily interpret because much of what was considered acceptable back then is morally repugnant today (and rightly so).

The most that I would say is that the Bible reflects the understanding that some people had of the Divine, within the context of their limited understanding of the universe and within the ethics of a Middle East tribal culture from several thousand years ago.   With the New Testament, it reflects the overall message that the writers were trying to convey to their audience about Jesus (that the God met in the Old Testament stories was met in Jesus, except to an infinitely greater degree).

I also don’t believe that we have Original Sin as a result of a fall from a once perfect world.  The world was never perfect.  Created order never has been either perfect or complete.  Creation is still in progress, and life is still evolving.  The universe continues to expand, stars and planets continue to die and be created, continents continue to shift, species continue to perish, and new life forms emerge.
 
To the extent that we have “sin”, it’s because we are still works in progress.  We are becoming what we have never been.  We are still growing, and we carry with us the baggage of millions of years of struggle and evolution.  

OLD TESTAMENT

Origin

The Old Testament books were written, in some cases, hundreds of years after the supposed events took place.  Biblical scholarship today seems to indicate that the earliest continuous written material is no earlier than the tenth century B.C.  I’m cynical enough to believe that things got changed in the telling of stories.  They were written by many different authors, with many different biases, and over a great length of time.

I have found that Biblical scholars have made a convincing argument that the Hebrew Scriptures came to be developed over time from four different writers (J, E, D, and P), and not even in the order that the writings are now presented in.  This is why we get two creation stories (Adam and Eve is said to be written before “In the beginning,” and, in this story, the animals were formed after Adam).  I should note that almost every piece of Biblical scholarship that I have ever read or seen on tape takes this position, and I was not seeking out particular perspectives when I began my research years ago.

Scientific Concerns

For me, the Bible has a worldview that is pre-Copernican, pre-Galilean, pre-Newtonian, pre-Darwinian, and, for lack of a better term, pre-Twentieth Century.

The Bible presents a view of the universe that is three-tiered (Earth, domed sky above, and firmament with Heaven and the Heavenly waters above).  I don’t believe that God is like a ruler who lives just above the sky looking down at us, nor is Heaven located there, but I can see why people thousands of years ago may have thought this.  We can’t ascend into Heaven above the clouds either through a magical chariot, or any other means.  There is no divine abode just above the sky.

For example, while this also applies to the New Testament as well, the idea of a cosmic ascension (Elijah) is based on a pre-Copernican worldview.  In fact, the very idea of the word ‘up” is meaningless in light of our modern understanding of the universe.  The clear implication from the ascension stories is that the writers thought that Heaven was above the sky.  It’s not.  Or, if it is, then it’s billions of light years away, and those who ascended have a long way to travel.

I also don’t believe that the earth is the center of the universe.  There are 125 billion galaxies at last count.  The age and size of the universe is larger than we have the capacity to imagine.  Homo sapiens have only been in existence for less than 1% of the earth’s history.  We almost seem accidental.  It’s hard to argue that we are the purpose for creation, but that’s the clear implication from the Old Testament.

Similarly, if Abraham was a real person in history, then he is dated to about 2,000 B.C.  If we accept the data from archeologists and anthropologists, Homo sapiens were around for almost half a million years before the call of Abraham began the Judeo-Christian faith.  If this is true, then God certainly waited a very long time to start the process.
 
I’ve noted that I find both the six-day creation story and the Adam and Eve creation story to be in conflict with modern science.  There is not one single act of creation in the six-day story that actually happened in 100 days, to say nothing of one day.

I don’t believe that man was molded from clay.  I don’t believe that animals were then brought forth as companions, until finally an omniscient deity learned that the man wanted a woman.  I also don’t believe that any of this happened five or ten thousand years ago.  The evidence for evolution is great enough that most scientists around the world accept it as a factual basis to start from when doing studies and experiments.

The story of Joshua ordering the sun to stand still in the sky so that the Israelites could continue to slaughter the Amorites (Josh. 10:12-13) differs from our modern understanding of the solar system.  The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.  And if what Joshua really did was cause the earth to stop rotating, the gravitational effects would have destroyed the planet.  But I can understand why the author of this story would not have realized this.

In the story of Noah’s Ark, the Bible says that the waters covered the entire earth.  All the mountains were covered, up to fifteen cubits deep (Gen. 7:19-20).  If this is true, then in order to cover Mount Everest, the water would have to be more than five miles deep.  This is a quantity of water that can’t be absorbed by the earth.  If, however, the Heavenly waters returned to their realm above the sky, and water falls off the edges of a flat earth, then it may be possible.  Unfortunately, that does not fit with our modern understanding of the world.

God was also cited in Biblical times to explain natural phenomena.  This is a pre-Newtonian view of the universe.  The old assumptions are no longer necessary.  Modern-day rational people don’t assume that a hurricane hits a town to punish the people for their sinful ways, nor do we assume that sickness or a plague are God’s retribution, nor do we think that epilepsy is demon possession.  These all have natural causes.  We now have scientific explanations for things that Old Testament writers would quite naturally assume to be the work of God or of demons.

Moral Concerns

As for the morality presented in the Old Testament, the best that I can say is that it reflects the ethics of a patriarchal Middle Eastern tribe from thousands of years ago.  God is said to have endorsed, condoned, or directly performed numerous acts that are reprehensible by today’s standards.  God is presented as a tribal deity (which I think He originally was envisioned as being), not a universal God for all (which He appears to later be presented as).  He also required animal sacrifices, which strikes me as odd for a being that created the cosmos.  

In short, God is presented as cruel.  This presentation of God has jealousies, needs, prejudices, and character flaws that are at least as large as my own.  Given that these are human characteristics, this seems suspiciously like the creation of a human mind.

One example of the tribal nature that is depicted is where God ordered the Israelites to destroy the Midianites (Num. 31:1, 2).  Every Midianite male was killed (Num. 31:7), and the cattle, flocks, and all the Midianite wealth was taken as plunder (Num. 31:9).  (What about thou shall not steal?)  Then the Midianite towns and villages were burned (Num. 31:10).  Moses becomes angry because the women had been allowed to live (Num. 31:15), so he ordered all of the male children to be killed.  If one feels that the attack was justified, I still don’t see how this can be justified.  (What about thou shall not murder?  This Commandment seems to get violated a lot with impunity.)  Then all of the females who were not virgins were ordered to be killed, but the Israelite men were allowed to keep the virgin girls for themselves.  (What about thou shall not commit adultery?  Well, that can pass, because adultery didn’t mean the same back then as it means today.)

Even the escape from Egypt, while good, is said to have been done with far more brutality than would be necessary for an omnipotent God.  God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart whenever he’s about to relent (Exod. 10:1), and kills the first born sons in every Egyptian household (Exod. 11:4-6) (Even the firstborn among the animals.)  
   
There are many examples of horrendous crimes perpetrated against others.  Slavery is specifically authorized (Lev. 25:44).  There is no way that I could ever view such a being as praiseworthy.

Internally, God is presented as setting forth laws redefine the term “cruel and unusual punishment”.  If I were to take the Bible as a literal indication of how God wants me to behave, then I will have to stone all sorts of people to death, including homosexuals, children who talk back to their parents, and maybe even people who insist on working on the Sabbath.

I will also have to ask any woman who is menstruating to leave the room, as well as any man who had a wet dream, and people with various skin problems.  There is an obsession with cleanliness.  Technically, it’s not really even clear if we’re allowed to go to the bathroom.

I also don’t believe that women are property.  This is the implication in a number of laws and passages.  I also don’t think it’s all right to sell your daughter into slavery, as is sanctioned not far below the Ten Commandments (Exod. 21:7).

When I first read the Bible, I was horrified at this depiction of God.  I wondered if there was another Bible.  And I went into it at the time wanting to take it literally.  But eventually it was just not possible.  The list of objectionable passages can be expanded almost endlessly.  Eventually, I could no longer perform the pretzel-like mind contortions I had to go through to try to reconcile everything.

NEW TESTAMENT

In the case of the New Testament, the writings of Paul were written nearest in time to the death of Jesus, and the Gospels were written decades after his death (anywhere from 35 to 75 years, maybe more).  Again, since I don’t believe that they are divinely inspired, there’s nothing that is said that I feel must be taken as literal truth.

Taking the Gospels literally is also not logically possible, because they directly contradict each other in various parts.  In addition to the obvious differences at the beginning of Matthew and Luke, there are differences about the resurrection.  There is no common agreement about who visited the tomb, who saw what and when, and where the disciples were.

This may seem minor, but the resurrection should have been one of the most memorable and defining experiences in the whole Bible.  It’s strange that there is no consistent memory.  It’s stranger still if God is inspiring these individuals to write the Gospels.  I would have at least thought that He would remember what happened and when.

There are other examples:  Did Jesus clean out the temple at the beginning of his ministry (John), or at the end of his life (the Synoptic Gospels)?  Was Jesus’ ministry one year or three?  Was the last supper a Passover meal (the Synoptic Gospels) or a preparation for the Passover (John)?

Another issue that I have with the Gospels is that there were more written than the four that got chosen for the Bible nearly 300 years later at the Council of Nicaea.  I have no idea what political motivations and biases were involved in deciding to put in these four, while keeping out the others.  I only know that it was done under the political dictator of the day.  (We do know that Constantine changed the original Sabbath day, which Jesus observed, to that of the sun god.  This continues to be the practice of Christians up to this very day.)

Other Gospels, like the supposed Q document that is said to be a source for both Matthew and Luke, is lost to history (assuming no one in Egypt finds it in a jar some day).  We don’t know what it said.

More importantly, I am convinced of the argument that the writers of the Gospels were taking stories from the Old Testament and rewriting them in order to convey a message about Jesus.  This is what I’m referring to when I say Midrash, although the way I’m using it here is apparently much broader than the common understanding.

The Jewish tradition of writing sacred text was to take old stories and retell them in a way to make a point, not tell a literal story.  This is a Jewish frame of reference and style in explaining how they interpreted the experience.  I’ve heard of so many examples of this being done in the Gospels, I eventually lost count and conceded that there seems to be something to this.

As you know, every writer of the Bible was Jewish, at least originally, with the exception of Luke, who is said to have been a convert to Judaism before becoming a Christian.  The purpose in the Gospels was to explain the Christ experience, not tell a biography.

One example is that of the baptism of Jesus.  Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha are said to have parted waters.  By the time we get to Jesus, parting the waters isn’t such a big deal anymore.  But Jesus one-ups them all.  He parts the Heavenly waters (at the baptism).  The message:  The God we met with these previous figures has been met in Jesus, but to an infinitely greater degree.  Also of note, while Elijah needs a chariot, Jesus later ascends without one.  Elijah also pours out his power upon one disciple, while Jesus does it on the entire world.

I don’t wish to go back right now and try to find each of the examples of this.  It’s been a couple years.  Instead, I think it is sufficient at this time to simply point out that it’s an argument that I find to be very compelling.

In addition to this, I also accept the argument that the stories in the Synoptic Gospels are intended to parallel the Jewish liturgical year (Matthew and Luke more so than Mark because they are longer).  In this way, the Gospels were meant to be used as sermons in Church services, and serve as a counter to the Jewish practice.

We will also disagree about the roles of various New Testament characters, but, since there are entire books written on these subjects, I am going to pass on getting into that.

GETTING INTO HEAVEN

Ultimately, after all is said and done, in the end we will still never agree that condemning most of the human population to eternal torment is the act of a being that can be called “Good.”  No matter how you present it, most people will suffer eternally either because of where they happened to be born or because they guessed wrong.  In some cases, they may actually want to believe, but intellectually they can’t.  They also go down.  And for eternity?

God supposedly does this for insulting Him.  And, if you believe that God is omniscient, then billions of people are being born only to suffer in Hell.  This view of God is one of a being that projects neurotic sadism on a global scale.
 
You seem to object that I am imposing my own moral values on this discussion.  Of course I am.  I have nothing else to use.  By human standards, this view of God is that of an evil being.  According to my values, this action is worse than all crimes ever perpetrated put together.

If you say that there is some other standard or value system that I should use, but that I can’t understand it, then you are saying nothing at all.  I must note that the burden of proof is not on me.  You’re presenting me with an idea.  When I point out this problem, you respond by saying that this unexplained point is explained by the unexplainable.

Furthermore, if I’m required to use an unknown value system that prohibits me from saying that this version of God is bad, then, because I can’t differentiate between good and evil, I am also unable to say that this version of God is good.

Either I use my understanding of good and evil to judge this concept, or we fall back into a kind of religious agnosticism in which nothing can be known.

If you believe that there is some sort of “sliding scale” approach to judgment, then I would say that you’re interpreting rather than reading the Bible literally.  If people are judged on their actions, then they don’t really need Christianity.  Also, if only those who hear and reject the Gospel are damned, then Christian missionaries have imperiled souls rather than saved them.  Since most Muslims and Hindus will reject the message, the merciful thing to do is to immediately cut-off any flow of information to them about Christianity.  In fact, that is the merciful thing to do for everyone on this planet, so as to prevent anyone from inadvertently guessing wrong.

If you say that everyone deserves damnation, then I disagree.  Few people have committed crimes so heinous as to even be considered for a lengthy stay in Hell.  But beyond that, the injustice would be that some are rewarded and others are not, all due to an undeserved difference that is a deciding factor.  It would be like a teacher giving a test that everyone fails, but still gives A’s to a few students that are her favorites.

For me, the arbitrary sentencing of billions of people to eternal torment without possibility of redemption is evil.  Even if this version of God were to put a figurative gun to my head and make me say that it’s good, I still will not be able to stop thinking that it is evil.

When the Fundamentalist view of God in the Old and New Testaments are considered together, we do not have a loving deity.  We have a demon.  If God’s “goodness” is compatible with the worst crimes, disasters, and suffering, then the word “good” has been emptied of its meaning.
 
THE ARGUMENTS THAT I FIND COMPELLING

God

I believe in Divine guidance with respect to the creation of something from nothing, the creation of life from non-life, and the creation of sentient life from non-sentient life.  I also think that human beings were intended, though not the sole purpose of creation, or even the final stage.  So I do believe in God, or the Ultimate Divine Power, or the Ground of all Being, or whatever term anyone wishes to use.

However, I don’t believe that any religion has a monopoly on God.  God is too unfathomable to be captured in words.  Words are limited and they distort experience.  Also, since the imagination is bounded, and you can’t put boundaries on God, none of us here can have complete knowledge of God.

I suspect that most religious beliefs reflect some experience or understanding of the Divine, but not all of it.  Those beliefs that emphasize love and compassion, and not harming others, would fall under this description.

Life After Death

I also believe that there is some form of life after death.  However, I couldn’t possibly say what form this entails, other than I think there is some kind of continuation of the soul on its journey.  There may be reincarnation, but not necessarily on this planet.  This is what the near-death experiences seem to suggest, though they are also open to skepticism.

I think that there are rewards and punishments, but the punishments are not eternal.  Frankly, I think a redeemed soul that understands and feels the guilt for the harm that it has caused is probably suffering a greater punishment than simple physical torture could ever impose.

Jesus

With respect to Jesus, the message that comes through to me is that his followers believe that they met God, or the Divine, in him.  And the God they met in Jesus was exponentially greater than the God met with any previous heroes of the Bible.

What I find in Jesus is someone who broke down societal barriers and prejudices to bring in those who had been excluded.  The message of Jesus is also that people should love and have compassion for one another, and live to their fullest.

The followers believed that there was something significant and self-sacrificial about his death.  Additionally, they believed that, in some way, he conquered death, and they were able to experience him again after the crucifixion.  This belief was strong enough that Christianity was formed and expanded.

Were the followers right, and, if so, in what form and context?  The fact that they were so convinced that Jesus was greater than all their previous sacred stories, and they sought to tell others, is significant to me.  Of course, this was all done within the context of their perceptions and understanding of the world, and told by people who wrote decades later.  Nevertheless, in looking for the meaning of the experience, I find that there is something that I can accept.

I am willing to take a leap of faith and say that Jesus was in touch with the Divine enough (Jesus either differed in kind with others, or differed in degree to an infinite degree) that he could make a sacrifice for the forgiveness of “sins” of others.  And no, for me it’s not a blood sacrifice to eliminate animal sacrifices.  It’s a self-sacrificial act done to help others.

I believe that he did this, and, through means that I can’t comprehend, it provides redemption for me as well (not to erase the sin of Adam and Eve, but to erase the sin inherent from evolution, i.e., selfishness, jealousy, etc.).  I don’t know what the significance of this is for me with respect to life after death, but I think it does help in forgiving me for any harm that I’ve caused or inappropriate actions that I’ve taken.

At the same time, I would never presume to claim such a knowledge of the Divine as to say that this is the only path to God, forgiveness, redemption, salvation, enlightenment, or whatever term anyone wishes to use.

Offering Jesus as the only means for salvation, in the way it was done, doesn’t even strike me as worthy of a consciousness that is supposed to be more intelligent than anyone else.  Like the song Superstar says, “Why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?  If you’d come today you could have reached the whole nation.  Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication.”

Having presented this viewpoint, I recognize that I am open to criticism from Agnostics and Atheists who will say that I have an irrational belief in something for which I don’t have proof.  By acknowledging that I both don’t and can’t understand it, but I still believe it, I am being ridiculous.  My response is that, again, I’m only looking for what makes sense to me, and I’m not asking that anyone else believe it.
 
RESPONSE TO SOME FUNDAMENTALIST OPINIONS

“In wrestling with these issues, therefore, we should…turn to scripture rather than relying on our feelings or preferences.”

As I’ve noted, I disagree with this.  The Bible has no more authority for me than any other written work.  As for feelings and preferences, I noted above that we have to use human standards of morality, otherwise the argument is nonsensical.  

Additionally, each one of us can be accused of believing what we want to believe, or what makes us feel good, no matter what may contradict it.  But I’m not making any claim to inerrant truth.  Quite the contrary, I’ll be the first to concede that there is insufficient evidence at this time to make any absolute claims about matters of religion.

There’s a basis for casting doubt on any belief system, including Atheism.  We can’t know anything for sure, and almost anything is possible.  For my part, I can say that if there is an introduction of new evidence, I will likely change my views to conform with the new information.

I.    Scripture is Accurate, Authoritative, and True.

Again, for me the Bible is based on an outdated view of the world and morality.  There’s very little in it that I can take as literally true, except for “Everything is meaningless, utterly meaningless!”  (Ecclesiastes 1:2)  (Joking).

“…all-powerful, all-knowing…”

In the interest of time, a lengthy discussion on our differing views concerning the nature of God will have to wait for another day.  But I do have to point out that omnipotence and omniscience are contradictory.  Either you know what is going to happen so can’t change it, or you can change it and, therefore, don’t know what will happen.

Also, the Old Testament suggests in many passages that God is not omniscient, and omnipotence is inconsistent with the whole purpose for us being here.  Omnipotence doesn’t need a means to an end.
 
“In the beginning was the Word…”

This may be a moot point in light of the bigger picture here, but this is the reference to Paul that I noted:  “And Jesus Christ our Lord was shown to be the Son of God when God powerfully raised him from the dead by means of the Holy Spirit.”  (Rom. 1:4).  The King James Version says, “And declared to be the Son of God…by the resurrection from the dead.”

Now, while this doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus wasn’t part of Divinity before this, it does imply that this is the first time it was revealed.  That seems odd in light of a virgin birth, God telling everyone at the baptism that this is His son, and any number of assorted miracles.

It’s also interesting that Paul overwhelmingly says “was raised” (a passive verb) to describe the resurrection.

“Thus, the fact that the Bible doesn’t comport with contemporary human norms only means that those norms are sinful and wrong.”

So abolishing slavery was sinful and wrong?  Giving women equal rights was sinful and wrong?  Democracy is sinful and wrong?  Abolishing the penalty of stoning to death for any number of actions that don’t even amount to infractions, that’s sinful and wrong?  I’m sure that’s not what you meant, but you made a blanket statement.

Whatever you did mean by this, my response is that the ethical views of authors writing thousands of years ago are not the standards I’m inclined to turn to as the last word in determining right and wrong, even if the writers were Jews.

Additionally, some of the laws from back then are just silly today.  The dietary laws are probably the most notable, although they certainly served a practical purpose at the time.

Another one that comes to mind is the prohibition on trimming the hair on your temples or clipping the edges of your beard (Lev. 19:27).  Interestingly, this is right under fortune-telling and witchcraft, and right above tattoos, so these three prohibitions presumably have the same force of law.

Touching the skin of a dead pig (no football?), camel, or rock badger (Lev. 11:5-8) is another example.  So is planting your field with two kinds of seed, or wearing clothing woven from two different kinds of fabric (Lev. 19:19).

“…it sometimes reports human perceptions of God’s works.”

Actually, I think we found a point of agreement here.  While I think some of the Books of the Old Testament are political in nature, or even satires, I do think that the authors in many cases were giving their perceptions of God within the context of their lives and understanding of the world.

I also agree with the point you make at the bottom that scripture should be read in light of how it would be understood given the cultural and historical setting in which events took place.  That’s what I’m trying to do in the Gospels.  I’m trying to see the experience past whatever biases or inaccuracies resulted from the writings.

“…scripture should be read with an eye towards determining the original intent…”

Well, I think that’s what I’ve done.  And based on the apparent original intent, a lot of it reveals itself to me to be either inaccurate or morally problematic.

II.    The Divinity of Christ and Exclusive Salvation through Hope in Him.

I would again note that the belief about the nature of Jesus was not finalized until nearly 300 years after Jesus, and not everyone at the time agreed.  The vote wasn’t unanimous.  

“…Jesus claimed to be the Messiah…”

To our knowledge, Jesus never wrote a single word except for the time he is said to have written in the dirt (John 8:6).  With a significant gap in time before the words were written down, and with the translation from the spoken Aramaic to the written Greek, it’s hard to know exactly what was said.  Throw into that the unknown biases of the Gospel writers, and that I believe that much of what they wrote was never intended to be taken as literal (Midrash), then I’m left having to say that I really can’t be sure.  The Gospel of Thomas, since it seems to be devoted strictly to recording the words of Jesus, might have the most authenticity, but that wasn’t even included in the Bible.

“…no one comes to the Father, but by me…”
“…for many will seek to enter and will not be able…”

I would again emphasize that we can’t know with certainty what was said.  I would also say that, even if these are the words of Jesus, it’s not clear how much he understood or knew about the rest of the world.

Furthermore, since our modern understanding was not formalized until Nicaea, these quotes alone, having been written maybe two hundred years before, don’t necessarily tell us anything with respect to the actions that are required from us.

This also strikes me as in conflict with the God of Abraham, in which all people can have direct access to God.  Jesus himself is said to have opposed the priests of the Temple in part for requiring people to go through them to get to God.

“…the Bible teaches that false religions are demonic.”

As written by a man who was in competition with other religions.  Quite a number of belief systems say things similar to this.  Generally, most companies are going to tell you not to listen to the advertising of their rival companies.  Furthermore, if this is true, then I don’t know which religions are false.  Even within Christianity, there are many different forms and interpretations.  Who is entitled to say what is and is not a false religion?

Your footnote:  “…For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation…”

Isn’t jealousy a sin?  Even I would say that it is.  At the very least, it’s a character flaw.  And it’s very strange for an all-powerful being.

Is it really the actions of a benevolent being to punish the children and grandchildren for something that was said by a relative?  Aren’t there dictators today who commit similar atrocities?

III.    The Existence and Role of Angels, Satan, and Demons.

I have always been puzzled by the idea of Satan.  Why would an all-powerful being create another supernatural entity that can oppose it and thwart its will?  That doesn’t make any sense to me.

I don’t believe that Satan exists, at least not the way you do.  However, if we assume for the moment that there is one, then it is here at the will of God, at least according to the Christian Fundamentalist take on things.  If God is all-powerful, then things are the way God wishes them to be.  I don’t see how one can act contrary to the will of an omnipotent being.  We therefore must assume that the present state of the world, with Satan in it, is how God desires it to be.

Additionally, as I noted before, I can never know for sure what Satan is trying to trick me with.  Given the passion that most people have about their religious views, it seems entirely possible that Satan is trying to fool me with Christian Fundamentalism.

I remember the Pope once said something about other Christian Churches having “defects,” partly because they don’t recognize the primacy of the Pope.

Orthodox Jews, who also take the Old Testament literally, will cite that same document to prove to me that the idea of the Trinity and the notion that Jesus is their Messiah are both false.

Perhaps most significantly, the Qu’ran clearly states that, to the extent that I believe that God was in Jesus, I am in danger of suffering a “grievous penalty” because I am angering God [S. v. 72-73].  With Muslims now outnumbering every other religion on earth (counting Roman Catholics and Protestants separately) this is not a warning that I can easily dismiss.  (Actually, there is a lot more in common between the Qu’ran and the Bible than you might think.)

More to the point, what you refer to as the occult is make-believe for me, or, in the case of most modern stories, metaphors for real life dangers.  To the extent that anyone, pro or con, believes that there is dark magic (or even good magic) that can be wielded, then they have a different view of reality than me.  I’m quite certain that if any person had that power over the natural laws of the universe, we would all be aware of him/her by now.

IV.    Judgment and Hell

“...Is God unjust to judge or arbitrary not to save all?…”

I think I addressed most of your argument under the heading, “Getting Into Heaven.”  However, I’ll respond to some of the points that I may not have covered:

“…God made everything and therefore certainly has a right to judge it…”

We are discussing morality, and not who created what.  If I created a living, sentient being out of nothing, that alone does not give me the right to treat it in any way I see fit.  Creation is not a moral concept, and only a moral concept can give moral authority.  

“…when we see ourselves as God sees us…that any are saved represents a supreme act of mercy…”

I’m tempted to quote Milton, “Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay to mould me man?  Did I solicit thee from darkness to promote me?”  Under the Christian Fundamentalist point of view, God created people.  And, if God is omniscient, then He also knew what horrors were to come.  Nevertheless, God did this anyway.  If He knew humans would become sinful, and what the punishment would be, then this becomes not just a moral failing on God’s part, but it’s irrational as well.  Bottom line, if God thinks that humans are so bad, then He shouldn’t have created them.

Furthermore, God knows that if the human race continues to reproduce, then there will be many more victims.  Despite knowing this, God still allows it to continue, thereby being responsible of the deliberate creation of victims for Hell.  There doesn’t seem to be much difference between allowing this to continue and creating people for the expressed purpose of damning them.

V.    Alleged Inconsistencies in Scripture

I honestly can’t even remember how many books I’ve seen that list passage after passage of inconsistencies both within the Old Testament and New Testament.  For me, these are easily explained by concluding that many writers, with different biases, writing over the course of several hundred years, and without modern scientific knowledge, will quite naturally present inconsistencies.  This is far simpler than trying to reinterpret the Bible to make it conform to a logical consistency.

“…atheist archaeologists…converted to Christianity…”

This is noteworthy.  However, there are also plenty of former Christians.  On a personal level, I have literally met dozens of former Christians who, while maybe not Atheists, are also no longer Christians.

Additionally, a casual listening to the George Noory show (formerly the Art Bell show) will reveal plenty of supposed experts in their field who have now become convinced that:  (1) The U.S. never landed on the moon; (2) People are being abducted by space aliens; (3) The government has a spaceship and space aliens, and this is being covered up in part because of the negative implications it would have for religion; (4) Planet X exists and it is coming our way, set to throw us out of orbit; and (5) Bigfoot exists.

VI.    Prophecies

While you did not list this as one of your titles, you did touch on it, so I think that I should at least give some response.

First, many prophecies are of such an obscure nature that any variety of events could be interpreted as fulfilling the prophecies.  Just look at all the people who insist that Nostradamus made accurate predictions.

Second, as noted, the Bible was written over hundreds of years, with many authors.  What we have today is the result of much editing, and Books that were traditionally thought to be by one author, are now thought to be the work of different anonymous men.  So there is reason for skepticism that alleged prophecies were manufactured after the incident in question.  This is especially so for those in which the prophecy was said to be made and fulfilled within the same Book.

I again must note that, with respect to Jesus, there is wide disagreement as to what the Old Testament prophesized.  The same Orthodox Jews who tell me that the Torah can be taken literally, then tell me that Jesus is not the result of anything that was prophesized in the Old Testament.  They say such a reading is proven to be wrong by a simple reading of the text.  You already know that the Jews envisioned a military leader as their Messiah.  But they also refer to how Hebrew words were taken out of context.  I do not claim to have much knowledge of this, but it is an argument that is out there.

In some cases, the supposed prophecy refers to a past event, but is interpreted as a future event.  It is also not known what the New Testament writers have simply inserted in order to show that a prophecy was completed.  For me, a lot of the similarities are actually just the Gospel writers retelling an Old Testament story in order to convey the message about Jesus.

If one argues that the cited passages from the Old Testament have a double meaning, one for their time and one for the future, then it’s no longer an argument based on reason, but instead based on faith.  Any passage could then be taken, distorted, and then claimed to be based on divine inspiration.

In addition to distorted prophecies, there are also mistaken prophecies.  Jesus is said to have prophesized that that the end of the world was coming soon.  He stated, “I assure you, this generation will not pass from the scene before all these things (referring to Matt. 24:29-31) take place.” (Matt.24:34).  Now I know that some have gone to great lengths to try to reinterpret this so that “this generation” includes me and everyone else for the next several thousand years.  Rather than trying to do that, I’ll just note that the prophecy was likely never said by him, but just added by Matthew for political reasons.

This comes up elsewhere, however.  “Turn from your sins and turn to God, because the Kingdom of Heaven is near” (Matt. 4:17).  “I assure you that some of you standing here right now will not die before you see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!” (Mark 9:1).  There are actually a number of references where Jesus suggests that the end is near.  (See also Matt.10:7, 10:23, 16:28, 23:36; Mark 1:15, 13:30; Luke 9:27, 21:32).

After Jesus’ death, his imminent return was mistakenly prophesized.  Here are examples:  “But now in these final days, He has spoken to us through His Son.”  (Hebrews 1:2)  “The time that remains is very short, so husbands should not let marriage be their major concern.” (I Corinthians 7:29)  “The end of the world is coming soon.” (I Peter 4:7)  “…but now in these final days, he was sent to earth for all to see.” (I Peter 1:20) “And take courage, for the coming of the Lord is near.” (James 5:8)  (See also Hebrews 9:26, 10:37; I Timothy 6:13-14; I Thessalonians 4:15; 2 Peter 3:12-14; I John 2:18; Revelation 1:1, 3:11, 22.7). If the Bible is taken literally, then it is simply wrong in these passages.

VII. SUMMARY

As I said at the beginning of this letter, we will often find ourselves talking right past each other. Our basic assumptions are different, and we will therefore never agree.

I read the Bible in light of its human origins and context. I am looking for the experience rather than the explanation. While I find a number of the writings insightful and even inspirational, I must reject any literal interpretation on both scientific and moral grounds.

I also find it significant that we can even have a disagreement about this. If the Biblical view of God is literally correct, then a debate about its authenticity should be much like a debate about whether the sun exists. Why does an omnipotent being need to obfuscate the issue?

If God wishes to make His will conclusively known to the world, it shouldn’t be very difficult to do so, particularly with modern day mass communication. Instead, we have billions of people with different views, all of whom are convinced that they’re right.

As I think I alluded to earlier, there are thousands of books in the world that purport to show conclusive, irrefutable proof that that author’s view of God, or of non-God, as the case may be, is correct. It will never be possible for me to read all of these writings, even if I were inclined to.

In reading your letter, it’s clear to me that you obviously have developed a set of beliefs that are compelling to you. If you are able to find inerrant truth in the Bible without any doubts, then you’re fortunate to have a belief system that you can feel confident in. I hope that it continues to provide you comfort, and that it encourages you onward toward great accomplishments.