413 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
413 lines
27 KiB
Plaintext
COMMENTARY
|
|
|
|
THE FLOOD (Part One of a two-part series)--A topic that has always been
|
|
of great interest to students of the Bible is the Flood, an alleged event
|
|
more cataclysmic than any other natural disaster in history. BE will not
|
|
discuss the scientific data used by proponents to support their beliefs.
|
|
Instead, two kinds of information will be used to show the Flood Theory
|
|
lacks credibility. The Commentary in next month's issue will discuss the
|
|
large number of contradictions between biblical verses with respect to
|
|
what occurred; while this month's Commentary will concentrate on the great
|
|
number of difficulties, impossibilities, and unanswered questions
|
|
accompanying the biblical account. Anyone believing in the Flood must
|
|
provide rational answers to the following questions: (a) Gen 6:16 says, "A
|
|
window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it
|
|
above...." How could so many creatures breathe with only one small
|
|
opening which was closed for at least 190 days--150 days plus an
|
|
additional 40 days (Gen. 8:3-6)? (b) Gen 6:15 says, "The length of the
|
|
ark shall be 300 cubits (450 feet--Ed.), the breadth of it 50 cubits (75
|
|
feet--Ed.), and the height of it 30 cubits (45 feet--Ed.)." How could two
|
|
of every animal survive for approximately 10 months on a boat encompassing
|
|
1,518,750 cubic feet? The food alone would absorb tremendous space. (c)
|
|
Gen 6:17 says, "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy
|
|
all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and
|
|
everything that is in the earth shall die." Gen 7:4 reenforces this
|
|
point, "...and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from
|
|
off the face of the earth." Yet, how would a flood destroy sea animals,
|
|
such as whales, porpoises, sea snakes, dolphins, amphibians, and all
|
|
animals living entirely under water? (d) Gen 7:8-9 says, "Of clean
|
|
beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing
|
|
that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the
|
|
ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah." The problems
|
|
associated with this account of the creatures entering the Ark are
|
|
particularly interesting. How did animals that are restricted to certain
|
|
parts of the earth get to the Ark? Penguins, kangaroos, polar bears,
|
|
koala bears, and many others would have had to have crossed vast oceans.
|
|
How animals from other continents managed to cross the seas can only be
|
|
surmised. How did many of the animals withstand climatic changes? Many
|
|
of those from polar regions could not have withstood the heat of the
|
|
Middle East. How were animals prevented from killing their natural prey?
|
|
Slow animals from other continents--snails, sloths, turtles, and so forth-
|
|
-must have started their journey to the Ark before the earth was created.
|
|
How did only 8 people feed and water the world's greatest zoo for many
|
|
months? How was the Ark kept sanitary since there was only one window and
|
|
one door? How did the animals know where to go when the time arrived to
|
|
enter the Ark? After being released, how did they return to their
|
|
respective regions of the world? The vegetation which many animals eat
|
|
only grows in certain parts of the world. How was it brought to the Ark
|
|
for storage? Are we to believe that two of every species--two dogs, two
|
|
cats, two horses, two snakes, and so forth--entered the Ark? If so, then
|
|
are we also to believe, for example, that the tremendous variety of dogs
|
|
in the world today, from the great dane to the chihuahua, descended from
|
|
two of the species? This would mark a tremendous evolutionary change in
|
|
only a few thousand years. Yet, biblicists are the ones who denounce the
|
|
theory of evolution. And how did the animals know when to seek the Ark?
|
|
The text implies they just came voluntarily. (e) Gen 7:15 says, "And they
|
|
went in unto Noah into the Ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the
|
|
breath of life." How did water creatures such as whales, porpoises, sea
|
|
snakes, dolphins, and so forth enter the Ark? Moreover, since millions of
|
|
species of animals exist throughout the world, how could a pair have been
|
|
taken from each. There are over 500,000 separate species of insects
|
|
alone. (f) Gen. 8:4 states, "And the ark rested in the 7th month, on the
|
|
17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." How could the Ark
|
|
have rested upon several mountains at once? (g) "Also he sent forth a
|
|
dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the
|
|
ground" (Gen 8:8). Why did Noah send a bird to learn what was clearly
|
|
evident? (h) Gen 8:11 says, "And the dove came in to him in the evening;
|
|
and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." It's difficult to
|
|
believe a dove could have found an olive leaf to freshly pluck in a world
|
|
that had been submerged for nearly a year. (i) Gen 8:20 states, "And Noah
|
|
builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of
|
|
every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Killing
|
|
animals of which only two remain after the Flood seems absurd. (j) Gen
|
|
7:13 states, "In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and
|
|
Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons
|
|
with them, into the ark." If the human race began anew from Noah and his
|
|
sons, are we supposed to believe the wide variations among the earth's
|
|
people developed in the short period since the Flood? Are we supposed to
|
|
believe that the fair-haired Swede, the brown-skinned, dark-haired Indian,
|
|
and the black-skinned native came from the same ancestors? (k) Gen 7:4
|
|
says, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth
|
|
forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made
|
|
will I destroy from off the face of the earth." But what had the beasts
|
|
and the creeping things done to excite God's anger? They had committed no
|
|
sin; they had eaten no forbidden fruit; and they had not tried to reach
|
|
the tree of life. (l) Gen 8:5 and 8:13 state the Flood covered the earth
|
|
and its mountains. If so, where did all the water go? (m) Lastly, the
|
|
questions raised by Gen 8:19 must be answered. The verse says, "Every
|
|
beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon
|
|
the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark." How were the
|
|
animals preserved after leaving the Ark? There was no grass except such
|
|
as had been submerged for a year. How were the herbivores taken care of
|
|
until the earth was again clothed with vegetation? There were no animals
|
|
to be devoured by the carnivores, except those which were on the Ark.
|
|
From whence came their food? Apologists will be asked in next month's
|
|
issue to address an equally large number of contradictions between the
|
|
verses themselves.
|
|
|
|
THE RESURRECTION--Among those beliefs crucial to Christianity few are of
|
|
greater importance than that of the Resurrection. Paul went so far as to
|
|
allege the very foundation of Christianity rests upon its occurrence.
|
|
"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is
|
|
also vain" (1 Cor 15:14,17). Yet, why should the Resurrection be of such
|
|
significance. Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17,21-22);
|
|
Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up" (1Sam
|
|
28:7,11,15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunamite (2Kings 4:32,34-
|
|
35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the
|
|
bones of Elisha (2Kings 13:21); Moses and Elijah revived at the time of
|
|
the Transfiguration (Luke 9:29-30); the saints arose at the time of Jesus'
|
|
death (Matt 27:52-53); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt 9:18,23-
|
|
25); the widow of Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15); and
|
|
Lazarus rose from the dead (John 11:43-44). All of these people ascended
|
|
from death and all did so before Jesus. So why attribute so much
|
|
importance to the event. By the time Christ rose from the dead this was a
|
|
rather common occurrence. Moreover, people not only rose before Jesus but
|
|
after him as well. Peter raised Tabitha and Paul raised Eutychus. While
|
|
participating in a radio call-in program several years ago, the Editor was
|
|
told by a caller that, except for Jesus, all of the above mentioned people
|
|
eventually died again. But Paul clearly asserted it's the Resurrection,
|
|
per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again. The
|
|
caller was asked to cite a passage that justified his contention. There
|
|
was no reply. A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection
|
|
lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred.
|
|
The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the
|
|
events connected with the Resurrection: (1) At what time in the morning
|
|
did the women visit the tomb?--At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2)-VS-
|
|
when it was yet dark (John 20:1). (2) Who came--Mary Magdalene alone
|
|
(John 20:1)-VS-Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1)-VS-Mary
|
|
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1)-VS-Mary
|
|
Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10).
|
|
(3) Was the tomb open or closed when they arrived?--Open (luke 24:2)-VS-
|
|
closed (Matt 8:1-2). (4) Whom did they see at the tomb?--The angel (Matt
|
|
28:2)-VS-a young man (Mark 16:5)-VS-two men (Luke 24:4)-VS-two angels
|
|
(John 20:11-12). (5) Were these men or angels inside or outside the
|
|
tomb?--Outside (Matt 28:2)-VS-inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-
|
|
12). (6) Were they standing or sitting?--Standing (luke 24:4)-VS-sitting
|
|
(Matt 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12). (7) Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus
|
|
when he first appeared to her?--Yes, he did (Matt 28:9)-VS-no, she did not
|
|
(John 20:14). If the stories were consistent, one could write one long
|
|
continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of
|
|
divergences. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering, or
|
|
omitting verses. Apologists often submit the witnesses-at-an-auto-
|
|
accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically
|
|
opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be
|
|
simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses
|
|
at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy. Thomas
|
|
Paine summarized the relationship between the gospels quite well. "...it
|
|
is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon record so many and
|
|
such glaring absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, as are in those
|
|
books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). They are more numerous and
|
|
striking than I had any expectation of finding, when I began this
|
|
examination..." (The Age of Reason, p.167). A third major problem
|
|
connected with the Resurrection lies in the fact that even if Jesus had
|
|
risen, nobody is going to follow his example. "For the fate of the sons
|
|
of men and the fate of beasts is the same: as one dies so dies the
|
|
other...man has no advantage (pre-eminence--KJV) over the beasts...All go
|
|
to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who
|
|
knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast
|
|
goes down to the earth" (Eccle 3:19-21 RSV). Job 7:9-10, 1Tim 6:15-16,
|
|
and Isaiah 26:14 say as much. And lastly, others participated in even
|
|
more momentous events. Adam was never born to begin with (Gen 1:27); he
|
|
came into the world as a full-grown adult. Enoch (Gen 5:22-24) and Elijah
|
|
(2Kings 2:11) never died. The latter went straight to heaven, which,
|
|
incidentally, contradicts Hebrews 9:27 which says, "And it is appointed
|
|
unto men once to die..." In fact, what did Jesus ever do that had not
|
|
already been accomplished? He rose from the dead but only after others.
|
|
He performed miracles but so had others. What, then, did Jesus do that
|
|
was different, that had not already been done? Plainly stated, "what
|
|
makes him stand out from the crowd?" Hundreds have claimed to be the
|
|
Savior; so what are the acts that substantiate his credentials.
|
|
Assertions alone prove nothing. Anyone can claim to be the Messiah and
|
|
hundreds have.
|
|
|
|
REVIEWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
On page 23 in Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity McDowell and
|
|
Stewart provide a list of 8 commonly given reasons for believing the Bible
|
|
is inerrant. "The evidence that the very words of the Bible are God-given
|
|
may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) This is the claim of the
|
|
classical text (2Tim 3:16); (2) It is the emphatic testimony of Paul that
|
|
he spoke in Words...taught by the Spirit (1Cor 2:13); (3) It is evident
|
|
from the repeated formula, "It is written"; (4) Jesus said that which was
|
|
written in the whole Old Testament spoke of Him (Luke 24:27,44/John
|
|
5:39/Hebrews 10:7); (5) The New Testament constantly equates the Word of
|
|
God with Scripture (Matt 21:42/Rom 15:4); (6) Jesus indicated that not
|
|
even the smallest part of a Hebrew word or letter could be broken (Matt
|
|
5:18); (7) The Testament refers to the written record as the "oracles of
|
|
God" (Rom 3:2/Heb 5:12); (8) And occasionally the writers were even told
|
|
to "diminish not a word" (Jer 26:2). John even pronounced an anathema
|
|
upon all who would add to or diminish from this book." The fallacy in the
|
|
above lies in the fact that all 8 reasons are making the same point in
|
|
different words--the Bible is inspired because it says so, which, of
|
|
course, is no proof whatever. Many writings in history have claimed
|
|
divine perfection but no prudent observer would accept them on this basis
|
|
alone. McDowell and Stewart acknowledge as much on page 1 of Tough
|
|
Questions Skeptics Ask. "...the Bible claims to be a record of the words
|
|
and deeds of God, thus the Bible views itself as God's Word. The mere
|
|
fact that the Bible claims to be the Word of God does not prove that it is
|
|
such, for there are other books that make similar claims."
|
|
One of the most controversial verses in the Bible is Ex 20:13--Thou
|
|
shalt not kill. In Answers to Questions About the Bible Robert Mounce
|
|
attempted to answer the question: Does the commandment, 'You shalt not
|
|
kill' mean that Christians are not to go to war?" His response was:
|
|
"That the sixth commandment is to be understood as a prohibition against
|
|
murder and is not a blanket condemnation of the taking of life under any
|
|
circumstances is seen by the fact that God not only authorized capital
|
|
punishment (Gen 6:9)...but also sent his people into war (1Sam
|
|
15:3)...that armed resistance is a permissible ingredient in the unhappy
|
|
history of man is acknowledged by Scripture." But the verse said nothing
|
|
about murder. It said, Thou shalt not kill. Killing is a broader term
|
|
encompassing murder. The fact that the biblical God killed and ordered
|
|
killing only highlights the inconsistency of God ordering man not to do
|
|
that which he, himself, commits. The societal difficulties that have
|
|
arisen over this verse, especially during wartime, have caused proponents
|
|
such as Mounce to change the word "kill" to "murder" in many versions.
|
|
Although the KJV, the RSV, the NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, the Geneva Bible,
|
|
and the Douay Version use "kill," translators of such versions as the
|
|
NASB, the NWT, the NIV and the Masoretic text opted for the more expedient
|
|
term "murder." It would be rather difficult for military and law
|
|
enforcement agencies to function if their members really believed the KJV
|
|
maxim, Thou shalt not kill.
|
|
On page 111 in 508 Answers to Bible Questions M.R. DeHaan was asked if
|
|
faith can literally move mountains as taught in Matt 17:20 ("If ye have
|
|
faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove
|
|
hence to yonder place; and it shall remove, and nothing shall be
|
|
impossible unto you"). He responded with, "Yes, I believe with all my
|
|
heart that if we had enough faith we would be able to move literal
|
|
mountains if it was for the glory of God. Of course, we must remember
|
|
that merely moving mountains for the sake of making a demonstration is not
|
|
pleasing to the Lord, but if it is to His glory and for the help of
|
|
others, I believe it would be possible." In order to escape from the
|
|
dilemma presented, DeHaan utilized some common ploys. First, he discussed
|
|
a verse which has a qualifier--the faith must be as a grain of mustard
|
|
seed. If the wish fails apologists can always say the faith did not
|
|
measure up to the proviso. Why didn't he address Mark 9:23 ("If thou
|
|
canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth"), John 14:12
|
|
("He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and
|
|
greater works than these shall he do"), and Matt 21:21 which have no
|
|
provisos, which say one need only have faith, period. Second, surely any
|
|
believer would have as much faith as a grain of mustard seed since the
|
|
latter is so small. So why can't all believers move mountains? Third,
|
|
where do any of these verses say it can't be done unless it is for the
|
|
glory of God? This gratuitous qualifier is unsupported by anything in the
|
|
text. Fourth, why does DeHaan assume people only want to make "a
|
|
demonstration" by moving mountains? Perhaps some believers really do want
|
|
some mountains moved. Are we to believe that it could be done by faith?
|
|
Fifth, where does the Bible say a demonstration would not be pleasing to
|
|
the Lord? Doesn't it say "Prove all things" (1Thess 5:21). And lastly,
|
|
where do any of these verses say it must be done for God's glory and to
|
|
aid others? The verses say you can move mountains if you believe.
|
|
Limitations are not even mentioned.
|
|
|
|
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
|
|
|
|
Letter from MJ of Ferndale, Washington
|
|
Dennis, I wish to make a few comments on what you said about the Flood.
|
|
First you quoted Gen. 8:4 and then commented, "How could the ark have
|
|
rested upon several mountains at once?" I personally had no problem with
|
|
that verse--as many elements of our modern language use identical usage.
|
|
If you interpret many of our statements today, literally, word for word,
|
|
you would have difficulty functioning normally. As children, we would
|
|
often interpret our brothers and sisters' comments and/or commands
|
|
literally--word for word-- to render their statements useless, or create
|
|
nonsense out of commonly used phrases. Please let's leave that method to
|
|
pranksters...
|
|
|
|
Editor's Response to MJ
|
|
Dear MJ. Gen 8:4 says "mountains," plural, not "a mountain," singular.
|
|
Translators should have left off the "s" if only one mountain was
|
|
intended. You're speaking as if the "s" didn't exist. Apologists
|
|
repeatedly say one should read the Bible as one reads a newspaper, which
|
|
is what I'm doing. I assume the Book says what it means and means what it
|
|
says. If you are going to change a plural to a singular because it sounds
|
|
absurd, are you going to deny the miracles of the Bible because they are
|
|
absurd also? The Bible says a woman turned into a pillar of salt, for
|
|
example. Is that more or less incredible than a ship landing on several
|
|
mountains at once? If you are going to rewrite an incident because it
|
|
makes no sense, then you might as well rewrite others. And, of course, if
|
|
you alter the Bible's miracles in such a manner as to make them appear
|
|
natural, then you will "gut" the Book in the process. The Resurrection
|
|
will vanish and Jesus will no longer be the god/man. In essence, if you
|
|
are going to start rewriting the text because verses don't make sense, you
|
|
face the problem of deciding where this will end and what's left when you
|
|
are through.
|
|
|
|
Letter from MH of Dayton, Ohio
|
|
I've read your "Bible Errancy" newsletter. The Bible says in 1Cor 2:14,
|
|
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
|
|
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
|
|
spiritually discerned." You are dealing with a spiritual book when you
|
|
deal with the Bible. The Holy Spirit moved men to write the Scriptures,
|
|
and to understand the Scriptures, you too must be spiritual.
|
|
Actually, you need to be born again. Jesus, God manifest in the flesh,
|
|
said "Ye must be born again." The enclosed tract will tell you how to be
|
|
saved. Please read it.
|
|
|
|
Editor's Response to MH
|
|
You asked me to read your small tract entitled, "In Devil's Hell." I
|
|
did and found it to be typical of the pamphlets that we often find in bus
|
|
terminals, on library tables, and on door knobs. It is permeated with the
|
|
urgent need to accept Jesus, be saved, and fear hell. Much was asserted;
|
|
nothing proved. Now I ask you to respond in kind. Read BIBLICAL ERRANCY,
|
|
but not through a filter composed of Christian fundamentals. Among other
|
|
things the January 1983 issue I sent you proved the Bible is not to be
|
|
trusted as a reliable source. Yet, your tract avoided the evidence
|
|
entirely and blindly plodded forward. Instead of proving the Bible is
|
|
true, you just assume as much. But I provided evidence to the contrary.
|
|
It says, for instance, that "all have sinned," which is completely false.
|
|
How do I know? Your Book says so. Don't you believe it? "Noah was a
|
|
just man and perfect in his generations..." (Gen 6:9); "...that man (Job--
|
|
Ed.) was perfect and upright..." (Job 1:1,8). These men were perfect, so
|
|
obviously they could not have been sinners. How can you be a sinner and
|
|
be perfect? The Bible has hundreds of problems and if you will only bear
|
|
with me, I will prove as much in the months to come. But you must be
|
|
reasonable. I can't cover the entire Book in one issue.
|
|
|
|
Letter from DW of South Pasadena, California
|
|
Dear Dennis....once one realizes the Bible is not the word of God, one
|
|
should go on to establish a positive philosophy of life and not worry much
|
|
about that book. That approach is obviously outside the scope of BE's
|
|
calling. I'm finding the goals of (several groups--Ed.)...of much more
|
|
interest than debating fundamentalists. But I wish you luck at freeing
|
|
more minds from the myths of Biblical inerrancy, and I'll keep reading
|
|
BE....
|
|
|
|
Editor's Response to DW
|
|
You have touched upon one of the most divisive issues in the freethought
|
|
movement, DW. Do we directly confront and challenge the supporters of
|
|
religion and the Bible or do we go our own way by setting a good example
|
|
and developing a positive philosophy and let them go theirs? The approach
|
|
of the freethought organizations you mentioned is contrary to that of
|
|
BE's. This Country is composed of millions of people whose support for
|
|
the Bible ranges all the way from lukewarm to fanatical. In numbers and
|
|
wealth their dominance is overwhelming and easily proven. One of their
|
|
spokesmen alone, Jimmy Swaggart, has a yearly budget far in excess of that
|
|
of all freethought groups combined. The disproportionate relationship
|
|
between the forces explains why television exudes so many people who
|
|
belong in the Middle Ages. We are told to turn off the set or change the
|
|
channel if we don't like the program, but isn't it about time they started
|
|
changing the TV, not us. Even the government buttresses them. If I was
|
|
told I would no longer be taxed or subject to audits while my neighbor
|
|
continued as before, that would be positive assistance, not just hands
|
|
off. Atheist, humanist, and other freethought publications have provided
|
|
more than enough proof to show the partition between church and state more
|
|
closely resembles a back door screen than a wall. This situation must be
|
|
altered. Establishing a positive philosophy of life is commendable, but
|
|
what follows? What do you do with it? Do you rest on your laurels and
|
|
hope religionists will follow your example? How could that happen when
|
|
they don't even know your beliefs? In effect, the status quo would remain
|
|
as before with biblicists dominating the scene. Two crucial questions
|
|
must be faced by all freethought organizations: (1) Why should
|
|
religionists, biblicists, and apologists come to the freethought movement
|
|
when they are convinced they already have the truth and (2) why should
|
|
these same groups listen to anything the freethought movement has to offer
|
|
when they have been taught from infancy that atheism, humanism,
|
|
agnosticism, etc. are works of evil? To some they are the devil
|
|
incarnate. The only way to dispel people of these illusions is to go on
|
|
the offensive, which few freethought organizations and publications are
|
|
willing to do. Some even admit their reluctance. But, the fact is that a
|
|
major reason the Bible is so all-pervasive is that millions of its
|
|
supporters have taken their case to others. Missionaries have traveled
|
|
the world and converted millions as Christian dominance in Latin America
|
|
demonstrates. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have not become rapidly
|
|
growing sects by sitting at home praying the world will see the wisdom of
|
|
their ways and beat a path to their door. Aggressive proselytization is
|
|
their hallmark. Your tactic of "adopting a positive philosophy of life"
|
|
actually amounts to nothing more than assuming a defensive posture, i.e.,
|
|
accepting conditions as they are, and is doomed from the beginning. You
|
|
don't win on the defensive. Most freethought organizations and
|
|
publications are not significantly converting people to their point-of-
|
|
view but only picking up those who have rejected religion and/or the Bible
|
|
for reasons of their own. Members of the religious/biblical community
|
|
must be reeducated from the ground up. Most have been programmed from
|
|
birth and it's up to us to deprogram. Although important, battles over
|
|
prayer in the schools, nativity scenes, "In God We Trust" on the currency,
|
|
etc. are essentially secondary. As long as people believe the Bible is
|
|
God's word, conflicts of this kind will continue unabated and remain an
|
|
understandable by-product. Once people no longer believe the Bible or
|
|
have their allegiance to it dramatically shaken, their interest in these
|
|
secondary issues will naturally fade. That's why BE teaches a kind of
|
|
Sunday-School-in-Reverse. Our program is one of going back to the basics,
|
|
starting over, and exposing all the facts that should have been heard in
|
|
Sunday School but weren't. People have a right to hear both sides. But
|
|
we can't do it alone. You mentioned "luck," but that's not what matters.
|
|
Thousands of knowledgeable people willing to put in the needed time and
|
|
effort are what count. Serious and intense effort over many years in a
|
|
protracted struggle are mandatory. Anti-religious humor, denunciations of
|
|
the religious mentality, exposures of corrupt ministers or popes, and
|
|
comparable tactics are subordinate, if not superficial, and easily
|
|
countered.
|
|
Your comment with respect to fundamentalism missed the mark, DW. BE
|
|
doesn't exist to debate fundamentalists. Millions of people in this
|
|
Country are not fundamentalists or atheists but lie somewhere on the long
|
|
spectrum in between. The common denominator is that nearly all support
|
|
the Bible to some degree. BE merely seeks to debate those most supportive
|
|
of the Book while all others observe, so views can be sharply delineated
|
|
and many be moved further from the Bible by having their faith weakened.
|
|
Converting a fundamentalist in a dialogue is of far less importance than
|
|
influencing the audience. Many people have no strong views one way or the
|
|
other and are just listening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO:
|
|
|
|
BIBLICAL ERRANCY $9 For one year
|
|
3158 SHERWOOD PARK DRIVE $5 For six months
|
|
SPRINGFIELD, OH. 45505 Back issues $1 Each
|
|
Payable to: Dennis McKinsey
|
|
(513) 323-6146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|