 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||
Please renew my subscription to The Skeptical Review. I'm very impressed with what you do and how well you do it. I'm really exhausted by all the lies that we've been fed over the years, and it's nice to know that you're there.
(David C. Mitten, 543 Sicklerville Road, Williamstown, NJ 08094- 1214.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: It's also nice to know that some are waking up to the lies, and our mail is telling us that their numbers are growing.
From my experiences with Christian fundamentalists, I had come to the conclusion that it was an exercise in futility to attempt to carry on a meaningful dialogue with anyone who was firmly convinced that they had a monopoly on the absolute truth (especially when such a conviction is thought to be prerequisite to the attainment of blissful immortality). After reading the testimonials of several reformed bibliolaters in my first three issues of The Skeptical Review, it was reassuring to see that at least some religion addicts are capable of rehabilitation. It is inconceivable that any thinking person could fail to experience at least a twinge of doubt after reading your thorough and persuasive arguments in opposition to the inerrancy of the scriptures. One can only hope that you will have many more such success stories to relate in the future.
(Jack DeBaun, 635 Vedelwood Drive, Sandpoint, ID 83864).
EDITOR'S NOTE: At times, it does seem pointless to try to reason with Bible fundamentalists. However, I like to remind skeptics who despair of ever getting through to any of them that sometimes fundamentalists do change. I'm sure that any rational person who had tried to discuss the Bible with me in the '50's (during the heyday of my activities on behalf of fundamentalism) would have thought that I was a hopeless case. One reason why I give publishing preference to letters from ex-fundamentalists is to show those who were never fooled by it that there is hope of getting through to some biblicists, yet I admit myself that the odds are certainly against getting them to see the folly of their beliefs.
One thought about Mr. Fox's commentary. He really put his foot into it. He states as a matter of fact that the genealogists didn't get the genealogies correct. Isn't that a mistake? End of argument. You win. There is at least one mistake, and Mr. Fox has so graciously pointed it out.
I mean, didn't he? If he questions the Bible and the names and the verses, and calmly states that these aren't the same and that the copyist put the wrong genealogies in, I mean--well, I mean, what the hell did he mean?
Well, thanks for everything. Keep up the good work.
(Douglas L. Smith, P. O. Box 513, Tiffin, OH 44883.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Admittedly, the inerrantist position in matters like this is hard to understand, but in fairness to them, we should try to understand what they are arguing. They believe that God inspired Bible writers to communicate his "truths" in the idioms of their time. The contemporaries of biblical writers considered bats birds, so it was appropriate for the Leviticus writer (11:19) to classify bats as birds. In biblical times, the Red Sea and its arms now known as the Gulf of Aqabah and the Gulf of Suez were all called the "Red Sea"; hence, it would be incorrect to accuse the Bible of error for saying that the town of Ezion-geber was located on the Red Sea (1 Kings 9:26) on the grounds that it was really situated on the Gulf of Aqabah. If the people of that time called the Red Sea and all of its arms the Red Sea, then it was appropriate for Bible writers to say that Ezion-geber was by the Red Sea. I personally think that these arguments are valid and that we should avoid citing such examples as cases of Bible errors. Indeed, if the Bible had said that Ezion-geber was located on the Gulf of Aqabah, we would have grounds to claim a biblical error on the grounds that Aqabah was a name that was not used when 1 Kings was written, and so it would have to be an anachronism that indicates the text had been tampered with at a later date.
So what does all this have to do with Fox's claim that generations were omitted in the Exodus 6 genealogy of Aaron? The claim is that this was a common practice of the times in recording genealogies. Genealogists would sometimes list only the names of important figures in the history of Israel, and so since the Bible was written in accordance with the language and customs of the common people, it would not have been erroneous to say that Aaron was the "son" of Amram when possibly he wasn't a literal son but only a grandson or even a great-grandson. Inerrantists who so argue will cite such references as Matthew 1:1 where Jesus was called the "son of David," and David was called the "son of Abraham" in a context where the word "son" was obviously not being used literally.
I find less merit in this argument than the examples above, because (1) when "son" was used figuratively in the Bible, the context usually made the figurative use quite obvious, (2) there is nothing in the context of the Exodus 6 genealogy that implies the figurative use of the word "sons," so no one reading the text would see a need to interpret the word figuratively were it not for embarrassing inconsistencies with other passages that result from interpreting it literally, and (3) there are many genealogies in the Old Testament that list minor figures that are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible except the genealogies. One has only to examine the genealogies in the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles to see that this is true.
Besides these problems with Mr. Fox's skipped- generation argument, my two-part response to Fox's article (Fall & Special 5th Editions of 1995) contained very detailed information from the Bible that showed the writer at least thought he was skipping no generations in the Exodus 6 genealogy. Mr. Fox never made an attempt to deny this information.
I have been freeloading (electronically) your excellent publication for years. It's about time I actually subscribed, so please find enclosed a check for next year, plus a sum that I hope covers all back issues (if it does not, please let me know what it will take). The Skeptical Review is worth far, far more than the subscription rate.
Concerning one issue's article (second issue, 1995, I think), entitled "More Trouble for the Perfect-Harmony Theory," you questioned the allegation of Yahweh's anger at David for taking a census. Despite the conflict between verses (2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1) that state that both Satan and God "Moved David to number his people"-- and I grant you that it is often difficult to tell the two apart--the anger of Yahweh can be "understood" (if that word can be applied here) in the context of Genesis 15:5, 22:7, and 32:12. Since God said the people were as uncountable and numerous as the stars, I would think that a zealot or two would have been filled with self-righteous anger for Yahweh's sake. Also, a census would probably have shown how many pagan foreigners were living in the nation, contrary to Yahweh's dicta. After all, since Yahweh was said to have given the land to his chosen people, how could the resident pagans be explained?
Currently, I am browbeating an inerrantist over the issue of the forged Josephus paragraphs in Antiquities. He asserted that no scholars and historians dispute the authenticity of the passages, so I gave him a very brief list of scholars that do (if I am not very much mistaken: Paul Winter, Louis H. Feldman, S. G. F. Brandon, Morton Smith, James H. Charlesworth, Carlo M. Martini, Wolfgang Trilling, A. M. Dubarle). Of course, the validity of an argument does not rest upon the number of people who make it: however, that does place the burden of evidence upon the nay-sayers who claim the passages mentioning Jesus in Josephus' texts are authentic.
Given that Christians in previous centuries (just as in this century) tended to reconstruct history according to their political agenda, I think it is valid to assume that any historical texts that conflict with the Bible are probably authentic.
(Rev. David Michael Rice, 34041 "B" Street of the Silver Lantern, Dana Point, CA 92629-2660, e-mail shy.david@edenbbs.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Although we appreciate Rev. Rice's paying for back issues he had read on the WWW (Worldwide Web), it wasn't necessary to do so. I cooperate with Jeff Lowder and Brett Lemoine to make all TSR articles available for posting on the web. My desire is to dispense information, so for that reason, I don't copyright materials or try to make a profit on subscription fees. Those who have access to the web will find all TSR articles at http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr
You and your associates are doing a magnificent job in getting the word out concerning biblical errancy. Having endured both the Baptist and Pentecostal indoctrinations, I am now a card-carrying freethinker. Your publication is an arsenal for rationality and deserves a far wider circulation than Christianity Today or The National Enquirer. Too bad "enquiring" minds aren't a bit more skeptical. Put me down for a two-year subscription.
(Larry Forest, 1019 East 35th Pl., Tulsa, OK 74105.)
You argued long and well with Marion Fox to show that David should not "enter into the assembly of Yahweh" because he was within ten generations of Judah and Tamar. While I am satisfied your argument is valid, Fox finds he may have a loophole. Wouldn't it be easier to say David was not fit to "enter the assembly of Yahweh" simply because his great-grandmother was Ruth, the Moabitess? Deuteronomy 23:3 excludes Ammonites and Moabites "to their tenth generation," and Ruth was only four generations back from David.
Isn't it true that heritage came through the mother because her identify was certain, while the identify of the father might be in doubt? Certainly Fox can't argue against the idea that David was at least part Moabite.
(Fred Acquistapace, 3505 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95407.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yes, as I pointed out in my responses to Fox's articles, David was given a double whammy by the restrictions in Deuteronomy 23. He was both a 9th-generation descendant of Judah's bastard son Perez, and he was just three generations removed from the Moabitess Ruth. The latter whammy alone would have banned him from the assembly *forever* (Dt. 23:3). This is just another example of biblical inconsistency that inerrantists like Fox bend over backwards to keep from admitting.
I continue to enjoy The Skeptical Review. It's well written, polite, stimulating, education, and has all those other "traditional values." (grin)
I'm writing to suggest that it might be useful or beneficial to readers if you devoted a small section of each issue to letters discussing the psychology of inerrantists and fundamentalists. Indeed, it seems to me that several comments I've seen in TSR cry out for such a section.
Consider, for example, the consistent way that fundamentalists seek to avoid public debate or discussion of their views. On a strictly logical basis, you'd think they would welcome such an opportunity, since it would allow them to reach an audience they ordinarily don't reach and possibly make converts among the folks who (from *their* perspective) are most in need of hearing the salvation message--those of us who laugh at fundamentalists and at the idea of a Bible that has any truth or usefulness at all.
Yet not only do they not seek those opportunities, they actively shun them! Why? Could it be that they understand very clearly that in an honest debate in public view they will come out looking very foolish? If so, doesn't that suggest that perhaps some other agenda is at work here besides simply "preaching the gospel"? For example, could it be that the agenda is to avoid public discussion of their views, which carries the risk that believers might see that there is another side to the story, and maybe as well to keep shoring up the beliefs of the faithful? Moreover, in my observations of fundamentalists, they seem especially concerned about the issue of "control." It's a concept that keeps coming up time and again in their speeches and writings. Could it be that part of their agenda is manipulating others?
It seems to me that some discussion of this aspect of fundamentalism might shed some light on the other material in TSR.
(Howard A. Karten, 40 Woodland Parkway, Randolph, MA 02368, e-mail howard.karten@channell.com )
EDITOR'S NOTE: I appreciate Mr. Karten's letter, because it states a view that I have expressed many times in past issues of TSR. The primary goal of evangelical Christianity is to evangelize or in the words of Jesus to "preach the gospel to every creature." The Skeptical Review offers Bible fundamentalists free space for their articles and an audience of several hundred subscribers that they would be unlikely to contact in any other medium, certainly not in their own publications, yet it is difficult to find a Bible fundamentalist who is willing to accept our offer.
Having reached a point in the growth of TSR where heavy demands are made on my time, I am less cynical about this than I once was, because I understand what it is like to be too busy to do everything one would like to do for a cause he/she is devoted to. However, I am confident that if religious publications made space available to us, there would be at least some skeptics and atheists who could find the time to accept the offer. I can only believe that Mr. Karten has put his finger on the reason why most inerrantists avoid public forums that require them to defend their positions against informed opponents. They recognize that such forums carry with them the risk of having the weaknesses in their position exposed.
In my opinion, Mr. Karten is exactly right in what he says about the desire of fundamentalists to be in control. I have participated in several debates with fundamentalists, and in each one of them my opponent insisted upon dictating the rules of discussion. Almost always they want something in the rules that will give them the advantage.
I can only guess how busy you are publishing your newsletter, preparing for debates, etc., so I will be brief in my comments. You will never know just how extremely grateful I am for your paper! I am another former fundamentalist, and I too have never been so happy as when I finally removed the last vestiges of guilt resulting from the dogma of the Christian religion.
Please find a donation enclosed as a small token of my appreciation for your paper. It is worth every penny. (Please understand that this is a donation, and I am not prepaying my subscription for future years. Bill me per your normal schedule for next year's subscription.)
Again, thank you so much. Please send a subscription to my friend at the address below. (Name and address omitted.)
(Chuck Casey, 2841 Wren Avenue, Elida, OH 45807- 1469.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Casey found out just how busy I am when on December 14, 1995, I found his letter of July 31, 1995, mislaid in a stack of mail to answer rather than the stack with subscription requests and checks. His letter came amidst a flood of subscription requests from the ads a subscriber ran in Bible Review last summer. I have been playing catch-up for several months now, and I have just about despaired of ever getting my mailed cleared away.
Although we do not directly solicit them, many subscribers do send contributions as Mr. Casey did. Those of you who do may be interested in knowing that Skepticism, Inc., is recognized by IRS as a nonprofit organization, so all contributions are tax deductible.
I am gravely concerned about you, since I have not gotten word back from you. I've written you twice since the summer. Have you received those other two letters? Volume 6, Number Two, Spring 1995, "The Wisdom of the World," was the last issue I ever received. Can you please bring me up to date? You know I truly treasure your publication.
I am genuinely concerned about your health and well being. Please now take the time out to write me so that I know you're all right or write and inform me if you're not up and at them presently. Thank you for your help.
(William Kotis, 2199 Kamehameha Highway #4, Honolulu, HI 96819.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I don't know if I can say that I am "up and at them presently." Sometimes I wonder, but the note after the letter above explains why much of my mail has to go unanswered. One of my chief regrets over the success of TSR is that I no longer have time to answer letters as I once did. In addition to the paper, I also own a "list" on the internet where biblical errancy is discussed and debated. This is another opportunity that I feel that I have to give priority to, but I would like for all subscribers to understand that if you write to me and I don't answer, it isn't because I don't want to. It is a matter of finding the time.
I regret that Mr. Kotis failed to receive the last two issues of TSR. The problem has to be local delivery, because his name is still on our address list. The issues that he didn't receive have been sent to him by first-class mail. If this should happen to you, please let us know. We will send replacement copies at no charge.
I am writing you today to renew my subscription to your magazine. I received the current issue (Vol. 6, No. 5) yesterday evening (Nov. 9) and have just finished reading it for the second time (Nov. 10). I don't want to miss a single issue, and I look forward to receiving The Skeptical Review every other month in the coming year. Three months between doses of sanity is just too long of a dry spell.
I was particularly interested in your article discussing the American Society of Religious Concern. As president of Pittsburgh Secular Humanists, a local humanist group associated with the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, I had received a rather strange subscription offer from them accusing me of stupidity and offering me a chance to pay money for additional insults and humiliation. A somewhat different approach to salesmanship, I must say.
I was planning to send you a copy of the ad, asking if you knew anything about them. I had even thought of sending them a letter telling them about your publication and pointing out how much more "Christian" your free first-year trial subscription was. Your article saved me the effort.
By the way, as an atheist, I am sometimes a little hazy on what is in the Bible, but I do seem to remember something about Joshua ben Joseph (aka Jesus) making dire predictions concerning the fate of people who say to their brother, "You fool!" Am I remembering this correctly? And considering their attitude, I was wondering just how do they define the word "love."
(Victor E. Bernard, 405 Nike Drive, Penn Hills, PA 15235.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: All subscribers to TSR who have had letters published in the Mailbag column have probably received letters from the American Society of Religious Concern. Just before the deadline to send the Special 5th Edition of 1995 to press, we received a letter from this organization challenging us in its inimitable, insulting way to take on its staff of Christian "apologists." The organization claimed to be the publisher of a paper that had 3,300 subscribers, and the literature we (and some of you, no doubt) received indicated that it was beginning a new paper that would be devoted to showing how stupid atheists were. All of this information was accompanied by a letter from "H. Jate," who purported to be the editor of the new paper. Since I had no reason to doubt the "sincerity" of the letter, I pulled an article that had already been set up for the Special 5th Edition in order to make room for the article about ASRC that was published on page 11 of that issue.
Since I was busy at the time trying to cope with an influx of subscriptions that were coming from the ads in Bible Review, I wasn't immediately able to write an article for this new publication that called itself The Stupid Christian Chronicle. This resulted in another letter from the editor, only this time the "editor" was someone named Dennis Conley. This prompted me to write to Conley and ask for clarification of some points: Just who was really the editor of this paper? What was the name of the parent publication that allegedly had 3,300 subscribers?
A reply from Conley dated October 16th contained some information that led me to suspect that this was a bogus organization. Conley's letter said that "(t)he parent organization that controls ASRC decided to disband and reorganize." I had to wonder why an organization as successful as the previous communications had claimed would want to disband. "That organization controls five different divisions," Conley said, "all larger than ASRC." The letter went on to claim that "(b)ecause the reorganization would automatically put a halt to publication of the *Chronicle,* a vote was taken among the twenty-one members of ASRC to decide if we should go along with them or strike out on our own and continue publication." Well, it seems (according to Conley) that he was the only one who voted to continue with the *Chronicle.* "To make a long story short (yes, please do)," Conley said, "I am now ASRC. My request for the name of the parent publication that had allegedly had 3,300 subscribers was denied. "I was given permission to keep the `names' and continue publication on my own if I wished," Conley said. "Their only request was that I not divulge any information about them nor [sic] the previous newsletter." Yeah, sure. If anything ever smelled rotten in Denmark, this fishy story does.
So it seems that this organization that was going to take on the atheists of the world and give us the benefit of its 3,300 subscribers has been reduced to just one lone voice that constantly belittles and insults atheists for being afraid of him. Not one to give up so easily, Conley claimed that he has worked diligently (written letters, sent out fliers, beaten the bushes) and obtained 1500+ subscribers for his paper, which he intends to call The Believers Chronicle. What this all means is that The Stupid Christian Chronicle folded after just one issue.
In all of this talk that is coming from Conley, I see too much evidence of phoniness to take him seriously. He claims that he sends out hundreds of letters on behalf of his organization, hand addresses 1500 copies of *TBC,* all by himself, mails them, and still has time for his job and family responsibilities. Yeah, sure, and both the Republican and Democratic parties are frantically wooing me to run for president in the next election to save the country from disaster. In telling me all of this, Conley failed to consider that my experience in editing a paper with only a few more subscribers than he claims enables me to understand that he isn't being exactly truthful. I print 1600+ address labels via computer, peel them, and put them on the papers to be mailed, and I know how much time this takes. Hand addressing that many copies would take a lot longer, and this is the way that Conley addresses his. What editor of a newsletter with that many subscribers would not get himself a computer or at least engage the services of an organization that can provide computerized labels at reasonable cost?
The copies of Conley's paper that I have seen were mailed at first-class rates, an extravagant waste of money for a paper that could qualify for bulk- rate mailing, but, of course, to mail at bulk rate a minimum of 200 copies is required. Could it be that Conley sends his paper by first-class mail because he doesn't have 200 subscribers? I suspect that this is the case, because all copies I have seen look as if they have been produced on a photocopy machine. I think if the truth were known, we would find that Conley is making copies as they are needed to fill the demand, and his claim of having 1500+ subscribers is greatly exaggerated.
Meanwhile, he continues to send out insulting letters that seem designed to arouse the anger of atheists and skeptics to goad them into subscribing to his paper and then sending him money for the "privilege" of seeing their articles published. My suspicions having been aroused by the facts that I have presented above, I have sent neither a subscription check nor an article to Conley, and for this reason, he sends out letters insinuating that I have put my tail between my legs and run away from his challenge to refute what he publishes in his paper. Well, in the first place, I have found nothing to refute in his paper, because I have seen nothing that even remotely resembles an argument. The paper contains nothing that I can see but strings of assertions for which the writers offer no supporting evidence. If Mr. Conley would show me an argument, I might consider responding to it.
I send a free subscription to The American Society of Religious Concern, so the least Conley could do is reciprocate. However, I don't receive Mr. Conley's paper, presumably because I haven't sent him a paid subscription. Furthermore, if Conley wants to rebut an article in The Skeptical Review, I will read his article without being paid to do so, and I will publish it without being paid to do so. If Conley really wants to get a dialog started, let him show a little willingness to reciprocate. Quite honestly, I don't think that is his desire. I think he wants to sucker a lot of angry atheists into sending him money to publish their articles. No doubt, I have some of the facts wrong in this case, but this is my honest assessment of Conley's publishing enterprise based on the evidence I have seen. If I am wrong, he can set the record straight.
Meanwhile, I would like for all subscribers to TSR to know that I sent a letter to Mr. Conley informing him of the demands that The Skeptical Review is now making on my time but assuring him that if he wishes to organize a debate between him and me or any qualified representative of the inerrancy doctrine, I will somehow find the time to go to Columbus, Ohio, to participate in the debate. I don't mind finding time to discuss issues that an audience of reasonable size will have the opportunity to hear, but with my work schedule being what it is, I can't build up much enthusiasm for writing an article that 1500 people may, may see but that probably only a handful at the most will read. In response to my debate challenge, Conley wrote back and said, "I don't debate. No writer in the *Chronicle* debates." Well, I do, and I want to make it clear to Conley & Company that I have a standing offer to go to his hometown to debate him or any representative he may choose. In his letters to skeptics, he dares them to come out and "play with the big boys." Well, if Conley doesn't debate and if no writer for the *Chronicle* debates, perhaps he should stop daring us to come out and "play with the big boys." I have played with some of the biggest, so if Conley doesn't want to play with me, he has little room to criticize skeptics who haven't fallen for his little con game. When he gets ready to play, all he has to do is let me know.
The scripture that Mr. Bernard inquired about is Matthew 5:22, where Jesus allegedly said, "Whoever says, `You fool!' shall be in danger of the judgment." Some translations say "hell fire" instead of "judgment."
I have been receiving The Skeptical Review for the last year. Please continue my subscription. Also send back issues from 1990 through and including Summer 1994. My check is enclosed. If there is an error, I will adjust accordingly.
I was a totally sold-out fundamentalist Christian for the past 15 years. I was not a hypocrite. I totally believed and put into practice the precepts of the Bible. I was honest, never cheated, faithful, forgave my neighbors, prayed unceasingly, attended church several times a week, tithed. I've read at least ten versions of the bible and spent much more time in intense study. I read only Christian books, listened only to Christian music, and spent much time evangelizing.
The problem was that the precepts of the Bible weren't panning out. There were troublesome spots that were hard to ignore, since I spent so much time in the bible. The preaching I heard didn't work in real life. Explanations I heard for the "hard" things in the Bible didn't always sit well, especially the genocide. I did a report in college on the genocide in Cambodia committed by the Khmer Rouge, and it made me sick to realize all the atrocities that occurred. I could see no reason why any humane god would ever allow any such occurrences. Neither could I see a whole lot of difference between the genocides of the 20th century and those of biblical times.
My own life was difficult. I came to Christianity with a lot of hard life behind me. I was sexually abused and raped as a child. I became involved in habitual drug use for ten years, and I became a teenage, unwed mother, among other things. Now I had five children I was trying to raise and rather than helping me to keep my family together, the church always seemed to find ways to take away our time from each other. Added to that, I am manic-depressive, which in fundamentalist eyes is akin to demon oppression, but when I became a Christian, supposedly all these things were done away, and I was now a "new" creature in Christ. In other words, bury it, push it under the rug, it never happened, it isn't happening. I tried to live for Jesus, to be like Jesus, but Jesus was never satisfied, and Jesus never really satisfied.
So one day, as I sat by the railroad tracks, having taken an overdose of drugs, thinking about throwing myself in front of the next train, because after all I was really a demon in need of going back to hell--as I waited for the train, crying out to God, I suddenly realized that he wasn't there. I couldn't depend on him, I couldn't trust him, I couldn't "give it all to Jesus," because there was no one there.
Things have changed since then. I started to think for myself. It was scary at first. Would God send me to hell for daring to question his wisdom? Sometimes I'm still not sure of so many things, but I am sure that the Bible is not the word of any god; it is full of myths and superstitions. Jesus is not the son of god. I tried him; it isn't true. Christianity is not the way of God, if there be a god.
I am thankful for the energies you expend in debunking the myths of the bible and Christianity. Your articles are very well researched and an encouragement to me. Someday I hope I might be able to discuss some of these topics with my Christian friends and family. Right now, they don't know what to make of me (of course, they expect that soon I will be back in the fold, despite my assertions to the contrary), and it makes our relationships difficult.
Fifteen years believing a lie. Pretty sad, isn't it?
If you wish to use my letter, you may do so, but because of its personal nature, please do not use my real name. Thanks.
(Writer's name withheld as requested.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Normally, I don't publish letters without giving the name and address of the writers. In this case, I think it is understandable why I have respected the privacy of this writer. Those whose letters are published in this column tell me that they receive quite a bit of mail from other readers. If anyone would like to correspond with this letter writer, we will forward all mail sent to our address.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright
© Internet Infidels 1995-2002. All rights reserved. |
