Creation Science

Where is the 'science' in Creation Science?

Science is: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." (thanks dictionary.com)

'Creation Science' starts with its conclusion ('God did it') and goes round in circles repeating the same conclusion, trying to find evidence to support that statement and trying to find explanations for other phenomena which appear to be consistent with the main conclusion.

At no point does it offer any explanation as to how God may have done it. There is no attempt to propose a mechanism. 'God said "let there be light" and there was' is not science. How did the light come about? What was the initial source? What was the initial power source? Was it instantly at maximum intensity, or did it slowly increase in luminosity? If so, how long until it reached the maximum, if indeed it has yet reached the maximum? If creation science was actually a science there would be speculation about these sorts of questions.

(www.royzimmerman.com)

Jesus and the family

The sixth commandment:

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (Exodus 20v12)

Is it just me, or does Jesus appear to break this one on a few occasions and even appear to encourage others to break it?

When Jesus saw the crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side of the lake. Then a teacher of the law came to him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."

Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

But Jesus told him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." (Matthew 8v18-22)

Here Jesus seems to be telling the disciple to dishonour his (dead) father. On another occasion, Jesus says:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14v26)

On one level, this appears to be an anti-family statement too. And when Jesus's mother and brothers come looking for him in Matthew 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8, he appears to ignore them and keeps teaching the disciples. And what about this:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Matthew 10v34-36)

That's about as clear as it gets.

So you've got to wonder when you hear folk talking about 'Christian family values'...

But does Jesus break one of the ten commandments here? I wonder if he broke any of the others?

Samson and astrology

As I've explained (at great length) in this blog, there is a lot in the bible that I have difficulty accepting as being historically accurate, or even true. Some stories seem to me to simply be myths, legends, or so embellised with false details that it is hard to tell what the original, true, story might have been.

The story of Samson (Judges 13-16) is one of those highly mythological stories which makes me wonder if there is any truth hiding under there at all.

The compiler of the book of Judges lived many hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years later than the time of the alleged events. His view of the world was very much defined by the world around him. It was alsmost certainly a completely different world view to the originator of the Samson story, hundreds of years earlier. Crucially, if the story was of mythological origin, the compiler may not have known this and simply shoe-horned it in to the historical record at a point where he thought it fitted.

The story of Samson sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of the book of Judges. Most of the 'Judges' were leaders of the people of Israel and had at least some redeeming features. Samson on the other hand is a selfish, violent, lusty brute who does everything on his own.

One school of thought goes like this: the story is included there, simply because it happened and was recorded. Just because something is odd, doesn't mean that it is untrue. This is fair enough.

However, another school of thought about Samson connects the story to similar astrological stories from other cultures. Here Samson (which more-or-less means 'Sun') is either the sun god or, in some other variations, Orion. The incident with the lion relates to the story of Orion defeating Leo. The whole 'jawbone of an ass' bit (which is perhaps the most odd part of the entire story) makes sense if you look at the constelations near to Orion - in astrological terms, the jawbone is actually the Hyades star cluster. This crops up in other myths from other groups in around the same era or earlier. For example, in Babylonian myth, Marduk used the Hyades (jawbone) as a weapon and killed thousands.

So what's with Samson's hair? Well, in these astrological stories, the hair of the sun god represents the rays of the sun. The story of Samson having his hair cut and losing his power, only to have it return when the hair regrows is alegorical of winter and the return of the sun in spring. Indeed, Delilah, who is instrumental in that 'death and rebirth' story is either Aquarius or the moon, depending on which interpretation you go for.

From what little I've heard and read, there is quite a good case to be made for believing the story of Samson to be nothing other than an astrological myth turned into a historical account by a compiler who simply didn't know better. But I'll need to read and think more on this...

Old maps

I love old maps. They give a fantastic insight into how people saw the world around them. The map above is my favourite old map of Scotland, from 1558 (see it in more detail on the National Library of Scotland web pages). The thing about this map is that much of Scotland is mapped out reasonably accurately. If you wanted to travel from Edinburgh to Aberdeen by sea, this map would be of some use to you. But the islands on the west and north coasts are completely wrong - the map maker knew that there were islands there, but not anything about them.

So far, you are probably thinking I am posting this on the wrong blog...

I think I've come to an understanding of the books in the bible as being a bit like old maps. The people who wrote (or compiled) them knew something about God, but not everything. Obviously, if God is infinite, or at least very big, then we cannot know everything about Him, there is always more to find out - there is always unexplored territory. These people could only write with authority about what they knew - from their experiences or the experiences of folk they had spoken to. They could also always speculate about what they didn't know.

I'm not even saying here that the bible writers weren't inspired, I'm just thinking that, being human, they probably filled in the blanks in their understanding with speculation. This is why I think the inspired word of God contains errors and inconsistencies.

Another way I think of the bible as being like an old map is that it helps me think in terms of exploring God. The old maps are useful, but there are things you can find out without the map - by exploring for yourself.

Taste and see that the Lord is good (Psalm 34v8)

Healing

I've often heard preachers talk about God as being 'the God who heals' and making statements to the effect of 'God doesn't want you to be ill, He wants to heal you'.

But, to be honest, I don't know anybody who has been genuinely healed - and by this I mean that they had a confirmed medical condition, were healed, and then they were checked by a doctor and found not to have any trace of the condition at all.

My friend Chris tells of his healing experience on his blog. But while I accept that God did something for Chris in his illness, there was no full healing - medical intervention and a pretty major surgical operation were also required.

The skeptic James Randi has devoted some time to following up people who have claimed to have been healed after attending 'healing' services, etc. He visited folk a year after the alleged healing and found that in every instance the people fell into one of three categories:

1. People who had never been medically diagnosed with anything prior to the 'healing'
2. People who were still medically diagnosed with the condition, but were often in denial of the fact, and
3. People who had died (often from the condition) in the intervening period.

Furthermore, he has done some 'behind the scenes' investigation of these big 'healing events' that do the rounds in the USA and elsewhere. He says he frequently observed people who had no mobility issues being ushered onto the stage in wheelchairs and then encouraged to stand up and walk to the 'healer'. The audience sees this and thinks 'wow! that person in the wheelchair is walking' but this is not healing - this is deceit. Furthermore, people with genuine mobility issues were kept so far back in the queue that they never made it to the stage during the meeting.

OK, there are charlatans out there who do the fake thing and deceive the gullible, but what about real healing? Does this happen anywhere? I want to believe that it does, but I haven't seen it. And I have seen several 'good Christian' people suffering and dying with diseases like MS and cancer without any healing. Yes, they may be given strength to endure and have periods of remission, but I have not known anyone to be fully healed.

Does God heal absolutely?

What are the 10 commandments?

You know the story: Moses went up the mountain, met God, got the 10 commandments on stone tablets, came down the mountain, broke the tablets in anger, later on went back up the mountain and carved the 10 commandments onto new tablets...

But the thing is, the first 10 don't seem to match with the second 10. Huh?

Exodus 20 The first 10 commandments And God spoke all these words: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Exodus 34 The second 10 commandments Then the LORD said: "I am making a covenant with you. [...]. Obey what I command you today. [...] Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land [...]. Do not make cast idols. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. [...]. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. [...]. No one is to appear before me empty-handed. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year. [...]. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant — the Ten Commandments.

Which are the real '10 Commandments'? In the bible it is the second list that are actually referred to as 'the ten commandments', the first list are not.

Or do we have 17 commandments? Or do we only really have the three that are common to both lists?

Anyone got any inspiration here?

Did God ever want sacrifices?

Its amazing what you notice when you read a different translation of something for a change.

I have read the (whole) bible several times through, but most of this has been using the New International Version (NIV). So probably every time I have read Jeremiah 7v22 before, I'd have read these words:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, [23] but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

However, I read that verse in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) today and it says:

For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. [23] But this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.

What? The apparent meaning is totally different! The NIV translation implies that God gave the Israelites the command to obey Him AND instructions about sacrifices, while the RSV clearly states that God did NOT give instructions about sacrifices, but only gave the command to listen and obey ('hearken').

So I had a look at several other translations (NASB, NKJV, ESB, NLT, ASV,... isn't the internet really useful sometimes?). Almost all of them agree with the RSV; God did not give instructions or commands about sacrifices ('in the day [that they came] out of Egypt').

I know that it is a joke that 'NIV' stands for 'Nearly Infallible Version' but I had always been lead to believe that it was a good translation.

Anyway, all this by means of introduction...

While all the translations (except NIV) say that God did not give instructions about sacrifice 'in the day', it seems to me (from context) that the meaning of the prophecy of Jeremiah here is that God never gave any instructions about sacrifice to the Israelites - because God doesn't want sacrifice! (see also 1 Samuel 15v22, Psalm 40v6, Psalm 51v16, Hosea 6v6).

But if God doesn't want sacrifice and He never gave instructions or commands about sacrifice, then who on earth wrote all the stuff in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deutoronomy?!

Good God?

This challenge came from an atheist on another podcast...

Except from the act of creation, can you (the reader of this blog) give chapter and verse for any 'good' act of God, as recorded in the bible, that did not have negative consequences for someone?

For example, God was good when he helped the Israelites escape from Egypt, but the effects of God's goodness towards the Israelites resulted in bad experiences for the Egyptians.

Does God not play 'win-win' game theory?

According to the atheist guy, there are only three instances of God's goodness being good to all involved in the old testament. Can we prove him wrong?

Polygamy, polyamory and the bible

Um, sorry about this one in advance... the correct response to this post is "you really should stop listening to so many of that guy's podcasts..."

I listened to another of the Infidel Guy's podcasts yesterday. This was one of his 'Debate Hour' shows rather than a conventional IG show. The distinction is that the IG show generally takes the form of an interview about religious or atheistic subject matter, whereas the debate hour is generally a fairly formal debate between two parties with opposing views on a topic, which may not be related to religion at all. Generally each party has an opening statement then a chance to comment on the other's opening statement than a period of rebuttal and finally a question and answer session. This format was intended here but, due to the debaters, did not happen.

Anyway, the subject of the show was 'Alternative Relationships' - specifically Polyamory.

For those of you who don't know, the dictionary definition of polyamory is:

"participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships"

(Webster's New Millennium Dictionary)

The two debaters were 'Rayven', an atheist living a polyamorous lifestyle, and 'Deacon Greg Cooper' a Presbyterian with very strict bible-based beliefs. However, Rayven didn't really get the chance to say much as the bible-thumping deacon ate up most of the airtime.

In between Greg's rants, the Infidel Guy, Rayven and folk calling in managed to make some quite valid comments, which the deacon ignored or dismissed without thought. He really was an awful advert for Christianity. Anyway, I want to comment on some of the issues raised.

And just to be clear on this point, just because I am raising the issue and posing the questions here does not mean that I am in support of the alternative lifestyle or the opinions expressed. OK?

Greg made it quite clear that his opinion was entirely based on the bible and it is this: that the only non-sinful sexual relationships are those between one man and one woman within the confines of a marriage. Greg also voiced the opinion that his interpretation of the bible could not possibly be wrong on any issue. He was that kind of guy. In fact, his attitude and manner made me inclined to take the other side in the debate when I really don't agree with it.

The others pointed out to him that many important characters in the old testament: patriarchs, kings and prophets, had multiple wives and were not condemned for it at any point in the bible. Indeed many of them were held up as being 'men of faith' and even 'righteous'. Indeed, the sins that the Kings David & Solomon were taken to task about had nothing to do with their multiple wives. Furthermore, in Exodus 21v10 there is a law which clearly governs the behaviour of a man taking a second wife. This practice is not condemned in the old testament, it is regulated.

This is true, whatever Greg said to dismiss it. If we believe that the old testament law came from God, then we must accept that God allowed and regulated multiple marriages. Also if God does not change his mind then this allowance still is in place... right?

Or is it one of those cultural things that God allows because it neither helps or hinders his agenda? Is it morally neutral?

During one of the moments that she was allowed to speak, Rayven said a few things that really surprised me. These related to the beliefs of 'polyamorous Christians' - I wouldn't have thought that such a group would exist, yet apparently it does. A simple websearch took me to their wesite too... Rayven took their side in the debate, primarily to annoy the fundamentalist, even though she said that she cannot see how you can reconcile the bible to a polyamorous lifestyle. The poly-Chrisitian apparently accepts that when people are united together to become 'one flesh' this needn't necessarily be a union of only two people - they see no biblical reason why three or more people cannot enter into a commited relationship with each other... I'm so gobsmacked there that I actually can't come up with a rebuttal!

But anyway, as I was generally inclined to find fault with the fundamentalist's position, I was quite miffed that nobody pointed out one of the key beliefs of the fundamentalist's belief structure - that of the Trinity. While the concept is not made fully explicit in the bible, the generally held belief amongst Christians is that there are three distinct characters in the Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit - and these three are eternally united in a loving, intimate relationship. Now I'm not saying that sex is involved there, but from my understanding of what was said on the show, sex is not an essential of the polyamorous relationship either - it is a loving union of more than two people... sounds like the Trinity to me...

So how can we defend the position that our loving relationships should only involve two people, when our God apparently exists in a three-way relationship?

(and yes, I know what some answers to that question might be, but I thought I'd ask anyway...)

My non-deconversion...

The Infidel Guy is re-posting many of his old radio shows on his podcast stream at the moment. Last week, I ended up listening to an old show that I had listened to over a year ago. I even commented on it back then. The show was an interview with an ex-fundamentalist (her word), ex-wife of a Baptist pastor. She 'deconverted' and is now an atheist.

When I re-listened to the show one thing struck me - she had had all the same doubts as me, all the same issues that I have raised on this blog. Yet she abandoned her faith as a result of the questions. I didn't.

Why is that? How can the same questions lead to different answers for two different people?

I keep coming back to the same conclusions that I commented on the first time round - it is the difference between head-knowledge and experience. For her, Christianity was entirely a system of belief, built on things she knew from a book. For me, there is much more to it than that, I only became a Christian when I saw the effects of God in people's lives. I know he is there, not from a book, but having seen and felt him.

Now I'm not saying, as many have said to her, that she can't have been a real Christian in the first place. What makes you a Christian? Well, the biblical answer (Romans 10v9) 'if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved'... As far as I can tell, she used to satisfy those criteria. But when she lost her faith in the historical accuracy of the bible, she lost her faith in Jesus.

When trying to get my head around the differences between her and me, I came up with this (probably not very good) analogy:

Strange as it might seem to us non-Americans, there are a great many supporters of President Bush in the USA. Many of them will never have met him; does that make them not-real supporters? Of course not. Now, with carefully presented arguments and evidence, it might be possible to convinvce one of those supporters who have never met the man that he is, in fact, an entirely fictional character - devised by the government to fool the people. Policy decisions are made by other folk in the administration and the face on the TV is just an actor. Someone who has never met him might be persuaded by this reasoning. However, if you tried that reasoning on somebody who had actually met him or knew him, it wouldn't work because their experience of the man would hold a greater weight than any body of evidence presented. Does that make sense?

I'm just saddened that the woman interviewed on the Infidel Guy show never actually experienced the real Jesus. Maybe she will yet.