Thursday, 16 November 2017

Religious Tolerance

Wikipedia introduces "Freedom of religion" like this:

Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief.[1]

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right.

It is interesting to compare this fundamental human right with what the Bible says - not least because many Christians claim humans rights come from God. From NASB:

Deuteronomy 13:6 “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [e]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. 9 But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 So you shall stone him [f]to death because he has sought to seduce you from the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of [g]slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.

12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to live in, anyone saying that 13 some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom you have not known), 14 then you shall investigate and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, [h]utterly destroying it and all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword. 16 Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God; and it shall be a [i]ruin forever. It shall never be rebuilt.

Hmm, quite the opposite of religious tolerance. Kind of like human rights were invented by man, not God...

Saturday, 2 September 2017

A Response to Fred Reed

I was directed to a very long rant against evolution by a guy called Fred Reed. He admits it is "atrociously long", making me wonder why he does not edit it, as it excessively verbose. This is a guy who was a journalist, and should know better.

He starts with a rant against science in general - copied, it looks like from here, but with no link or credit (though it is in quote marks). Again, a journalist should know better than to plagarise without proper credit.

You have to love the irony of a rant against science published on the internet, using the heights of technology that science - and not religion - has given us.

From there we get to learn how he started to think about evolution in school. I wondered why this was worth including, given the document is "atrociously long", and I strongly suspect this is supposed to give it authority. This is a guy who has given this a lot of thought, so by golly, he must be right.

In there he says:
The frequent shifting of ground bothered me. If we knew how life began, why did we have so many prospective mechanisms, none of which worked? Evolution began to look like a theory in search of a soup. Fifty-five years later in 2015, it still does.
And soon after:
As an example, consider the view that life arose by chemical misadventure.
That is not a problem in evolution, it is not evolution at all! More importantly perhaps, science is quite open about this being as yet unknown. In fact it becomes clear that this guy has a problem with science not being dogmatic:
May have, perhaps, might. Somewhere, somewhere else, anywhere. Onward into the fog.
Science is not like religion. It does not just make up stuff and present it as fact. It proposes what might have happened, and then looks for evidence. That means there can be a lot of uncertainty. See here too:
The sciences, as I knew them, gave clear answers. Evolution involved intense faith in fuzzy principles.
What makes it especially odd is that later he says:
Humans today are a puffed-up and overconfident species. We believe that we know everything, or shortly will. We have a sense of near-omniscience equaled only by that of teenagers.
Here he is complaining about over-confidence, just after objecting to evolution as being too tentative! We get quite the screed on how arrogant we are to suppose we know everything before we finally get to the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is not just about biological evolution. It is part of a grand unified theory that seeks to explain everything (except things that it can’t explain, which it ignores). It runs briefly as follows: First came the Big Bang. Subatomic particles flew in all directions, coalesced into atoms and into molecules and stars. Planets formed, then oceans, and then life came about by chemical inadvertence. Evolution produced trilobites, dinosaurs, mammals, and us. In the popular version, though not in the scientific, evolution produces ongoing betterment.
Actually, Fred, the Theory of Evolution is just about biological evolution.

That it is part of a "grand unified theory" does not make that any less true. And that "grand unified theory" is called science, by the way. It is science that seeks to explain everything. That enterprise that have you the internet and allowed you to post this stuff.
In this it serves the purposes of a religion and is treated as such by its adherents. They react to questioning with anger and they see their hated opponents as Creationists–that is, adherents of another religion. Note that while in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, Christian fundamentalists tried to outlaw Darwin, today evolutionists appeal to the courts to outlaw mention of Creation in the schools. This is not rational. Can anyone believe that describing Creation in high schools will deter students from studying biochemistry, and turn them into intellectual loin-cloth wearers burning textbooks?
Describing creation is science class will surely lead some students to believe it has scientific worth when it does not. That is reason enough to keep it out.
Before going further, let us look at some of the questions  ignored by evolutionism.
At last we get to his arguments...
In Evolution Writ Large nothing exists but physics. The Big Bang was physics, chemistry is the physics of the interactions of atoms, biochemistry a subset of chemistry and therefore also physics. Everything that happens in a cell is physics  (to include biochemistry). Everything that happens in a living body, from movement to thought, is physics. Mutations are physical events. The behavior of DNA follows the laws of physics.
Okay... So what is the question?
Note that biological evolution is always regarded as an indivisible entity, yet in fact it consists of several distinct components that are logically separable. First, that life came about accidentally in the ancient seas (highly shaky and certainly not demonstrated). Second, that evolution occurred (as the fossil record would seem to show beyond reasonable doubt). Third, that natural selection drove evolution (demonstrable in some cases, plausible in a great many, and highly unlikely in yet others). Fourth, that random mutations drive natural selection (very shaky, but crucial to evolutionism). Fifth, that nothing else drives it.
This is just nonsense. Biological evolution - at its very simplest - is about selection, variation and inheritance. Three components that can, and are, studied separately.
The unwillingness to recognize that these are separable leads to a tendency to believe that when one of them can be demonstrated–natural selection, say–it is regarded as confirmation of the whole edifice. It isn’t.
And that is it for his "questions ignored by evolutionism". The first is not a question, the second comes from misunderstanding evolution.Well done Fred.
Inevitably one who writes of evolution without being a PhD at CalTech is assaulted on grounds that he must be ignorant of practically everything. I claim to be an expert on nothing. However, I subscribe to the principle that most problems can be solved by the application of modest intelligence and obsessive-compulsive disorder. A fact forgotten today is that one can learn things by reading books. By doing so I have learned enough to talk about at least a few things, such as:
An yet he thinks evolution cannot be split into selection, variation and inheritance. When someone displays this level of ignorance on a subject, it seems perfectly reasonasble to dismiss his opinions as ill-founded.

Let us turn this around. Why should anyone trust the opinion of a guy who has no qualifications in the field, and demonstably does not understand it versus the opinions of highly educated men and women who have working in the field for decades?

Given this is the ranting of a guy who knows next to knowing about the subject, he now launches into the usual tornado in a junkyard straw man.
Is the chance of accidentally forming a living Crittter a similar problem? It would seem so on various technical grounds involving specified information and the mathematics, similar to that of the monkeys, of protein formation. The difficulty of discussion is exacerbated by the inability of  evolutionists totell us what the First Critter was. But it is their responsibility to tell us, first, what of what complexity formed and, second, why the odds are not astronomically against it. The point to take away is that the invocation of long  periods of time can mean  little when speaking of the probability of complex yet unspecified events.
Just so we all know, he has now jumped back to abiogenesis, not evolution. His mention of "complexity" and more so "specified information" indicate where this came from.
In sum: If we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions would be necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can’t show it to be statistically probable, and can’t construct something that might have evolved—why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?
His argument here appears that we do not know for sure, therefore evolution cannot have happened. A curious logic, but I have to suppose it makes sense to him. He continues at length about the uncertainty surrounding abiogenesis, as though this somehow disproves evolution.

Then we get Paley's watch:
If in an unexplored region of the Amazon Basin you find a grass hut next to a dugout canoe, you may not know who made them, but you suppose that someone must have. This is the theory of Intelligent Design. When you find in nature systems of unfathomable complexity that nonetheless work flawlessly, it is not unreasonable to suspect that they were designed, and perhaps sustained, by someone, or something. I have no idea who or what or why.
Curiously this guy does not even believe the human body can keep going without some mysterious force to keep things in check:
But to believe that 180 pounds of infinitely complex, interacting chemical reactions (me, for example) can go on for seventy years without utter collapse requires powers of belief beyond the wildest imaginings of religious faith. The whole is less possible than the sum of its parts. Something is going on that we do not understand.

That last sentence is particularly interesting, given a few paragraphs ago he was objecting to evolution because "we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions would be necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory", and yet here he is admitting he does not know. Apparently it is okay if Fred's pet theory does not have all the facts, but if evolution is missing anything, then we must reject the whole thing.

From there he discusses how they can be free will if the brain is purely physical:
Which means that the brain cannot, and thus we cannot, make choices. Physical systems cannot choose what to do. A bowling ball dropped from the top of the Washington Monument cannot decide to fall up, or sideways, instead of down, nor choose how fast to fall, nor how far. Similarly, the end point of a physical system is determined by starting conditions. A molecule of a neurotransmitter binds ineluctably to a receptor because of stereochemistry and charge. It cannot not bind. Quantum indeterminacy is often invoked to try to make choice possible, but this would work only if very few molecules were involved.
I cannot help thinking that if he stuck to evolution, his article might not be so "atrociously long"!
It follows then that we cannot choose one action over another. Our thoughts are predetermined by the physicochemical states of our brains. We think what we think because it is physically impossible to think anything else. Thus we cannot think at all. QED.

Unless Something Else is going on. I don’t know what.
Remember, this was the guy who objected to evolution because of its uncertainty. Apparently he rejects evolution because there is some doubt in some areas, and replace it with "I don’t know what".

Hmm, kind of like he has decided he does not want evolution, and having decided has been hunting around for ways to rationalise that decision.

And how exactly does "We think what we think because it is physically impossible to think anything else" imply "Thus we cannot think at all."? How can he conclude we do not think from a premise about how we think?
If fitness means the rate of successful reproduction, we encounter the interesting conclusion that a woman with a genetic IQ of sixty and twelve retarded children by forty-five drive-by fathers is more fit than a Harvard math professor who runs Triathlons but has two children.
Okay. So what is his point? That "fitness" does not conform to his ideas?
A staple of evolutionism is that evolution works to maximize the number of offspring, thus passing on successful genes. This is plausible but, in the case of us, counter to observation (but why let facts debilitate a perfectly good theory?)
Wrong. It is that evolution works to maximize the number of surviving offspring. Some species do that by sheer numbers in the hope that at least a few survive. Mammal on the other hand nurture and protect a limited number of young maximising the survival chances for each.
Evolutionists insist that human evolution continues today at a rapid pace. There is nothing illogical in this to the extent that it is a matter of selective breeding and that evolution is defined as a change in phenotype.  In some cases it can be shown to happen.
Yes, mankind is evolving. The selection process is "messed up" for various reasons, including contraception, health care and lifestyle choices, and what counts as "fit" is therefore not quite what you might expect looking at other animals. This is going on now and has been studied. It is fact.

I am only about a third of the way through his "atrociously long" sceed, and I have seen enough. This is a guy who has already decided evolution is wrong, and will find anything he can to justify that belief, and what we see here is an incoherent collection of excuses, many of which are not even about evolution.

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

Jesus Burial

Some Christians claim that Jesus' burial is historically likely, given the crucifixion. There are various historical records that show the Romans would allow a body to be taken off the cross in special circumstances, and it is certainly the case that the Jews of that time considered it a religious necessity to ensure the dead were buried before nightfall. In times of war or insurrection, there is no way the Romans would agree to such a thing, wanting the corpse left up for maximum effect, but that was not the situation when Jesus was crucified.

It is, therefore, likely that a member of the Jewish council asked Pilate for the body to be taken down, and entirely plausible that Pilate agreed. Whether it happened is another issue, but let us suppose it did - what happened to the body?

Pilate may have approved for the body to be taken down, but he did so to appease Jewish sensibilities, to avoid trouble. All that required was that the body was buried. There was no requirement for a proper burial, there was no reason for the Jews to do anything

On the contrary, the Roman's would have required that the body be buried dishonourably.

How The Jews Venerated Dead Saints and Martyrs

Around the times of Jesus, veneration of dead prophets and martyrs was a big thing. As Jesus himself said:
Matthew 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
Also consider the words of William Lane Craig:
"During Jesus’s time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."

How The Romans Cared About The Dead

Like any other culture, the Roman's cared about how the dead were treated. More specifically with regards to executed criminals, the disposal of the body was a consideration.

For an example of a Roman denied honourable burial, we can look in the accounts of Suetonius, in The Lives of the Caesars:
For instance, to one man who begged humbly for burial, he is said to have replied: "The birds will soon settle that question."

More generally, this is from a site that describes itself as an "online evangelical encyclopedia of biblical Christianity":
The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonour the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honourable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonour for the victim.
Crucifixion was the ultimate deterrent, and each part of it was designed to dishonour the victim - and that included disposal of the body

What The Romans Thought of Jesus

The Romans accused Jesus of treason, and this was a very extreme crime - we know that because he suffered the most extreme punishment.

Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem as a prophet, and the Romans would have been well aware that he had a big following among the Jews. I suspect this account is exaggerated, but it seems likely there were crowds welcoming him:
Matthew 21:8 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”
Jesus was crucified to stop any chance of him leading the Jews into revolt. Christians might argue that that was not Jesus' way, but it does not matter. The Roman's perceived him as a rebel leader, and we know that because he was executed as a rebel leader:
Matthew 27:37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews.
In fact many Christians will say Jesus was executed for blasphemy, but that is not true. The Roman's did not care about blasphemy against the God of the Jews.

How The Romans Would Have Dealt With Jesus

They crucified him as a rebel leader, and the last thing the Roman's wanted was for Jesus to be a martyr, to be a symbol for rebellion after death.

It would have been a very real possibility that Jesus tomb would be venerated, given he was hailed as a prophet by at least one segment of the Jews in Jerusalem (despite the sanhedrin conspiring against him - if that even happened). Would the Romans want the tomb of a man executed for treason to be venerated? Absolutely not!

The Romans may well have permitted the body to be taken down, but it is inconceivable that they would have allowed an honourable burial for him.

I find it odd how Christians cite the historical evidence for crucifixion victims being taken down from the cross, but ignore the historical evidence for them then being buried in dishonour. Cherry-picking at its finest.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Darwin, Hitler... and Christianity

Having no actual evidence, creationists engage in character assassination in an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution, and a common ploy is to pretend that Darwin was a major influence on Hitler.

The reality is that Hitler was far more influenced by Christianity.

They do not mention that. But if they say that Darwinism should be abandoned because it was an influence on Hitler, then surely they must also agree that Christianity should likewise be abandoned, if there is good evidence it was an influence, right?

I mean, surely these Christians are not hypocrites...

Houston Stewart Chamberlain

I thought it would be interesting to compare the impact of Darwin on Hitler to that that of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Like Darwin, Chamberlain was English, but he took German citizenship in 1916.

He is best known for his book, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, written in 1899. First published in Germany, it became a best seller and was later translated into English and French.

President Theodore Roosevelt wrote about it:
"... a man who can write such a really beautiful and solemn appreciation of true Christianity, of true acceptance of Christ's teachings and personality, as Mr. Chamberlain has done, [...] represents an influence to be reckoned with and seriously to be taken into account."

So let there be no doubt that Chamberlain was a Christian, that he was vocal about his Christianity, and that his Christianity informed his views.

A couple of quotes from his book:
Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie! The races of mankind are markedly different in the nature and also in the extent of their gifts, and the Germanic races belong to the most highly gifted group, the group usually termed Aryan...
About the Jews, he said:
Their existence is sin, their existence is a crime against the holy laws of life.
Not only the Jew, but also all that is derived from the Jewish mind, corrodes and disintegrates what is best in us.
Quotes from here.

So let there be no doubt that Chamberlain was a racist, and specifically he was anti-Semitic.

Some quotes from this web site that give an interesting biography of the man:
In his essay Der Wille zum Sieg, 1916, he wrote: "Die Deutschen stehen bereit; ihnen fehlt nur der vom heiligen Geist eingesetzte Fuhrer" - The Germans are ready for it; all that is missing is a God-sent Fuhrer

Many argue that Chamberlain's work influenced Adolf Hitler, although the precise links are unclear. The two men did meet in Bayreuth on September 30th, 1923, on a so-called "German day". Chamberlain, who was by now elderly, ill and embittered, regarded Hitler as Germany's future saviour, and after this meeting he wrote to Hitler: "In no way do you resemble the descriptions depicting you as a fanatic. I even believe that you are the absolute opposite of a fanatic. [...] The fanatic wants to persuade people, you want to convince them, and to convince only." (8)
In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:
Those who had the government of the country in their hands were quite as indifferent to principles of civil wisdom laid down by thinkers like H. S. Chamberlain as our political leaders now are. These people are too stupid to think for themselves..
It is interesting to note that the third section of The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, was called Der Kampf.

So let there be no doubt that Chamberlain was an influence on Hitler.

Martin Luther

Luther, founder of Protestantism, is almost as famous for his anti-Semitism. Here is his advice on how Jews should be treated:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ...
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...
Fifth, I advise that safe­conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. ...
It is worth noting Martin Luther's influence on Hitler. Here is Hitler on Luther.
I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.
To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner.
So again we have a man who is not just a Christian, but is outspoken on his Christianity, who is vehemently anti-Semitic, and who we know Hitler held in high regard, because we have Hitler's own words stating just that.

The Long Lead Up to the Holocaust

The sad truth is that Christianity has a long, long history of anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust was the end result. The seeds were planted within decades of Jesus' crucifixion:
Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
The violence started rather later (but long, long before Darwin). It is worth reading about blood libel too, to see how deeply this attitude was embedded in Christianity.

Can we abandon Christianity now?

Of course the same Christians trying to link Darwin and Hitler are the ones who are notoriously bad at looking at evidence that contradicts their faith-based opinions. Truth does not matter when you have a religion to promote it seems.

Wednesday, 28 June 2017

All About Satan

All About God

I came across this web site (some time ago in fact), which purports to offer a history of Satan. I found it fascinating how it has to corrupt Biblical verses to support its claims.
The history of Satan is described in the Bible in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. These two biblical passages also reference the king of Babylon, the King of Tyre, and the spiritual power behind the kings.
In fact the verses are purely about the king of Babylon and the King of Tyre respectively, and hovering over the links on the web page makes that clear. The author then repeats the usual Christian dogma:
What caused Satan to be cast from Heaven? He fell because of pride that originated from his desire to be God instead of a servant of God. Satan was the highest of all the angels, but he wasn’t happy. He desired to be God and rule the universe. God cast Satan out of heaven as a fallen angel.
But the reality is there is no justification for these claims in the Bible.
Satan is often caricatured as a red-horned, trident-raising cartoon villain; no wonder people question the history of Satan. His existence, however, is not based on fantasy. It’s verified in the same book that narrates Jesus’ life and death (Genesis 3:1-16, Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Matthew 4:1-11).
The Genesis verses are about a snake; God cursed all snakes because of what that a snake did. The Isaiah and Ezekiel verses have already been dismissed. If we believe the Bible, all we have is that Satan tempted Jesus.
Christians believe Satan acts as leader of the fallen angels. These demons, existing in the invisible spirit realm yet affecting our physical world, rebelled against God, but are ultimately under His control. Satan masquerades as an “angel of light,” deceiving humans just as he deceived Eve in the beginning (Genesis 3).

Jesus Himself testified of Satan’s existence. During His ministry, He personally faced temptation from the devil (Matthew 4:1-11), cast out demons possessing people (Luke 8:27-33), and defeated the evil one and his legion of demon angels at the cross. Christ also helped us understand the ongoing, spiritual war between God and Satan, good and evil (Isaiah 14:12-15; Luke 10:17-20).

Again the same Genesis and Isaiah verses! The verses in Luke need more consideration.
Luke 10:17 The [i]seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” 18 And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. 20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”
This could mean that Jesus had witnesses the fall of Satan, or it could be prophetic; Jesus had a vision of Satan falling in the future. It could even be figurative; the seventy disciples had been casting out so many demons that Satan's power was diminished, and it was that reduction of power that was like Satan falling like lightning. Given the Book of Revelation, the prophetic interpretation seems most likely, which would indicate that when Jesus was talking the fall from heaven had yet to happen.
Jesus Himself testified of Satan’s existence. During His ministry, He personally faced temptation from the devil (Matthew 4:1-11), cast out demons possessing people (Luke 8:27-33), and defeated the evil one and his legion of demon angels at the cross. Christ also helped us understand the ongoing, spiritual war between God and Satan, good and evil (Isaiah 14:12-15; Luke 10:17-20).
Same Isaiah, Matthew and Luke verses. You kind of get the feeling Satan is not mentioned much in the Bible. Or if he is, not in a way that supports this guy's argument. He goes on, discussing Paul's views on Satan, but with nothing more on Satan's history.

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Here is a web page called "How Did Lucifer Fall and Become Satan?", by Ron Rhodes, President of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. With a title like that, he must know what he is talking about.

The story of Lucifer’s fall is described in two key Old Testament chapters—Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Let’s briefly look at both of these.

It would seem from the context of Ezekiel 28 that the first ten verses of this chapter are dealing with a human leader. Then, starting in verse 11 and on through verse 19, Lucifer is the focus of discussion.

What is the rationale for the conclusion that these latter verses refer to the fall of Lucifer? Whereas the first ten verses in this chapter speak about the ruler of Tyre (who was condemned for claiming to be a god though he was just a man), the discussion moves to the king of Tyre starting in verse 11. Many scholars believe that though there was a human “ruler” of Tyre, the real “king” of Tyre was Satan, for it was he who was ultimately at work in this anti-God city and it was he who worked through the human ruler of the city.
So the argument here is that because the later verses refer to the king, rather than the ruler, it must be about Satan. Despite ruler and king being synonyms. Wow.
Some have suggested that these verses may actually be dealing with a human king of Tyre who was empowered by Satan. Perhaps the historic king of Tyre was a tool of Satan, possibly even indwelt by him. In describing this king, Ezekiel also gives us glimpses of the superhuman creature, Satan, who was using, if not indwelling, him.

Now, there are things that are true of this “king” that—at least ultimately—cannot be said to be true of human beings. For example, the king is portrayed as having a different nature from man (he is a cherub, verse 14); he had a different position from man (he was blameless and sinless, verse 15); he was in a different realm from man (the holy mount of God, verses 13,14); he received a different judgment from man (he was cast out of the mountain of God and thrown to the earth, verse 16); and the superlatives used to describe him don’t seem to fit that of a normal human being (“full of wisdom,” “perfect in beauty,” and having “the seal of perfection,” verse 12 NASB).
More likely the author is being ironic. At the end of day, this text does not mention Satan.

In his mind if it says "Lucifer", it must be about Satan. And why does this guy think that "Lucifer" is refering to Satan? He does not say, but I strongly suspect it is because that is what Satan is called in these verses!

Of course, he is obliged to use the KJV here. Modern translations do not include the word "Lucifer" at all.
Apparently, this represents the actual beginning of sin in the universe—preceding the fall of the human Adam by an indeterminate time. Sin originated in the free will of Lucifer in which—with full understanding of the issues involved—he chose to rebel against the Creator.

This mighty angelic being was rightfully judged by God: “I threw you to the earth” (Ezekiel 28:18). This doesn’t mean that Satan had no further access to heaven, for other Scripture verses clearly indicate that Satan maintained this access even after his fall (Job 1:6-12; Zechariah 3:1,2). However, Ezekiel 28:18 indicates that Satan was absolutely and completely cast out of God’s heavenly government and his place of authority (Luke 10:18).
There is that verse in Ezekiel that the Bible clearly states is about the King of Tyre again, but Christians routinely twist to pretend is about Satan. What of the Zechariah verses? These date from when the satan was considered to be an angel appointed by God to act as the prosecutor in the divine count.
Zechariah 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and [a]Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

This is why God merely gives the satan a telling off. God is saying Joshua is a good man who has proved himself, and should not be standing here to be judged.

This is certainly not the reaction of a all-powerful, perfectly good being upon seeing the author of ultimate evil!

It is worth looking at Psalm 109 in this context. Here are two translations:

Psalm 109:6

Psalm 109:6Appoint a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand.
Psalm 109:6Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

The NASB has translated the word as accuser, and this is exactly what it means in Zechariah 3. The satan was the accuser appointed by God.

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

Is Jesus Subordinate To God?

What is the evidence for the Trinity? Specifically, how well does scripture support the claim that Jesus is equal to God?

Jesus: Messiah, Lord, Son of God

Jesus was not unique in being considered the son of God. Jews believed that all their kings were the adopted sons of God. This Old Testament text illustrates that:
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”
Is this text, King David was adopted as the son of God. As the supposed King of the Jews (and according to both geneologies a direct descendant of David), Jesus also would be the adopted son of God.

These Psalms are about David, not Jesus!
Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father,
    my God, the Rock my Savior.’
And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
    the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

Psalms 2:7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
    today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
    and I will make the nations your inheritance,
    the ends of the earth your possession.
This also made Jesus the messiah, which Jews understood to be the eagerly awaited king, who would lead them to freedom. The messiah (or Christ in Greek) meant the anointed one, referring to the tradition of anointing the king at his coronation.

Jesus was called "Lord". Does that make him God? No. The Old Testament has the word "Lord" over 6000 times, but this is translated from the Hebrew יְהֹוָה (Yhvh or Yahweh). Was Jesus ever called Yahweh? Not that I am aware of. The word Paul used, which is translated as "lord", is Κυρίου. This is the same word used in Mark 12:9 and Matthew 20:8 to indicate the owner of a vineyard!

Jesus was considered in the same way David was considered. Both were thought to be kings, adopted by God as his son, both were messiahs, both worthy of being called "Lord". This was true of all the Jewish kings. That may well mean he and David were considered divine (and it may not), but they were certainly not considered to be God.

Looking at the Hellenistic world, it is worth noting that Alexander the Great was considered the son of Zeus, despite also being the son of the king of Macedon, Philip II, and his fourth wife, Olympias.

I am going to start by looking at verses cited by this web page, though I note that it is not addressing quite this question:

This page, which I found later, does attempt to address this exact question, and some points come from there.

Old Testament

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 all have God referred to in the plural. The argument goes that this must be God and Jesus together. While that is possible, a more likely explanation is that these verses come from a polytheistic tradition, and it refers to the god El and his wife or consort Asherah. El was the father of Yahweh, and the Bible does a good job of combining the two.

I appreciate Christians will reject that view, but nevertheless the trinity claims that all three parts co-exist and are equal. Whatever way you read it, at best referring to God in the plural can only show two or more beings present. It cannot hope to show that they are equal or that they are also one being.

Genesis 18 to 19 describes God appearing to Abraham in human form. This is assumed to be Jesus, though the text itself gives no reason to suppose this is true. God also appeared to Adam and Eve and had to go looking for them (Genesis 3:9), so we know the Bible authors believed God could take human form and in very early texts, they probably assumed God was man-like in appearance, just as the Romans assumed Jupiter was man-like; remember, Genesis has man created in God's image - again, I appreciate Christians will reject this view.

And as before, even if we assume this is Jesus, why should we imagine Jesus is equal to God?

The web page invokes Isaiah, but it relies on John to reintepret the text, so I will just see what it says about John later.
Then there is Micah 5:2. Let us see some context:
Micah 5:2 ‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
    one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
    from ancient times.’

3 Therefore Israel will be abandoned
    until the time when she who is in labour bears a son,
and the rest of his brothers return
    to join the Israelites.

4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
    in the strength of the Lord,
    in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness
    will reach to the ends of the earth.

5 And he will be our peace
    when the Assyrians invade our land
    and march through our fortresses.
We will raise against them seven shepherds,
    even eight commanders,
    So Micah is prophesising someone coming from the clan of Bethlehem Ephrathah (and the text is clear that it is talking of a clan, not a place) who will get eight commanders to stand against the Assyrian invaders. This is nothing to do with Jesus!

New Testament (not John)

So now we turn to the New Testament, which we might expect to have rather more evidence.
Mark 2:7 ‘Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, ‘Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralysed man, "Your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Get up, take your mat and walk"? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’
Jesus explains this away himself! Just as a prophet is given the authority to perform miracles, so he can be given the authority to forgive sins - afterall, forgiving sins is easier than healing a paralysed man.
Romans 14:11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God."
I have no idea how this supports the trinity. Anyone?
2 Corinthians 13:14 and Philippians 2:1-2 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
Again, I do not get this. Sure, the three parts of the trinity appear in the same sentence, but that does not make them the same thing or make them equal.
Philippians 2:9-11 "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Nothing here to suggest Jesus is equal to God, just that God regards him highly.
Revelation 22:3 "And there shall no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His bond-servants shall serve Him."
Same again. Nothing that says Jesus is equal to God.


By far the most evidence comes from John. I find that interesting, as John is known to give its own unique view of the life of Jesus. It is rather more developed, theologically.
Certainly John holds that Jesus is holy and more than just a man. John indicates a Jesus who is eternal, who has been around since the start of the universe; none of the other books of the NT indicate that as far as I am aware.
But does John hold Jesus as equal to God?   
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
So Jesus has existed from the start, but nothing to indicate Jesus is equal to God.
John 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
This might be the best verse so far. But think about it. This is reporting the reactions of the Jews. It does not actually say Jesus was equal to God, it says the Jews objected because they thought Jesus was claiming to be equal to God. What if the Jews were wrong?

Let us see some more context:
John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defence Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.’ 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Jesus gave them this answer: ‘Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him.
24 ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
God has delegated to Jesus. You do not delegate to an equal, you delegate to a subordinate. God is the boss; it is God who chooses who will do the judging. As Jesus admits, "the Son can do nothing by himself", it is only through God.
John 8:23 But he continued, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.’
25 ‘Who are you?’ they asked.
‘Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,’ Jesus replied. 26 ‘I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.’
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, ‘When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.’
It is clear here that Jesus is considered to be heavenly by John, but it is also clear that Jesus is subordinate to God. Jesus is acting as God's messenger, giving God's message, not their shared message. Jesus is very clear on this "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me".
John 8:58 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.
The claim is Jesus saw Abraham. That does not make him equal to God. If he was equal to God, why would he hide himself?
25 Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.’
Wow, verse 30 looks like a slam-dunk!

But wait, verse 29 says Jesus' father is greater than all. Note that Jesus is establishing his relationship to God as being distinct from God, and then saying God is greater than everything.

When Jesus says he and God are one, I would suggest he means they are of the same nature, specifically, just as no one will steal a sheep (i.e., a follower) from God, no one shall steal one from Jesus either.

The text continues:
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’
33 ‘We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’
34 Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are ‘gods’"?
Let us start at the end, which is a reference to Psalm 82:6 "‘I said, "You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High." This appears to be talking about human rulers, as it later says they will die like men. So Jesus is presumably pointing out that in the Bible God describes some people as 'gods', so how can it be blasphemy to do likewise?
John 12:41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
This could be a reference to Isaiah 6, were Isaiah saw God. But Isaiah saw seraphim too, and spoke of them too. Why should we not conclude that Jesus was one of them?
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."
That does not make Jesus the equal of God, however.
John 12:45 "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me"

John 14:9-10 "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"
Do these verses mean that Jesus is God? I think not. Any more than watching a football game on TV is the same as being right there at the stadium.    Jesus is saying that you will see God through him, not that he is God (otherwise, why not say "I am God").

Further Evidence Against Jesus and God Being Equals

Why does Jesus pray to himself? It makes no sense. Jesus prays at numerous points in the NT, and it is clear he is praying to a superior being, not to himself, not to an equal.
Luke 4:5-8: "The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’"
Why would Satan offer this authority to Jesus if Jesus was God or was equal to God? Jesus would already have more authority than Satan. For this to make any sense, and for this to be in any way a real temptation, Jesus must have less authority than Satan, who in turn has less authority than God.
Luke 22: 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.
Here Jesus is asking God to take away his duty to die on the cross (i.e., the cup). Why would Jesus do that if he was God? How could an angel, clearly a lesser being than God, give strength to Jesus if Jesus was equal to God?
Mark 15:34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’).
If you believe in the trinity, then Jesus is calling out to himself, wondering why he has himself forsaken himself!
Luke 12:8 ‘I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Here Jesus shows a clear distinction between himself and the Holy Spirit. Talking against the Holy Spirit, an aspect of god, is blasphemy and unforgivable. Talking against Jesus, a human being (son of man) is forgiveable.

The Son of God, The Messiah, Lord

The Bible does say Jesus was the son of God, but remember, this was a title bestowed on all the Jewish Kings. This title in no way indicates Jesus was a part of the trinity, any more than King David was (to be clear, they were considered divine; they were God's sons by adoption).

The same is true of the word "Messiah". This was applied to all the kings. Jesus is often called "Lord" in the Bible; again, this is consistent with him being king, and not evidence he was considered to be God.

None of these terms implies Jesus was God.

How the Bible has been modified to support the trinity

Several centuries ago, one enterprising Christian added a bit to 1 John to include the trinity. If you read the KJV, you will find this:
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This is the single most significant mention of the trinity in the KJV. But it is a forgery, and most modern Bibles now omit the second half of the verse.

New International Version:
For there are three that testify:

New American Standard Bible
For there are three that testify:

This page gives a useful comparison of numerous translations:

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Making Excuses For God

Any monotheistic religion that posits a loving and all-powerful God has a problem: Why does evil happen?

The book of Job suggests evil is God testing us to see if our faith is strong; God is actively involved in tempting you to do wrong to test your faith (and this is why the Lord's Prayer has that bit "Lead us not into temptation"). Later, Satan became the source of evil - which does not sit well with monotheism, but so what? Modern Christianity has got more sophisticated, but in the end makes no more sense.

Here is an article by Frank Turek on why God allows evil, specifically discussing why God allowed the terrorist attack in London, and is a great example of the nonsensical reasoning these people use to delude themselves.
Because evil doesn’t exist on its own; it only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing. Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. Evil is like a wound in your body: If you take the wound out of your body, you have a better body; if you take the body out of your wound, you have nothing. (That’s why we often describe evil as negations of good things. For example, we say the attack on London was immoral, unjust, inhumane, not right, etc.) In other words, there would be no such thing as evil unless good existed, but there would be no such thing as good unless God existed.
That is quite an admission. True evil can only exist if God does. There are truly evil things happening in the world, therefore God must exist. If there were no evil things happening, if we all lived in peace and harmony, then that would make the existence of God less certain.

Is that really the Christian position? No. What he is really arguing is that only Christianity gets to call things evil, therefore if we are labelling stuff as evil, then Christianity must be true! Meanwhile, terrible things happen in the world, whether they get labelled as evil or not.

And God chooses to allow them all.

Turns out plenty of other religions also have a concept of good and evil, and the Christian concept may well have come from Babylonia (via Judaism).

But even if it was exclusive to Christianity, that would still be a problem for Christianity - because it shows a huge inconsistency in Christian doctrine.

  • Christianity says the London attack was evil
  • Christianity says it is wrong to allow evil to happen when you could stop it
  • Christianity says God allowed the London attack to happen
  • Christianity says God is perfectly good

These more statements cannot all be true - and yet Christianity claims they are. And it does not matter whether evil really exists or not, either way Christianity is internally incoherent.

Turek on Christian morality

The sexual abuse of children? It’s only wrong if God exists.
Think this through. He is saying that the only reason child abuse is wrong is because of God. Seriously? This guy cannot see that abusing children is wrong in itself?

And this is the mentality of many Christians. This is why the atrocities of the Bible are swept under the carpet. According to this moral view, genocide is fine as long as it is sanctioned by God.

And it is only a short step from there to the terrorist attack in London. Scary stuff.

Turek on Atheism

Regardless of the reasons, evil is a problem for every worldview including atheism. But Christianity is the only worldview equipped to handle it.
How is evil a problem for atheism? Atheism states there is no god, which is why no god intervened during the London attack. Simple as that, Frank.