This will be the easiest section to answer in Jones's "reply," because she skipped over long sections of my article where I was giving supporting reasons for my claim that her religion is illogical. For the sake of continuity and to show readers just how much she evaded, I am retaining the sections of my article that she skipped over.

Till(1):
Now let's reconsider a question that Jones asked above. Why does the Bible make sense to others? One could just as well ask why the Qur'an makes sense to others. The answer, of course, is that it makes sense to others because they were reared in cultures that instilled in the general population a belief that the Qur'an was a revelation from Allah, so the people who grow up in Islamic societies develop a deep emotional need to believe that everything that the Qur'an says is necessarily true. When one is indoctrinated to believe this, he will have no difficulty either "making sense" of anything that he reads in the Qur'an or else just accepting it by "faith." If Jones would take the time to visit Islamic websites, she would see that Islamic "apologists" do the same thing that she presumably did after having received enlightment from reading Through the Looking Glass. They apply to the inconsistencies and absurdities in the Qur'an the same kinds of how-it-could-have-been interpretations that Christian apologists use to explain biblical discrepancies. If these same principles were applied to all written documents, the result would be that everything that has ever been written is inerrant. If Jones can find comfort in having found Jesus through such illogical interpretations of the Bible, I suppose that this is her right. There is no law against faulty logic.

Jones:
I agree that the biggest factor in determining one’s religion is the culture in which one finds himself. However, I am not interested in those who follow a religion out of convenience, lack of thought, fear of ostracism or death, or ignorance. I believe in following a religion that withstands the logical scrutiny of a skeptic.

Till:
Then why is Jones following Christianity, because the part of my article coming up below clearly shows that Christianity is illogical. We will see that Jones skipped far more of this part of my article than she answered. There is one reason and one reason only why Jones (if she was ever an atheist) turned to Christianity. It is the dominant religion in the society that she grew up in, and so she had been conditioned through her experiences in life to think that it was special. When the frustration in her life peaked and she reached for a crutch to lean on, it was only natural that she should turn to the religion around her.

Jones:
You may have the opinion that Christianity does not. I am of the opinion that it does.

Till:
Then why can't she show to us that Christianity can withstand the logical scrutiny of a skeptic? Just saying that it can withstand the logical scrutiny of a skeptic does not make it so. It proves only that she thinks so. She talks a good game, but she doesn't seem to know how to play when it is time to trot onto the field.

Jones:
You can offer me your opinion that my opinion is illogical and I can do the same. You have put forth questions and comments which I have addressed to my satisfaction.

Till:
Then Jones is very easily satisfied. We knew that, of course, because she turned to Christianity when she was unable to deal with the frustrations of life. In other words, she grabbed the closest crutch in sight. Her conversion, then, was a matter of convenience, which she spoke of disparagingly in her comments above.

Jones:
You are welcome to disagree. But you have yet to demonstrate the ‘illogic’ of my thinking.

Till:
I have? Well, she could have fooled me, because I have presented arguments to show the illogicalness of her religion, and she seems unable to answer them. She apparently thinks of herself as an expert on resolving biblical discrepancies, but she has actually shown us very little skill in this area. If she will agree to answer them point by point, I will be glad to post a few for her to resolve, and that will give her a chance to show her stuff.

Till(1):
That her logic was faulty is evident from the fact that it led her to accept an illogical religion.

Jones:
Circular fallacy; Farrell Till thinks that Christianity is illogical; therefore, any one [sic] who accepts Christianity is guilty of faulty logic. Geez, Farrell, even you should know better than that.

Till
There was certainly no circular reasoning here, because my sentence immediately above, which prompted her comment, wasn't intended to present any kind of logical arguments against Christianity. It was just the introductory sentence to the section where I proceeded to show the illogicalness of Judeo-Christian religions. Notice my next sentence below and then notice how little Jones tried to answer the reasons that I afterwards gave for thinking that these religions are illogical. Readers will have to scroll a long way down to find her next comment.

Till(1):
All religions that I have ever studied are illogical, but the Judeo-Christian religions are so patently illogical that one would think that anyone of even average intelligence should be able to see the absurdities on which these religions were founded. The Hebrews, for example, offered animal sacrifices to their tribal god, but so did all the other tribes and nations around them. The Hebrews built a tabernacle and later a temple, which they called the "house of God," but the tribes and nations around them also built temples to their gods. The Hebrews had a priesthood that officiated at temple ceremonies, but so did all the other tribes that had built temples to their gods. The Hebrews thought that their god had chosen them above all other tribes on earth to be his specially "chosen people" (Deut. 7:6), but the other nations around them thought that they were chosen of their gods. The Hebrews thought that their god Yahweh led them to victory over their enemies, but the nations around them believed the same of their gods. By what rule of logic was Jones able to determine that the tribal nations around the Hebrews were all wrong in beliefs that were parallel to what the Hebrews believed, but the Hebrews just happened to be right? How was Jones able to determine that when king Mesha thought that he was having personal communications with the god Chemosh, he was mistaken, but when Abraham, Moses, or David talked with their god Yahweh, they were having actual experiences with this deity? Jones failed to address any of these problems.

Anyone who reads king Mesha's inscription on the Moabite Stone or the inscription of king Assur-Nasir-Pal at the entrance to the temple of Urta at Nimrud will see that the belief of the Hebrews that they were the chosen people of their god was strikingly parallel to what was believed by the nations around them. Notice how king Mesha claimed that he had many personal experiences with Chemosh, a god who led him to victory but punished the nation of Moab when the people displeased him.

I am Mesha, son of Chemosh... king of Moab, the Dibonite. My father was king over Moab thirty years and I became king after my father. And I made this sanctuary for Chemosh at Qrchh, [a sanctuary] of salvation; for he saved me from all the kings and let me see my desire upon my adversaries. Omri, king of Israel, he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. And his son succeeded him and he too said, "I will oppress Moab." In my days he spoke [thus], and I saw my desire upon him and upon his house, when Israel perished utterly forever. And Omri had taken possession of the land of Medeba and [Israel] dwelt in it his days and half the days of his son, forty years; but Chemosh dwelt in it in my days. And I built Baal-Meon and made it in the reservoir, and I built Qaryaten. And the men of Gad had long dwelt in the land of Ataroth, and the king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself. But I fought against the town and took it and I slew all the people of the town, a spectacle for Chemosh and Moab. And I brought back from there the altar-hearth of David and I dragged it before Chemosh at Qeriyoth. And I settled there the men of Sharon and the men of Mchrt. And Chemosh said to me,"Go take Nebo against Israel." And I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn till noon; and I took it and slew all: seven thousand men, boys, women, and [girls] and female slaves, for I had consecrated it to Ashat-Chemosh. And I took from there the vessels of Yahweh and dragged them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Jahaz and he dwelt in it while fighting against me. But Chemosh drove him out before me. And I took from Moab two hundred men, all of them leaders, and led them up against Jahaz and took it to annex it to Dibon. I built Qrchh, the walls of the parks and the walls of the mound; and I built its gates and I built its towers; and I built the king's house; and I made both the reservoirs for water inside the town. And there was no cistern inside the town of Qrchh, so I said to all the people, "Make yourselves each one a cistern in his house." And I had ditches dug for Qrchh by prisoners of Israel. I built Aroer and I made the road by the Arnon. I built Beth-bamoth, for it was destroyed; I built Bezer, for it was in ruins, with fifty men of Dibon, for all Dibon is under my authority. And I reigned [over] hundreds of towns which I had annexed to the country. And I built... Medeba and Beth-Diblathen and Beth-Baal-Meon, and I led up there the breeders of the sheep of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it.... Chemosh said to me, "Go down, fight against Hauronen." And I went down... [and there dwelt] in it Chemosh in my days... (D. Winton Thomas, Documents From Old Testament Times, Harper & Row, pp. 196-197, emphasis added).

The ellipses represent places where the text had been broken off the stone surface, but even without these parts, if Yahweh were substituted for Chemosh and Israel for Moab and the names of the kings Mesha and Omri were reversed, this would read like a page from the Bible. Indeed, if this passage, with the changes just noted, had been included in the Bible, Jones would know from her personal experiences with God that what the text said had to be unquestionably true, but this is not a text to be found in the Bible. It is an inscription that was written on a monument in a country that bordered Israel by people who believed in the god Chemosh instead of Yahweh. Otherwise, their beliefs were identical to the Israelites'. The text just quoted shows that Mesha believed that his god Chemosh delivered him from his enemies, but the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh delivered them from their enemies.

2 Chronicles 32:22 Thus Yahweh saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and guided them on every side.

Joshua 10:42 Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because Yahweh the God of Israel fought for Israel.

Exodus 14:30 Thus Yahweh saved Israel that day from the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.

1 Samuel 10:17 Samuel summoned the people to Yahweh at Mizpah 18 and said to them, "Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, "I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and I rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you."

Psalm 44:7 But you [Yahweh] have saved us from our foes, and have put to confusion those who hate us.

What is logical about believing that of two ancient tribes living side by side in biblical times both believed that their tribal deities led them to victory over their enemies but only one of the two beliefs was right? What personal experience has Jones had that would provide a rational answer to that question?

The inscription on the Moabite Stone shows that king Mesha believed that the oppression brought upon the land of Moab by the Israelite king Omri was punishment from his god Chemosh, who was "angry with the land," but the Israelites also believed that times of adversity, which they periodically exerienced, were punishments that their god Yahweh had brought upon them for their wrongdoings.

Judges 6:1 The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh gave them into the hand of Midian seven years.

Judges 2:11 Then the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh and worshiped the Baals; 12 and they abandoned Yahweh, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt; they followed other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were all around them, and bowed down to them; and they provoked Yahweh to anger. 13 They abandoned Yahweh, and worshiped Baal and the Astartes. 14 So the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers who plundered them, and he sold them into the power of their enemies all around, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies.

Judges 4:1 The Israelites again did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, after Ehud died. 2 So Yahweh sold them into the hand of King Jabin of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-ha-goiim.

Judges 10:7 So the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites, 8 and they crushed and oppressed the Israelites that year. For eighteen years they oppressed all the Israelites that were beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead.

Like Ms. Jones, Mesha claimed that he had a relationship with his god Chemosh that was so "personal" that Chemosh actually talked to him. "Go take Nebo against Israel," Chemosh said to Mesha, or so Mesha claimed, and, of course, Mesha took Nebo. How could he have failed with Chemosh on his side? On another occasion, Chemosh said to Mesha, "Go down, fight against Hauronen," so Mesha went down, fought against Hauronen, and took it. These parts of the Moabite inscription in particular read like blurbs from the Bible.

Judges 20:27 And the Israelites inquired of Yahweh. (In those days the ark of the covenant of God was there, 28 with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, ministering before it.) They asked, "Shall we go up again to battle with Benjamin our brother, or not?" Yahweh responded, "Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands."

1 Samuel 23:2 David inquired of Yahweh, "Shall I go and attack these Philistines?" Yahweh said to David, "Go and attack the Philistines and save Keilah."

1 Samuel 30:8 David inquired of Yahweh, "Shall I pursue this band? Shall I overtake them?" He answered him, "Pursue; for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue."

2 Samuel 2:1 After this David inquired of Yahweh, "Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah?" Yahweh said to him, "Go up." David said, "To which shall I go up?" He said, "To Hebron."

2 Samuel 5:19 David inquired of Yahweh, "Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will you give them into my hand?" Yahweh said to David, "Go up; for I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand."

Mesha talked with his god Chemosh to receive instructions on what battles to fight, and David and other Israelites inquired of their god Yahweh for advice on when to go to battle, yet we are supposed to believe that Mesha was just taking to nothing, whereas the people in a tiny nation that bordered Mesha's country were actually talking to a real, genuine, rootin' tootin' deity when they inquired of their god Yahweh. Is it more sensible to believe that this god Yahweh was real or that the Israelites only thought that he was real, just as the Moabites thought that their god Chemosh was real? The answer to this question is self-evident, but I doubt that it will be self-evident enough for Ms. Jones to see it.

Jones:
In my opinion, even though other religions share common descriptions of its god, the one that ends with Jesus Christ speaks for authenticity for obvious reasons. All other religions end with the Law and with ritual and legalism to which it is impossible to adhere; only Christianity supplies the spirit of the Law.

Till:
See what I mean? I took the time to do a detailed comparison of the similarities in the Moabite and Hebrew religions to show that there was nothing unique about Judaism, which was parallel in various respects to what the Moabites believed about their god Chemosh, and the four-line comment above was all that Jones said about it. She seems to suffer from "assertionitis," because once again she brushed aside a detailed argument with another assertion: "(T)he [religion] that ends with Jesus Christ speaks for authenticity for obvious reasons." Well, if it is so "obvious" that the religion that ends with Jesus Christ "speaks for authenticity," why didn't she specify what those reasons are and support them with evidence that would show that this religion does indeed "speak for authenticity"? I am going to crawl out on a limb and say that she didn't give any such reasons, because she knows that she has no reasons that would withstand scrutiny. At any rate, if she is going to accuse me of circular reasoning she should analyze the material above (which she left unanswered) and show us why this is circular reasoning. Don't expect her to do that, because she has already made her excuses in her statement immediately below.

Jones:
By the way, don’t expect me to take the time to hash out the same junk that you present on errancy. I’ve more important things to do than chase your opinionated tail.

Till:
What Jones really means is that she can't reply to the arguments that I present on ii errancy, and so she seeks to discredit them by calling them junk. She has learned well from her mentor at tektonics.org, so when she can't answer arguments, she hurls insults at them. At any rate, reciprocity seems in order here. I have chased her opinionated tail through these four articles, so the least she could do is try to take a snip or two at mine. I would love to see her try to address an argument with something besides assertions.

Till(1) In her article, Jones didn't dare to address directly the problem of Yahwistic massacres that permeate the Old Testament, but she did attempt a backdoor, indirect defense of those atrocities. After she had learned how to interpret (read rationalize) the Bible so that everything in it made "sense" to her, she apparently decided that the blood that oozed from its pages was inconsequential.

If my mind was capable of accepting interpretations that allowed the whole book to make sense, then what was it in me that wanted it not to make sense? This book was reading me as surely as I was reading it. Every time I found fault with its god, I ended up finding a fault of my own. What was I doing when I condemned this god for commanding Moses to kill? Was I arrogantly making my morality superior to that of the being who allegedly authored all of its morality? Was I condemning the actions of an entire nation, which was trapped in a kill or be killed situation?

Well, gee whillikers, was it a kill-or-be-killed situation when Yahweh commanded the Israelites to go into Canaan and "leave nothing alive to breathe" (Deut. 20:17)? At that time, the Canaanite nations were in their own land, so if the Israelites had respected their territorial rights, there would have been no need to kill anyone, because there is no reason to suppose that the Canaanites would have gone into the wilderness of Sinai to kill the Israelites. As this fanciful yarn was spun in the Bible, it was purely and simply a case of land-grabbing. The Canaanites had land that the Israelites wanted, and so in their blitzkrieg through Canaan, the Israelites used this as an excuse to kill everything that breathed. Were the Israelites "trapped" in a kill-or-be-killed situation when Yahweh ordered Saul to go "utterly destroy" the Amalekites, including children and babies, because of an Amalekite attack on Israel 450 years earlier (1 Sam. 15:1-3)? There is no indication that the Israelites were in any imminent danger of being killed unless a preemptive attack was launched to massacre the Amalekites. To carry out Yahweh's orders, Saul had to take his army out of Israel and into Amalekite territory, so this was a simple case of vengeance for an attack on the Israelites by Amalekite ancestors who had lived over four centuries earlier. It seems that Yahweh "remember[ed] that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt" (v:2), and that was the only reason given for the command. Jones can search high and low in this biblical account for some evidence that Yahweh had ordered this massacre in order to save the Israelites from a kill-or-be-killed threat, but she won't find it. The only reason given for the orders is in the statement that I just quoted: Yahweh remembered what Amalek had done to Israel over four centuries prior to his command to massacre every living, breathing Amalekite. That vengeance was the reason for the command was also made evident when Saul granted the Kenites safe passage out of Amalekite territory, because they had "showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt" (v:6).

There is no logic at all in believing that genocite can be made morally right just because someone wrote a tale in barbaric times that found its way into a collection of writings that later came to be known among gullible people as "the word of God."

Jones:
Let us apply the same thinking for your condemnation of God’s ordering a massacre to the United States dropping the bomb on Hiroshima.

Till:
This borders on the tu quoque fallacy in that she is essentially saying, "Well, we did it too," as if two wrongs will make a right. If not the tu quoque fallacy, it is certainly a false analogy, because there are too many dissimilarities to give her "argument" any force. In the first place, the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, because of something that the Japanese of that generation had done to the United States. They had made a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which precipitated the war in the pacific. The Amalakites of Saul's generation, on the other hand, had not attacked the Israelites. Yahweh gave the order to massacre them (including children and babies) because of something that their ancestors had done over four centuries earlier. To find a parallel to this, we would have to imagine the U. S. Army's being commanded to go and utterly destroy all descendants of the Paspahegh Indians who had attacked the European settlement at Jamestown in 1607. If such an attack would be carried out, the public outrage would be heard around the world, but when biblicists read about an attack parallel to this in the Bible, they will lean over backwards to find some way to justify it.

Jones's analogy is also false, because she is comparing what a U. S. President commanded to what an omniscient, omnipotent god commanded. I have little doubt that Harry S. Truman, had he been omniscient and omnipotent, would not have ordered the attack on Hiroshima or any other Japanese fortifications but would have used his supernatural abilities to bring the war to a nonviolent end.

Jones:
What is the difference?

Till:
Those differences were just explained.

Jones:
Was it moral of us to do so?

Till:
Self-defense is not immoral. If Jones would like to see where her inspired word of God teaches this, I will be glad to show her.

Jones:
How many deaths did we cause?

Till:
An estimated 140,000 were killed at Hiroshima, but eventually, as the injured died, the casualties reached about 200,000. There is, however, some debate over whether we caused this. One could easily argue that the Japanese caused it by precipating a war in the Pacific with their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Jones:
How many did we prevent?

Till:
I believe that experts have estimated that if the U. S. had ended the war by invading the mainland of Japan, the casualties on both sides would have exceeded a million, so one could argue that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima saved 800,000 lives. Could we then call the dropping of the bomb something that was done for "the greater good"?

Jones:
Is there no moral reason to engage in warfare, Farrell?

Till:
As I said above, self-defense is not immoral. I do question very seriously, however, the preemptive course that the U. S. embarked on by invading Iraq. Since we are talking about an obviously false analogy, Jones's questions are all irrelevant, because if I were omniscient and omnipotent, there would have been no invasion of Iraq or any other country, because I would have known how to resolve international problems without resorting to war. We have to wonder, then, why the omni-max one, who intervened in human affairs at times, such as when he parted the water of the Red Sea, couldn't have thought of some way to solve "the Amalekite problem" without having to order a total massacre of this nation.

Jones:
What if Muslims decide to wage a real war? Invade the US and force you to bow down and worship Allah or be killed?

Till:
This analogy is really false, because even Jones knows that this is not going to happen. All of the Muslim nations combined would be unable to defeat the United States in a "real war." Let's just assume for the sake of argument that her scenario would be militarily possible. If it happened, I hope I would have the personal fortitude to say that I would not bow down and worship Allah, but the likelihood of this happening would be rather remote. Although they are persecuted, there are non-Islamic religions in Muslim nations like Iran and Iraq, but the adherents of these religions have not been required to bow down and worship Allah.

Since Jones took us into this tangent, I will express an opinion here. I think it is far more likely that fundamentalist Christians in this nation will gain enough control to force on me religious practices that I would object to. It has, in fact, already happened. If she wants details, I will be glad to give them.

Jones;
How can you emotionally allow yourself to condemn Moses and his god when you can find excuses for your own country? Or perhaps you can’t find excuses for this country. The question isn’t about who is morally right; the question is about who has the authority to declare what is morally right. Man’s opinion isn’t worth squat except to the man who is having it.

Till:
Jones, of course, thinks that "God" is the one with the authority to declare what is morally right, but we have been through this before in my reply to the midsection of her article. She begs the question of her god's existence. She should first prove that this god exists before she undertakes to assert that a god who may not--and I will even say probably does not--exist has the authority to impose a system of morality on us. It is far more probable that this system of morality that Jones has the hots for developed first and then the Hebrew religion was built around it. Hence, it would actually be primitive, barbaric people who are imposing their morality on us.

Now I will ask readers to notice how much of my article that Jones skipped over below before she made a one-line sarcastic comment that answered none of the arguments that I delineated.

Till(1):
A more logical view of such stories as these is that they were simply reflections of barbaric times when most people believed that slaughtering rival tribes was what their gods wanted them to do. King Mesha, for example, took Nebo and massacred "seven thousand men, boys, women, and [girls] and female slaves," and he did so because he had "consecrated it [Nebo] to Ashat-Chemosh." In other words, Mesha thought that when he slaughtered these seven thousand captives in Nebo, he was paying homage to his god.

This was a prevailing view of the time, which can be seen in an inscription attributed to the Assyrian king Assur-Nasir-Pal, which was found in the pavement slabs of the entrance to the temple of Urta at Nimrud.

At that time I received tribute of the land of Isala--cattle, flocks, and wine. To the mountain of Kashiari I crossed, to Kinabu, the fortified city of Hulai, I drew near. With the masses of my troops and by my furious battle onset I stormed, I captured the city; 600 of their warriors I put to the sword; 3,000 captives I burned with fire; I did not leave a single one among them alive to serve as a hostage. Hulai, their governor, I captured alive. Their corpses I formed into pillars; their young men and maidens I burned in the fire. Hulai, their governor, I flayed, his skin I spread upon the wall of the city of Damdamusa; the city I destroyed, I devastated, I wasted with fire...."

And now at the command of the great gods my sovereignty, my dominion, my power, are manifesting themselves; I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am preeminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic! Assur-Nasir-Pal, the mighty king, the king of Assyria, chosen of Sin, favorite of Anu, beloved of Adad, mighty one among the gods, I am the merciless weapon that strikes down the land of his enemies..." (Crane Brinton, A History of Western Morals, Harcourt, Brace, & Co., p. 48, emphasis added).

Sin, Anu, and Adad were Assyrian gods, so Assur-Nasir-Pal believed that he had been chosen by these gods to conquer, pillage, and massacre. There was not an iota of difference in the attiude that Israel and the nations around her had about massacring captives, except that the Israelites evenually came to believe that they were doing the will of just one primary god (Yahweh), whereas nations like Assyria believed that they had been chosen by several gods to plunder the nations around them and massacre those captured in battle. Ms. Jones, however, apparently believes that there really was a god egging on the Israelites to pillage and massacre, whereas nations like Assyria were simply mistaken in their beliefs that gods had chosen them to do the same, but the real tragedy in her thinking, which unfortunately reflects the way that many of her Christian cohorts think, is that she believes that massacres of entire civilian populations was morally right because "God" had commanded that they be done. It just doesn't seem to occur to her that it was far more likely that a barbaric people just thought that the god whom they had created in their own image wanted them to massacre their enemies.

Judaism was not alone in having parallels in other religions. Christianity, which was spawned by Judaism, was also doctrinally similar to the religions around it. Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin, or so the New Testament claimed, but this was a time when just about anyone of any importance at all had been virgin born. This similarity to paganism was so obvious that Justin Martyr felt the need to address it. In an apology addressed to Emperor Hadrian, he actually defended the Christian belief in the virgin birth of Jesus by arguing that it was no more ridiculous than the virgin-birth beliefs of pagans.

By declaring the Logos, the first-begotton of God, our Master, Jesus Christ, to be born of a virgin, without any human mixture, we say no more in this than what you [pagans] say of those whom you style the sons of Jove. For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign to Jove; there's Mercury, Jove's interpreter, in imitation of the Logos, in worship among you. There's Aedsculapius, the physician, smitten by a thunderbolt, and after that ascending into heaven. There's Bacchus, torn to pieces; and Hercules, burnt to get rid of his pains. There's Pollux and Castor, the sons of Jove by Leda, and Perseus by Danae; and not to mention others, I would fain to know why you always deify the departed emperors and have a fellow at hand to make affidavit that he saw Caesar mount to heaven from the funeral pyre? (Apologia I, chap. 22).

Notice that although Mercury had preceded Jesus of Nazareth, Justin Martyr said that Mercury was an "imitation of the Logos." This early "apologist" was alluding here to his "explanation" of why Christianity had so many aspects that were parallel to pagan mythology. That "explanation" was that "the devil did it." In chapter 54 of his first apology, J. M. stated this "explanation" more directly and actually argued that the pagan myths about virgin births were counterfeits that had originated with Satan in order to presabotage faith in the son of God when the real virgin birth would become a reality.

It having reached the Devil's ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same character as the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove."

We see, then, that nothing much has changed in apologetics over the past two millennums. Silly explanations were used then, just as they are still being used today. In his Dialogue of Justin and Trypho, Justin Martyr expanded this "explanation" of Christianity's similarity to pagan myths to include more than just the virgin birth.

Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, "strong as a giant to run his race," has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ...? And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock, and call the place where those who believe in him are initiated a cave, do I not perceive here that the utterance of Daniel, that a stone without hands was cut out of a great mountain, has been imitated by them, and that they have attempted likewise to imitate the whole of Isaiah's words?

As Justin Martyr noted here, there were also pagan myths about other aspects of Christianity, i. e., Satan, angels, heaven, hell, resurrected heroes and demigods, ascensions, final judgment, and general resurrection, so there is really nothing unique in the Christian religion, which simply assimilated beliefs that were commonplace at the time. Where, then, is the logic in believing that of various primitive religions that were alike in so many respects, just one of them was the right one? To believe this is just as irrational as the belief of denominations of Christianity like the Church of Christ that of all the hundreds of Christian sects only theirs is the right one. It apparently never occurs to people who think like this that they should seriously examine their beliefs to see if there is any logical basis to their claim of having the only religion that is right.

I saw no indication in Jones's article that she had subjected her newly found belief to anything that even remotely resembled rational examination, but the article is filled with indications that her experiences were purely emotional. After having decided that she was going to join the any-interpretation-will-do crowd, she soon let herself slip past a point of no return.

For weeks, I was on a high, the type of high that comes about by feeling that one is on the edge of making some sort of profound discovery. I wasn't sure what I was discovering but my perception of this world was changing. In July, I read these words of Jesus Christ, understanding them for the first time after having read them for years; "Who do you say I am?"

At this point in her article, I felt that I was on the edge of making a discovery that wasn't a bit profound, because I had discovered the same thing in reading the articles of others who had "found Jesus." That discovery was that Jones was just another person, among countless others, who had had a "personal experience with Jesus" that didn't mean a thing to anyone but her. I have spent decades debunking the popular belief that the Bible is the word of God,

Jones:
Yes, Farrell, you certainly think you have.

Till:
Well, until some biblicist can present unassailable arguments for their belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, I will continue to believe that I have had a part in debunking this popular belief. I will repeat my challenge to Jones. If she will agree to answer them point by point, I will post examples of obvious discrepancies in the Bible.

Jones is not likely to provide us with any kind of unassailable proof that the Bible is what she claims, because just look at what she skipped above.

1. I quoted ancient inscriptions that show that the Moabites and Assyrians believed that they were the chosen people of their gods, just as the Hebrews believed that they were chosen of their god, and Jones said nothing in response to this.

2. I quoted ancient inscriptions that show that the Moabites and Assyrians believed that their gods punished them for their wrongdoings, just as the Hebrews believed that their god punished them for their "sins," and Jones said nothing in response to this.

3. I quoted ancient inscriptions that show that the Moabites and Assyrians believed that their gods commanded them to massacre entire civilian populations, just as the Hebrews believed that their god commanded them to leave nothing alive to breathe in their march through Canaan, and Jones said nothing in response to this.

4. I quoted the works of Justin Martyr to show that he recognized that principal doctrines of Christianity had had their parallels in pagan religions, and Jones said nothing in response to this.

Look carefully now at the next section to see how much Jones skipped here too.

Till(1):
but to the credit of those who first preached the "gospel" that resulted in the foundation of Christianity, they did not speak in the nebulous terms of those like Jones who talk abstractly about their conversions. No, the apostles and first preachers of the gospel were quite specific in telling others how they could be "saved." On the day of Pentecost, for example, the apostle Peter preached that the Jesus who had recently been crucified had been raised up to be both Lord and Christ. When Peter's audience heard this, they were emotionally convicted and cried out, "Men and brothers, what shall we do?" Peter didn't say, "Well, open your hearts and let Jesus come in," or anything that even remotely resembled the kind of nebulous crap that we hear from the likes of A. S. A. Jones. Instead, he answered directly and to the point: "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

Now compare Peter's very specific answer to what Jones said to try to convince us that she had "found Jesus" after 20 years of groveling in self-deprecation. Notice how she seemed to think that she could substitute exclamation marks for specific, concrete details.

At this moment, I saw it. I saw what the truth of the Bible was! And I was humbled. More than humbled, I was broken. The truth wasn't about cud chewing bunnies or how much precipitation fell during Noah's flood. It was the truth about human nature and our efforts to rise above it! It was the truth about human spirit being led by divine spirit! It was the truth about each of us, imperfect in our love for one another, needing to be made complete by the perfect love of God! The truth was about how one man, without sin, had died for us so that we could live! The truth of the Bible was and is JESUS CHRIST!

Jones:
And then what Farrell? Oh [sic] that’s right! I repented and asked God to forgive me my sins.

Till:
Jones is still begging questions and engaging in special pleading. She assumes that repentance and begging "God's" forgiveness are "truth[s] of the Bible." She doesn't seem to realize that any adherent of any religion could beg the same sort of questions. Let's suppose that Jones were reading a Muslim's account of his conversion in which he concluded by saying, "I repented and asked Allah to forgive me my sins." What would Jones's reaction be? Would she say, "Oh, gee, I am going to have to accept Islam too, repent, and ask Allah to forgive me my sins"? Of course, she wouldn't, so we are right back to where we were before, trying to get Jones to see that what proves too much proves nothing at all. If her statement in an Islamic setting would prove nothing about the truth of the Qur'an, then the same in a biblical setting would prove nothing about the truth of the Bible.

Yet Jones brags about how logical she is.

Till(1):
Gee, whiz, she saw all of that in a simple question: "Who do you say I am"? If so, she succeeded marvelously in her goal to subject the Bible to various interpretations, but she said nothing that would give a logical explanation for why writers inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have made scientifically inaccurate claims about bunnies chewing the cud and enough precipitation falling to cover the highest mountains on earth under 20+ feet of water. If we can't trust what inspired writers said in matters like these, how can we be sure that we can trust them when they said that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God, and that he died for the sins of the world? I suppose questions like these never occur to Jones anymore, because she is reading the Bible the same way that she reads poetry and fiction. I wonder, however, if she thinks that scientific mistakes and downright absurdities are true when she reads them in fiction?

We will lay such problems as these aside for now, because what we want to do here is compare what Jones said about her discovery of "salvation" to Peter's answer to those who asked what they should do. Peter's answer was specific, "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins," but Jones's answer would apparently be something like, "Read Matthew 16:14 and then let your minds run wild about cud-chewing bunnies, the amount of precipitation that fell during Noah's flood, human nature, the human spirit, and a maze of other thoughts not even implied in the question." This kind of tommyrot about "salvation" is taught nowhere in the New Testament, and the specificity of Acts 2:38 is by no means an isolated example. If Jones would lay aside her emotionalism and read the New Testament with a view to seeing what it actually says and not what she imagines that it says, she would see that the first gospel preachers always gave specific instructions on what people should do to be "saved." Saul of Taurus, for example, asked the apparition of Jesus what he should do, and Jesus said, "Go into the city [Demascus], and there it will be told you what you must do" (Acts 9:6). Saul went into the city, and the disciple Ananias came to him and said, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). None of this nebulous nonsense about "personal experiences with Jesus" or letting Jesus into one's heart was taught in the New Testament. The preachers of that time were very specific in the instructions that they gave on how to be "saved."

I am pointing this out not because I think there is even an iota of truth to the New Testament's nonsense about "salvation" but to point out just how far removed those who extol their personal experiences with Jesus are from what the Bible teaches about the so-called "plan of salvation." Jones, for example, apparently wants us to believe that the Bible is God's truth, but she doesn't want to practice herself what it says about how to be "saved." If she doesn't think that she needs to respect what the Bible says about "salvation," then why should she expect us to respect what Peter said in response to Jesus's question, "Who do you say that I am"? Peter's answer was, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God," but why was Peter's answer necessarily true? If Jones had read this question and answer in another "holy book" about another alleged savior-god, would her emotions have rocketed to the moon as they apparently did when she read this in the Bible? If not, why not, and if not, why should the question and answer be any more significant just because Jones read it in a collection of books that has Holy Bible embossed on the cover? I'm asking these questions only to try to get her to examine logically a situation that she has so far looked at with only her emotions.

In a moment, we will see Jones saying that Christianity is not what is wrong with the world, but a real tragedy of Christianity is that it probably more than any other religion instills in its converts a profound sense of self-denigration. Jones made it clear in her article that this happened to her as soon as she made her profound discovery that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God. As I quote her own testimony to this effect of Christianity on her life, notice the parts that I emphasize in bold print.

The moment I was made aware of my despicable nature, I realized that Jesus had died for me. I never had recognized sin and, therefore, thought that Christ had died for nothing. But this man was able to see the horrible nature present in all of humanity and yet he has sacrificed himself to save us from ourselves. In a very real sense, my sinful nature had caused the death of an innocent man. I never believed in hell prior to this, but one of my first thoughts, after seeing how hellish a person that I was, was that I deserved to be in it.

I had been a fool. I had paraded around, thinking myself to be the sophisticate, oblivious to the trail of toilet paper clinging to my shoe. For the first time in my life, I became aware of my soul and how dirty it was when the light of Christ fell upon it. I sucked! Christianity wasn't what was wrong with the world. I was what was wrong with the world. A lack of education wasn't what was wrong with the world. I was what was wrong with the world.

Throughout the rest of her article, which ran three more paragraphs, Jones continued to wallow in self-denigration, so there is no need to quote any more of what she said about her profound discovery that Jesus was all in all, whereas she was a despicable, worthless creature. I will conclude by noting that I am deliriously happy that I managed to escape from the shackles of a religion that seeks to destroy one's self-esteem. I don't see myself as a fool or a "hellish person" or someone with a "dirty soul."

Jones:
Of course you don’t, Farrell. You are perfect and clean, the standard by which others should be judged in all things. Your logic is impeccable; your heart, the size of Mount Everest. No one could ever find fault with you, even if your every thought were to be made audible to all of mankind.

Till:
As I noted above, when Jones has no logical response to an opponent, she will hurl insults at him. I again made some specific observations about why Jones's religion is illogical, and she said nothing at all in reply to them. All she could do was make a sarcastic comment about me.

Let's take a closer look at her sarcasm. She parades before us her repentance and apparently thinks that she is entitled to do this, but if I say that I think that I am a decent person, she reacts with sarcasm. Needless to say, I would not consider her "perfect and clean, the standard by which others should be judged in all things." Certainly, her logic is not impeccable, and her heart, which once considered people despicable creatures, who just consumed nutrients and expelled their wastes, must not be much bigger than a pea or else she would have had a more compassionate view of humanity. She is welcome to wallow in her self-denigration if she wants to. I have more useful things to do.

Till(1):
I see no reason to think that I even have a soul. I certainly don't think that I am what is wrong with the world. In fact, I have many reasons to believe that the world would be a much better place if more people were like me. I won't go into details here, because I would wind up sounding immodest,

Jones:
You? Immodest?? Who in their right mind would ever think that of you, Farrell?

Till:
As I have already noted at least twice, when Jones has no answer to give her opponent, all is not lost. She can always hurl insults and sarcasm. Let's just suppose that I am every bit as despicable as she has tried to depict me. How would that prove the truth of anything she has yet said?

Jones:
Everyone should have enough confidence in their opinions that they tout them as facts.

Till:
Hmm, then Jones must have a lot of confidence in her opinions, because all through her articles she has touted them as facts. However, she has yet to present any kind of reasonable evidence that would give us cause to think that her opinions are facts.

Till(1):
but I will remind readers that my personal experiences with atheism have been the opposite of Jones's. I have concerns for others, and, contrary to Jones's experience, my "atheistic philosophy" actually increased my compassion for others.

Jones:
Yes! I see that. You have abounding compassion for those whom you see using Christianity as a crutch.

Till:
I will note again that when Jones can't respond to an opponent, all is not lost, because she can always hurl insults at him. If have to wonder why Jones doesn't spend at least some of her time trying to answer my arguments instead of seeing how sarcastic she can be. She really has learned well from her mentor at tektonics.org, hasn't she?

Jones:
What do you tell the poor alcoholic sap who whines “I couldn’t remain sober if it were not for my faith in God”?

Till:
She will find my answer to this question in Part Two, but for her benefit, I will cut and paste it here.

Pardon my cynicism but what Jones is trying to argue is so obviously contrary to the reality around her that she should be able to see it even if her IQ were not as high as she claims. She speaks of "a meaningless life," but I suspect that she is simply projecting her own failures onto others. She was apparently unable to make her own life meaningful when she was a nonbeliever, so she concludes that the lives of other nonbelievers aren't meaningful either. Like the criminal who found Jesus too late, after he was already in prison, Jones found Jesus after she had apparently failed in her goals, so she thinks that those who don't turn to the same god she did must also be living meaningless lives. She needs to learn what the categorical fallacy is.

I really don't have much tolerance for people who think that they need a god- or Jesus-crutch in order to find meaningful purpose in life. If an alcoholic can't find the inner strength not to raise the glass that enslaves him, then there isn't much in his character to admire if he has to depend on an entity that may not even exist to give him the motivation to take control of his life. If an alcoholic or drug addict said that he found the will to conquer his addiction by putting his trust in the Tooth Fairy, others would look askance at him and wonder about his sanity, but if he says that he conquered his habit by putting his trust in Jesus, they say, "Isn't that wonderful?"

As a final period to my answer to her question, I will ask Jones what she would say if a Muslim alcoholic told her, "I couldn’t remain sober if it were not for my faith in Allah”? Would she say, "Well, gee, I need to convert to Islam"? She just can't seem to grasp the meaning of the axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all.

Jones:
What do you tell the woman dying of cancer whose only solace is in the arms of God?

Till:
I would tell her the same thing that I would tell an Islamic woman dying of cancer whose only solace is in the arms of Allah. She doesn't need a crutch. If she will just look reality in the eye and recognize that there is no deity in the sky looking after her, she would probably be able to accept her condition with more dignity and a lot more self-respect than if she put her hope in just a pipe dream. One of the things that I quickly learned after my deconversion was that there is something very self-satisfying about having the courage to admit that this life is probably all that I have or will ever have. If the woman dying of cancer could come to realize this too, she would have no trouble coping with the reality that death will probably be the end. I am almost 71 years old, and I can truthfully say that I haven't the slightest fear of dying. It wasn't that way when I was a much, much younger Bible believer.

Jones:
You are so compassionate that you attempt to kick that crutch right out from under them, with the assumption that they will not need it.

Till:
Would Jones think the same if I was devoting my time only to the debunking of the Qur'an? I doubt that she would. Her problem is a very basic one: she assumes that Christianity is the truth, and so she sees someone who debunks it as a rather despicable person. I happen to have a different view. I think that anyone who can help a person escape the bondage of religious superstition is doing that person a huge favor. Let's suppose that there were people still living today who, like king Mesha of the Moabites, thought that Chemosh was a real deity who looked over his chosen people. Would Jones think that I was kicking the crutch right out from under these people if I tried to show them that they were in bondage to an absurd superstition?

Jones;
And when they fall, Farrell? What then? Do you have the alternate solution to that which cripples them?

Till:
If they see the truth and have the courage to accept it, they won't fall. They will find themselves in a much more satisfying condition than when they were leaning on the crutch. I can see by her comments here that Jones can't even imagine a life that is courageous enough to accept obvious realities like the finality of death. If she could imagine that, she would be an entirely different person.

Jones:
Or will you just be content to watch them fall on their collective ass?,

Till:
As I have noted above, if they have the intellectual maturity and courage to accept obvious reality, they won't fall on their collective ass. They will stand taller and be more satisfied with their lives.

Jones:
Your atheistic philosophy has become a forum for your own hostile and belittling ego, not a vehicle for your compassion.

Till:
Well, as I have now noted several times, Jones seems far more interested in discrediting me as a person than she is in offering logical arguments to show us that she has discovered a truth that has evaded the rest of us. I can tell her this. If my ego were as hostile as she seems to think it is, I would be spending my final years doing something other than trying to reason with those like her who know no better than to enslave themselves to ancient superstitions.

Till(1):
I have to wonder why someone with the exceptional IQ that she brags about was unable to look at life more rationally and see the illogical aspects of the religion that she espoused.

Jones:
Since when does a statement of fact become a boast? Are you ‘bragging’ about having been an English professor? And this is what I mean when I say that you are guilty of the same when you accuse another of applying bias to his or her interpretation or writing.

Till:
Okay, I will just make my own statement of fact. My IQ is well above average. I learned this when I substituted as a teacher at the high school I graduated from. At that time, students were not told their scores, but as a teacher, I had access to records, so I looked up my scores. They were well above average in both grade school and high school, but I see no need to brag about this. I generally find that those who boast of high IQs are insecure. Jones seems to confirm that. She is so insecure that she can't trust her own inner resources. She has to have a crutch to lean on.

Till(1):
I continue to suspect that her "atheism" was really just a state or condition of being "unchurched," but if she really was an atheist, her conversion was no great loss. The last thing that atheism needs is someone who can't think critically.

Jones:
I can only imagine you at the pulpit, pointing that finger in every direction but you. Ditto.

Till:
This shows how little Jones knows about fundamentalists. Their preachers tend to be the kind who extol their own unworthiness as examples of what Jesus can do for the worthless. I tended to fall into the category of those who emphasized this unfortunate aspect of Christianity, because I believed that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, and the New Testament teaches one to wallow in feelings of guilt and inferiority.

At any rate, I doubt that Jones can point to her own humility as a model for others to follow. Humbleness would require her to stop talking about her IQ, and I doubt that she could do that.