Take Me Off Your List...
I don't know where you got my name, but drop it off your list. I do not appreciate your literature, which I believe is inspired by Satan, that old anti Christ [sic] himself. Very evident and confirmed by 1 John chapter 4.
Do not send anymore, because it ends up in the trash, where it belongs.
(John Gramm, P. O. Box 456, Gridley, IL 61744)
EDITOR'S NOTE: As I have noted many times in comments on letters like this one, Christians live by a double standard. Probably no religious group imposes more literature on others than Christians. They go door to door, and they put tracts on car windshields, on bulletin boards, in shopping centers, in rest rooms, and anywhere else that they think affords them the opportunity to spread their doctrinal absurdities, yet many of them will react as Mr. Gramm did when literature that opposes their beliefs is given to them. They want the right to press their opinions on others, but they don't want others to have the same privilege. Mr. Gramm received The Skeptical Review at the request of a friend. After Mr. Gramm's letter was received, I had a phone conversation with the friend who had asked me to send TSR to Gramm, and the conversation confirmed my suspicion that Gramm is probably a typical Christian in that he wants others to read his literature. During the conversation, this person referred to Gramm as "my former friend," so perhaps Mr. Gramm will want to take note of that. If he expects the right to communicate his religious beliefs to his friends, he should extend to them the same privilege if he expects to retain their friendship.
The shallowness of Gramm's comments was typical. He considers 1 John 4 to be confirmation of the existence of an anti-Christ, and so we see that Gramm is only another Christian who thinks that the mere citation of a scripture constitutes proof of his religious position. That's too pathetic to deserve additional comment.
A Complaint from England...
I'm returning your literature because I think you should be told that the way in which I was "given" it wasn't correct. I'm a Christian, who had a little artistic display on Noah's ark at a local library in England.
Everyone has the right to believe what they [sic] choose to believe and support. My complaint to you is how one of your supporters "invaded" my display like an immboceil [sic], a really pathetic act like an immature child. So an eye for an eye, you can have your literature back, I could have thrown it in the bin but I wouldn't be bothered.
Where are your values in "playing it by the book"? If your supporters didn't like seeing an exhibition on Noah's ark, why didn't they book themselves a display on what they believe in--do their own display?
How low will you stoop?
(Jennifer Cowin, no address given)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter arrived with a postmark from Liverpool, England, but no return address. With the letter were copies of some articles that had been copied from Douglas E. Krueger's web page, which has republished with my permission some articles from The Skeptical Review. The articles were the 1997 series on family values and "Jacob an Old Geezer?" from the November/December 1996 issue. I, of course, have no idea who may have left these articles at Ms. Cowin's display, but I do have some opinions about her complaint.
First, she shows that she is just another Christian who wants the right to publicize her beliefs but objects to those with opposing views who exercise the same right. In all probability, the library that she referred to is a public institution funded by tax money, so she evidently thinks that it is appropriate for taxpayers to subsidize her religious beliefs. I heartily disagree with this view, but it is one that has become deeply ingrained both here and abroad. If Ms. Cowin wants to exhibit an artistic display about an absurd biblical story, she should have the right to do it, but she should be willing to do so at her own expense and not expect to be subsidized by public tax money.
Another interesting thing about her letter, which further confirms that Ms. Cowin seems to think that British taxpayers should subsidize her religious beliefs, was that the letter came to me without any postage affixed. Under my name in the address, she had written FREEPOST, and the same was written in the upper righthand corner where postage stamps are normally put, so this little bundle apparently came to me all the way from England by airmail at no expense to Ms. Cowin. The cost of mailing was paid by the taxpayers of England and the United States. I'm not familiar with whatever English postal regulation entitled Ms. Cowin to send her package in this way, but if any subscribers in the United Kingdom read this column, I would appreciate any information that you could give to me about "freepost" rights in England. I have taken the envelope to the local postmaster and requested an investigation of this matter. If any postal laws were violated, I would like to see the matter pursued both here and in England.
At the end of her letter, she asked how low I will stoop, and I have an answer to her question. I will not stoop so low as to send semi-anonymous complaints to people whom I disagree with. When I make such complaints, I put not only my name on my letters but also my mailing address. Ms. Cowin is apparently too insecure in her beliefs to allow me the opportunity to respond directly to her complaint. Furthermore, if I wanted to complain to someone through the mail, I would pay the cost myself and not expect taxpayers to bear the expense for me.
Observations about the Daniel Series...
I confine myself mostly to developing new books and booklets in the fight against fundamentalist nonsense and its twin, creation science, and my schedule is full. I can barely imagine the work that goes into keeping TSR a topnotch periodical. You have done an outstanding job! Every bit of praise you receive from your readers is deserved, and I enjoy hearing from them almost as much as you do.
A couple of points can be added to your fine installment on Daniel. First, Belshazzar was never a king, though clearly depicted as such in the Bible. Certain ceremonies could not be held because only the legitimate king could hold them, and Nabonidus was away for some years. Several sources report that Nabonidus had returned a few months before the final defeat--only to die in a brief battle not far from Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar was not only never a real king, but the main defeat of Babylonia did not involve him as suggested by the Bible. His capture was more of a mop-up operation, in part because of Nabonidus' prior defeat in the field and because the populace of Babylon saw no point in putting up resistance. Indeed, they may have preferred Cyrus to their own government! I gather that Nabonidus was not very popular.
Second, even if we were to take away all those fine points you made about Belshazzar not being the son of Nebuchadnezzar, you would still have the better argument! Proper translation demands that we stick with the most common meaning for a word unless driven to secondary meanings by force of evidence. It doesn't matter that father or son might have 16 different meanings. The obvious meaning (the common meaning) for each must be used in a good translation unless the context clearly points to a secondary meaning. Anyone who reads the passages you presented, assuming at least average intelligence, can see for himself that there is hardly a hint for any other meaning. Clearly, father means father in the usual sense; son means son in the usual sense. There is no conflict with the context in reading it that way, and that is how it must be read. There is no escape--short of violating the principles of good translation.
Dave Matson, Editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P.O. 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The principle of literary interpretation that Matson explained in his last paragraph is taught in both hermeneutics and literary interpretation courses. Inerrantists like Everette Hatcher ignore it only because acceptance of it will force them to admit that the writer of Daniel made a historical error in referring to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar as father and son.
Hovind-Till Debate...
My wife and I once viewed the Hovind-Till debate and we were surprised at how Hovind almost completely ignored the topic of the debate, which was the Genesis Flood. While you remained focused on the flood account, he continually expounded upon the flaws of evolution. We have found that Hovind is like many fundamental Christians in that he simply can not focus on any particular issue. By briefly touching upon a plethora of subjects, such individuals are basically freed of going into the details of those subjects. That saying "the devil is in the details" has some truth in that these people view reality as the devil.
(Christopher Boyce, 92-9 Chinkapin Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655; e-mail orca@shentel.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: What Mr. Boyce called "touching upon a plethora of subjects" is a typical debating strategy used by creationists and fundamentalists. Debaters call it "stacking" or "packing," which is the tactic of filling speeches with unsupported assertions and generalizations that a creationist or biblical fundamentalist knows that an audience that is predominantly Christian will be willing to accept without evidence to support it. A theistic debater who asserts that design in the universe proves that there is a great designer knows that most of his audience will accept this claim without supporting evidence, and so he can say this and quickly go on to another assertion and then another and then another. In the space of 30 minutes such a speaker can "stack" or "pack" into his speech 20 or 30 such assertions, any one of which his opponent would need several minutes to refute. When the opponent fails to address all such assertions, which will inevitably happen, the creationist/fundamentalist will complain that his "arguments" are not being answered.
I have yet to debate an opponent who did not use this tactic to some degree. In the space of just 20 minutes, for example, Dr. Norman Geisler put over 20 unsupported assertions into his first speech at our debate at Columbus (Georgia) College in 1994 and then predictably complained that I had not "addressed" most of his "lines of evidence." Since Geisler read previously prepared manuscripts every time he spoke, he had to have put this comment into his speech before the debate had even begun. In other words, Geisler knew that this was a complaint that he could make, because he knew that I would not be able in just 20 minutes to respond to over 20 unsupported assertions. He knew too that a predominantly Christian audience would not complain that he had not really proven any of his assertions. After all, how many Christians bother to ask for evidence before they become Christians? If it were in the nature of Christians to insist upon evidence, they wouldn't be Christians in the first place.
To control "stacking" in debates I participate in, I have adopted a policy of demanding a rule that will limit the affirmant of a proposition to just one argument per speech. In such a format, the affirmant may present as much supporting material as he wants to within an allotted time, but if he does not use that time, he must yield the floor to his opponent without beginning a new argument. The negative speaker in turn will respond only to this one argument within the specified time or else yield the floor back to his opponent. I have found no one who will agree to this type of format, so obviously those on the side of theism and biblicism want to retain the right to bombard their opponents with more assertions than they can possibly respond to.
Was Hatcher Misrepresented?
Having been quite impressed with your work (especially your humor and fairness) for several years now, I feel compelled to call your attention to two instances where you have written inaccurately about claims made by Everette Hatcher. And please understand that my views on religion are the same as yours and thus in diametric opposition to those of Mr. Hatcher.
(1) TSR, March/April 1998, p. 7, you accuse Hatcher of misrepresenting the views of Norman Porteous by claiming Porteous as an advocate of 6th century BCE authorship of Daniel, ^but^ on p. 2 (middle column) Hatcher calls Porteous a "Bible critic" who questions only one small item about Daniel. Hatcher has never tried to pass Porteous off as anything other than a proponent of the 2nd century BCE authorship view.
(2) TSR, July/August 1998, p. 14, you again accuse Hatcher of purposely leaving the impression that certain scholars favor the 6th century BCE view. Knowing Everette Hatcher as I do, I can state unequivocally that he is intellectually honest and would do no such thing. Hatcher respects your scholarship and broad knowledge of the Bible and has stated these views to me on three different occasions.
Please continue your instructive work.
(John George, College of Liberal Arts, University of Central Oklahoma, Department of Political Science, 100 North University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034-5209)
EDITOR'S NOTE: In the June/July 1998 issue, I explained that Everette Hatcher had informed me during a phone conversation that I had misunderstood his intentions, because he was not trying "to leave the impression that scholars like H. H. Rowley, Samuel Driver, and Norman Porteous were advocates of a 6th-century B. C. authorship of Daniel" but was claiming only that they "had made some admissions that were damaging to their position that this book was written in the 2nd century B. C., during the Maccabean era" (p. 6). I went on to say that after having reread Hatcher's article, I had noticed some sections "that could be so interpreted." I noted, however, that Hatcher did at other times leave the impression that "these scholars were on his side" but that I was "willing to take his word for it" if he claimed that his intention was not to misrepresent. That issue, then, has already been settled, but I do think that in future articles, Hatcher should be more careful in his citation of authorities. One thing that he may want to keep in mind is that it isn't a good idea to quote just a brief fragment of an author's statement, without giving the full context of the statement, especially when the full context would clearly show a position that is contrary to the one that is being argued. This tactic is so widespread in the literature of biblical fundamentalism that an apologist with honest intentions who quotes only fragments and snatches from his sources will run the risk of having his readers assume that they are seeing just another inerrantist attempt to misrepresent.
Even Hatcher should realize this risk, because he has sent to me articles and published letters that he has written to biblical fundamentalists like Tim LaHaye and Dr. James Kennedy in which he took them to task for quoting out of context and even falsifying quotations in efforts to make Bible-believing Christians out of so-called "founding fathers" like George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. He should be aware, then, of the danger of being misunderstood when fragmented quotations are lifted from a larger context as support for a position that the quoted author does not himself defend.
My contacts with Professor John George and Everette Hatcher since the discussions of the book of Daniel began have altered significantly my opinion of Mr. Hatcher. I have seen enough of his letters to biblical fundamentalists to see that even though he is himself a biblical inerrantist, he deplores the dishonest methods that many inerrantists use in defense of their positions. What I have seen has, in fact, given me hope that Hatcher may some day see that biblical inerrancy is a position that cannot be sustained even by honest methods of argumentation. The recognition that there is no real evidence to support their position is probably why so many inerrantists resort to dishonest apologetic methods.
Although the religious beliefs of the so-called founding fathers is not an issue that TSR discusses, I will take the time to mention that Everette Hatcher sent to me an excellent manuscript ("Misquotes, Fake Quotes, and Disputed Quotes of the Founders") on the subject. It exposes the misrepresentations and distortions found in the works of Christian fundamentalists who are trying hard to make their readers believe that men like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, etc. were zealous, Bible-believing Christians. Those interested in seeing the manuscript should contact Hatcher at P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221.
I have also learned that Hatcher and Professor George have worked together on this issue and that George and Paul Boller, Jr., co-authored *They Never Said It,* a book published by Oxford University Press, which exposes many misquotations that Christian fundamentalists, in their zeal to make the United States a nation founded on biblical principles, have attributed to the "founding fathers." Paul F. Boller, Jr., is a historian at Texas Christian University, whose book George Washington & Religion (Southern University Press, 1963) demolished the myth that Washington was a devout Christian.
Expiration Notices....
I have no idea whether my subscription has expired or not since your publication comes out so infrequently. Would it be too much trouble for you to add the expiration date on the address label so that we will know when to expect a renewal date?
(John C. Parker, 244 Williams Street, Meriden, CT 06450-4515)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The expiration date is printed on address labels and has been for two years. The back page of each issue has had a notice entitled "Check Your Address Label." The notice on page 11 of this issue explains that if 6-98 is printed on your label, then this will be the last issue in your current subscription. In the past, I have also published notices to explain how to interpret the numbers on the label. The last two numbers are the year of publication, and the first number, which will always range from 1 to 6, is the number of the issue within that year of publication. Hence, 6-98 means that the subscription expires with the 6th issue of 1998, which is the issue you are reading, 2-99 would mean that the subscription expires with the second issue of 1999, and 3-00 would mean that the subscription expires with the 3rd issue of 2000 (if I last that long).
As for the frequency of publication, TSR is published bimonthly, and the scheduled mailing dates are the first weeks of January, March, May, July, September, and November. Although a few issues have been mailed late, TSR almost always goes out on schedule.
Pure Violence and Smut...
The letter from Reynolds Jones in the September/October edition of The Skeptical Review baffles me. He admits the bible is not inerrant, or even inspired, yet he still thinks it's sacred.
Jones realizes that the book is neither perfect historically or philosophically and that it's not internally tangent. He even refers to the "outrageous" scriptures and says the document is a human one. Jones realizes that we atheists are as moral as Christians are. He also appears to see how the bible was concocted to fit the dogmas that were already determined. As my poem says, "The silly dogmas they already had in mind."
Indeed, Mr. Jones sees that fundamentalists actually idolize the bible, and he understands that even the prophecies of Jesus weren't always fulfilled. For example, he told his followers that they would not die before he returned to earth, yet, realizing all these things about the bible on which Christianity is based, Mr. Jones says he still is active in church and attends Eucharist regularly. How can Mr. Jones realize all those other things and not know that the Eucharist, known by ancients as "eating the god," was stolen from other, much older religions. The ancient idea was that by eating the flesh of a particular god, a follower was able to take on the attributes of that god.
Mr. Jones speaks of his hope that all Christians will leave damaging anachronisms behind and together build "a just and all-embracing community" that takes pro-active stances on the issues of the next century, such as science and human and animal rights.
My response to that is dream on, Mr. Jones. That "sacred" book, the bible, is a conglomerate book of blood-drenched atrocity. It considers women unclean and subhuman. It calls for death for everything from getting raped in the city to eating blood, and 10,000 things in between. The book calls for war after war in which the men are killed and their foreskins collected, women and their children are killed, and only virgins are kept alive as sexual booty. It calls for death of homosexuals.
The bible is pure violence and smut. The so-called ten commandments have no mention of prohibiting rape, child abuse, unkindness, wife-beating, torture, etc. Just don't covet. Sacred, you say? Nonsense!
(Dr. Dorothy B. Thompson, P. O. Box 562, Bandon, OR 97411)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I too can't understand why people who see the obvious myths and superstitions in the Bible would continue the churchgoing habit. I suspect that this is done primarily to socialize rather than to worship a god whose existence is very much in question. One of the failings of skepticism/atheism is that it provides no comparable opportunity for socialization, but we are probably too scattered, and certainly too unorganized to do so.
Some readers may remember seeing examples of Dr. Thompson's religious satire in poetic form that has been published in the mailbag column and other freethought papers. I have just received a complimentary copy of a booklet of her poetry. Those interested in this type of freethought literature should contact Leland W. Ruble at 833 Orchard Street, Toledo, OH 43609.
A Familiar Story...
As a former fundamentalist Christian turned skeptic, I continue debating and talking to my Christian friends and family. When I present to them reasons for my unbelief, they will invariably evade these reasons and postulate that some internal condition is to blame for my current skepticism. In other words, they will accuse me of being angry with God because he's not who I want him to be, or they will say I never truly understood what salvation, i. e., being "born again," means, or they will claim that in the past I had some bad experiences that turned me away from God. In most cases, this evasion is not purposeful, nor is it maliciously done; instead, I believe that these people just cannot accept that someone actually left the faith because of a rational examination of the claims of the Bible.
Others accuse me of leaving God because I harbored sin in my life, or they theorize that I've allowed myself to be "brainwashed" by "the world" because I was not grounded firmly enough in the Bible and in fellowship with God's people. Such evasions exasperate me, especially when I try to redirect the topic back to my rational objections to the inerrancy of the Bible. Most fundamentalist Christians just do not want to be bothered with the facts.
My more intellectual Christian friends (who insist they are not fundamentalist but evangelical) try to "counsel" me to open my heart to God, give him my anger and doubt, and he will open my eyes. "Seek and ye shall find," they firmly believe, and God will finally touch my heart. But they insist I've got to rid myself of my anger and pride first.
Few of these people, no matter how intelligent, can imagine a life outside Christianity. That is why they continually insist that the problem must be within me. But realizing how much better my life has been since I cast off the chains of dogma, I continue to try to persuade my Christian friends and family to listen and honestly think about the issues I raise.
That is why I am writing this letter to you. I am requesting first-year subscriptions to The Skeptical Review for two of my friends whom I believe may be open to critical thought. Both are in the ministry and both are committed bibliolaters. (I have their names and addresses listed below.) Because I believe so firmly in your work, I wish to pay for their first-year subscriptions. You have my permission to let them know I requested these subscriptions.
I also would like to purchase the videotape of the Till-Dobbs Debate. Enclosed is [a check] for the subscriptions and the tape. You have my permission to apply anything left over to other free subscriptions, overhead, etc.
(Mark Wenneborg, 2729 South Fourth Street, Apt. A, Springfield, IL 62703; e-mail, lunadrach@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Probably any ex-Christian reader who has tried to discuss the Bible with friends and relatives who are still believers could have written this letter, because it tells an all-too-familiar story. It sounded just like a page out of my own past. I don't know how many times people have asked me what terrible thing happened that made me hate God (as if I could hate something that I don't believe even exists), or why I don't open my heart and let God lead me back to the truth. The fact is that nothing "terrible" has ever happened to me. My grandfathers died not long after my "conversion," but they were both 75 at the time, so there was no reason to consider their deaths as horrible tragedies. My father died much younger, but at the time, I had already decided that the Bible was not at all what I had grown up believing. I have had a life rather free of events that could be called tragedies, yet friends and associates of mine who remain Christians seem convinced that something "terrible" happened that I am not being honest about. As Mr. Wenneborg noted above, people with this mindset just can't accept the possibility that a person would rationally examine the Bible and conclude that it is not "the inspired word of God," and so they have to find some way to explain people like Wenneborg and me. Thus, they conclude that we have experienced some untold tragedy or disappointment or that we were unable to live up to the standards of biblical morality, and so we claim not to believe the Bible in order to have some justification for living "ungodly lives."
I was glad that Mr. Wenneborg agreed to let me inform his friends that he requested the subscriptions to TSR that they will receive. Many times, Christians who are added to the mailing list at the request of friends who want them to read TSR will write or call in anger demanding that their names be removed. Those who know that friends or acquaintances made the requests on their behalf are less likely to do this.
Another Reaction to Archer's Letter...
This is just a note to tell you that I received another issue of The Skeptical Review, and I want to thank you because I enjoy it very much. Your arguments are sound, your knowledge of the subject is astounding and it is always a relief to be reminded that there is nothing wrong with me just because that book doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make any sense.
I particularly wanted to comment on that message from Gleason Archer. You are obviously a very honest person who works hard to help other people come to an understanding of the world. I admire that in you and you do a very good job. Thanks again for the help that you provide many people and I hope to support your activities by encouraging you and by providing what information I can to help other people.
(Lisa Star, P. O. Box 428, Glen Echo, MD 20812-0428; e-mail, LisaStar@earthling.net)
Textual Criticism & Primary Colors...
I just reread the "Primary Colors" article in the July/August issue of TSR, and it occurred to me that there is perhaps an even better example of "literary sleuthing" that could be illustrated. That would be the case of the Unabomber. When the Unabomber's manifesto was printed in the Washington Post, it was read by the younger brother of Theodore Kaczynski. After comparing the manifesto to an assortment of Ted Kaczynski's old college essays and other writings, he found compelling similarities in both theme and word usage, so compelling, in fact, that he used his own money to finance a private investigation and later reported his hunch to the FBI. The end result, as we all know, was the arrest of Theodore Kaczynski. All this from the art of textual analysis! Could any Christian now say that this is a fringe or invalid science?
An interesting footnote to this, by the way, is that the Unabomb task force in the FBI wanted the document published just as much as the Unabomber did. They hoped that someone would recognize some of the Unabomber's quirky sentence structuring and repetitive "anti-technology" themes as familiar. Their theory, and their faith in "textual fingerprinting," paid off quite well.
I also have a question that I was hoping you could answer. I have just read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine for the first time. In it, he claims that the word "prophet," when used throughout the Bible, is a mistranslation which should read "poet" in almost all cases. This makes sense, and would be delightful if true, but Paine doesn't indicate how he knows this. Since I've never seen this claim discussed before, I hoped you may know something about it and could back up Paine's statement.
Thank you, and keep up the excellent work.
(Chad Kelly, P.O. Box 183 Greenwell Springs, LA 70739-0183; e-mail, constat@ibm.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The case of the unabomber is an excellent
example
of the reliability of "literary sleuthing," so those who dismiss
textual
criticism of the Bible as just liberal efforts to discredit the "word
of
God" have their heads in the sand. The validity of the methods used by
textual critics is widely recognized, and even biblicists will use them
when it is to their advantage to do so. Different terms were used in
the
Old Testament to designate "prophet," but the most commonly used one
was
nabi, which lexicons define as a word derived from a root that
meant
"to call," and so a prophet was "one who was called." The term didn't
actually denote the idea of "prediction," but since those who were
"called" (prophets) so often engaged in predicting what would "come to
pass," the word came to be associated with foretelling the future. Many
of the prophets wrote in poetic form, and so maybe this is why Paine
considered them poets.
