Mr. Till now proposes that "it is entirely reasonable to think that at least some people who have firm convictions that the Bible is the `inspired word of God' will read such stuff as this and think that it is God's will for them to behave accordingly." This is an example of the "maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps" reasoning that one finds skeptics making in their efforts to denigrate the Bible when they cannot twist the Bible to say what they want.
It is certainly possible for any person to read any document and slice statements out of context because it suits their purposes. Such people typically have no interest in the document itself, and they extract only those parts that can be fit into their personal agendas. It happens despite Till's denials, and it happens with respect to the Bible. When people do these things, there is no logical basis to conclude that such people are influenced by what they have read. We stand on more solid ground if we theorize that such people act in their own self-interest and use the document to promote that interest.
Skeptics, like Till, are even known for doing this. They cite Biblical verses out of context to create the illusion that the Bible is slanted in one direction or another. For example, in his article, Till again trumpets those verses in the Bible about witches and homosexuals as if, carved out of their context, these verses capture the essence of the Scriptures. They do not. Till laments my failure to address his pious citations of Biblical verses. In doing this, he reveals that he misunderstands his own argument. I accept the historical accuracy of the Bible and agree that it says that God instructed Israel to destroy pagan nations. I also freely acknowledge that the Bible condemns the actions of witches and homosexuals. However, Till did not question the historical accuracy of the Bible but instead theorized a linkage between what the Bible says and the actions of radical elements in society. Till, apparently, has difficulty remembering his own arguments. Regardless, the mere citation of Biblical verses is not sufficient to establish the linkage he sought.
The Bible condemns evil. Within that context, it condemns various forms of evil including sexual immorality. Thus, it should not be surprising to Till and other skeptics that different forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality, are specifically identified and condemned. However, Till's implication that the Bible uniquely condemns homosexuality above all other forms of sexual immorality, including, for example, what President Clinton does with interns, is blatantly misleading. Perhaps he does it because he can find no logical argument with which to advance his opinion that evidence will support.
In the same manner, the Bible describes Israel as a society that was to be built on a foundation of submission to God. Consequently, it should not be surprising that, within that context, all those who advocate idol worship and disobedience to God, such as witches, are condemned. The Bible does not single out witches for special punishment but includes witches among those who are to be similarly punished for promoting idol worship.
Despite this, we find Till excising verses that speak of witches and homosexuality and claiming that they exert some mystical power over people even though this is inconsistent with the context in which the verses are found. I then pointed out that such verses can be easily abused by people who are pursuing a personal agenda against homosexuals or witches. It is one thing to hate someone for personal reasons as this is contrary to Biblical teaching. Seeing that a person is doing wrong and then seeking to limit that person's influence over the innocent is a different matter and entirely consistent with Biblical teaching. Till seems unable to grasp this simple distinction. Thus, he offers hyperbole rather than argument to make his case.
Mr. Till has personal opinions about Christianity and the Bible. While he has a good deal of knowledge about what the Bible says, he often fails to understand what he reads. We find that he develops conclusions that he seeks to "prove" by pulling verses from the Bible, separating them from their context, and weaving them together in a way that allows him to reach the conclusion he had intended to reach all along. His conclusion that the Bible is to blame for the actions of people like Fred Phelps is an example.
That Till argues by misrepresenting what he reads can be readily shown. One need only read what he claimed I said in my earlier article and compare that to what I actually wrote. For example, he has me labeling, as skeptics, those responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia. He then takes off on a rampage seeking to prove that they were not skeptics. He finally and piously concludes that I cannot prove that they were skeptics. His tirade was nothing more than a rabbit trail that had nothing to do with my comments or his original argument.
In doing this, Till was unable to understand a very simple line of reasoning. By using the examples of Cambodia and Russia, I was able to show very clearly that great atrocities have been committed in places and under circumstances that cannot be linked to Christianity. Till's whole premise that Christianity should be blamed for the activities of radical elements in society is thereby shown to be bogus since these very same things, and worse, happen in societies where Christianity cannot be cited as the cause. A very simple argument confounded Till.
In another case, Till created a straw man that even he would be able to knock down. He framed my argument as: (1) people committed atrocities; (2) they did not believe the Bible; consequently (3), they were motivated by their lack of belief in the Bible. Till committed a very simple logical error. The proper logic here is that people who do not believe the Bible cannot be motivated by the Bible to commit atrocities. The central issue raised by Till builds on what people believe; not their lack of belief.
Remember, Till's basic fantasy is that Christianity is to blame for all kinds of evil. The counter argument is that all kinds of evil occur in the absence of Christianity. Consequently, if evil occurs in the absence of Christianity, how can we accept Till's argument that Christianity must be the cause of evil just because the two may, by coincidence, be found together?
We also find that Till does not take kindly to people who argue as he does. As he often does, he gets on his hobby horse and decries those who say that we must define a "real" Christian. Then within a few paragraphs, he argues that I had misused the term, "skeptic," so that it was necessary to define a "true" skeptic.
Many skeptics seem to think that any person who goes to church is a Christian. In the Mailbag section of the same issue of TSR, one writer ended by saying, "My life as a religionist was one of fear, guilt, subjection, and misery, but life as an atheist is peaceful, happy, exciting, and confident." Very properly, this person labeled herself as a "religionist." Till, in his comments, blunders by referring to the person as a Christian. One would think that Mr. Till, with his educational background and religious experiences, would be able to differentiate between the two. Apparently he is not.
Mr. Till also mocks the idea that I should claim "to know what the personal beliefs and intentions of people like Fred Phelps really are." He quotes me as saying that Phelps "has always personally hated homosexuals." That is not exactly what I said, but it is pretty close for a skeptic, so why quibble. What is interesting is that he then turns around and devotes half of his article to expounding on the true motivations of people. Such are the ways of skeptics, it seems.
Till's reference to inquisitions and other persecutions adds nothing to his argument. One can hypothesize a casual relationship between the Bible and Christianity and certain people involved in these events but that does not prove a causal relationship. The witch trials in late 17th century Massachusetts do not seem much different to me than the persecution of day care providers in late 20th century Massachusetts. Each was marked by hysteria and wild accusations. To make Christianity the common denominator in these events or in one or the other just because one finds a casual association is ludicrous. That Till does so reveals some ineptness on his part in conducting a competent investigation.
Of skeptics such as Till, it could be said that they are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Mr. Till's original article was nothing more than a personal opinion driven by an aversion to Christianity. He left religion but apparently cannot stop preaching.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring,
MD 20902; e-mail: RHutchin@AOL.com)
