things about stuff

RSS Archive

by Ryan L.

Whether we like it or not, we have insufficient evidence to reasonably believe that God is real. But life, love, family, friends, forgiveness, compassion, nature, creativity, art, science, thoughtfulness, companionship, empathy, altruism, intimacy, happiness, contentment—these are all real, and we can experience them, whether or not God exists.

Being born into a Seventh-day Adventist home and raised as an elder's son, I believed my family's religion to be true. I have since shed the faith. This blog explores issues more or less related to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Note: This is my personal blog, not related to work.

—> Ask me anything

May 1, 2013

Love on Judgment Day

I recently recorded a song and made a little video for it.

Here are the lyrics:

Rachel’s not sure but she is silent, she’s silent
She has her doubts but it is too much to tell them
What will they think, should she keep silent, she’s silent
Or be condemned and burned with fire and brimstone

She tried not to feel but now it’s too much to ignore
Though she’s been taught that it is sinful to explore
The stories taught to her since childhood depended
On where and when she was born

Now Heather’s gained her trust, she knows that this feels right
She’s dying to tell the world their beautiful secret
But Rachel’s family is too closed for discourse
Uneducated and clinging tight to their religion

It makes no sense to her ‘cause who does their love hurt?
Why can’t they put themselves in her shoes for a change?
No matter what they think, it’s R & H until the end
Fully committed to this beautiful abomination

I will love you, that won’t change
I will love you on judgment day

I came out to my family
They said I’m horrible and disowned me
And as they cast the first stone at their own daughter
Those hypocrites held up the Bible
But they’re ignorant of its history
And they’re ignorant of what you mean to me

They can’t tell what’s right from wrong
They can’t tell us who to love

While writing this song, I put myself in the shoes of a lesbian who comes out to her family and gets disowned by her religious parents.

I gained much inspiration from Dana, who was actually disowned by her parents after coming out as a lesbian, though she’s indicated that her parents aren’t overly religious. On her blog, she writes:

The last thing my mother ever said to me was that I was a horrible person… . What kind of terrible monster must I be that my own parents would disown me? Murderers and rapists and child molesters in prison have mothers and fathers who visit and write and call. I must be more evil than they.

James also provided me with inspiration. He was disowned by his religious dad after coming out as gay. He posted his dad’s farewell letter:

It reads:

James: This is a difficult but necessary letter to write.

I hope your telephone call was not to receive my blessing for the degrading of your lifestyle. I have fond memories of our time together, but that is all in the past.

Don’t expect any further conversations with me. No communications at all. I will not come to visit, nor do I want you in my house.

You’ve made your choice though wrong it may be. God did not intend for this unnatural lifestyle.

If you choose not to attend my funeral, my friends and family will understand.

Have a good birthday and good life. No present exchanges will be accepted.

Goodbye,

Dad

In his blog, Eliel Cruz, a courageous student at Andrews University—a Seventh-day Adventist school—details how the Seventh-day Adventist Church creates a hostile environment for LGBTQ individuals. His observations are based on first-hand experience, since he is a Seventh-day Adventist who has come out as a bisexual. He writes:

There is something about the Seventh-day Adventists official stance on homosexuality that has led its pastors and church members to believe that the way we as Christians have interacted with LGBT is acceptable. That is, that singling out LGBT people for ostracization, marginalization and condemnation is OK — even a Christian duty.

He backs this claim up with many examples. A look at the Church’s official stance reveals why this is the case.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Official Stance

The Seventh-day Adventist Church released an official statement, approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee on October 17, 2012, confirming their opposition to same-sex marriage. Here are some excerpts:

We reaffirm, without hesitation, our long-standing position as expressed in the Church’s Fundamental Beliefs.

The monogamous union in marriage of a man and a woman is … the only morally appropriate locus of genital or related intimate sexual expression… . Any lowering of this high view is to that extent a lowering of the heavenly ideal.

Homosexuality is a manifestation of the disturbance and brokenness in human inclinations and relations caused by the entrance of sin into the world.

So it’s easy to see why LGBT individuals are stigmatized in the Seventh-day Adventist community.

Morals from the Bible: Refutation by Reductio ad Absurdum

To justify its stance, the Seventh-day Adventist Church quotes Bible verses. I used to be a Seventh-day Adventist. And I used to look to the Bible for moral guidance. It doesn’t work. It leads to perverse outcomes.

If you believe the Bible to be infallible—as the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially does—and you claim that morals are determined by the God of the Bible, then you are committed to believing that God’s commands in the Bible were moral, at least in the culture and historical context they were given. But this commitment leads to absurdity.

You would have to believe that it was moral to torture women to death on their father’s doorstep if “no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found” on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20–21). The Bible says that this was the direct command of “The Lord your God.”

You would also have to believe that slavery was moral back then. Straight from God’s mouth: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves” (Leviticus 25:44–46). He goes on to tell the Israelites that it’s okay to have slaves, as long as they’re not fellow Israelites.

You would also have to believe that it was moral to torture someone to death for picking up sticks on Saturday. As the story goes (Numbers 15:32–36):

[A] man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day… . the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

These three examples are just a tiny sampling of God’s many perverse moral commands as reported in the Bible. So you can see how getting morals from the commands in the Bible leads to absurdity.

Believers sometimes employ the excuse that those commands were moral in that particular culture and historical context, but they are no longer applicable today. That excuse simply does not fly with me. In what world is it okay to throw rocks at a woman until she dies simply because you couldn’t find proof of her virginity on her wedding night? Or to torture someone to death for picking up sticks on Saturday? Or to own slaves? To inflict such senseless suffering is psychopathic and morally outrageous in any culture. Personally, I don’t believe that those cruel and violent commands were ever moral in any cultural or historical context.

But if a believer wants to make the excuse that those commands found in the Bible were moral in that particular culture and historical context, but that they no longer apply to us today…great! In this case, the believer is admitting that there are exceptions to the commands in the Bible, due to cultural and historical context. If that is the case, then why not add the command against same-sex sexual relations to that list? It’s no longer applicable to us today.

Some believers argue that the Biblical commands against gay sex are still applicable today because the Bible is consistent on the issue, throughout both the Old and New Testament. But, through parallel reasoning, we can see that this argument is unsuccessful. The Bible is consistent on condoning slavery, throughout both the Old and New Testament (e.g. Leviticus 25:44–46, Ephesians 6:5–9). So in order to make that argument about gay sex, the believer must also accept that slavery is morally okay, which is clearly absurd.

The Bible and Bigotry

Supporting bigotry through the use of Bible verses is nothing new. Historically, Christians have used Bible verses to justify slavery (see God’s slavery speech), but society has progressed past that, and Christianity had to play catch-up. Similarly, sexism has been—and is being—justified through the use of Bible verses. For example, here’s a verse that blames women for the fall of all humans (1 Timothy 2:11–15a):

A woman should learn in quietness full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing …

Note that the Seventh-day Adventist Church officially does not permit females to be ordained. This makes no sense to me, since I don’t see how having a penis is relevant to the work of an ordained minister. It appears that the Church is using Bible verses to support bigotry on this issue as well. But much of the rest of society is progressing past this, and fortunately some Christian sects are playing catch-up.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is using Bible verses to justify bigotry. Instead, let’s use evenhanded reasoning to condemn bigotry.

Morals are Independent of Any God that Might Exist

Above, I’ve explained why it would be absurd to claim that all commands in the Bible are moral. The only way to continue to use the Bible for morals (if you insist on doing so) is to determine, by some standard, which commands are still applicable today and which ones aren’t. Rather than picking out specific commands, it makes more sense to accept a general guiding principle that can be used to determine which commands are good and which ones “aren’t applicable today.” This principle can even be taken from the Bible, if it’s in there—and I think some version of it is. Namely: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” If a command does not follow this principle, such as the three examples in the section above, then it can be dismissed. That seems like a pretty good guiding principle to me.

Some believers, such as C.S. Lewis, argue that morals can only exist if a god exists to determine what’s right and what’s wrong. However, if a god is determining what is moral, there must be some reason that the god places some things in the “right” pile and others in the “wrong” pile. There must be some guiding principle. Otherwise, it would just be arbitrary, and if the god said that murder and rape was right, it would be right…but we can see that that’s absurd. And if you say, “God would never say that rape was right,” then you’re tacitly acknowledging that there’s some reason, or some guiding principle, that the god appeals to in order to determine what to place in the “right” pile and what to place in the “wrong pile.” So if there is a god determining what’s right and wrong, there must be some sort of reason or guiding principle to it. In that case, the god is unnecessary because we can appeal directly to the reason or guiding principle that the god is appealing to. The existence or non-existence of the god would not change what’s right and what’s wrong.

This demonstrates that any morals that exist would be independent of any god that may exist. What we need to be looking for is the reason behind the morals, or the guiding principle.

A Guiding Moral Principle

Once we’ve settled on a reason or a guiding principle to determine what’s right and what’s wrong, we can determine whether same-sex sexual relations fall into the “wrong” category; if not, then the Church’s official stance is unjustified.

Above, I’ve suggested a principle that can be found in the Bible: love your neighbour as yourself. This seems like a good guiding principle that I think most reasonable believers can accept. Personally, I think a good guiding principle is: avoid causing unnecessary suffering. According to this principle, the more unnecessary suffering an action causes, the less ethical it is. This is probably a principle that most people, whether religious or not, can agree on. Whichever of these two guiding principles we choose, we’ll end up with the same result regarding same-sex sexual relations.

Do same-sex sexual relations violate the principle to love your neighbour as yourself? No. Do same-sex sexual relations inherently cause more suffering than opposite-sex sexual relations? No. So it’s okay to be gay. I know of no reasonable guiding principle that would lead to the opposite conclusion.

Whether or Not It’s “Natural” is Morally Irrelevant

Sometimes discussions on this issue lead to arguments about whether it’s “natural” to be gay—whether there’s a “gay gene,” whether it’s a choice. (Note that James’s dad, in his farewell letter above, writes, “God did not intend for this unnatural lifestyle.”) In his book The Moral Animal, Robert Wright explains why this is morally irrelevant:

One reason some people are so concerned about the “gay gene” question is that they want to know if homosexuality is “natural,” a question that—to them, at least—seems to have moral consequence. They think it matters greatly whether (a) there is a gene (or combination of genes) conducive to homosexuality that indeed was selected by virtue of that effect; or (b) there is a gene (or combination of genes) conducive to homosexuality that was selected for some other reason but, in some environments, has the effect of encouraging homosexuality; or (c) there is a gene (or combination of genes) conducive to homosexuality that is a fairly recent arrival on the human scene and hasn’t yet gotten a strong endorsement from natural selection for any particular property; or (d) there is no “gay gene.”

But who cares? Why should the “naturalness” of homosexuality in any way affect our moral judgement of it? It is “natural,” in the sense of being “approved” by natural selection, for a man to kill someone he finds sleeping with his wife. Rape may, in the same sense, be “natural.” And seeing that your children are fed and clothed is surely “natural.” But most people rightly judge these things by their consequences, not their origins. What is plainly true about homosexuality is the following: (1) some people are born with a combination of genetic and environmental circumstance that impels them strongly toward a homosexual lifestyle; (2) there is no inherent contradiction between homosexuality among consenting adults and the welfare of other people. For moral purposes (I believe) that should be the end of the discussion.

Steven Pinker, in his book How the Mind Works, writes:

[A] chromosomal marker for homosexuality in some men, the so-called gay gene, was identified by the geneticist Dean Hamer… . The gay gene has been used to argue that homosexuality is not a choice for which gay people can be held responsible but an involuntary orientation they just can’t help. But the reasoning is dangerous. The gay gene could just as easily be said to influence some people to choose homosexuality. And like all good science, Hamer’s result might be falsified someday, and then where would we be? Conceding that bigotry against gay people is OK after all? The argument against persecuting gay people must be made not in terms of the gay gene or the gay brain but in terms of people’s right to engage in private consensual acts without discrimination or harassment.

Marriage: What the Bible Says

As I’ve explained above, it’s absurd to rely on the Bible for morals. But some people insist on doing so anyways. The Seventh-day Adventist Church claims that its official stance against same-sex marriage is based on the one-man-one-woman model of marriage presented in the Bible. But what does the Bible really say about marriage? Let’s turn to the biblical experts.

Jennifer Wright Knust, a professor of religion at Boston University and an ordained American Baptist pastor, has written a book entitled Unprotected Texts, which carefully analyzes what the Bible has to say about sex and marriage.

After 30 pages of analyzing the passages in the Bible that are relevant to biblical marriage, she concludes with the following paragraph:

In the end, Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and the Synoptic Gospels simply do not promote the same meanings and purposes for marriage. They certainly do not argue that marriage should be contracted between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation. Exodus and Deuteronomy assume that, given a chance, men will take multiple wives and have intercourse with as many of their slaves as they like. The Gospels do not promote procreation at all, but instead look forward to resurrection bodies that do not produce children. Moreover, though the laws recorded in Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, both books suggest that marriage is a property arrangement, designed to protect the interests of free Israelite men who are responsible for the women and slaves in their care. In the Genesis creation accounts, however, the emphasis is not on property but the importance of the fertility of both the land and the people created to till it. Female desire is therefore presented as a punishment guaranteeing both childbirth and the painful labor it entails. For Jesus and the Gospel writers, the primal androgyny of Genesis 1 could be achieved either through marriage or through the practice of celibacy. And yet Jesus’s teachings regarding marriage, celibacy, divorce, and re-marriage are presented quite differently in the Gospels. The evangelists agree that a choice for Jesus should override all other family obligations, but they do not agree regarding the permissibility of divorce and remarriage. Such a diverse body of teaching simply cannot be reconciled into a single statement summing up “God’s view of marriage,” let alone “God’s view of human sexuality.” The Bible provides no clear answer to questions like “Are you for or against gay marriage?”

So there is no consistent model of marriage presented in the Bible. Rather, there are several conflicting models of marriage, none of which specify that it must be between one man and one woman. I can’t copy and paste the entire 30 pages in this blog post, so I encourage you to pick up a copy of the book if you’re interested in reviewing the analysis.

Knust’s book has received much acclaim from leading biblical scholars. She is a biblical scholar who graduated with a doctorate in religion from Columbia University. Her specialty is in the literature and history of ancient Christianity. She has published in some of the most reputable academic journals of religion, including Harvard Theological Review, and received several fellowships and awards for her academic work. If you’re a Seventh-day Adventist who is dedicated to the Bible, her work at least deserves a little bit of consideration. It’s not reasonable to offhandedly dismiss her work, and the work of many other biblical scholars, simply because it does not agree with the Church’s official stance.

Conclusion

The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s official stance is unreasonable. In addition to defying reason, it creates stigma towards LGBTQ individuals. The Church needs to change its stance if it wants to do the right thing.

At the very least, I hope that the Seventh-day Adventists out there attempt to think for themselves. You don’t have to accept everything the Church says. In order to determine the Church’s official stance, a committee of people vote. These people aren’t infallible. Their interpretations of the Bible aren’t infallible. If you’re a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and you think that their official stance on this issue is misguided, I encourage you to do something about it. Don’t just sit there. Write to the General Conference and let them know why you think they’re misguided. If you don’t agree with the reasoning presented throughout this post, please specify why in the comments.

Facepalm Moments

The following are excerpts from an actual Facebook discussion I’ve had with a Seventh-day Adventist pastor:

Eventually, I responded with this to try to help him understand my point:

Here’s part of his response:

This pastor doesn’t get it.

A friend of mine—who was also raised in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but has since shed the faith—shared this article, which reports that the Student Life Committee at a Seventh-day Adventist post-secondary school denied a club official recognition because it promoted conversation about the acceptance of gays and lesbians. He wrote, “Makes me sad that I was once part of this.” Needless to say, I’m very proud of him for standing up for what’s right and for having the honesty and courage to leave the faith.

However, one of his Facebook friends responded to his post with this comment:

I responded with this:

She did not respond.

6:31pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxk0RnBx
(View comments)

(Notes: 1)

May 1, 2013

Fake Pearls Before Swine: A Private Conversation Disclosed

During an online discussion with some Seventh-day Adventists, two of which are pastors, one of them brought up a private conversation that three of them had participated in through private messages. Eventually, he copied and pasted the contents of the private conversation directly into the discussion thread.

After the private conversation had been disclosed, another one of the participants in the private conversation got defensive and asked him to delete it, and apparently gave him a guilt trip for posting it in the first place. Luckily, the conversation had been sent to my email because I had commented on the thread earlier, so I was able to repost it onto the thread.

I responded to some of what was written in the private messages, but the pastor who wrote it refused to address my response. Apparently he doesn’t think he’s responsible for what he wrote because it was intended for a private message.

So I thought I’d blog it.

Here is the private conversation, as reported by one of them on the discussion thread:

Here’s my response to the part that is outlined in red:

He completely ignored this on the thread, so I private messaged it to him and asked him to please respond. Instead of addressing my points, he responded by saying, “I felt no need to justify myself for what I said in a private conversation.”

Anyways, while they obsess over a sketchy interpretation of a Bible passage, which they think is a prophecy that there will be a National Sunday Law (a conspiracy theory originating within Seventh-day Adventism), the experts—the distinguished biblical scholars—interpret the passage while taking historical context into account (I’ve blogged about it here). It shouldn’t be surprising that the experts fail to interpret it as a prophecy of a National Sunday Law. Rather, the author of the biblical passage in question was making symbolic references to the persecution and economic issues facing the early Christians in the Roman Empire. This interpretation makes much more sense and is far more reasonable than the conspiracy theory that the passage refers to a prophecy regarding a Sunday Law, which would be instituted thousands of years after the author wrote the passage.

I think the Seventh-day Adventist Church needs to drop its fanatical fringe interpretations of the Bible if it wants to stay true to the text. Taking the historical context into account can really make sense of things, which is why modern biblical scholars do it. Unfortunately, the Church continues to cling to uninformed “prophetic” interpretations that are widely rejected by modern biblical scholars.

I’ve previous blogged about how unsubstantiated the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s prophetic interpretations of the Bible are, and presented the interpretations by modern biblical scholars, which make much more sense. Check these blog posts out here and here.

6:23pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxk0PBbg
(View comments)

(Notes: 1)

December 3, 2012

The Dishonest Facebook Comment

(Note: Pekka has given me permission to use his real name and to post our conversation. He also requested that I provide his email address for anyone who wants to email him. Here it is: pekkam [at] hotmail [dot] com.)

How to Not Take a Fair Look at a Blog Post…but Pretend You Did

In a closed Facebook discussion group, a coversation that was initially about trees turned into a clash of worldviews.

Pekka Määttänen is a Seventh-day Adventist who believes that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

In addition to being a young-Earth creationist, Pekka also believes that Ellen White was inspired (by God, presumably). I directed him to my blog post Ellen White: The Unoriginal Prophet.

He wrote the following comment:

So I responded with:

He ended up responding with a comment that completely ignored what happened with the blog post, but was defensive about some other things we were discussing.

So I pointed it out to him one more time:

He responded with one more comment that completely ignored what happened, as if he blocked it from his mind. He then left the discussion group. He didn’t just end the discussion…he left the entire discussion group.

With Pekka’s permission, I’ve posted the entire discussion about worldviews here (click, give it a few moments to load and make sure it’s zoomed to 100%), so you can see that I’m not taking these comments out of context. I’ve left out the part about trees. The above comments are near the end.

Due to some very improbable circumstances, Pekka managed to get himself caught being dishonest. Despite being given every opportunity, he didn’t acknowledge what happened.

Some people have suggested that there may have been a misunderstanding. But Pekka had every opportunity to clarify if there had been a misunderstanding (why wouldn’t he?), or to apologize if he misspoke (why wouldn’t he?). I directed his attention to what had happened twice, but he acted like it never even happened. He wrote two responses completely ignoring what happened. This suggests that it wasn’t just a misunderstanding, because I see no reason for him to not just say that there’s been a misunderstanding. Thus, dishonesty is the most likely explanation.

A Summary of What Happened

Bitly confirms that someone clicked on the link to my blog post Ellen White: The Unoriginal Prophet at about the time Pekka claimed to look at my blog. No links to my other blog posts were clicked on at that time, so we can be quite certain that this is the specific blog post he looked at.
The blog post consists of a few short sections of introduction (158 words), a section that contains a few sentences (161 words) in addition to a really big picture of a table of examples I pulled from another website (it’s actually really, really big, so I guess that could have distracted him), a larger section called Arguments by Adventists (1,332 words), and a short conclusion (58 words). Not including the big picture of the table of examples, 78% of the words in the blog post are in the Arguments by Adventists section.
Anyone who even just skims through the blog post would realize that the entire Arguments by Adventists section is responding to arguments from…somewhere. It would only have taken a minute or two to realize that they were from the Ellen White Answers website, especially for anyone familiar with the website.
Pekka looked at the blog post then claimed that it seem like it’s not very thorough or complete.
He then provided me with a link to the Ellen White Answers website, as if the blog post would be more thorough and complete had I taken it into account.
He didn’t realize that 78% of the blog post (not including the picture) is dedicated to responding to the Ellen White Answers website. I provide the link, summarize the arguments, respond to the arguments and quote extensively from an article from the website. How did he miss all that, but yet still deem himself capable of judging whether or not the blog post seem thorough or complete? And how did he not recognize all the content from the Ellen White Answers website that was quoted in the blog post if he actually knew what’s on the Ellen White Answers website he was providing me with?

What happened is pretty amazing. What are the chances Pekka would provide me with the exact website that I dedicated my blog post responding to? He then acted as if my blog post would be more complete and thorough had a just taken it into account…yet he had apparently done such an embarassingly poor job skimming the blog post that he didn’t even realize that I had linked to that same website, summarized the arguments, responded to the arguments and extensively quoted from one of the articles from the website.

Was this Really Dishonest?

When I use the word dishonest, here’s what I mean:

Deliberately leading others to believe something that you believe is not true…an intention to mislead in some way.

Based on his comment, Pekka intended to lead readers to believe that:

He has looked at the blog post closely enough to fairly say that it doesn’t seem to be thorough or complete.
He has looked at the Ellen White Answers website closely enough to know what’s on it.

Given what happened, it’s reasonable to concluded that he, himself could not have believed both of these to be true. Thus, there is an intention to mislead.

Realistically, if he would have spent more than a couple minutes scrolling through the blog post, he would have avoided this. It’s not hard to realize that I was responding to arguments from…somewhere. It would have only taken a minute to realize that they were from that website, especially if he knew what’s on the website he sent me.

And how did he not recognize that the lengthy quotes on my blog were pulled from one of the 13 applicable links on the website he provided me with? Did he provide me with a website that he did not even check out himself? That in itself is disingenuous, especially since he implied that he has an idea of what’s on the website.

So given what happened, and the fact that he ignored what happened and did not even try to explain how it could have been a misunderstanding, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that he was probably being dishonest.

Conclusion

Due to some unlikely circumstances, Pekka was caught being dishonest. This kind of dishonesty defeats the purpose of reasoned discussion. People shouldn’t pretend to have looked at things they haven’t looked at. People shouldn’t pretend to have read things they haven’t read. People shouldn’t pretend to know things they don’t know. In discussions, it’s always best to be honest. And if you’re dishonest, there’s always a chance that you, like Pekka, could get caught and lose credibility. So it’s a good rule to just be honest.

Some biblical literalists are cool with admitting that their beliefs are based on faith that defies evidence and reason. I find them far more honest than biblical literalists who, like Pekka, act like their beliefs are based on evidence and reason. The latter end up not being able to provide valid reasons—they end up resorting to claims that scientists, historians and biblical scholars are in some sort of conspiracy against the truth. And sometimes, like Pekka, they get caught in their dishonesty.

***************************

Afterthought

Pekka’s Many Reasons

Near the end of the discussion, Pekka wrote:

I wrote:

I asked him to list the “many other” reasons if they exist. He ignored my request.

He is intending to lead us to believe that I have ignored his “many reasons”—that they are invisible to me. Yet he does not point out what those many reasons are, and I still can’t seem to find them. I responded to almost everything he wrote point by point throughout the discussion.

The entire discussion on worldviews is available here (click, give it a few moments to load and make sure it’s zoomed to 100%), so you can help me look for his “many reasons” that that I’ve apparently ignored.

***************************

For anyone interested, below are some excerpts from the discussion.

To see these comments in their greater context, see the entire discussion (leaving out the part on trees) here.

His Reasons for Believing: Jesus Talking, the Resurrection and a False Dichotomy

Near the end of the discussion, I finally got him to list out the reasons for his beliefs. Here they are:

I responded with:

He did not respond to any of these points.

Justifying Genocide

Keep in mind that Pekka is a biblical literalist: he believes that the stories in the Bible literally happened. Since he believes that the Bible stories are literally true, it must follow that he believes that God is a genocidal villain, since that’s how God is often described in the Bible. I take him to task on this…

Me:

Pekka:

Me:

As you can see, I’ve provided reasons as to why I think none of his justifications for God’s genocidal tendencies are reasonable. He didn’t respond to any of them.

Assuming the Bible is God’s Word

Me:

He avoided the actual question by replying with this:

He completely missed the point of my comment. So I responded with this:

He didn’t end up following up on this topic, but at least this caused him to list his reasons, which I’ve presented above (Jesus talking to him, the resurrection and a false dichotomy).

Assuming a Literal Interpretation of the Bible

I wrote:

He responded with:

So basically, “why NOT literal?”…as if there aren’t any good reasons.

So I responded with:

He responded with:

Again, he did not actually give any good reasons for assuming a literal interpretation, opting instead to assert that the vast majority of scientists are wrong.

Clash of Worldviews: The Entire Discussion

I’ve provided this like multiple times throughout this blog post, but I’ll provide it once more: Click here to see the entire discussion on our differing worldviews. I’ve left out the initial discussion on trees.

If anyone wants to engage with any of the reasoned arguments in the discussion—Pekka’s or mine—feel free to comment…I’ll be sure to follow up.

6:45pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxYcaeAK
(View comments)

November 3, 2012

SDA Issues: Financial Corruption, Silencing and an Unoriginal Prophet

In 1982, an article about the Seventh-day Adventist Church was published in TIME magazine. It describes multiple issues that the Church was facing. To this day, many Seventh-day Adventists are kept in the dark about these matters. This article still holds much relevance, and I believe that Seventh-day Adventists have the right to be informed about the church they are a part of. Since the Church apparently does not believe in full disclosure (specifically regarding the details of the financial corruption case), I’m providing this information in the spirit of truth.

Below is a screenshot of the TIME magazine article, followed by the text typed out in its entirety. The full text is available here for people with a subscription to TIME. I’ve also provided extra information on each issue mentioned.

The text of the article:

The Church of Liberal Borrowings

By Richard N. Ostling; Dick Thompson; Jim Sastelli
TIME Magazine U.S. | Monday, Aug. 02, 1982

Plagiarism and fraud charges rock the Seventh-day Adventists

The 3.8 million-member Seventh-day Adventist Church is normally the most doctrinally placid and prosperous of faiths. Lately, however, it has fallen into unaccustomed uproar. For starters, church members are suing Adventist officials in an Oregon court for fraud and breach of fiduciary trust, stemming from the 1981 bankruptcy of fellow Adventist Donald Davenport, a Los Angeles developer. The suit charges that without adequately checking Davenport out, Adventist clergy blithely invested church trust funds with him and urged church members to make their own investments. As his empire collapsed, Davenport supposedly used newly raised moneys to cover payments due to previous investors. In the end, church agencies dropped a cool $21 million, and individual Adventists may be out as much as $20 million in the debacle. On top of this, the church has been hit by a second scandal: the charge that the theological writings of its most important figure, which rank second only to the Bible, may have been plagiarized from other authors.

Of the two scandals, the second could prove the costlier, as it calls into question the integrity of the church’s teachings. Prophet Ellen G. White (1827-1915) rallied the group that became known as the Adventists following the “Great Disappointment” of Oct. 22, 1844, the date when thousands of Protestants expected the Second Coming (or Advent) of Jesus Christ to occur. When it did not, White, a “messenger” of God and interpreter of the Bible, said she received a vision explaining that on Oct. 22 Christ had entered a new “sanctuary” in heaven to begin “investigative judgement” of the lives and works of believers. Then White reported a second vision that confirmed the necessity of Saturday worship (hence the name Seventh-day Adventists). Followers came to regard White’s numerous visions and books as divinely inspired interpretations of the Bible, as well as a guide to proper views on everything from vegetarianism (pro) to Darwinism (con).

Now a growing number of Adventists are having their doubts about White’s teachings. In the late 1970s, Desmond Ford, a prominent Australian theologian who was teaching at the church-run Pacific Union College in California, made the case that White’s “sanctuary” explication of 1844 no longer stood up in the light of the Bible, and that “investigative judgement” undercut the whole basis of Protestantism: belief in salvation by God’s grace apart from good works. This prompted the founding of a dissident bimonthly, Evangelica, based in Napa, Calif. Before long, the church forced the resignation or expulsion, by one count, of 120 adventist clergy and teachers. Ford was defrocked in 1980.

Ford’s challenge was mild, however, compared with the bombshell dropped by Walter T. Rea of Patterson, Calif. A veteran pastor, Rea, in the course of Ph.D. research, stumbled across some long-buried writings by forgotten divines that matched huge swatches of Prophet White’s books. Accusations of this general nature had arisen before but had been argued away by Adventist officials. Rea was the first to document the vast scale of such borrowing (from 75 assorted books on history, doctrine and the Bible). Last April, Rea issued his full findings in a bitter book titled The White Lie. In it, he concludes that the “plagiarism” undermines belief not only in the prophet’s divine inspiration but also in her basic honesty. One Adventist, Delbert Hodder, a pediatrician and teacher at the University of Connecticut, has offered an altogether different explanation. When White was nine years old, she was hit in the head by a rock and seriously injured. Hodder speculates that her visions were the result of “partial-complex seizure,” a malady related to epilepsy.

Prodded by Rea, the church has been forced to give ground. Last month, Ministry, its magazine for clergy, conceded that White’s use of “outside sources” was “much more extensive” than Adventists have realized. Admitted Ministry: “Sometimes she used material nearly word for word without giving credit.” Most shocking of all, “She utilized the words of prior authors in describing words she heard spoken while in vision. In a few instances, she uses the writings of a 19th century source in quoting the words of Christ or of an angelic guide.”

Despite these admissions, Church President Neal Wilson holds to the position that a prophet’s thoughts can be divinely inspired even though they are not original. And loyal Adventists have taken to defending White’s plagiarism as acceptable practice, arguing that parts of the Bible too were compiled from pre-existing sources. The church’s last General Conference, in 1980, confirmed White as a latter-day prophet whose “writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth.”

A full report on the church’s investigation of White’s sources is due next year. Meanwhile, in the second edition of his book Rea plans to charge that White’s last and most important works were actually fabricated by Adventist pioneers when she was senile. Whatever the outcome, Georgetown University Ethicist Roy Branson, editor of Spectrum, an independent journal for church liberals, says flatly that Adventists will no longer be able to appeal to White as “the final authority on a whole range of issues, including biblical and theological interpretation and life-style.” If so, the Seventh-day Adventists would seem to have lost a resource more precious than the millions that went down the drain.

As you can see, this article raises a number of serious issues. Here is a summary, followed by detailed information:

Financial corruption: Church leaders voted to invest $21 million of the Church’s money, obtained through tithe and offering, into an investment scheme that they thought would grow their own personal investments. When it turned out to be a scam, the Church lost all of the invested money. The president of the Church promised to discipline the corrupt officials. No appropriate discipline was ever carried out. A pastor who witnessed the debacle was fired, with his pension taken away. He took the Church to court, and the Church agreed to give his pension back if he agreed to not publish a book he wrote, detailing the debacle.
Silencing theological progression: Several pastors and scholars within the church figured out that investigative judgment doctrine is unbiblical, and based mostly on a rationalization for the Great Disappointment. Desmond Ford, an Adventist theologian, brought these findings to the Church. The Church ended up revoking Ford’s ministerial credentials, and some reports estimate that 120 pastors and teachers were also defrocked. Rather than encouraging theological progression, the Church opted to silence it.
The unoriginal prophet: It was discovered that Ellen White, considered a prophet by the Church, had copied much of her writings from books in her personal library, without giving credit to the original authors. It was found that even the words of Jesus and angels in some of her visions were copied from books that happened to be in her personal library. When shown these facts, the Church president stated that Ellen White’s writings were inspired, despite being unoriginal. To this day, Adventists continue to consider Ellen White divinely inspired, while making excuses for her habitual copying.

Here are some more details:

1. The Davenport Scandal: Financial Corruption, Lying and Cover-up

The Facts

Some high-ranking church officials, including General Conference presidents and six union conference presidents, invested millions of their personal dollars with Donald Davenport, a member of the church.
Several of these same Church leaders, who sat on Treasury Boards for church entities, voted to invest a total of over $21 million into the same portfolio. This was purely for selfish motives, since they thought that the extra investment would help their personal investments make more money. This is a clear conflict of interest. It was blatantly against church policy, and probably illegal.
The $21 million came from the tithe and offering money of regular church members, most of which were not rich.
The church leaders urged high-status members to make their own investments. They believed that the extra investment would help their own personal investments make more money, and they wanted only a privileged few to receive the same benefits. They only let white, affluent members in on their money-making scheme. No black people, Hispanic people or poor white people were let in on it, though they make up a large proportion of the Church’s membership and tithe/offering sources.
It turns out that Donald Davenport was running a Ponzi scheme. He managed to scam several church entities, church leaders and affluent members out of a total of $77 million. (This article only mentions a preliminary figure of $41 million, which is a giant underestimate.) After the scam came to fruition, the details of the financial corruption were exposed.
After this happened, the church president, Neal Wilson, made public statements to the media that 95 church officials would be disciplined for their involvement in the financial scandal. This public statement was documented in several media outlets, including this one:

No disciplinary action was actually carried out. To this day, none of the corrupt church officials were appropriately disciplined for their actions. The public statement turned out to be an empty promise—dishonesty in order to save face.
A 60 year old pastor who witnessed the debacle wrote a book about it. He was fired and his pension taken away. He took the church to court. The Church agreed to give him his pension back as long as he promised to not publish the book. Rather than full disclosure, the Church attempted to hide the details of its corruption. (See More Information for details.)

The Bottom Line

Church officials used $21 million of the tithe and offering money obtained from its members to try and make the rich church members richer. Unlucky for them, it turned out to be a scam and they got caught. Today, the Church appears to be concentrating its conversion efforts in Third World countries; they still see no problem in taking and using money from the poor.
The Church attempted to hide the details by taking a pastor’s retirement benefits hostage, in exchange for his promise to not publish a book containing the details of the scandal. (See More Information for details.)
The next time you feel guilted into giving your hard-earned money to the church in the form of tithes and offerings, think about whether you want to support an unethical organization that has shown its involvement in, and indifference to, financial corruption.

More Information

Walter Rea just happened to be the pastor of Davenport’s wife as they went through a divorce, and she shared legal documents with him. Amazingly, Rea found himself with a legal document listing Davenport’s creditors, which included Church entities, leaders and privileged members. No one on the list was black, Hispanic or poor and white.
Rea found out about the corrupt investments before anyone knew it was a scam. He wrote to church leaders with his concerns about conflict of interest, and they blew him off. They were in on what they believed to be a lucrative, though corrupt, investment scheme.
After the scam blew things open, Rea wrote a book outlining his experiences and the details of the financial scandal. The book includes the full list of Davenport’s creditors, as well as the word-for-word letters he had exchanged with Church leaders.
The Church refused to give Rea his pension, despite his decades of dedicated work as a pastor. He took the Church to court. The Church decided to give his retirement benefits back as long as he agreed not to publish the book. It appears that the Church was trying to hide the details of its corruption from its members and the public.
Thanks to the internet, Rea’s book is now available online, though it remains technically unpublished. Click here to read it .

2. The Desmond Ford Debacle: Silencing Theological Progression

The Facts

In 1844, the Great Disappointment occurred. A Baptist farmer, William Miller, preached that Jesus would return around this time, based on his calculations derived from the Book of Daniel in the Bible. It never happened. Miller admitted that his calculations were wrong. A group of Miller’s followers, including James White and Ellen Harmon (later to become Ellen White), could not let go of his calculations. This group of people eventually became the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In order to preserve the calculations that point to 1844, they claimed that Miller’s calculations were right, but that he had predicted the wrong event. Rather than return to Earth, they claimed that Jesus entered a special room in the heavenly sanctuary to start judging us humans in 1844. This became known as the investigative judgment doctrine, which is still officially held by the Church.
For 16 years, Desmond Ford was head of the Religion department at Avondale College, a Seventh-day Adventist school. He also taught at Pacific Union College, another Adventist school, for three years. He was very studious, holding a Master’s in Systematic Theology from Andrews University, A Ph.D. in Rhetoric about the Pauline Epistles from Michigan State University and another Ph.D. in Eschatology from Manchester University. He was also a minister.
In 1979 at Pacific Union College, Ford was asked by a network of Seventh-day Adventist professionals to speak on how Hebrews 9 affects the investigative judgment doctrine.
In his talk (transcript available here), he presented the issues that he, and many other Adventist scholars, had discovered regarding the investigative judgment doctrine.
In order to encourage him to give this talk, he was promised immunity. Following his talk, he was immediately put on six months paid leave to write up his position and summoned to meet with chief administrators at the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church six months later.
During those six months, Ford wrote a 991-page manuscript, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment.
Six months later, 111 chief administrators, known as the Sanctuary Review Committee, met at Glacier View Ranch in Colorado to hear Ford present his views. His observations included:

The ”year-for-a-day” principle is an incorrect method for interpreting prophecy. (The 1844 date for the commencement of the judgment is thus invalidated.)

The prophecy of Daniel chapter 8 is primarily concerned with events in the 2nd century BC (namely, the persecution of the Jews by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes), and there is no contextual or linguistic support for linking it to the heavenly sanctuary. The “cleansing” in Daniel 8:14 relates to the removal of the desecration caused by the “little horn” (i.e. Antiochus Epiphanes); it has nothing to do with the sins of Christians. In fact, the Hebrew word translated “cleansed” in the KJV (sadaq) is different from the word used for “cleansing” (taher) in the book of Leviticus in connection with the sanctuary; it is more accurately translated “vindicated” or “restored”, as in most modern Bible versions.

The epistle to the Hebrews teaches that the Day of Atonement was fulfilled by the death of Jesus on the cross. In particular, Hebrews 6:19, 9:12 and 10:19-20 teach that Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary immediately after his ascension, not 1800 years later. Hebrews thus contradicts the traditional Adventist idea of a two-stage heavenly ministry of Christ.

These observations invalidate the investigative judgment doctrine.
One month after Ford presented his document to the Sanctuary Review Committee, his employment with the Adventist church was terminated and the Church revoked his ministerial credentials.
One month hardly seems like enough time for a committee to thoroughly review a 991-page manuscript. At Glacier View, Raymond Cottrell, a respected Adventist theologian, told Ford, “Des, the administrators have not read your manuscript.”
Many Adventist teachers and pastors agreed with Ford’s findings. TIME reports that the Church forced the resignation or expulsion of 120 Adventist pastors and teachers. Peter Ballis, professor of sociology at Monash University, reported that over the next 8 years, 180 pastors left the church, “the most rapid exit of Adventist pastors in the movement’s 150-year history.”

The Bottom Line

Many Seventh-day Adventist scholars found problems with the doctrine of the investigative judgment.
This was the Church’s opportunity to show that it was open to theological discussion and progression. If the Church truly has the truth, it should have nothing to fear from honest research. And if the Church is committed to the truth, it will be open to changing its doctrines in light of new discoveries.
Not only did the Church reject the scholars outright, but they defrocked them. By some estimates, 120 teachers and pastors lost their jobs in the debacle. That’s a huge number. I don’t even know of 120 Adventist teachers and pastors.
If the Church had nothing to hide, it would have no reason to defrock people for honest research. The Church leaders could have just pointed out why they disagreed with their conclusions and that further research is needed. Only a Church that is insecure in its beliefs would resort to defrocking them. Whether or not Ford’s conclusions are correct, his credentials shouldn’t have been taken away for honestly presenting research. The Church should have just encouraged more research.
Adventist scholars should not have to fear for their jobs as a result of honestly sharing their research.

More Information

Read the full transcript to Ford’s presentation to Pacific Union College about the ramifications of Hebrews 9 on the investigative judgment doctrine here.
I’ve written about the investigative judgment doctrine from a psychological perspective here.
The vast majority of biblical scholars agree with Ford that Daniel 8 is concerned with events in the 2nd century BCE and that the little horn represents Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I’ve written about the book of Daniel from the perspective of biblical scholars here.

3. Ellen White: The Unoriginal Prophet

This may be the most damning of the three issues presented in this article. While the other two have largely to do with the corruption of the Church institution, this one suggests that the Adventist faith is altogether misplaced.

Background

Ellen Harmon was born in 1827. The official Ellen G. White Estate website reports that when she was nine years old, she spent three weeks in a coma as a result of being hit in the head with a rock. Subsequent to her head injury, she received visions that she claimed were from God. (There are now many documented cases of people receiving visual and auditory hallucinations from sustaining injuries to certain parts of the brain.)
Ellen Harmon, as part of the Millerite movement, expected Jesus to return in 1844, a date derived from calculations based on the Book of Daniel in the Bible. Following the Great Disappointment, she became part of a group that refused to admit defeat; rather than accepting that the calculations were wrong, they reinterpreted 1844 as the beginning of the investigative judgment, when Jesus entered a special room in the heavenly Sanctuary to judge us humans. She married James White. Ellen and James White were instrumental in founding the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which still holds on to the investigative judgment doctrine to this day.
To this day, the Seventh-day Adventist Church considers Ellen White a prophet. They believe that her visions were from God. Her writings were influential in sculpting the Church’s doctrines, culture and theology.

The Facts

I’ve written about the facts in another blog post. There, I’ve provided several examples of Ellen White’s unoriginality. I’ve also provided rebuttals to the arguments put forth by her defenders. Click here to read.

The Bottom Line

Ellen White copied a lot of her writings from books in her personal library, without giving credit to the original authors. Even some of her visions were copied. There are even cases where the words of Jesus and the words of angels in her visions were found to be copied from other books.
I’ve provide many examples of her unoriginality in another blog post.
The fact that Ellen White copied a lot of her writings is not contested by the Church, since the evidence is absolutely conclusive. But they continue to believe that she was divinely inspired, despite being unoriginal. As the article above states:

“Church President Neal Wilson holds to the position that a prophet’s thoughts can be divinely inspired even though they are not original. And loyal Adventists have taken to defending White’s plagiarism as acceptable practice, arguing that parts of the Bible too were compiled from pre-existing sources.”

The arguments used to defend Ellen White’s habitual copying don’t work for me, for reasons I’ve discussed in another blog post.

11:14am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxWWpLhg
(View comments)

November 3, 2012

Ellen White: The Unoriginal Prophet

I’ve provided some examples of Ellen White’s failed prophecies and false statements in a previous post, Ellen G. White Says the Darndest Things. But this post will explore something different: unoriginality.

Background

Ellen White, born in 1827, was instrumental in founding the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her writings were influential in sculpting the Church’s doctrines, culture and theology.

TheSeventh-day Adventist Church officially considers her a prophet. Number 18 of the 28 Seventh-day Adventist Church’s fundamental beliefs states that prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit and that this gift “was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White.”

The Facts

A lot of what Ellen White wrote, she copied from books in her personal library, without giving any indication that the words were not her own. This isn’t just speculation; this is fact. Parts of her visions were copied from other authors. Within her visions, even some of the words of Jesus or her angelic guides were copied.

Examples

In case you’d like to see for yourself, I’ve pasted a table of examples, compiled by Dirk Anderson, from this website. This table provides a plethora of clear examples of how she copied from the book The Great Teacher by John Harris, published in 1837. The left column contains excerpts from The Great Teacher by John Harris; the right column contains excerpts from Ellen White’s publications. In each case, she did not give credit to Harris, nor did she give any indication that the words were not her own. Keep in mind that this is just one of the many books (at least 75 have been confirmed so far) she copied from. Here’s the table, lifted from this website:

These are examples of Ellen White’s copying from just one book; they make up a tiny proportion of all of the copying she has done. There is documentation of her copying from at least 75 books that were in her personal library.

Arguments by Adventists

Leaders in the Church don’t deny that Ellen White copied a lot of her writings without attributing the words to their actual authors. They can’t deny it, considering the evidence is irrefutable.

In reading some defences of Ellen White (here’s a website that contains many links), I’ve found that three arguments are usually made:

It’s not plagiarism, it’s literary borrowing.
It wasn’t illegal back when Ellen White did it.
Even writings that aren’t original can be inspired. For example, some of the authors of books in the Bible practiced literary borrowing.

Leaders in the Church usually deny any charge of plagiarism, opting to call what she did “literary borrowing” instead. So according to them, no, Ellen White didn’t plagiarize, but she did practice literary borrowing. This is basically semantics. Try telling your professor that you didn’t plagiarize your essay, you were just practicing literary borrowing. In any case, they acknowledge the fact that her words were often not her own.

Most defenders of Ellen White point out that literary borrowing wasn’t illegal back when Ellen White was writing. As true as that is, it is irrelevant. I’m not trying to say that Ellen White did anything illegal. I’m just questioning her divine inspiration.

Why would someone who is divinely inspired need to copy so much, without crediting the original authors? Especially visions. Are we to believe that she received vision from God that were copied from other authors? According to most defenders of Ellen White, the answer to that question is, “Yes.”

The argument goes something like this: Since some authors of the Bible practiced literary borrowing and we still consider the Bible divinely inspired, Ellen White can still be considered divinely inspired even though she practiced literary borrowing. This argument doesn’t work for me, since I don’t consider the Bible divinely inspired. But even if I did, I’d question why even some of her visions were copied from other authors.

A 1982 TIME Magazine article reported:

Church President Neal Wilson holds to the position that a prophet’s thoughts can be divinely inspired even though they are not original. And loyal Adventists have taken to defending White’s plagiarism as acceptable practice, arguing that parts of the Bible too were compiled from pre-existing sources.

In an article published in Ministry Magazine, Warren H. Johns, a defender of Ellen White, acknowledges the copying:

Roughly 20 percent of the chapter “Science and the Bible” in Education can be traced to prior sources. Approximately 40 percent of two articles each in the Review and Herald (July 18, 1882; July 5, 1887) can be identified as coming from two chapters in Melvill’s Sermons.

Personal testimonies and letters have examples of borrowed material. A testimony dated June 20, 1882, and written to the Battle Creek members (Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 62-84) has 31.5 percent of its material in common with portions of two books, Daniel March’s Night Scenes in the Bible (c. 1868), and F. W. Krummacher’s Elijah the Tishbite (1838). I have also determined that 42 percent of Manuscript 24, 1886 (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 19-21), was obtained from Calvin E. Stowe’s Origin and History of the Books of the Bible (1867), pages 13-20, based upon an actual count of parallel words and synonyms in Stowe. Unpublished letters also have examples of literary parallels. More than half of Letter 19e, 1892, has been adapted from a chapter in J. C. Geikie’s The Precious Promises (pp. 47-52), which was in her personal library.

He even acknowledges that some of her visions, and what the characters in her visions said, were copied:

Perhaps even more surprising than the varied scope or extent of Ellen White’s literary usages is the recent discovery that she utilized the words of prior authors in describing words she heard spoken while in vision. In a few instances, she uses the writings of a nineteenth-century source in quoting the words of Christ or of an angelic guide. One such instance utilizes the words of Heman Humphrey, who wrote the introduction to John Harris’ The Great Teacher. This example was discussed a year ago in the Adventist Review (April 2, 30, 1981). In another case she introduces a lengthy quote from Krummacher’s Elijah the Tishbite with the words, “My Guide said …” (Figure 6). In describing “scenes in the coming judgment,” she repeats the Judge’s rebuke to those not having white robes and uses in part some modified sentences from Daniel March (Walks and Homes of Jesus (1866), pp. 316, 317; cf. Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 387).

In view of the fact that she cites the words of previous writers when describing words heard in vision, it should not surprise us to find that when she says, “I saw,” or “I was shown” she sometimes felt free, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to use expressions from an earthly source.

But, of course, he explains why he think’s it’s okay:

Just to give the reader a window on my personal convictions, in view of our findings, I believe that Ellen White’s writings are fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and I reject the concept of degrees of inspiration. Some may be tempted to suggest that the portions of her writings that were “borrowed” or derived from prior sources are less inspired than the portions that are original, or underived. However, such a concept is untenable in view of the fact that we also find examples of literary sources used in Scripture. The Gospel of Luke is almost entirely taken from other sources (see Luke 1:1-4); does that mean that Luke is less inspired than Matthew, Mark, or John? Inspiration does not hinge upon originality, nor does the discovery of prior literary sources in an inspired document make it less inspired.

It’s the “If Luke did it, then so can she” argument. This argument really doesn’t work for me. As mentioned above, I don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired, so that invalidates the argument for me already. But even if I did believe the Bible is divinely inspired, I still think that this would be a weak argument.

Yes, the author of Luke copied a lot from other sources without mentioning his sources. He probably copied historical events, some of what Jesus said and did, etc. These are things in the past that other people have reported on already. I guess he thought that he didn’t want to re-invent the wheel—might as well copy details of those events from others. He may have also copied theological concepts. Since others have already come up with them, might as well use their words. But Ellen White, on the other hand, copied some of her visions. These are not events that other people might’ve written about already, or theological concepts that others have already written about. These are supposedly visions from God. People who claim that her visions were divinely inspired by God, but also copied from other authors, must believe that God copied from other authors. That seems odd to me.

The official Ellen G. White Estate website reports that when she was nine years old, she spent three weeks in a coma as a result of being hit in the head with a rock. There are now many documented cases of people receiving visual and auditory hallucinations from sustaining injuries to certain parts of the brain.

To me, it makes psychological sense that, if these vision came to her as a result of her injury, she would inadvertently incorporate some of what she’s previously read, since that’s what happens to be lurking around her brain. But that’s just speculation. She could’ve been having hallucinations and accidentally drawing from books she had read. Or she could have made up the visions. Who knows. But her defenders believe that she received visions from God, and God sometimes chose to practice literary borrowing. To me, it seems like they’re clinging to bad reasons in order to preserve their worldview.

Conclusions

Undeniably, Ellen White copied extensively from books in her personal library, without crediting the original authors. She even copied parts of her visions, and parts of what characters in her visions said. Despite this, Seventh-day Adventist leaders continue to believe in her divine inspiration, arguing that divinely inspired words and visions do not have to be original.

11:01am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxWWl-xM
(View comments)

August 9, 2012

The Facebook Comment that got Me Blocked

Tonight, one of my (now ex-) Facebook friends posted a picture along with 3 questions to “Athiest/Evolutionist/Scientist and Non-Believers in a Deity.”

Since I’m a nonbeliever, I answered the call.

But shortly after posting my response, he deleted it then proceeded to block me. And now he appears to be ignoring an email I sent him, asking him to please unblock me so we can have a civil exchange of ideas.

What kind of person calls people out with questions then deletes genuine answers and blocks the respondent? I was just answering the questions honestly.

I spent a couple hours on writing a response, so it was very frustrating to have all my work deleted.

So I decided to blog it. Here’s the exchange, word-for-word.

(For a little context, he also posted an album of pictures depicting giant human skeleton discoveries. They are all fakes, and I’ve tracked them down to a picture manipulation contest website, linked in my response. Apparently he kept the pictures posted even after I revealed them to be fakes. Thanks to my buddy for the screenshot.)

Here is the text of his post:

I have 3 questions to Atheist/Evolutionist/Scientist and Non-Believers in a Deity.

Giant Skeletons? - Giant Skeletons found all over the world ranging anywhere from 10’ – 35’ one skeleton found by the Carthaginians army in 650BC-640AD was 36 feet tall. Another 25 feet tall was found in France in the year of 1613AD near the Castle of Chaumont nearly a complete skeleton. I would like to know how evolution can explain this to me and the origin of these giants if we evolved from primitive forms of life? Here are a couple of quotes from a amazing author divinely inspired that i think might help us get a better understanding.

“Giants Before the Flood.—At the first resurrection all come forth in immortal bloom, but at the second, the marks of the curse are visible upon all. All come up as they went down into their graves. Those who lived before the Flood, come forth with their giant-like stature, more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth, and well proportioned. The generations after the Flood were less in stature Spiritual Gifts Vol.3 p 84
Delusions of Progress.—True knowledge has decreased with every successive generation. God is infinite, and the first people upon the earth received their instructions from that infinite God who created the world. Those who received their knowledge direct from infinite wisdom were not deficient in knowledge. {1BC 1089.3}

God instructed Noah how to make that immense ark, for the saving of himself and his family. He also instructed Moses how to make the tabernacle, and the embroidery, and skillful work which was to adorn the sanctuary. The women wrought, with great ingenuity the embroidery of silver and gold. Skillful men were not wanting to accomplish the work of making the ark, the tabernacle, and the vessels of solid gold. God gave David a pattern of the temple which Solomon built. None but the most skillful men of design and art were allowed to have anything to do with the work. Every stone for the temple was prepared to exactly fill its place, before being brought to the temple. And the temple came together without the sound of an axe or hammer. There is no such building to be found in the world for beauty, richness and splendor. There are many inventions and improvements, and labor-saving machines now that the ancients did not have. They did not need them… . The greater the length of time the earth has lain under the curse, the more difficult has it been for man to cultivate it, and make it productive. As the soil has become more barren, and double labor has had to be expended upon it, God has raised up men with inventive faculties to construct implements to lighten labor on the land groaning under the curse. But God has not been in all man’s inventions. Satan has controlled the minds of men to a great extent, and has hurried men to new inventions which has led them to forget God.

In strength of intellect, men who now live can bear no comparison to the ancients. There have been more ancient arts lost than the present generation now possess. For skill and art those living in this degenerate age will not compare with the knowledge possessed by strong men who lived near one thousand years. Men before the Flood lived many hundreds of years, and when one hundred years old they were considered but youths. Those long-lived men had sound minds in sound bodies. Their mental and physical strength was so great that the present feeble generation can bear no comparison to them. Those ancients had nearly one thousand years in which to acquire knowledge. They came upon the stage of action from the ages of sixty to one hundred years, about the time those who now live the longest have acted their part in their little short life time, and have passed off the stage. Those who are deceived, and flattered on in the delusion that the present is an age of real progress, and that the human race has been in ages past progressing in true knowledge, are under the influence of the father of lies, whose work has ever been to turn the truth of God into a lie (4SG 154-156).” Ellen G. White

Sunken advance cities and rise of Sea level? - This is a quote from a evolutionist/archeologist Graham Hancock author of Underworld: Mysterious origins of Civilization “10 Million Square miles was flooded all around the world that’s roughly the size of Europe and China added together, in my opinion archeology is not doing enough work to investigate those lost and submersed cities. All over the world there are sunken cities, in the Mediterranean alone there are more then 200 sunken cities. Some cities have pyramid structures stones weighing up to 16 tons located a 1000 feet below sea level.”

Another quote from Ellen White with a good explanation; “Degenerated From Lightness to Debasing Sins.—We have the history of the antediluvians, and of the cities of the plain, whose course of conduct degenerated from lightness and frivolity to debasing sins that called down the wrath of God in a most dreadful destruction, in order to rid the earth of the curse of their contaminating influence. Inclination and passion bore sway over reason. Self was their god, and the knowledge of the Most High was nearly obliterated through the selfish indulgence of corrupt passions (Letter 74, 1896).” {1BC 1090.2} Ellen G. White…..So was it necessary for great deluge.

Human footprints with Dinosaur footprints found in the same rock bed? I wonder if the credentials of human knowledge has decreased as well in order for Evolutionist/Paleontologist/ Non-believers in a deity to believe certain species of dinosaurs evolved over a period of millions and millions of years into larger dinosaurs. How certain Deciduous trees going vertical through 5 layers of rock bed, and one layer can be classified 100 million years. Hmm there is really something wrong with that picture, but I guess it’s easier to except human belief and misconception of man then to believe in deity. Actual fact…

Here’s my response that ended up getting me blocked:

In short, here are my responses to your 3 questions:

(1a) You’ve been duped by a hoax. The images of giants that you posted were pulled from Worth1000, an image manipulation contest website. I’ve tracked them down on the website (http://bit.ly/N7wNzG) (http://bit.ly/MzaOvR), and they are incontrovertibly fakes.

(1b) Even if they were real (which they most certainly are not), it would not pose any sort of challenge to evolutionary theory.

(1c) Even if they were real (which they most certainly are not), it would not somehow make it more or less likely that some sort of deity exists in reality.

(1d) Even if they were real, they would not somehow validate whatever Ellen White said or whatever’s in the Bible.

(2) Your logic is wrong. The discovery of sunken advanced cities would not render any story about sunken advanced cities as being true.

(3) There have never been any reputable discoveries of dinosaur footprints with human footprints that have been able to withstand scientific scrutiny. You’re probably referring to the Paluxy controversy; this “discovery” of human footprints with dinosaur footprints has been widely discredited, even by creationists (http://bit.ly/QgH87B). As for the trees going through multiple layers of rock bed, geologists don’t claim that every layer is 100 million years old, so you’re committing the straw man logical fallacy; geologists know that deposition occurs rapidly on occasion (http://bit.ly/Np7cx5). The issue is not controversial.

More information:

(1a) Here is the website the picture was originally pulled from: (http://bit.ly/N7wNzG). It’s the 4th picture down. It won 4th place in a picture manipulation contest with the theme “Archaeological Anomalies.” The other pictures you posted were taken from similar contests on the same website. They are all undoubtedly fakes. They are manipulated pictures entered into a picture contest for the best manipulated picture. They are not real.

If you would have taken 2 minutes to Google it, you would have found this out. Read this Hoax-Slayer article (http://bit.ly/MzaOvR) or this Snopes article (http://bit.ly/MzaVaw) for more information.

So your picture “evidence,” along with their made-up backstories, are fictional. The pictures were innocently manipulated pictures submitted for a picture manipulation contest, then the backstories were created as hoaxes on the internet.

(1b) I don’t expect you to know much about the science of evolutionary theory, but, just so you know:

Fossils of giant hominids haven’t been found yet, as the pictures you’ve provided along with their backstories are fakes. But if, someday, giant hominid fossils are discovered, it would be interesting…but it would not, in any way, invalidate evolutionary theory. It would just mean that big hominids were probably successful in a certain region of the world for some time, but have since gone extinct. If you seriously have issues with evolutionary theory, talk to a reputable professor of biology about it, or consult a textbook; what’s the point of just spouting your uninformed misconceptions?

(1c) The existence of giants would have absolutely no bearing on whether or not some sort of deity exists. There could be no deity, but giants. Have you overlooked that possibility?

(1d) Your logic is wrong. Even if giant skeletons were found (which they weren’t), it would not somehow validate the stories contained in Ellen White’s writings or the Bible. The story of Jack and the Beanstalk contains giants. Would the discovery of giant skeletons render the story of Jack and the Beanstalk as being true? Of course not. In the same way, the discovery of giant skeletons would not render the writings of Ellen White or the Bible as true. Entire back-stories are not validated by a single finding that happens to fit. Just because you happen to believe in writings that mention giants, it does not mean that the discovery of giant fossils renders those stories true. If someone happens to believe that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk is true, would the discovery of giant skeletons mean that they were right?

(2) You just made the exact same error in logic. If someone believed in a made-up legend that explained sunken advanced cities, would that render whatever that legend happens to be as true? Of course not. In the same way, the discovery of sunken cities does not somehow validate Ellen White’s back-story for it. Entire back-stories are not validated by a single finding that happens to fit.

(3) There have never been any reputable discoveries of dinosaur footprints with human footprints that have been able to withstand scientific scrutiny. The most commonly cited case is the Paluxy controversy. Here’s an article that outlines it in detail: (http://bit.ly/QgH87B):

“Claims of human tracks occurring alongside dinosaur tracks have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists.”

As for trees going through multiple layers of rock, you commit the straw man logical fallacy here, since geologists don’t claim that every layer is 100 million years old. If you were well-read in geology, you would know that this is not an issue. Here’s a link to an article that discusses this (http://bit.ly/Np7cx5):

“These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid… . Geologists agree that the numerous upright fossils couldn’t have all been buried at the same time.”

If you seriously have issues with geology and palaeontology, consult a reputable professor of geology or palaeontology or read some textbooks; again, what’s the point of just spouting your uninformed misconceptions?

—

I find it odd that you attempt to attack evolutionary theory and geology as if disproving their theories will somehow validate your belief in God and Ellen White. This is logically fallacious thinking. It’s a version of the false dichotomy fallacy. If you believe that a hat is yellow, disproving that it is blue does not mean that you’ve just proven that it’s yellow; it could still be an infinite number of other colours. Basically, you would be wrong if you think that disproving evolutionary theory or geological theories somehow validates your belief in God and Ellen White. Let’s just imagine that you somehow were successful at disproving evolutionary theory and some geological theories. All you would be doing is giving us a couple more things to NOT believe in. Evolutionary theory and geological theories could be false AND your conception of God and your belief in Ellen White’s writings could still be wrong. I just thought I’d point out how pointless it is for you to try and disprove evolutionary theory and geological theories. It would not render your worldview true.

Your effort to disbelieve evolutionary theory and geological theories is actually predicted by the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance reduction.

According to the textbook used in the University of Alberta’s Social Psychology course (Social Psychology by Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett):

“By far the most influential consistency theory, and one of the most influential theories in the history of social psychology, is Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)… . Festinger argued that people are troubled by inconsistency between their thoughts, sentiments, and actions and that they will expend psychological energy to restore consistency.”

When people experience inconsistency between their thoughts, sentiments and actions, they tend to engage in efforts to reduce the cognitive dissonance. Since you hold a worldview that contradicts evolutionary theory and geological theories, it makes sense that you would resist belief in these theories, even if they are supported by massive amounts of evidence. Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory would predict that you would cling to reasons to disbelieve these theories, even if they are bad reasons. Hence, the fake giant skeleton pictures, fallacious logic, and misconceptions of evolutionary and geological theories. All bad reasons, but you cling to them anyways to reduce cognitive dissonance.

3:25pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxR36wJZ
(View comments)

August 6, 2012

The SDA Investigative Judgment Doctrine: A Psychological Perspective

According to the textbook used in the University of Alberta’s Social Psychology course (Social Psychology by Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett):

By far the most influential consistency theory, and one of the most influential theories in the history of social psychology, is Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)… . Festinger argued that people are troubled by inconsistency between their thoughts, sentiments, and actions and that they will expend psychological energy to restore consistency.

When a people experience inconsistency between their thoughts, sentiments and actions, they tend to engage in efforts to reduce the cognitive dissonance. When people are heavily invested in something that ends in disappointment, they tend to engage in a form of cognitive dissonance reduction called effort justification. Effort justification is defined as (Gilovich, Keltner & Nisbett):

The tendency to reduce dissonance by finding reasons for why we have devoted time, effort, or money to something that has turned out to be unpleasant or disappointing.

Leon Festinger is the author of the book When Prophecy Fails, a classic work of social psychology. It recounts a case of cognitive dissonance reduction within a UFO cult.

The UFO Cult

Marian Keech had been experiencing automatic writing, in which she would write messages without consciously willing it. These bouts of automatic writing were claimed to be messages from a planet named Clarion. She garnered a group of followers.

She received messages that the world would end on December 21, 1954 by means of a disastrous flood, but that a UFO would come and save her and her followers by midnight.

In preparation for the end of the world, her group of believers had left jobs, school and spouses and had given away much of their earthly possessions.

Here is the sequence of events as summarized in the Wikipedia article:

As you can see, the failure of the UFO to show up caused cognitive dissonance. In order to reduce it, she conveniently received a message that their group had “spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction.” This is an example of effort justification. They became ever more fervent believers and spread the word to try and convince others of their newly rectified worldview.

The Seventh-day Adventist Investigative Judgment Doctrine

Anyone who has studied the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church will know the parallels.

William Miller, a Baptist convert, used the Bible to calculate the day that Jesus would return, based on prophecies in the Book of Daniel. He garnered a group of Bible-believing followers.

He preached that, based on his careful calculations, Jesus would return in roughly the year 1843.

In preparation for the end of the world, a group of believers, known as Millerites, had left their jobs, school and spouses and had given away much of their earthly possessions.

The year 1843 came and went. Millerite preacher Samuel S. Snow preached that Jesus would actually return on October 22, 1844, according to the calculations. October 22 came and went, and is now known as the Great Disappointment. Those committed believers then experienced cognitive dissonance.

Among the disappointed Millerites were Ellen Harmon and James White. They later married and were instrumental in founding the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Ellen White is still officially considered a prophet by the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Fundamental Belief #18), despite her tendency to make failed prophecies (click here for three examples) and her habit of writing things that just aren’t true (e.g. she wrote a whole book, A Solemn Appeal, on how masturbation causes all sorts of diseases, including cancer; pain in the shoulders, side, back and limbs; catarrh; and wakeful, feverish nights).

William Miller himself admitted that his calculations were wrong. But some Millerites, including Ellen and James White, were not willing to admit that they had been so wrong to have such strong faith in those calculations. In the year following the Great Disappointment, three men (Edson, Crosier and Hahn) published a paper in a small Millerite paper which established the basic sanctuary teaching currently held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. They interpreted the Bible in such a way that explained why Jesus didn’t return in 1843/44. Rather than returning, Jesus entered a special room in a special building in heaven.

Ellen White claimed to receive visions from God. Among these visions was a message from God about the Millerite movement that they had believed so strongly in. This vision is described in Ellen White’s publication Early Writings, pages 74 and 75:

I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed.

Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Dan. 8:12) that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.

Her visions were used to support the acceptance of the sanctuary teaching developed by Edson, Crosier and Hahn. The main explanation for Jesus not returning in 1843/44 is encompassed in the investigative judgment doctrine, a doctrine unique to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Basically, they believe William Miller’s calculations were correct and divinely inspired, but Miller misinterpreted what would happen in 1843/44. The vision of God’s hand hiding a mistake in the Millerite chart signified that God had purposely withheld something from the Millerites, but he was now revealing it. The mistake was thinking that the prophecies pointed to Jesus’ return in 1843/44. Rather than Jesus’ return, Seventh-day Adventists believe that what actually happened in 1843/44 was the beginning of the investigative judgment. The investigative judgment is where Jesus enters the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary and begins judging people.

The investigative judgment doctrine is still officially held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and believed by about 86% of church members, though 35% believe that there may be more than one interpretation of the sanctuary belief (according to a worldwide survey in 2002).

Officially, here is what the church believes, according to #24 of the church’s 28 Fundamental Beliefs:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry.

The 2300 days prophecy was part of William Miller’s original prophecy. But to explain why nothing happened in 1843/44, Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus entered a special room in the heavenly sanctuary to judge us. They believe that the Millerite calculations were correct, but that they misinterpreted what the prophecies point to; rather than Jesus’ return, they actually point to the beginning of the judgment.

Notice that Jesus moving to a certain room in the heavenly sanctuary to start judging us is an event that is undetectable from Earth. This is a convenient reduction of cognitive dissonance, since it can never be disproven, unlike the return of Jesus and the end of the world.

After the cognitive dissonance caused by the failure of Jesus to return in 1843/44, the Seventh-day Adventist investigative judgement doctrine was a way to reduce the cognitive dissonance. This is an example of effort justification. They became ever more fervent believers and, to this day, Seventh-day Adventists spread the word and try to convince others of their worldview, which was rectified by the investigative judgment doctrine.

Five Conditions for Cognitive Dissonance Reduction Resulting in Stronger Belief

Festinger described five conditions that must be present in order for someone to experience this kind of cognitive disonance and end up an even more fervent believer:

All of these conditions are present in the case of the failure of Jesus to return according to the Millerite predictions. This led to the beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the investigative judgment doctrine as an explanation for the failed prophecy.

Daniel and the 2300 Days Prophecy

Last year, I wrote a blog post that outlines what the vast majority of biblical scholars believe about the 2300 days prophecy in the Book of Daniel that the Millerite calculations and investigative judgment doctrine calculations are based on. The Seventh-day Adventist interpretations are not compatible with what the vast majority of experts have discovered about the text. The Seventh-day Adventist interpretations are most likely misinterpretations. Click here to find out more.

Conclusion

The following sequence of events make up a textbook example of cognitive dissonance reduction: (1) The Millerite movement, (2) the Great Disappointment and (3) the beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist Church along with the investigative judgment doctrine.

The Millerite movement and the Seventh-day Adventist investigative judgment are based on calculations in the Book of Daniel that are probably misinterpretations, according to the vast majority of biblical scholars.

There is no reason to think that the Seventh-day Adventist investigative judgment doctrine has any basis in reality. It is most likely a form of cognitive dissonance reduction, necessitated by the failure of Jesus to return according to the Millerite calculations. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, which emerged out of the ashes of the Millerite movement, is most likely the child of effort justification.

7:14pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxQv5bhv
(View comments)

August 1, 2012

A Thought Experiment on the Resurrection of Jesus

Background

I’ve read a couple books by Christian theologians (John Shelby Spong and Michael Dowd) who understand the biblical story of Jesus’ resurrection as purely symbolic or metaphorical—he didn’t actually rise from the dead in a literal sense. While this more enlightened and less dogmatic view is like a breath of fresh air, I’m pretty sure that it’s the exception rather than the rule.

Most Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I think it’s safe to say that most Seventh-day Adventists believe in a literal bodily resurrection.

Some are content to admit that their belief in the literal resurrection is based purely on faith, since there’s no way anyone could know if it actually happened and there is insufficient evidence to validate such a claim. At least they’re being honest about the state of the evidence.

Others, however, claim that their belief in the resurrection is fully grounded on evidence. They claim that it’s reasonable to believe and unreasonable not to believe. They then think that their faith in Christianity is justified by evidence since they think it’s reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Christians such as author Timothy Keller claim that the authenticity of Christianity is dependant on the evidence for the resurrection, and since he thinks it’s reasonable to believe in the resurrection, it’s reasonable to be Christian. I’ve had a conversation with an intelligent Christian (ex-Adventist) who also affirmed that her belief in Christianity is anchored by the evidence for the resurrection.

In this blog post, I’ll link to some good articles that can help inform us on whether the resurrection actually happened or not. But the main point of this post is to explain why the resurrection isn’t a good reason to be Christian, even if it happened. Even if Jesus rose from the dead, it would not authenticate Christianity. If you believe in the resurrection on faith and don’t care about the evidence, please skip the next section and go straight to the thought experiment, which takes the resurrection as a given.

A Side Note: Did The Literal Resurrection Actually Happen?

I don’t buy it. Why not? Probably for the same reason that you (if you’re a Christian) don’t believe that Muhammad is God’s (Allah’s) prophet: Because there is insufficient evidence to reasonably believe such a claim.

Here is a link to an article written by Richard Carrier, a scholar of ancient history, in which he explains why he does not buy the literal resurrection story. It is meticulously researched and well-referenced, and it draws on a number of historical lines of evidence. Give it a read if you’re interested.

I read a couple books recommended by my Christian friend: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona and The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright. I think that these are widely regarded by Christians as the best books out there that defend the literal resurrection.

After reading these books, I was left scratching my head as to how the authors, and my intelligent Christian friend, are so sure that Jesus literally resurrected given the evidence that’s presented. The evidence presented just does not make it reasonable to believe that Jesus resurrected. More than ever, I see that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection is faith-based and lacking in sufficient evidence. I’m not completely sure why people try to claim that the evidence is sufficient to reasonably believe. Maybe they can’t stand the idea of being unreasonable, but they still want to hold on to the absurd beliefs they were indoctrinated with. In order to do this, they have to claim that the absurd beliefs are reasonable then attempt to look for evidence, however scant.

I could spend a ton of time writing lengthy criticisms of these two books, but others have already written things better than I could, so I’ll just provide you with the links.

Here is a link to a blog post written by Chad Kettner, explaining why the evidence presented in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona is insufficient to reasonably believe. Chad uses a powerful analogy that makes it crystal clear as to why it’s unreasonable to believe given the evidence they present. Well worth the read.

Here is a link to an article written by theologian and biblical scholar Robert Price, explaining why N.T. Wright is N.T Wrong in The Resurrection of the Son of God. While I was reading Wright’s book, I was shocked at the sheer amount of useless information in it. The book was well over twice as long as necessary. I also couldn’t believe how he dismissed so much sound research off-handedly because it didn’t fit with his thesis. Robert Price hits the nail on the head with his review, pointing out several of Wright’s fatal flaws and unscholarly mishaps. If you’ve read Wright’s book, you should read this review in order to avoid being duped.

The Thought Experiment: So What if Jesus Literally Rose from the Dead?

So, yeah, it’s pretty clear that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

But let’s suppose that it did happen anyways—just for the sake of argument. Follow along with me in this thought experiment.

Imagine that Jesus did, in fact, literally rise from the dead. Imagine that you know, for a fact, that Jesus did rise from the dead. He died. A few days later, he was alive again. Now what?

Does it logically follow that Jesus is God? Well, no. Since when was the definition of “God” a person who has died but is now animate? That’s actually closer to the definition of a zombie. Maybe Jesus wants to eat our brains.

Does it logically follow that Yahweh is God? Well, no. Any of the 3,000 gods people have been known to believe in could have raised him from the dead. An unknown “god” that no one is aware of could have done it. Or no god could have done it—it could have happened through natural processes that we are not yet aware of. It certainly does not follow that the Judeo-Christian conceptualization of God is real just because they’ve written a back-story for it.

Does it logically follow that the Bible is true? Well, no. Even if parts of the Bible are true, it does not follow that the whole thing is. Jesus rising from the dead does not mean that a 600-year-old man named Noah had to build an ark to save people and other animals from God’s genocidal temper tantrum. Jesus rising from the dead does not mean that a talking snake tricked a woman—who was made from the rib of a man—into eating a fruit that a celestial dictator told her not to eat, which is why childbirth is now painful and snakes now have no legs. Jesus rising from the dead does not somehow mean that the books of the Bible, which were picked from a multitude of scrolls for political reasons by Christians in the fourth century, just happen to be God’s word.

Does it logically follow that Christianity is the one true religion? Well, no. I could see how a person who died then came back to life could garner a cult following, but it does not mean that the teachings of that particular cult are true.

Does it logically follow that Jesus died for your sins? Well, no. It’s an absurd and blatantly unjust concept that an innocent person would take on the punishment for what other people have done. If we could be sure that Jesus died and came back to life, it would not validate the concept of salvation. He could have just died and come back to life for no cosmic purpose. It really doesn’t mean he died for your sins. And even if he did die for your sins, he seems to have taken that payment back by coming back to life. Minus one life, plus one life. Net sacrifice of lives: zero.

Does it logically follow that what he says is true? Well, no. If a guy died then came back to life, there’s no reason why he wouldn’t be capable of telling untruths.

Does it follow that Jesus is one with the one true god who raised him? Well, no. What if the one true god is Allah as depicted in the Qur’an? That’s what about 1.5 billion people in the world sure believe. What if the one true God inspired the Qur’an, which is his infallible word? In that case, Christianity is a false perversion of the truth. The Quran talks about Christians, saying that “Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire.” (Sura 5:72). The Qur’an also states: “the Christians say ‘the Messiah is the son of Allah.’ … May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (Sura 9:30) and that “whoever desires other than Islam as a religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers” (Sura 3:85). (Christians, please take these scriptures seriously and realize that if you were born in Pakistan or Iran, you would probably believe in Islam just as faithfully as you currently believe in Christianity being born where you were born.) So it’s clear that if the Qur’an is true, Christians are doomed to hellfire. But Allah, the god of the Qur’an, could have thought that Jesus was a nice guy who died unjustly and decided to raise him from the dead. So it’s possible that Allah of the Qur’an is the one true god and that he raised Jesus from the dead—but that Christians are going to hell for worshiping Jesus.

Does it follow that the resurrection was a supernatural event? Well, no. It would just be an event that is not yet understood. Many natural phenomena were once thought to be supernatural, before the natural explanations were discovered (for example: eclipses, diseases, rainbows, storms, etc.). If Jesus actually did rise from the dead, this should be of most interest to medical researchers and biologists (and zombie enthusiasts), to try and figure out how this could have happened. The assumption that it has to be supernatural is unfounded. It could have been due to purely natural processes that we are not yet aware of.

Another Thought Experiment to Hammer the Point Home

What if, next year, some guy rises from the dead? Imagine this scenario with me:

Doctors have verified that a man is dead. Three days later, he inexplicably comes back to life.

Would you then worship him? Would you listen to everything he says and consider him infallible? What if he reveals a collection of ancient scriptures that, if interpreted “correctly,” predict his resurrection and identify him as God? What if he said that he is God in human form and that you have to go around sacrificing babies in order to appease him? Would you then believe him and go around sacrificing babies since the zombie-man said so?

I sure hope not.

Conclusion

It’s clear that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. But even if he did, it would not validate Christianity.

What the Bible Says

I’ll end with a quick summary of what the gospels have to say about the resurrection. As you’ll see, it really depends on which book of the Bible you’re reading:

Who went to the tomb?

Matthew 28:1 - Mary and another Mary
Mark 16:1 - Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of James and Salome
John 20:1 - Mary alone

When the women/woman got to the tomb, was the stone rolled away already?

Matthew 28:2 - No, it was rolled away by an angel while the women were there
Mark 16:4 - Yes, it had been rolled away already when the women got there

Who did they see at the tomb?

Matthew 28:5 - An angel
Mark 16:5 - A young man
Luke 24:4 - Two men
John: Nobody

Did the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard?

Matthew 28:8 - Yes
Mark 16:8 - No, they didn’t tell anyone

Then what did the disciples do?

Matthew 20:9 - Jesus appears to them
Luke 24:11 - They don’t believe
John 20:3 - They go to the tomb to see for themselves

3:47pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxQZGM5F
(View comments)

July 28, 2012

On Morality

Background

I just attended a debate on God’s existence, and one of the main arguments put forward by the Christians was that the existence of objective morals means that there must be an objective moral law-giver. This is also one of the main arguments C.S. Lewis presents in his book Mere Christianity, and it’s an argument frequently put forth by apologists like William Lane Craig. Muslim apologists (and proponents of other religions) also use this exact same argument to support their particular religions.

First, I’d like to point out that if we accept that there must be an objective moral law-giver, it does not follow that it is the Judeo-Christian version of God, or any particular version of God. There are countless religions that believe in different Gods as their moral law-giver. If we assume that a moral law-giver is necessary, it could be some unknown version of “God” that does not correspond to any existing religion.

But I’d like to challenge the notion that there must be an objective moral law-giver, whether or not objective morals exist.

The Christian Argument

During the debate, the Christians claimed that there must be objective morals, since we all agree that it’s wrong to, for example, torture a toddler. Therefore, there must be an objective moral law-giver.

Is this argument sound? Let’s investigate.

A World without Conscious Life is a World without Morals

As a thought experiment, let’s imagine that conscious life never sprung up in this (or any) universe. In this imagined situation, planets orbit stars, asteroids fly around and stars blow up once in awhile (or, at least, the potential for these things to happen exist)—but there is no life to be found. Do objective morals exist? There are no conscious creatures to experience suffering. There are only rocks floating around stars (or the potential for rocks to float around stars).

Do we feel moral obligations towards rocks? No. Because, as far as we know, they don’t have any conscious experiences. They have no will to live. They cannot suffer. So if conscious life had never emerged, there would be no morals.

In the same sense, there would be no language in this imagined world, devoid of life. Without creatures with the ability to communicate through audible speech, there would be no need for language. There would be no communication as we know it. As far as we can tell, rocks do not communicate with one another using audible words.

Morality as a Social Construct

But with the emergence of life (however it happened), and eventually conscious creatures with the ability to reason, we find that there emerges a context for things such as morality and language. These are social constructs by conscious, reasoning, social creatures. Had no creatures such as this ever existed, there would be no language. There would be no morality.

But, in this universe, humans have emerged. And with these conscious, reasoning, social creatures come social constructs such as language and morality. Just as there does not have to be any objective language-giver who is beyond space and time, there does not need to be any objective moral law-giver who is beyond space and time. We construct morals, due to the fact that we are conscious, reasoning, social creatures.

To say that they are social constructs is not to say that they are not innate. Humans are born with the innate ability to learn language. This ability is genetic. In general, humans are also born with the ability to reason. This ability is genetic, and it also creates the context for morality. While the ability to learn language and to reason are innate, language and moral codes are created, refined and passed on by humans.

Reason Provides the Context for Morality

We just happen to have brains that are capable of communicating through producing the sounds of words and assigning meaning to these words. In the same way, we just happen to have brains that are capable of reasoning, which allows us to determine moral norms amongst ourselves. The fact that we, as a species, are capable of reasoning provides the perfect context for morality to develop.

As Steven Pinker puts it in The Better Angels of Our Nature:

The universality of reason is a momentous realization, because it defines a place for morality. If I appeal to you to do something that affects me—to get off my foot, or not to stab me for the fun of it, or to save my child from drowning—then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interest over yours if I want you to take me seriously (say, by retaining my right to stand on your foot, or to stab you, or to let your children drown). I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.

…

Morality, then, is not a set of regulations dictated by a vengeful deity and written down in a book; nor is it the custom of a particular culture or tribe. It is the consequence of the interchangeability of perspectives and the opportunity the world provides for positive-sum games.

So, though things might be “objectively” wrong (such as torturing toddlers), they are objectively wrong as subjective to our conscious experiences. Without subjective conscious experience, there would be no such thing as morality. But we are here, and we are how we are. A celestial deity is not needed for morality. Only we are needed for morality. Conscious, reasoning, social creatures. This is independent of how we got here. Just the fact that we are here and we are how we are is enough to explain morality.

Conclusion

The only reason morals exist is because conscious creatures such as us exist, and we have constructed them. We have come up with moral codes. They were not dictated by some deity. Through reason and common sense, we progress morally. Morals have evolved as our reasoning has progressed. Not too long ago, slavery was considered okay by many. Racism was normal. Before 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in the United States. Women did not possess the same rights as men. Homophobia was the norm. Before 2005, same-sex marriage was not completely legal in Canada. But through reason and empathy, we have been able to make moral progress to the point where we find slavery and racism abhorrent. In most secular democracies, women are now granted the same rights as men. In more and more progressive societies, anti-gay sentiment is considered bigotrous. We are beginning to see that all people are created equal and should be afforded the same set of human rights.

So, no, the existence of what appear to be objective morals does not mean that some sort of celestial deity must exist. Morals only exist because conscious, social creatures such as us happen to exist. I believe that morality is a social construct that is made possible through our capability to reason. And the more we reason, the more we are able to expand our empathy and compassion.

Language is a social construct that is invaluable to us. In the same way, morality is a social construct that is invaluable to us. The fact that it’s a social construct does not make it any less important.

Afterthought

Above, I tried to explain how the existence of morality does not require the existence of a celestial deity, and certainly not the Christian version of god. But what about belief in God? Not the existence of God, but just the belief in God—whether or not “he” actually exists.

At first thought, it seems to make sense that belief in God might lead to better morals. I’ll call this the Santa Clause effect. If you think some magical being is watching everything you do, you would probably act better.

But, looking at the evidence, it’s quite clear that belief in God is also not needed for morality.

Sociological research at the individual level has found that, on average, nonreligious people tend to be more ethical than religious people.

Sociological research comparing nations has found that “[i]n prosperous democracies, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion.”

Look at Denmark as an example of a nation that is highly progressed socially and also highly unreligious. The UN has released a World Happiness Report, which contains a happiness index measurement for countries based on a number of social factors. It turns out Denmark is the happiest country in the world, and other northern European countries are close behind. Denmark is also the least religious country in the world, with about 80 percent nonbelievers. It also has a homicide rate far lower than ours—among the lowest in the world.

There’s definitely an inverse correlation between the religiosity of a society and its social and moral progress. Even on an individual level, we do not find that nonbelievers are less ethical than believers. And, so, it appears that belief in God is not needed for morality, nor is it even correlated with better morals.

3:24pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxQH_j8n
(View comments)

(Notes: 1)

May 21, 2012

On Sacrificing Children

The Edge of Heaven

As I was watching a foreign film on Netflix called The Edge of Heaven, I was deeply moved by one of the scenes.

As the main character was recalling his childhood, he remembered being taught the scriptural story of Abraham agreeing to kill his own son as a sacrifice to God. When the main character was a child, this story scared him. Here’s an excerpt of the dialogue from the scene:

“I remember asking my father if he would sacrifice me, too.”

“And what did your father answer?”

“He said he would even make God his enemy in order to protect me.”

I can only hope my parents would answer similarly (but who am I kidding). In the film, the man’s father is a Turkish Muslim, so this is a very courageous statement. This is standing up for what’s right. This is love. Killing your child, because you were commanded to by whatever deity you happen to believe in, is not.

What Would You Do?

A while back, I posted the following question on my Facebook status (taken from God, No! by Penn Jillette):

If god (however you perceive him/her/it) told you to kill your child—would you do it?

Of course, most thinking people answered “No.”

Inevitably, someone answered with a version of: “My God wouldn’t ask this of me.” That answer can work for some conceptions of “God,” but definitely fails for those who, like the person who supplied this answer, believe that the Bible is a reliable record of history. I’ve written a whole blog post to explain why; please click here to read it.

Alarmingly, some people answered with the crazy answer: “Yes.” My cousin’s husband, who has four children, responded with:

Mothers have killed their children for less than that and the only answer I can give is, personally I can only hope I will have grown in my faith enough to do what God wills and the consequences of my individual action will be between me, my God, my psychiatrist and I suppose the local court of law.

So, in short: I hope so. Parental fail. Morality fail. All sorts of fails in this response. He hopes that he would kill his child if it was God’s will—even if it means going to jail or being declared insane. Basically, a “Yes.” That’s not love. That’s not morality. That’s a failure to stand up for what’s right. It shows disregard for human life and complete submission to an authority that has not been verified to even exist. I feel sorry for his children and I’m glad I’m not one of them.

Another respondent flip-flopped a bit. At first he said no. He was obviously torn, since we all know it’s wrong and immoral to kill children as sacrifices. But he ended with a resounding “YES!” I’m a bit surprised, because this guy is usually less crazy than most Seventh-day Adventists I know. But I guess I can understand. If I really believed in a sociopathic God, then I wouldn’t want to piss it (him?) off by saying in writing that I wouldn’t slit my daughter’s throat and burn her remains as a sacrifice to this God.

Doing What’s Right

I must say, I’m very disappointed with the “Yes” responses to the question I posted. I don’t believe that their version of God exists, but even if it did, I would be able to recognize when it is commanding something that is immoral, such as killing a child as a sacrifice. Where’s their compassion and empathy? Apparently it’s more important to appease a sociopathic deity that they think exists than to not murder their children.

In the Bible, God is documented as commanding a man to be tortured to death for picking up sticks on a holy day (Numbers 15:32-36):

While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.

Oh, no! Someone call the authorities!

Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.

Apparently hearing voices was a problem, even 3,000 years ago.

So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Punishment totally fit the crime. Pick up sticks on Sabbath? That’s equivalent torturing someone to death. Justice at its best.

*end sarcasm* (Sorry I had to point out my sarcasm. Believe it or not, there are probably people who would agree with the previous paragraph.)

If the two “Yes” respondents I mentioned above were commanded to torture someone to death for picking up sticks on Saturday, would they do it? Even if God were real, I wouldn’t. Shouldn’t we know better than to torture people to death for frivolous things? Picking up sticks on Saturday hurts no one. This is just one of a plethora of biblical examples of God commanding blatantly immoral and sociopathic things. (The picture on the right is of a man who was stoned to death in July 2010. He was convicted of adultery by religious authorities. Click here to read more.)

But, as you’ve now witnessed, two respondents have said that they would kill their children as sacrifices if asked to do so by the God they think exists. If they would kill their own children, I’m pretty sure they would also kill strangers if God commanded it. What’s the limit? Where would they draw the line? Or is there no line? Anything that God commands goes, no matter how blatantly cruel and immoral?

Can they not stand up for what’s right? Let’s all hope they don’t start hearing voices.

I’ve done many things I’m not proud of and I’ve often failed to do what’s right. But not at this level. I don’t care who is asking: God, the Prime Minister, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (who would never ask such a thing), the Queen … it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to kill children as sacrifices. Period.

The “Yes” responses I’ve mentioned above are clear examples of how religion can cause people to throw morals out the window and do what they’re told. It’s pathetic.

I’ll end with a quote from this video of Christopher Hitchens:

Not scorning the three delightful children … who are everything to me, who are my only chance at even a glimpse of a second life, let alone an immortal one … If I was told to sacrifice them to prove my devotion to God—if I was told to do what all monotheists are told to do, and admire the man who said, “Yes, I’ll gut my kid to show my love of God”—I’d say, “No, fuck you.”

I hope that you also have the courage to stand up for what’s right, no matter what anyone—even whatever God you happen to believe in—tells you.

10:05pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZiBSkxLwLZ3S
(View comments)

RSS feed: http://thingsaboutstuff.tumblr.com/rss

1 of 3 Next page

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »