tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16678132275971258902024-02-20T11:04:46.744-08:00Former FundamentalistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-32015320402990105592012-04-30T13:03:00.000-07:002019-12-08T13:02:41.194-08:00Edward T. Babinski: If It Wasn't for Agnosticism, I Wouldn't Know What to Believe!<table style="width: 336px; height: 370px; float: right;">
<tbody style="font-size: 11;">
<tr>
<td><img style="width: 331px; height: 329px;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/images/EDBABNSK.JPG" alt="Edward T. Babinski" align="baseline" border="0" hspace="0" /><br /><strong>Edward T. Babinski</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<blockquote>The arguments that I had used to defend the truth of Christianity were peeled away from me like the many layers of an onion's skin. I put up all the intellectual resistance I could, and winced at each layer's removal. I suffered through dark nights of the soul pondering whether my beliefs might not be too narrow or even wholly false. Imperceptibly, my fears, doubts, and grief blossomed into relief, relaxation, and joy<br />-Edward T. Babinski</blockquote>
<p>Edward T. Babinski has produced two manuscripts dealing with the question of what the Bible says about creation, <em>Does the Bible Teach Scientific Creationism?</em> and <em>The Creationist Quote Book</em>. His article, "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/scientific_creationism.html">Varieties of Scientific Creationism</a>," appeared in the journal <em>Faith and Thought</em>. From 1985 to 1988 Babinski dialogued with creationists in his self-published periodical, <em>Theistic Evolutionists' Forum</em>. Ivan Stang's <em>High Weirdness by Mail</em> (New York. Simon and Schuster, 1988) contains the following review of <em>TEF</em>. "Once a Young-Earth Creationist, the editor now prints this big amateur magazine in which Evolutionist cranks and Creationist troglodytes can rant and rend and tear at each other. Compares Flat-Earth, Geocentric, Heliocentric, Young-Earth, and Old-Earth Creationist views, proving why the Bible will never allow them to agree with each other. Oozes with personality. . . . Also publishes <em>Monkeys Uncle</em>, a <em>satire</em> of both atheism and fundamentalist foolishness. . . the price is worth it for its potential weaponry value in psychological warfare"</p>
<p>I recall strolling down a shaded path when I was perhaps ten years old, improvising a tune that revolved around my love of God. I was a happy once-born Christian, a Roman Catholic. However, I was not entirely satisfied with that arrangement I nearly fainted during mass a number of times when I was young and the church was so crowded that my mother and I had to stand along the walls. During my early childhood the Mass was a bit longer than it is today and the priests recited it in Latin (and later, in English). Although I was raised a pious child and recall viewing my faith as both mysterious and intriguing, I eventually grew bored with its repetitiveness in both prayers and rituals.</p>
<p>At my confirmation the bishop was not familiar with the obscure French saint whose name I had picked out of a comprehensive book of saints, namely, St. Roch (pronounced, "Rock"), the "patron saint of pestilence and skin diseases." In front of the congregation he solemnly dubbed me, "Roach." My mother placed no pressure on me to continue attending church after I was confirmed so I ceased attending church at that time.</p>
<p>As a freshman/sophomore in high school I subscribed to a psychic book club and read some books by Edgar Cayce and Ruth Montgomery, the lady who was famed for her "automatic writing" messages from the spirit world. I tried to receive messages from the spirit world, sitting for a time at a desk with a blank mind, scribbling away with a pen. I never received any messages. I also read Plato's dialogues concerning the trial and death of Socrates, which impressed me immensely.</p>
<p>While I was a sophomore in high school, my best friend, Art McEvoy, encountered an alluring charismatic Christian girl. His attraction to her overflowed into a love for what she loved, for he became "born again" soon afterwards, but didn't quite know how to tell me about it. He had also become, as I was to find out later, very concerned over the state of my soul since I had told him about the psychic book club I'd joined. So he invited me one night to a meeting at a house there he and some others had gathered to pray. Once I arrived no one paid much attention to me. I sat in the kitchen a while and remember picking small cards with Bible verses written on them out of a little plastic loaf-shaped container that was labeled on the side "The Bread of Life." Then, when the meeting was about to begin, Art ushered me out of the house. This was all apparently planned. The group inside was going to pray, including prayers for my salvation, while Art was supposed to ask me politely to recite the "sinner's prayer" and invite Jesus into my heart to become my Lord and Savior. We walked to a deli on the corner, I ordered a sandwich, and on the way back, we sat on the curb that was lit by a street lamp. He asked me to pray with him, repeating what he said with meaning. So I prayed the sinner's prayer for salvation <em>with heartfelt meaning</em> (at that time I had no qualms about believing what I had been taught by the Catholic church, and there was nothing particularly "un-Catholic" about my friend's prayer). Afterwards my friend's previously cautious manner shifted to relief and happiness, as if a weight had been lifted off of his back. I felt that nothing special had occurred. Ah, but more persuasive influences were soon to follow. . . .</p>
<p>Immediately after this experience my high school history teacher, having apparently heard from Art that I had been "born again," gave me a copy of a Modern English New Testament to read, <em>The Greatest Is Love</em>, challenging me to finish reading it before he did. I loved reading the Gospels more than the letters to the churches, and I cried upon arriving at the end of each, at which point Jesus was scourged and crucified, then resurrected. Such behavior was not unusual for me. I was very taken with Plato's dialogues, as I'd mentioned, above, in which Socrates died at the end. But, having been raised on the story of Jesus all my life, and now reading it for the first time in the oldest extant church documents, it touched something deep inside me. That same point was also touched, later, as I read the fictional novel <em>The Robe</em>, and by C. S. Lewis's story of Aslan's death and resurrection in <em>The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe</em>. It was even touched by certain movies, such as <em>E.T.</em> or <em>Short Circuit</em>, where the beloved main character is believed to have died, yet survives. In a more general sense, I've always been a big fan, like most people, of tales where the hero must "beat the odds." It may require a genuine (or merely apparent) "miracle" for them to succeed, but succeed they do!</p>
<p>After I had finished reading the Modern English New Testament, Art gave me an entire Modern English Bible to read, which I proceeded to gobble up, cover to cover. I loved it. But boy was the book of Numbers boring! And all those laws in the Old Testament. And as for all the curses and stuff in the prophets, I couldn't understand what all the ranting and raving was about. They didn't appear to be thinking very clearly, if they were thinking at all, and not merely reacting against this and that injustice perpetrated upon their nation by layer nations and armies. But I plowed on, always keeping my eyes focused on anything in the Old Testament that resembled the New, my first love.</p>
<p>For a while Art and I began attending Catholic mass (something I would not have imagined I'd ever do again) on Sundays, and even during the week! We actually enjoyed it, played the part of altar assistants once, and got more out of mass, having read the Bible for ourselves by now, and having personally committed our lives to serving Jesus. Not long afterwards we switched from attending Catholic mass to strictly Protestant services in order to learn more about the Bible via those long sermons that Protestant ministers deliver, filled with Bible quotations we could reread for ourselves as sat in a pew and absorbed everything like the little Christian sponges we had become.</p>
<p>My history teacher was apparently the only evangelical teacher in my public high school, and quite unashamed of the fact. Besides the New Testament, he plied me with gruesomely illustrated miniature Christian comic books published by the Chick tract organization, with titles such as <em>This Was Your Life</em>, <em>A Demon's Nightmare</em>, and <em>The Gay Blade</em>. I also read various books he would give me from time to time, such as Richard Wurmbrand's <em>Tortured for Christ</em> and Brother Andrew's <em>Godly Smuggler</em>. They were about people in communist countries who were tortured for boldly expressing their beliefs, and/ or for smuggling Bibles into their countries. I ate them up wholeheartedly, and one night I even recall getting into a tizzy with my mother after declaring that I too would like to try and smuggle Bibles into Communist countries. She called my dad and asked him to try and talk some sense into me. I recall that I cried over the fact that my parents were pressuring me to avoid what was perhaps my "calling" in life. After all, were they not good Catholics? Did they not believe the promises in the Gospels? Was not serving God the most important part of being a Christian, even if it meant risking pain and death to "spread the good news"?</p>
<p>As my knowledge of Christian doctrine grew, so did my fears that many of my friends and relatives were headed for eternal destruction, not to mention just about everyone I saw in person, on television, heard speaking on the radio, or read about I prayed for the salvation of specific people and for hordes of humanity, like all the atheists in Communist China, not to mention all the dozens of toll booth operators I asked God to "save." It was very difficult at that time to <em>refrain</em> from handing a toll booth operator a tract (with the money inside, of course), since their outstretched hand was just waiting to be filled).</p>
<p>Only I had the antidote, the magic potion, the truth that would set people <em>free</em>, even if I had to <em>corner them</em> to administer it. For instance, I handed out tracts at my mother's second wedding. I didn't thank that the minister of the Reformed Church in which they were being married was saved, or that anyone in my family was. She married a very nice gentleman (who liked singing hymns in church, but not hearing preachers broadcast exclusivist teachings-he was a former Alcoholics Anonymous member who believed in "God" in a very broad sense) with whom she was to share a very loving relationship for eighteen years before he passed away. His tolerance toward me and my views eventually proved an inspiration to me.</p>
<p>As a fundamentalist Christian I was corrupted by having what I thought was the "absolute knowledge of life and death," like Dr. Frankenstein. And Just like him I suffered much at the hands of my own creation, though in my case what I suffered most was continual anguish over the fate of "the unsaved world." I soon learned things that added to my inner apprehension and increased my sense of evangelical urgency. After reading Hal Lindsey's phenomenal bestseller (over eighteen million copies sold by 1984), <em>The Late Great Planet Earth</em>, I began seeing the pieces of biblical prophecy fitting into Lindsey's picture puzzle. I heard God's time bomb ticking in my ears. And I kept an eye on the sky, for I sensed my salvation "draweth nigh."</p>
<p>I attended end-time evangelistic crusades that featured Jack Van Impe (author of <em>Revelation Revealed</em>) and David Wilkerson (author of <em>The Vision</em>). They focused on the evil days ahead and scared the be-Jesus <em>into</em> you.</p>
<p>At one prophecy conference I was given a piece of "lignin" (compressed wood) that one preacher said "could replace metal in the fashioning of weapons of war. Rifles, cannons, and tanks could be made out of it."</p>
<p>It felt hard, yet light. I did not question at the time whether it might <em>not</em> be as strong as metal, or how wood (even tightly compressed) could avoid being scorched or shattered by the force of gunpowder explosions. I simply took the preacher at his word. Why? Because the preacher swore that the existence of "lignin" demonstrated the "truth" of Ezekiel's prophecy. "Israel shall go forth [following a ferocious <em>end-time</em> battle], and shall set on fire and burn the weapons [of her enemies] both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handshakes, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire <em>seven years</em>. So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests, for they shall burn the weapons with fire'' [Ezek. 39.9-10, KJV]</p>
<p>The preacher continued, "Could iron and steel burn for seven years? No. But weapons made of lignin could burn for seven years, if there were enough of them!" I took the piece of lignin with me to high school and told others of the prophecy and its "miraculous fulfillment". <sup>1</sup></p>
<p>But I couldn't keep my engine idling at such an "end-times" peak indefinitely. I eventually stopped thriving on mental pictures of raptures, A-bombs, anti-christs, God turning seas to blood, and final judgments. I stopped trying to match up the latest news from the Middle East with verses from the Bible.</p>
<p>After a few years I realized that the further my fellow fundamentalists and I ventured into such head trips, the further we withdrew from the person we were expecting to see. His arrival became another date on the calendar and not a date with a heavenly bridegroom.</p>
<p>I read an Interview with the Anglican theologian Robert F. Capon in which he stated, "Predicting dates is only important when the immediacy of a present relationship is lost. When people start haggling about whether Jesus meant ten minutes or fifteen, they have lost the connection with the person they are expecting."<sup>2</sup><br />I agreed.</p>
<p>While in high school the books my teacher kept plying me with included Henry Morris's <em>The Twilight of Evolution</em> and <em>Many Infallible Proofs</em>, which advocated young-earth creationism. Since I had not read very widely at that time, I took everything that Morris said as "gospel truth." The fact that he cited Scripture to prove his points only made his views seem more attractive to me. My wish became to study biology at Christian Heritage College, which was closely affiliated with Henry Morris's Institute for Creation Research. I wanted to become a "creation scientist," spreading the good news of "creation evangelism" across the land, defeating evolutionists in public debates, like Duane T. Gish was apparently doing, according to the literature I was then reading. I phoned Henry Morris about attending Christian Heritage College, but he suggested that it would be better if I studied biology at a secular university so that my criticisms of evolution would come from within the scientific establishment instead of from without.</p>
<p>Five months after graduating from high school I was baptized as an adult believer in Christ at Jacksonville Chapel, Lincoln Park, New Jersey, November 24, 1974, by Pastor Earl V. Comfort, a man with a magnetic personality who used an overhead projector to illuminate his sermon points--in-depth analyses of the books of the Bible, mostly Romans, which included comparing and contrasting the views of the apostle Paul and Sigmund Freud! During the years I attended that church it grew considerably, including a brand new building, a brass ensemble, a gym, etc. It was in the vestibule there that I bought my first books of Christian theology, Paul Little's <em>Know Why You Believe</em>, John Stott's <em>Basic Christianity</em>, Francis Schaeffer's <em>Escape from Reason</em>, and C S Lewis's <em>Mere Christianity</em>.</p>
<p>I majored in biology at Mercer County Community College in Trenton, New Jersey, arguing all the while with my professors. I attended a creationist convention in Philadelphia. I obtained copies of sides that Duane T Gish used in his debates with evolutionists, and on two occasions I used them to present the "case for creation"-once, during a college science seminar, and another time before a group of Ph D chemists at Hoffman-La Roche, where I worked as a lab assistant. My presentation only converted one lab technician. The Ph.D. s remained unimpressed.</p>
<p>While at Mercer County I joined the most "on-fire" Christian campus group I could find, Chi Alpha (meaning, "Christ's ambassadors," the campus outreach division of the Worldwide Assemblies of God Church). In 1976 I was elected president of our little Chi Alpha group. We brought Christian rock groups to campus, showed a film that questioned evolution (after which I fielded questions from the audience), and pursued other avenues of evangelism. Although we had thirty names on the membership roll only about half that number showed up regularly at weekly meetings, probably about the same number of people who attended the gay group's meetings on campus. Like them, we were a distinct minority.</p>
<p>This brings me to a revealing tale. After learning that a gay group was posting sheets informing other gays to come out and join their group, I posted my own sheets (without prior permission from the dean) containing the apostle Paul's railings in Romans against homosexuality, at the end of which I stated that "we" at my group "loved" homosexuals, and invited them to hear the "good news" at our meeting. The dean spoke with me about my illegal postings, and told me that "Bruno and Melissa" of the gay group wanted to speak to me personally on campus that evening. I sweated out the pre-meeting time in prayer and met only Melissa. (Bruno couldn't make it). We two met alone in the quad as the sun was going down. She was incensed at my callousness and intolerance and blissful ignorance. She recounted some heartrending stories of what she had had to suffer due to her sexual orientation. I smiled and listened as she went on and on. Finally it was my turn to speak and I told her that I was just repeating what the Bible said, and showed her the passages in question. She quieted down, realizing, I guess, that I was not interested in "battling homosexuality," but was unintentionally causing her grief by blindly repeating age-old "wisdom" from God She shed some tears toward the end of our discussion, while I smiled blissfully at her. But my blissful example wasn't strong enough to hook her into my belief system and she let me know that I was "not going to convert" <em>her</em>.</p>
<p>I cringe a bit today, knowing what my illegal postings must have represented in her mind, how it rekindled her memories of previous acts of prejudice and pain, etc. Come to think of it, my one-dimensional interactions with "nonbelievers" (i.e., parroting "what Scripture sez" instead of dipping into the full range of my own thoughts and perceptions, and without ever really listening to other people) served two purposes (1) to isolate me from being understood by them, and (2) to isolate myself from perceiving their unique personhood. Such a one-dimensional way of interacting with "nonbelievers" helped keep me faithful. It kept the blinders on my true believer's eyes. <sup>3</sup></p>
<p>The overseer of our Chi Alpha group was a Church of God minister, Bob Wittick, who could speak in tongues, although I only distantly remember him doing so once.</p>
<p>My increasing interest at that time in charismatic gifts of the spirit coincided with my heartfelt wish to know Jesus, and discover for myself the depth of the truth of Christianity. I read pro-charismatic books, sold in the Lamplighter, a Christian bookstore in Princeton, New Jersey, that told about speaking in tongues, and why you shouldn't be afraid to ask for such a gift from God, and biblical reasons why the gift still existed, despite biblical interpretations by fundamentalist Christians to the contrary.</p>
<p>I began attending living room sermons and prayer meetings at Leon Kastner's farm with a couple of friends. Leon had attended a Charismatic Christian seminary, and his living room was his church. There we lifted our hands and praised Jesus. During one such session I experienced the hoped-for bliss of what I then termed "baptism in the Holy Spirit." <sup>4</sup> It was a great flow of joy raining down on me from head to toe, a joy to cast out fear and make me want to laugh. I barely resisted laughing, and wish to this day that I <em>had</em> simply let go and laughed. But I was much more serious then than now. I hugged everyone afterwards, and felt for the first time that such hugging was natural and not a feigned gesture.</p>
<p>Two weeks later, I moved my lips "in faith," and repeated one or two nonsense syllables over and over until others appeared. I was soon forming entire "words" out of those syllables. I can still "speak" in that "tongue" whenever I wish. No preparation, meditation, or trance is required. <sup>5</sup></p>
<p>For a year or two after being "baptized in the spirit" the mere memory of that moment was enough to maintain my utmost devotion to the "truth of Christianity." But eventually the memory dwindled and my ability to rekindle even a spark of the original bliss, through intense prayer and praise, ceased. That is not to say that my faith in Christ and belief in Christian doctrines waned at that time. It did not.</p>
<p>It was during my first year in college that I began reading all the Christian works of the Oxford English professor, C. S Lewis. In his autobiography, <em>Surprised by Joy</em>, Lewis mentioned how great an influence G. K. Chesterton's book <em>The Everlasting Man</em> played in his decision to become a Christian. So I read just about everything that Chesterton (who may be called an "evangelical Catholic") wrote on Christianity, including nearly all his fiction. I also read George MacDonald's Christian fantasy novels, <em>Lilith</em> and <em>Phantastes</em>, since Lewis prized both of those novels highly, and called MacDonald "my spiritual mentor."</p>
<p>My heart ached with unspeakable yearning upon reading <em>Lilith</em>, which depicted how one could be both a Christian and a universalist. I was impressed by MacDonald's perception of God's unfailing compassion. He depicted ordinary sleep and dreams as avenues of God's healing and grace. And in his <em>Unspoken Sermons</em> MacDonald portrayed the flames of hell as the fingers of God reaching out to touch His children who perceived His touch as "painful"--the pain of spiritual awakening. Yet God continued to reach out to them, and would succeed one day in awakening every last child of God.</p>
<p>Later I tied together the universalist threads that linked Lewis to his two Christian mentors, Chesterton and MacDonald. But for the moment, there was still another branch of Christianity I was to encounter and reject before proceeding along the path toward Christian universalism.</p>
<p>After receiving my associate's degree in biology, I transferred to Fairleigh Dickinson University in Rutherford, New Jersey, where I hosted two "Book Table Give-Aways." Standing to the side, I prayed for my fellow students to take and read some of the material on the table. I also sent twenty-five dollars a month to Pat Robertson, to spread the Gospel over the airways.</p>
<p>At one of my give-aways I met a girl at FDU who later introduced me to her brother, a theologically conservative Calvinist, who shared with me Rushdooney's, Van Til's and Gordon Clark's works, punished by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. I even made two "pilgrimages" to Westminster Theological Seminary during his period, where I caught a fleeting glance of Cornelius Van Til, talked with a few students, and visited the bookstore.</p>
<p>You might think that I would have trouble getting along with someone who believed that miracles (like the gift of tongues) ended with the age of the apostles, and who handed out tracts that stated on the front in bold green print, <em>Mourn! God Hates You!</em> But Calvinism intrigued me.</p>
<p>I attended the brother's church twice, and spoke briefly with his minister. What a "solid" faith, I thought. God "made some vessels for eternal honor and <em>made others for eternal dishonor"</em> simply to bring glory to Himself and embody His attributes of eternal "compassion" and eternal "justice". Conversion was up to God. He either bestowed upon people the "gift of saving faith," or damned them.</p>
<p>In a sense it was a relief, knowing that you were not responsible for anyone else's salvation. You did not have to plead with anyone, or devise clever gimmicks to entice them toward the faith, like many Christian youth ministries utilize. The "absoluteness" of God's will was emphasized. If someone did not agree, such was God's will, let them be damned.</p>
<p>It was also a demanding faith for those already in it. They had to avoid unclean associations, i.e., anything that might intrude on the "purity" of their theology and behavior. From thence have arisen "Reconstructionist" Christians who would like to see ancient Hebrew laws writ into America's Constitution.</p>
<p>I rejected Calvinism after realizing that, unlike the believers I had met, I could not relinquish the "nonelect" to God's eternal "justice." Heaven would not be heaven for me if that were true. Neither could I conceive of any reasonably good person maintaining an eternal concentration camp, let alone God Himself. And I could not accept the doctrine of "total [spiritual and mental] depravity," nor the Calvinist rationalization that any and all righteous behavior manifested by the nonelect was merely "common grace," without which the world would be a "living hell."</p>
<p>John Calvin's teachings appear in their most blunt form in his <em>Institutes</em> [Bk II, chapt xxiii, sect. 7] "Whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? . . . The decree is dreadful [<em>horribile</em>] indeed, I confess." I had to agree that worshiping a God who was pleased by such things <em>was</em> horrible!</p>
<p>Martin Luther, another advocate of the biblically based view known as "predestination," wrote in his classic defense of that view, <em>On the Bondage of the Will</em>.</p>
<blockquote>This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful, that He is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that He seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and to be more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith.</blockquote>
<p>I agreed with Luther that worshiping a God who "seems to delight in the torture of the wretched" would take more faith than I had.</p>
<p>I would sooner side with Voltaire than with Calvin and Luther on such matters.</p>
<p>For Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary had the guts to stand up and say:</p>
<blockquote>The silly fanatic repeats to me. . . that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice. Eh! how, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?</blockquote>
<p>Even Christian apologist C.S. Lewis was too smart to fall for Calvin's "horribile decree" and Luther's "acme of faith":</p>
<blockquote>[There are dangers in judging God by moral standards, but] believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him "good" and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. . . . The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict. [Lewis was replying to the Biblical accounts of what he called "the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua" and the account of Peter striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, called "Divine" decrees by those who believe Scripture is without error.-ED.) I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible. . . . To this some will reply "ah, but we are fallen and don't recognize good when we see it." But God Himself does not say we are as fallen as all that. He constantly in Scripture appeals to our conscience: "Why do ye not <em>of yourselves</em> judge what is right?"--"What fault hath my people found in me?" And so on. . . .<br />Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason) . . If "good" means "what God wills" then to say "God is good" can mean only "God wills what he wills." Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.<sup>6</sup><br />The real danger is of corning to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not "So, there's no God after all," but, "So, this is what God is really like. Deceive yourself no longer."<sup>7</sup></blockquote>
<p>In college I also read nearly all of Francis Shaeffer's works (popular apologetics in the Reformed Church tradition), and found him interesting, yet not as fine a writer as Lewis or Chesterton. For me, learning is exemplified not only in what you say, but how you say it. Perhaps that helps explain why after five or six years of avid church attendance and intense reading, I found it increasingly difficult to sit through a sermon. Most of them seemed dull and superficial in comparison to what I was reading at the time, and as repetitious in their focus and emphases as I had earlier found the Catholic prayers and rituals to be.</p>
<p>Generally, ministers find it superfluous to address questions. They stand in the pulpit, "three feet above contradiction." Preachers, like politicians are taught to embody, via a variety of rhetorical and nonverbal means, their utter conviction of the truth of whatever they happen to be preaching, regardless of how much they may know, or not know, about the subject. This reminds me of the story of a minister who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes, "Weak argument here. Shout louder." As I grew to recognize the <em>diversity</em> of opinions among Bible scholars and theologians (even just among evangelicals), the <em>rhetorical posture</em> of preachers (and politicians) increasingly appeared to me to be subject in its own right.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I began to realize that large groups of people are better at being <em>manipulated</em> by rhetoric and bald assertions-getting caught up in the "crowd atmosphere"--than they are at making logical inferences concerning the preacher's (or politician's) statements. That is the primary reason I chose at that time to conduct several one-on-one dialogues with nonbelievers through the mail. Such dialogues take more thought, more time to cook up and digest. And I thought that in such an atmosphere, the truth of Christianity would be irrefutably self-evident.</p>
<p>It was right after four years of college, and before I began a full time job, that I began swapping lengthy letters with William Bagley and Robert Price (former fundamentalists whose testimonies are contained in this book). Lists of books were exchanged during our letter debates. Both of my friends were already familiar with evangelical Christian literature. So, they patiently explained that it was up to me to try reading at least one of the books that they had suggested, and discuss it with them, in order for the debate to continue.</p>
<p>Up to that time my knowledge of what others believed had been gained almost totally via books written by Christian apologists. In fact, about the only "critiques of Christianity" that I had heard about were those whose notorious infamy had led to them being briefly mentioned and summarily dismissed by some of the Christian apologists I had read.</p>
<p>The few times that I had read books critical of Christianity (i.e., before I had begun my correspondence with Will and Bob), they were books that two in-the-flesh friends of mine had badgered me to read. One libertarian chess buddy suggested I read Thomas Paine's <em>Age of Reason</em>, and lent me his copy. My philosophy professor was fiends with Walter Kaufmann, and suggested a few times that I read Kaufmann's <em>Faith of a Heretic</em>, and some of Nietzsche's works Kaufmann had translated. I only read them to try and demonstrate to my friends and to myself how easily I could refute them. My mind by some miracle of double-think blithely disregarded what I would today consider to be the authors' most compelling points. As a Christian I would challenge each authors' arguments on a few particulars, though I soon found myself stretching the Bible's meaning to accommodate even the widest gaps in its truth content, and thinking that I had thereby discredited the nonbelieving authors' arguments <em>in toto</em>. I wasn't seeing the forest for the few trees I had chopped down, and the wide-angled blinders I was wearing.</p>
<p>Furthermore, those two books were not ones that dealt with matters that most concerned me as a <em>fundamentalist</em>. For instance, it would have been more of a challenge had I begun by reading Thomas Paine's smaller and more focused critique of specific Bible passages, <em>Examination of the Passages in the New Testament, Quoted from the Old, and Called Prophecies of the Coming of Jesus Christ</em>,<sup>8</sup> rather than his <em>Age of Reason</em>.</p>
<p>In our letter exchanges, Will Bagley challenged me to view Christian symbols and sacraments, like "the Blood of Christ," "the Cross," even "the Resurrection," as pointers toward more universal truths, and not the Truth itself.</p>
<p>While corresponding with Will I first learned of C.S. Lewis's friend, Bede Griffiths, who was mentioned briefly in Lewis's autobiography, <em>Surprised by Joy</em>. Griffiths was one of Lewis's pupils at Oxford and converted to Christianity about the same time Lewis did. Afterwards they "kept up a copious correspondence." Griffiths became a Catholic monk and far surpassed Lewis in his ability to perceive a similar spiritual center lying at the heart of all the world's major faiths. Griffiths died the same year and month I'm writing this, at eighty-six years of age, while living in a Christian-Hindu <em>ashram</em> that he founded in India. The titles of his published works illustrate his mystic universalist approach to knowing God, beginning with his autobiography, titles like <em>The Golden String, The Marriage of East and West, Return to the Center, River of Compassion, The Cosmic Revelation: The Hindu Way to God</em>, and his final work, <em>The New Creation in Christ</em>.</p>
<p>Dom Bede Griffith's obituary in the <em>National Catholic Reporter</em> (May 1993), by Tim McCarthy, stated:</p>
<blockquote>As late as 1990, Griffiths was forced to defend Eastern spirituality against the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's December 1989 response to the challenge of Buddhist and Hindu spirituality.<br />Discussing the CDF'S warning that certain forms of Eastern prayer tempt people to try to overcome the necessary distance between creator and creature, God and humankind, Griffiths wrote in <em>NCR</em>, "As if God in Christ had not already overcome that distance and united us with him in the closest bonds. St. Paul says, 'You who were far off, he has brought near-not kept distant-in the blood of Christ.' Jesus himself totally denies any such distance, 'I am the vine,' he says, 'you are the branches.' How can the branches be 'distant' from the vine?" . . .<br />We must "never in any way seek to place ourselves on the same level as the object of our contemplation," the CDF document insisted. "Of course, we don't seek to place ourselves on the same level," Griffiths countered. "It is God who has already placed us there. Jesus says, 'I have not called you servants, but friends.' And to show what such friendship means, he prays for his disciples, 'that they may be one, as thou, Father in me and I in thee, that they may be one in us.'"</blockquote>
<p>In a letter published in the <em>National Catholic Reporter</em>, beneath the headline, "Vatican Letter Disguises Wisdom of East Religions," (May 11, 1990), Griffiths drew attention to several Christian movements in ages past that endorsed mystical prayer, then added, "This is not to say that Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian mystics all have the same experience. But it is to recognize an analogy between them and to look upon the Hindu and Buddhist experience as something of supreme significance, not to be lightly dismissed by a Christian as of no importance."</p>
<p>Naturally, if my friend Will Bagley resembled Griffiths, then I resembled Lewis. For I found it very difficult at first to widen my religious perspective. <em>Christian</em> universalism seemed attractive, but not a universalism in which the truths of all the world's faiths overlapped to varying degrees. It was during my dialogue with Will that I began tying together those universalist threads I spoke of earlier.</p>
<p>G.K. Chesterton, in his book <em>Orthodoxy</em> stated, "To hope for all souls is imperative, and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable." He also had many positive things to say about the non-Christians whom he debated and remained friends with. For instance, In his book on George Bernard Shaw, Chesterton stated, "In a sweeter and more solid civilization he would have been a great saint" And when H G Wells was seriously ill, he wrote Chesterton and said, "If after all my Atheology turns out wrong and your Theology right I feel I shall always be able to pass into Heaven (if I want to) as a fiend of G.K.C.'s. Bless you" To this Chesterton replied, "If I turn out to be right, you will triumph, not by being a friend of mine, but by being a friend of Man, by having done a thousand things for men like me in every way from imagination to criticism. The thought of the vast variety of that work, and how it ranges from towering visions to tiny pricks of humor, overwhelmed me suddenly in retrospect and I felt we had none of us ever said enough. . . Yours always, G.K. Chesterton"<sup>9</sup> Talk about being ecumenical!</p>
<p>C S Lewis himself seems to had had second thoughts about the dogma of the eternity of hell's torments. In his novel, <em>The Great Divorce</em> Lewis named a major character after the universalist Christian minister and novelist, George MacDonald, and has that character escort a visitor from hell around heaven, where the visitor eventually chooses to remain.</p>
<p>In <em>The Problem of Pain</em>, a work published before <em>The Great Divorce</em>, Lewis had assumed that the orthodox Christian doctrine of hell had "the full support of Scripture". But in <em>The Great Divorce</em> it becomes evident that Lewis had begun to reconsider his earlier wholehearted avowal of that church doctrine. He even has the George MacDonald character in his novel <em>deny</em> that the orthodox Christian doctrine of hell has the "full support of Scripture," by having MacDonald say, "St Paul talked as if all men would be saved." Neither did Lewis have the angel (whom George was speaking to in the novel) deny George's interpretation of St Paul's words, but only reply that it was not for man to ask such questions. Yet Lewis felt strongly enough about that possibility to <em>raise</em> that question in one of his novels for all his readers to ponder.</p>
<p>It was in a little book called <em>Salvation and Damnation</em> by a Jesuit priest named Dalton that I first learned about the verses written by St. Paul that suggested "all would be saved." That little book by Dalton opened my eyes to a universalist view of salvation that has ever after seemed a superior moral view.<sup>10</sup></p>
<p>Still more revelations concerning my Christian faith were forthcoming. Bob Price was a professional biblical scholar. He was immune to my pot shots fired at his "liberal" faith. His replies to my letters consisted of in-depth analyses of verses in the Bible, keeping in mind their historical contexts. I requested a book list. What I received was a neatly typed annotated list of about sixty titles, arranged according to various categories "New Testament Studies . . . Old Testament . . Theology. . . Apologetics. . ." I began wading through the scholarly tomes.</p>
<p>The contention that Bob introduced me to that threw me for the biggest loop was that <em>Jesus</em> had <em>incorrectly</em> predicted that the Son of Man would come "with his angels, and reward every man according to his works" before "some standing" <em>there with Jesus</em> had "tasted death" (Matt. 16.27-28)-a prediction that Jesus reiterated, stating, "<em>This</em> generation [meaning his own] will not pass away" until the Son of Man has arrived. (Matt 24 30-34).</p>
<p>The attempt to overlook Jesus' error by citing Jesus' other saying, namely that, "No man knows the day or the hour," does not make Jesus' prediction any less false. "Days" and "hours" imply <em>nearness</em> in time and he <em>within</em> a "generation's" span of time. To quote the famous German biblical scholar, David F Strauss. "[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a "generation"), and the determination of the precise date and time (the "day and the hour") at which it will occur, the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give."<sup>11</sup></p>
<p>Furthermore, look at what the apostle Paul has to say about the nearness of Jesus' "day" and "hour":</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be [literally, <em>is soon</em> (Gk <em>mello</em>) to be<sup>12</sup>) revealed to us The whole creation groans and suffers the pain: of childbirth <em>until now</em> . . .<br />We groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body . . .<br />Knowing the time, that it is already the <em>hour</em> for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed! The night is almost gone, and the <em>day</em> is <em>at hand</em>. .<br />The God of peace will <em>soon</em> crush Satan under your feet (Rom 8 18, 22-23, 13 11-12; 16 20 [NASB])</p>
<br />
<p>Paul was even more explicit about the imminence of Jesus' return in his letter to the believers at Corinth.</p>
<br />
<p>These things were written for <em>our</em> instruction, <em>upon whom the ends of the ages have come</em><br />The rulers of this age <em>are</em> passing away [i.e., they will not last much longer].<br />Do not go on passing judgment before the time [i.e., "before the time" of final judgment, which Paul taught was close at hand --ED], but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts . . .<br /><em>The time has been shortened</em> so that from now on both those who have wives should be as though they had none [i.e., Paul preached that the time was so "short" that married Christian couples ought to abstain from having sex, keeping themselves pure for their soon-returning savior--ED]; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice, and those who buy, as though they did not possess, and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it, <em>for the form of this world is passing away</em> [="This world, as it is now, will not last much longer" (TEV)]<br />Proclaim the Lord's death <em>until he comes</em> [i.e., <em>not</em> "until the day you die," which means that he taught Christ's coming was nearer than the time when the believers he was writing to would all be dead-ED.]<br /><em>We</em> [Pau1 and the first-century believers being addressed] <em>shall not all sleep</em><br />At the last trumpet. . . the dead will be raised . . . and <em>we</em> shall be changed<br />Maranatha ["Come Lord"]<br />(1 Cor 2 6, 4 5, 7.29-31) 10 11, 11-26, 15 51-52, 16 22)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That's a "day" and an "hour" that both Jesus and Paul predicted was going to arrive <em>very soon</em>!<sup>13</sup></p>
<p>Even when I first encountered it, this problem was not new to me, having read C S Lewis's acknowledgment of it in his book <em>The World's Last Night</em>. Lewis attributed Jesus' erroneous prediction of his "soon return" the limits imposed by the Incarnation, i.e., that Jesus, being fully human (as well as being fully God), could err in some of his knowledge and expectations, as humans do.</p>
<p>But, Bob also made me aware, contra Lewis's "God-man" defense, that "if we admit Jesus to have been in error on a very important factual/doctrinal claim like the near end of the world, then we must at least potentially think twice about his other teachings."</p>
<p>Debating Bob and studying books on his list I learned many other things about the Bible that I might have remained a happier Christian not knowing.</p>
<p>I read books that critiqued the idea that Jesus "fulfilled" Old Testament prophecies<sup>14</sup>. I read books that critiqued the notion that present day events were "fulfilling" biblical prophecies.<sup>15</sup> Meanwhile, doubts crept into my fervent <em>creationist</em> beliefs after reading "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark"-the title of a special issue of <em>Creation/Evolution</em>, a Journal devoted to answering creationist claims. (The article was written by Robert Moore, a former fundamentalist whose testimony appears elsewhere in this book). That particular issue of <em>Creation/Evolution</em> was chock-full of embarrassing questions for creationists, and made me realize for the first time that well-informed critics of creationism <em>did</em> exist, contrary to what the creationist press had led me to believe.</p>
<p>Then I read articles by Bob Schadewald in the <em>Skeptical Inquirer</em> in which he mentioned Bible verses that implied their authors' view of the earth was <em>flat</em>. Two primary verses were Daniel 4 10-11, "I saw a tree of great <em>height</em> at the center of the earth . . . it was visible to the earth's farthest bounds," and Matthew 4 8, "The devil took him [Jesus] to a very <em>high</em> mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." In both cases such visibility presupposes a flat earth, since on a spherical earth, no matter how "high" you were, things would remain beyond your vision, i.e., those areas on the earth's opposite side.</p>
<p>Thus, I was awakened to the shocking thought that the authors of the Bible may have taken for granted that the earth was flat! And the more I studied the matter (at first to debunk it) the more Bible verses I found that implied a strictly horizontal view of the cosmos,<sup>16</sup></p>
<p>The arguments I had used to defend the truth of Christianity were peeled away from me like the many layers of an onion's skin. I put up all the intellectual resistance I could, and winced at each layer's removal. I suffered through dark nights of the soul pondering whether my beliefs might not I too narrow or even wholly false. Imperceptibly, my fears, doubts, and grief blossomed into relief, relaxation, and joy. I realized that my God was too small. I caught myself using the Bible as a paper idol. (My experience at that point resembled that of John William Colenso, whose testimony appears in this book). I became a very moderate, but not quite "liberal" Christian. My favorite authors included Conrad Hyers (whose testimony appears in this book), Robert Farrar Capon (who wrote somewhat like G K Chesterton would have if he'd had a seminary degree), and Alan Watts (the <em>early</em> Watts, who, while still a priest in the Anglican church, wrote, <em>Behold the Spirit</em>)</p>
<p>I began to consciously admit that perceptions and questions raised by <em>non</em>believing thinkers agreed with some of my own, and I sought out further correspondences of that type. My former distrust of skeptical literature dwindled merely to a hesitancy in continuing to read more. But even that hesitancy eventually vanished. I found myself thinking at a greater depth, and admitted how I really felt about certain aspects of my faith, instead of repeated my old fundamentalist response, which was, "Yes, that seems to make some sense, but not if the Bible is 100 percent accurate and authoritative." I even grew <em>hungry</em> to read all sorts of intellectual materials I had previously denied myself.</p>
<p>I certainly owe a debt to my fiends Bob and Will. Their learning, their tact, their tolerance and patience induced me to pursue three years of what was then the most intense reading, correspondence, and introspection of my life (though the entire process is perpetual, ongoing).</p>
<p>After reading yet more books on biblical criticism and the development of Christian doctrine, and after studying evolutionists' criticisms of "scientific creationist" arguments, I became disenchanted with Christianity <em>in toto</em>, and became an agnostic with theistic leanings of the Martin Gardner variety. Gardner is the prodigious author of skeptical articles and books (and former puzzle columnist for <em>Scientific American</em>). He believes in a benevolent (non-Christian) "God," and in immortality, but <em>not</em> because a preponderance of evidence exists to support those conclusions. Rather, he argues that there may be just enough scientific, philosophical, and heartfelt reasons to <em>not</em> simply abandon such an alternative to atheism. I found his book <em>The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener</em> very helpful during this period. Gardner was once a fundamentalist Christian, and lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma, home of Oral Roberts University. The basic outlines of Gardner's own spiritual and intellectual odyssey appear in his novel <em>The Flight of Peter Fromm</em></p>
<p>Where am I at today? I have not been able to regain any sort of faith in the Bible as the "highest" authority on spiritual matters. It contains some "inspiring" passages, as many books do. But I have also learned that many of the ideas it contains owe a significant debt to the cultural milieu out of which they arose. There are in the Bible some plagiarisms from other ancient works, lessons in morality (along with some stories that picture God committing wholesale acts of slaughter that would stain even the devil's character), some history mixed with some legend and myth, Old Testament verses lifted out of context and misapplied to Jesus' life, contradictions, redundancies, omissions, and passages that fundamentalists would brand as "obscene" if they ran across them in any other book except the Bible. Those who say that they believe everything in the Bible from cover to cover don't know all that lies between the covers. A few self-evident examples should suffice to make my point.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the Lord said . . . "With thee will I break in pieces old and <em>young</em> and with thee will I break in pieces the <em>young man and the maid</em>" (Jer 51-22 [KJV])</p>
<p>And the Lord said . . . "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, <em>infant and suckling</em>." (1 Sam. 15 3)</p>
<p>"The Lord delivered him before us, and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities and utterly destroyed the men and the women, and the <em>little ones</em>, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deut 2:34)</p>
<p>And Moses said . . . "Kill every male among the <em>little ones</em>, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him [including pregnant women]. But spare the virgins for yourself" (Num. 31:17)</p>
<p>"<em>Happy</em> shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy <em>little ones</em> against the stones" (Ps 137 9)</p>
<p>And the Lord said . . . "I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters." (Jer 19 9 and Deut. 28:53, 57)</p>
<p>And Jesus said . . . Suppose ye that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother. . . . If any man comes to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 12 51-53 and 14.26)</p>
<p>And the Lord said . . . "I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall" (1 Kings 14 10 [KJV])</p>
<p>"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous" (Ps. 58 10-11)</p>
<p>"Noah took . . . of every clean beast and fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. <em>And the Lord smelled a sweet savor</em>." (Gen 8 20-21)</p>
<p>"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and <em>on the seventh day he rested, and we refreshed</em>" (Exod. 31 17) [According to learned editors of a Bible published in 1774, the true meaning of the Hebrew is, "on the seventh day He <em>rested</em>, and <em>fetched breath</em>."]</p>
<p>And Abraham said to his male servant . . . "Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh And I will make thee swear by the Lord . . . (Gen. 24 2-3 and 47 29) [Since God was the author of the mystery of reproduction and had blessed Abraham's "seed," the Hebrews took a sacred oath by putting a hand "under the thigh," that is, on another man's testicles. This type of "swearing in" is biblical and literal, unlike today's "liberal" practice in courtrooms of merely placing your hand on the Bible.]</p>
<p>"This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and <em>thy breasts to clusters of grapes</em>.<br />I will take hold of the boughs thereof now also <em>thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine</em>." (Song of Sol 7 7-8)</p>
<p>"My breasts like towers then was I in his eyes as one that found favor" (Song of Sol. 8 10)</p>
<p>"Let us get up early to the vineyard there will I give thee my loves. The mandrakes give a smell and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved" (Song of Sol 7 7-8) ["Gates" refers to genitals. And the two-pronged "mandrake" root is crotch-shaped. Even in earliest biblical times "mandrakes" were related to sexual potency. In Genesis 30 Jacob's barren wife tells him she has "hired him (a child) with <em>mandrake</em>"]</p>
<p>"Your <em>vulva</em> a rounded crater, may it never lack punch! . . The smell of your <em>vulva</em>, like apples" (Song of Sol. 7 2, 8) [The <em>Anchor Bible</em> translation. The scholar who did the translation, Marvin H. Pope, concluded that the word "naval" has been the accepted unscholarly euphemism for an obscure term in the Hebrew. As he elaborates in his notes, the Hebrew much more likely refers to a woman's vulva]</p>
<p>And the Lord said . . . "She doted upon their paramours [her illicit sexual partners], <em>whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses</em>" (Ezek. 23 20) [It is plain that "the Lord" is describing men with "donkey dicks, who come like horses." Yet when was the last time you saw <em>that</em> translation in a modern English translation of the Bible?]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Recently, my agnosticism was shaken by the testimony of one man in particular, Howard Storm, a former hardened agnostic and chairman of a university art department, whose description of his long, involved, near-death experience roused me from my doubts and fear that there may be no afterlife, to positively hoping there may be one.</p>
<p>I am presently studying a numbers of books on near-death experiences, and have "confirmed" several aspects of Storm's story by comparing it with the stories of those who have had remarkably similar experiences. Few stones I've run across are as long and detailed as his. After his experience, Storm's life changed radically. He quit his well-paid position at the university and attended seminary. Today he is a minister in a liberal Christian denomination, United Church of Christ. He is much happier than he was before the experience and does not fear death. He continues to assert that his near-death experience was "more real" than waking reality, and that extraordinary experiences accompanied him long <em>after</em> he had it.</p>
<p>Moreover, I've discovered that my personal happiness has increased with my renewed interest in an afterlife. After studying only a few books on near-death experiences, and reading several skeptical pieces on them, I am still no expert on the phenomenon. However, I am no longer the skeptic I once was. There <em>does</em> appear to be some evidence for life after death. It wouldn't be much fun being a "skeptical inquirer" if there were absolutely no claims to "inquire" about, would it?</p>
<blockquote>Life is a "racket," so get a few laughs, do the best you can, take nothing serious, for nothing is certainly depending on this generation. Each one lives in spite of the previous one and not because of it.<br />Believe in something for another world, but don't be too set on what it is, and then you won't start out that life with a disappointment. Live your life so that whenever you lose, you are ahead!<br />-Will Rogers</blockquote>
<p><strong>Notes</strong></p>
<p>1 It never occurred to me, blinded by my faith in "miraculous-maybe" interpretations of Scripture, that perhaps Ezekiel was not "inspired."</p>
<p>He depicted his "end-time" battle exactly as any ancient Near Easterner might, being fought with wooden shields, bucklers, bows, arrows, handstaves, and spears, instead of with today's metallic arsenal. How much inspiration would it take for an ancient Near Easterner to prophesy the employment of such weapons? None.</p>
<p>Furthermore, in the same prophecy Ezekiel mentioned "not needing to take wood out of the field, neither having to cut down any out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire." Ezekiel took for granted <em>the need to burn wood</em> for cooking, heating, etc. But, like prophesying the use of spears and arrows, how much inspiration would it take for an ancient Near Easterner to speak prophetically about wood-burning fires, as opposed to today's gas and electric? None.</p>
<p>Looking back, I should have noticed how "literalists" only take a literal interpretation as far as <em>they</em> want, no further. For instance, Ezekiel's "end-time battle" and "seven years burning of weapons" are interpreted literally, but his "shields, swords, spears and arrows" are not!</p>
<p>What about Ezekiel's end-time adversaries, "Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal"? Hal Lindsey and other prophecy-mongers insist that Rosh equals Russia, Meshech equals Moscow, and Tubal equals Tobolsk (Moscow and Tobolsk being cities in Russia). Thus they interpret Ezekiel's prophecy to mean that present-day Russia will invade present-day Israel.</p>
<p>Not so, according to Edwin M Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University and author of <em>Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes</em> (Baker Book House, 1982). Yamauchi explained on the basis of documented archaeological evidence how Ezekiel was "inspired" by the precarious situation of his own era.</p>
<p>In Ezekial's day, invading hordes, like the Urartians, Manneans, Cimmerians, and Scythians, occupied parts of what are now Armenia, Turkey, and Iran, as well as the Russian steppes. These "invaders from the north" were the ones Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) feared, and prophesied against.</p>
<p>"Meshech" and "Tubal" have been clearly identified as kingdoms/provinces that used to be in areas of ancient Anatolia (roughly equivalent to our present-day Turkey). They do <em>not</em> refer to Moscow and Tobolsk.</p>
<p>Yamauchi also explained why "Rosh" could not possibly be related to "Russia," and how archaeological evidence was being ignored by end-times preachers, who, apparently, only read each other's books, thus perpetuating their collective blindness, passing it off on their listeners as the "God-breathed truth."</p>
<p>Take for instance, end-time preacher Hal Lindsey, who stated in <em>The Late Great Planet Earth</em>, "[I do not] believe that we have prophets today who are getting direct revelations from God, but we do have prophets today who are given special insight into the prophetic word." Undoubtedly Lindsey considers himself one of these "prophets." So, let's see how "the special insight" he claims to have been granted by God stacks up with reality.</p>
<p>In <em>The Late Great Planet Earth</em> (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Zondervan Press, 1970), Lindsey specified "an extremely important time clue" in Scripture, namely, Jesus' parable of the fig tree putting forth its leaves, letting you know that summer was near-after which, Jesus added, "when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door" (Matt. 24:32, 33). According to Lindsey, "This is the most important sign in Matthew".</p>
<p>"The figure of speech 'fig tree' has been a historic symbol of national Israel. When the Jewish people became a nation again on 14 May 1948 the 'fig tree' put forth its first leaves. Jesus said that this would indicate that He was 'at the door,' ready to return. Then Jesus said, 'Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' (Matt 24.34) What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs-chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948 [i.e., <em>before</em> 1988], all these things [including, according to Lindsey, the Temple being rebuilt, people fleeing to the mountains to escape the world's final battles, and Christ's return) could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so."</p>
<p>Well, it ain't so. What <em>is</em> so, is that Lindsey must now admit that a "life" of conservative/inerrantist "Bible study" can lead to erroneous "beliefs"!</p>
<p>Moreover, the extreme importance of this particular "sign" and "time clue" was reinforced by Lindsey in his later books. Note their titles: <em>The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon and The Terminal Generation</em>.</p>
<p>In <em>The Terminal Generation</em> (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), Hal stated another of his "prophetic insights," namely, "Based on biblical prophecy, I believe that there will continue to be <em>an increase</em> in major earthquakes. . . . In a recent book called <em>The Jupiter Effect</em>, written by two astronomers . amazing things are predicted to occur in 1982. . . The 'Jupiter effect' is a rare planetary lineup which occurs every 179 years. . . According to the authors, a result of the effect will be that great earthquakes will be triggered."</p>
<p>Again, it wasn't so. In fact, even fellow fundamentalist Christians. like the folks at the Institute for Creation Research, have acknowledged that since 1990, data regarded the frequency and intensity of global earthquakes has followed <em>no clear pattern of increase or decrease</em> [Impact, no. 198, December 1989.].</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Lindsey's enthusiasm inspired others to get into the "prophetic insight" business, including televangelist and presidential contender Pat Robertson, who stated just as unequivocally as Lindsey that, "If I am hearing Him right I believe in the next two years, I would put it at '82, but the dates are risky, there is going to be a major war in the Middle East. . . The Soviet Union is going to make the move, and that's what God is saying: we've got a couple of years . . . from now on its going to be bloodshed, war, revolution and trouble." (Robertson speaking at a Christian Broadcasting Network staff meeting, January 1, 1980, as recorded by Gerard Straub, one of Robertson's producers (Wayne King, "Robertson Looks at God and Politics," <em>New York Times,</em> December 27, 1987]).</p>
<p>Robertson also announced during a Christian Broadcasting Network broadcast, June 9, 1982, "I guarantee you by the fall of 1982 that there is going to be a judgment on the world, and the ultimate judgment is going to come on the Soviet Union. They are going to be the ones to make military adventures, and they are going to be hit . . . by the fall [1982] undoubtedly something like this will happen which will fulfill Ezekiel."</p>
<p>"1982" was over ten years ago, and "1988" is over five years past. Meanwhile, what Robertson and Lindsey's "prophetic insight" told us to expect before then <em>did not happen</em>. Regardless of the fact that they approached Scripture with the utmost reverence, and prayed to receive wisdom from God to "interpret his word rightly," it is now apparent that either God did not answer those prayers, or God did not speak clearly enough to be rightly understood. (What might this imply about the claim of some fundamentalists that "God does not hear or answer the prayers of unbelieving Jews"? Does this put Robertson and Lindsey in the same category?) How many other interpretations of the Bible by its most fervent believers might be equally lacking in God-given "insight"? This may only be the tip of the iceberg!</p>
<p>2. Mike Yaconelli (ed.), <em>The Door Interviews</em> (Grand Rapids, Mich: The Door/Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), interview with Robert Capon, p. 233</p>
<p>3. Today I believe that the Hebrews, who depicted their laws as a "revelation" from Yahweh to Moses (just as the Babylonians depicted their laws as a revelations from the god Shamash to King Hammurabi, which "divinized" any and all local human prejudices by having them arise directly out of the mouths of "the gods") were wrong in unilaterally condemning homosexual activity, and equally wrong in their judgments concerning a number of other matters. The apostle Paul's exclusion of homosexuality from the realm of "natural behavior" was likewise an assumption on his part that is questionable today, and which in his day was likely to have been an argument from "natural philosophy" that he had plagiarized from some Roman philosophers who had used it before him. So, as I see it, neither the ancient Hebrews nor Paul were perfect and unlimited in knowledge with respect to what they wrote. The Bible is a book exemplifying what was believed then, and not necessarily what must be believed today.</p>
<p><br />Is the origin and spread of AIDS an example of "God's condemnation" of homosexual behavior? Many fundamentalists feel that it is. But, think again. There are other explanations. Male homosexual contact involves abrasive skin-to-skin contact and intermingling of bodily fluids, which <em>automatically</em> increases the likelihood of <em>any</em> contagious disease being transmitted from one person to another. The same is true of intravenous drug users who share needles, people who receive blood transfusions, and health care workers who accidentally get stuck with the needles they have put into other people's arms. Obviously, if male homosexuals practiced strict monogamy, or used condoms "religiously" and drug addicts used only their own needles and sponges, and no one sought a blood transfusion, AIDS would not have spread as it did.</p>
<p>A comparison may prove helpful. Say a Christian congregation all placed their lips one Sunday morning on the same communion cup. Now say that many of the Christians who sipped from the cup had lips with miniscule sores or cuts on them. In that case, AIDS (or some other disease) could conceivably be spread among a congregation of Christians. That may seem an unlikely scenario. But notice that the majority of Christian churches in America (even the fundamentalist ones) dropped the practice of drinking out of the same communion cup quite a number of years ago, due, I suppose, to warnings from health officials (although the Catholics still employ "germ baths" filled with "holy water" at the entrances to their churches that everyone dips their hands into and anoints their faces with). So Christians who drink out of many little separate cups at communion, instead of a single cup, are practicing "safe sacraments," regardless of the fact that Jesus probably shared the same cup with his disciples. So even fundamentalists choose less dangerous methods of doing what they want to do most, instead of curtailing their activities entirely.</p>
<p>If AIDS <em>was</em> some form of "judgment from God" sent to wipe out homosexual behavior, it has not had the desired effect. It has only made homosexuals more aware of the necessity of maintaining monogamous, long-term relationships, not of abandoning their inclinations altogether. It has done little toward discouraging lesbian behavior, which remains at a relatively lower risk for AIDS, perhaps even lower than the risk that heterosexuals run in catching the disease.</p>
<p>Besides, if AIDS represents "God's condemnation" of homosexual behavior, what do the host of <em>other</em> sexually transmitted diseases represent? "God's condemnation" of <em>hetero</em>sexual behavior? And what about the "plague" that subsided about AD 594, after killing "about half the population" of Europe (<em>Information Please Almanac</em>, 1991)? Not to mention Europe's "Black Death" during the Middle Ages, which killed twenty-five million people. Did such plagues represent "God's condemnation" of <em>Christian</em> civilization?</p>
<p>And what about the barrage of illnesses that children contract: small pox, measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. These used to claim far more lives than they do today. According to Buffon, the French naturalist, only half the children that were born two hundred years ago ever reached the age of eight. Did such a high mortality rate due to killer disease represent "God's condemnation" of <em>children</em>?</p>
<p>And what about any major outbreak of a <em>killer</em> disease, transferred not by genital contact but merely by breathing the same air, drinking the same water, or touching the same objects, diseases like influenza, tuberculosis, polio, and others? Do they represent "God's condemnation" of everyone who touches the same objects, drinks out of the same cup, and breathes the same air?</p>
<p>The trouble with AIDS is that many people wish that homosexual behavior and traits would cease, and AIDS is making their dream come true, by killing homosexuals.</p>
<p>Ipso facto, they rejoice at what is happening, some of them even stooping so low as to rejoice at what's happening in their deity's name. A similarly barbaric form of jubilation is evident in certain Psalms (58:10, NASB and 137:9, KJV]: "the righteous will <em>rejoice</em> when he sees the vengeance; he will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked," and, "Blessed (or <em>Happy</em>] shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." "Beautiful" songs sung to Yahweh.</p>
<p>On the other hand, biblical literalists who believe that AIDS is a "happy" or "blessed" occurrence worthy of "rejoicing" over, should also meditate on Proverbs [17 5, 24:17 and 25:21, NASB] "He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished. . . . Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles . . . . If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink." (I leave it to infamous fundamentalists to "reconcile" the conflicting attitudes and messages being broadcast in the Psalms and Proverbs, cited above.)</p>
<p>Just how "flattered" God must feel with being credited for AIDS is anyone's guess. Too bad the people who prase God for AIDS don't praise Him for all the other rampaging illnesses that have plagued children and Christians throughout history (See A. Nikiforuk, <em>The Fourth Horseman: A Short History of Epidemics, Plagues, Famines and Other Scourges</em>.)</p>
<p>Ironically, fundamentalist Christians cannot maintain their numbers without some form of "evangelism" coupled with "teaching and training" in church doctrines that no one is born believing. Compare that with the fact that throughout history and in different cultures homosexuals have comprised a fairly stable few percent of nearly any given population. As the most recent genetic, historical, sociological and genealogical studies have shown, we will probably have the same proportion of homosexuals with us for as long as people continue to be born. That means that a solid few percent of the world will remain homosexual for generations to come. On the other hand, a recent Gallup poll indicates that the number of Americans who believe the Bible is the <em>literal</em> word of God has continually and radically diminished since the 1960's. So homosexuality, even with the AIDS epidemic claiming many, may have a greater chance of outlasting fundamentalism in the long run.</p>
<p>4. Today, I think that what I experienced may have parallels in other religion traditions, such as the Buddhist's <em>satori</em>, or the Hindu's <em>samadhi</em>. Perhaps certain drugs (naturally produced in the brain, or synthetically produced) might duplicate or help rekindle the ecstasy. I have no idea, except to say that the experience was one thing, while the meanings and interpretations I attached to it at that time, and in that setting, were another.</p>
<p>5. Although I prayed in tongues for years, my "vocabulary" remained limited to certain syllabic patterns: "Kiddy-ya-say, bed-aloo-way, amiddy-ya-kay . . . etc." The "words" were each about four or five syllables long (longer if I took a deeper breath), with the accents on the first syllable and childish, sound-alike endings. The "gift of tongues" appears to be neither eloquent nor miraculous. I can still perform this "miracle," without the "faith."</p>
<p>I am even less impressed by the "gift of interpretation of tongues." I have attended meetings where a brief tripping of the tongue was "interpreted" quite lengthily.</p>
<p>6. July 3, 1963, letter from C.S. Lewis to John Beversluis. Letter quoted in full in John Beversluis, <em>C.S. Lewis, and the Search for Rational Religion</em> (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1985), pp 156f.</p>
<p>7. C S. Lewis, <em>A Grief Observed</em> (New York: Seabury Press, 1963). pp. 9-10.</p>
<p>8. Thomas Paine, <em>Examination of the Passages in the New Testament, Quoted from the Old, and Called Prophecies of the Coming of Jesus Christ</em> (first published in 1807). Recently republished, with added notes as <em>The Age of Reason--Part Three--Examination of the Prophecies</em>, ed. Frank Zindler, (Austin, Tex. American Atheist Press, 1993). A briefer, edited version appears in <em>An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism</em>, ed. Gordon Stein (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1980), pp. 125-43.</p>
<p>9. December 10, 1933, letter from H.G. Wells to G.K. Chesterton. Undated reply from G.K. Chesterton to H.G. Wells. Letters quoted in full in Maisie Ward, Gilbert Keith Chesterton (New York, Sheed & Ward, 1943). pp. 604-605.</p>
<p>10. William J. Dalton, S J., <em>Salvation and Damnation</em> (Butler, Wis: Clergy Book Service, 1977).</p>
<p>11. David F Strauss, <em>The Life of Jesus Critically Examined</em> (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), ch. 115, "The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent: Criticisms of the Different Interpretations," p. 587.</p>
<p>12. A. J. Mattill, Jr., in <em>The Art of Reading the Bible</em> (Gordo, Ala., Flatwoods Free Press, 1988), p 12, stated,</p>
<blockquote>I made an exhaustive study of the Greek verb <em>mello</em> and found what is seldom recognized, and even seldomer proclaimed by preachers and professors, namely, that <em>mello</em> in the New Testament is used again and again to indicate the speedy coming of the end of the world. "Before long" God "will judge the world" (Acts 17:31); "before long there will be a resurrection" (Acts 24:15), the age which is about to come" (Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 6:5) to give a few examples. Needless to say, this imminent expectation failed to materialize</blockquote>
<p>Mattill's "exhaustive study" can be found in his book <em>Luke and the Last Things</em> (Dillsboro, NC.: Western Carolina Press, 1979), ch. 4, "'Before long' (Acts 17:31): The Imminent Expectation in Acts," pp. 41-54, and in his article, "Naherwartung, Fernerwartung, and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: Weymouth Reconsidered," published in <em>Catholic Biblical Quarterly</em>, vol. 34, no. 3, July 1972, pp. 276-93.</p>
<p>In personal correspondence, Mattill has also pointed out, "It's interesting to note that in the Jehovah's Witness interlinear Greek NT they translate <em>mello</em> in the interlinear as 'about to,' but then in the English text to the right ignore their own translation . . . that would appear to be their way of escaping the imminent hope as expressed by <em>mello</em>."</p>
<p>No doubt, many fundamentalist and evangelical Bible translators employ the same mental gymnastics as the Jehovah's Witnesses.</p>
<p>13. I am composing "The Lowdown on God's Showdown," a lengthy essay examining the many New Testament predictions that Jesus would return in the <em>days of the Apostles</em>, not in our day.</p>
<p>14. Michael Arnheim, <em>Is Christianity True?</em> (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1984), ch 6, "Fulfillment of Prophecy?"; David Berger and Michael Wyschogrod, <em>Jews & Jewish Christianity</em> (New York; Ktav Publishing House, 1978); Gerald Sigal, <em>The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity</em> (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1981); Farrell Till; <em>Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled</em> (Canton, Ill: Skepticism, 1991); Charles C. Hennell. <em>An Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity</em>, 2d ed. (London: T. Allman, 1841), ch. 12, "<em>On the Prophecies</em>," ch. 13, "On the Prophecies of Isaiah," ch. 14, "On the Prophecies of Daniel," pp. 325-403; John E. Remsburg, <em>The Bible: I. Authenticity II. Credibility III. Morality</em> (New York: The Truth Seeker Company, 1930?), ch. 22, "Prophecies," pp. 293-305; Edward J. Barrett, "Can Scholars Take the Virgin Birth Seriously?" <em>Bible Review</em> (October): 10-15 and 29; Dennis McKinsey, various articles on "Messianic Prophecy" published in <em>Biblical Errancy</em> (see especially, no. 7 [July 1983], no 24 [December 1984]; no. 30-31 [June-July 1985], and no. 76 (Apr. 1989]).</p>
<p>15. Dewey M. Beegle, <em>Prophecy and Prediction</em> (Michigan Pryor Pettengill, 1978); Colin Chapman, <em>Whose Promised Land? Are the Ancient Promises of the Bible Relevant Today?</em> (Belleville, Mich: Lion Publishing, 1983); Grace Halsell, <em>Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War</em> (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence H. & Company, 1986); Dwight Wilson, <em>Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917</em> (Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Book House, 1977).</p>
<p>16. For instance, Scripture speaks of God at creation inscribing a "circle" on the (assumedly flat) "<em>surface</em> of the waters" (Job 26:10 and Prov 8 27). Could this be a description of God's creation of a pancake-shaped earth and the limits of its flat circumference? It seems likely. The biblical earth is often described as having "ends," and also a "center," where Jerusalem is said to be (Ezek. 5:5, 38:11, 12, and Ps 22:27 and 59:13). A flat, circular earth would square well with such speech.</p>
<p>Notice also the use of the phrases, "from <em>one end</em> of the earth <em>to the other</em>" (Deut. 28:6465); and "from one end of the heavens . . . to the other end of them" (Ps. 19.4-6). The writers of those passages were obviously thinking in terms of <em>opposite</em> "ends" of a flat surface. This is further corroborated by Isaiah 11:12, "Gather [them] from the four corners of the earth," and Revelation 7:1, "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth," which demonstrate that four <em>flat</em> directions (north, south, east, and west) remained the norm for the ancient Hebrews, even to the extent of a psalmist rejoicing, "He removes our transgressions from us, as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12), which, on a <em>globe</em>, is not irreconcilably distant. For on a globe, "east" eventually <em>meets</em> "west."</p>
<p>According to Genesis the earth was created <em>before</em> the sun, moon, and stars, which were <em>afterwards</em> "set" above the earth to provide light for the earth below. Likewise, as only on a flat earth, all the stars "fall to earth" when the heavens are shaken. "And the stars fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs, when she is shaken by a mighty wind" (Rev. 6.13). "And the stars will fall from the sky . . ." (Matt 24:29 and Mark 13.25). Only on a flat earth with tiny stars hung above it to "light the earth," would their descent cause only negligible damage. This also explains why, according to Revelation 21, a "new heaven" has to be created to replace the one that "fell down" earlier.</p>
<p>Throughout Scripture the shape and construction of the earth is assumed to resemble that of a building (or a tent), having a firm, immovable foundation built by God, and a roof (or canopy) "stretched out" by God, overhead: "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever" (Ps 104:5). "The world is firmly established, it will not be moved'' (Ps. 93:1). "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them" (I Sam. 2:8). "It is I who have firmly set its pillars (Ps. 75.3). "Who stretched out the heavens . . . and established the world" (Jer. 10:12). "Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in" (Isa. 40:22). "Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain" (Ps. 104.2). "In the heavens . . in the true tabernacle [tent], which the Lord pitched, not man" (Heb. 8:2-3). "The One who builds his upper chambers in the heavens, and has founded his vaulted dome over the earth" (Amos 9.6). "Praise God in his sanctuary, praise him in his mighty firmament [i.e., sanctuary-shaped heavens]" (Ps. 150:1). Why no ball shaped, or sphere-shaped resumptions of heaven or earth?</p>
<p>Also, why no mention of the earth's movement, except in terms of an "earthquake?" And why was the shaking of the earth equated with a shaking of the heavens and the stars above? "The earth quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling" (2 Sam. 22:8). "The earth quakes, the heavens tremble" (Joel 2:10) Those were not mere "earthquakes," restricted to the surface of one relatively small planetary sphere. The biblical authors were attempting to depict a simultaneous convulsion of both halves of creation, God shaking the whole of creation from its roof to its foundation (namely, shaking the flat earth, and the heavens stretched out above the flat earth). "I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place" (Isa. 13.13). "There was a great earthquake . . . and the stars of the sky fell . . as if shaken from a tree" (Rev. 6:12, 13).</p>
<p>Of course, the book of Job does state, cryptically, that, "He hangs the earth on nothing, or, literally, without anything" (26:7) But that doesn't deny that God also hangs it solidly. Neither does such a verse suggest that the earth moved, or was spherical. Ancient Egyptian iconography, for instance, depicts <em>ka</em>, a personal power, directly supporting a flat earth disc. And, as Jeremiah 10 12 states concerning the mystery of the earth's ultimate support, which was an insoluble problem for ancient man, "He (Yahweh) established the world by His wisdom; and by his understanding he has stretched out heaven"</p>
<p>Apropos of any discussion of the book of Job is the fact that later in the book, God rebukes Job for having said, "He hangs the earth upon nothing," because such a statement is more than any man has a right to declare with certainty. God replies to Job sarcastically, "Where were <em>you</em> when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . On <em>what</em> were its bases sunk? Have you understood (or examined) the expanse of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this!" (Job 38:4, 6, 18). Jeremiah also declared that the mystery of the foundation of the earth was one that only God would ever know the answer to, "If the . . foundations of the earth (can be) searched out below, then I will cast off . . Israel" (Jer. 31:37). In other words, just as Israel will never be totally "cast off," the foundations of the flat earth are portrayed as ever remaining a mystery to man.</p>
<p>Furthermore, neither does the author of Job, in other passages, refrain from presupposing the earth's "flatness." For instance, "[God's] measure is <em>longer</em> than the earth, and <em>broader</em> than the sea," "Who <em>stretched</em> the <em>line</em> on [the earth]?" and, "He looks to the <em>ends of the earth</em>, and sees everything <em>under the heavens</em> (Job 11:9, 38:5, and 28:24). Not to mention Job 38:13, which speaks of dawn grasping the earth by its "extremity or hem" (Heb. <em>kanap</em>; cf. Num 15:38 and I Sam 15.27) and shaking the wicked out of it. The picture is metaphorical, comparing the indubitably <em>flat</em> earth to a blanket or garment picked up at one end and shaken. In Job the flat earth's immobility is also asserted: God "leads forth" the constellations in "their season," instead of "leading forth" the earth in "its season." The earth, therefore, was considered immobile (Job 38:32), which agrees with the book of Joshua, where the sun, and not the earth, is commanded to "stand still"; and the book of Ecclesiastes, which says the sun must "return to the place from whence it arose" before it can "rise and set" again (Josh. 10:12-13 and Eccles. 5:1).</p>
<p>Against this vast array of scriptural evidence, inerrantists cite a single verse in Isaiah that they claim states the earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22 "He sits above the circle of the earth."</p>
<p>But there is an obvious link between Isaiah's "circle of the earth" and the "circle" inscribed at creation on the "surface of the waters" in Job and Proverbs. So, a <em>flat</em> circle appears like Nudace of the waters in Job and Proverbs. So, a sat circle appears like the most likely interpretation.</p>
<p>Moreover, if Isaiah had wished to write "<em>sphere, globe</em> or <em>ball</em> of the earth," instead of "circle," he could have done so, since he wrote elsewhere about a man being "rolled up tightly like a <em>ball</em>" (Isa. 22. 18).</p>
<p>And in discussing the creation of the earth Isaiah did not say that God "rolled it up," but that God "spread out the earth" (42:5), the Hebrew word for "spread" being used elsewhere in the Bible to depict a "pounding" or "flattening."</p>
<p>This "spread out" earth also lies beneath tent-shaped heavens. According to Isaiah 40:22, "He stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a <em>tent</em> to dwell in" (the last part of the very same verse inerrantists cite in favor of 'sphericity").</p>
<p>Thus, I became convinced that Isaiah also viewed the earth as flat.</p>
<p>Finally, I discovered that the notion of a <em>flat, circular</em> earth also appeared in ancient Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek iconography and literature.</p>
<p>In fact, so clear are the biblical verses concerning the earth's shape that many of the fathers of the Christian Church--Lactantius, Diodorus, Severianus, and Chrysostom, to name a few insisted that Scripture taught that the earth was flat. Such a view was also defended by the Christian geographer, Cosmas Indicopleustes, in his sixth century work, <em>Christian Topography</em>.</p>
<p>As late as 1935, in Zion, Illinois, Wilbur Glenn Voliva, the first Christian preacher to own his own radio station, advocated the biblical view of the world's flatness in contrast to "modern astronomy."</p>
<p>Lastly, according to a study conducted by the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics during the 1980's, almost one-half of children aged ten years and younger in the United States and other countries believe the earth is flat. And those who say it is round picture "round" as a giant pancake or a curved sky covering a flat ground. One in four thirteen-year-olds also believes the earth is flat.</p>
<p>In other words, people living during the infancy of observational science, could hardly have avoided perceived the world as flat. Indeed, it was so obvious to them that they never bothered to state outright that "the world is flat," until the idea of sphericity arrived contesting the notion of flatness. But, their figures of speech and iconography reveal what their view of the world's shape was.</p>
<p>17. Quoted in Bryan B. Sterling and Frances N. Sterling, <em>Will Rogers' World: America's Foremost Political Humorist Comments on the Twenties and Thirties--and Eighties and Nineties</em> (New York: M. Evans and Company, 1989).</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-17207267732517978662012-04-29T13:16:00.000-07:002019-09-02T03:56:04.934-07:00Charles Templeton: Inside Evangelism<img style="border-width: 0px; float: right;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/charles_templeton.jpg" alt="Charles Templeton, Former Evangelist and Agnostic" width="314" height="317" />
<blockquote>When finally I shook free of Christianity, it was like being born again. I began to see all of life differently. The things that had once seemed important now seemed trivial. And things I'd never seen the meaning of or the essence of I began to appreciate for the first time.<br /><br /> --Charles Templeton (in a telephone conversation with the editor)</blockquote>
<p>Charles Templeton's careers have been many and varied: syndicated sports cartoonist, evangelist, pastor, television and radio personality, author of a dozen novels, screenplays, and nonfiction, and political candidate. He has held three of the top news jobs in Canada: executive managing editor of the <em>Toronto Star</em>, news director of the CTV Television Network, and editor-in-chief of <em>McLean's</em> magazine. Two of his novels deal with religious issues, <em>Act of God</em> and <em>The Third Temptation.</em> His autobiography, <em>An Anecdotal Memoir</em>, provides an intimate glimpse into his varied careers. He is currently writing a book on agnosticism tentatively titled <em>Farewell to God</em>. The following account focuses on Templeton's twenty-one years in the Christian church in Canada and the United States, during which time he preached in fourteen countries to audiences of up to seventy thousand.</p>
<p>In 1936, at the age of nineteen, Charles Templeton left his job as sports cartoonist for the <em>Toronto Globe</em> to become a minister in the church of the Nazarene. He had been reluctant to attend the Nazarene church where the rest of his family had been converted, but one night he went through a "profound change." He had returned home from a party at 3 A.M. His life seemed "empty, wasted, and sordid." "It was as though a black blanket had been draped over me. A sense of enormous guilt descended and invaded every part of me. I felt unclean." He prayed at his bedside, "Lord, come down. Come down. Come down. . . ." Then "a weight lifted off and an ineffable warmth began to suffuse every corpuscle in my body." Afterwards he prayed, "Thank you, Lord. Thank you. Thank you. . . ." As the birds began to chirp outside he "began to laugh . . . out of an indescribable sense of well-being at the center of an exultant, all-encompassing joy."</p>
<p>He was ordained by the Church of the Nazarene after reading only "half a dozen books and submitting to an oral examination by a group of local preachers."</p>
<p>Templeton spent three years as an itinerant evangelist, preaching in churches from Ontario to California "In Minden, Louisiana, I was preaching on the subject of 'God's Perfect Love' as a tornado touched down, disintegrating the segregated African Methodist church across the street, killing eight members of the congregation, including the pastor. . . "</p>
<p>During this period he preached in a town in Michigan where there wasn't much to do during the day. He began reading in the library of the pastor with whom he was staying, a library that included Thomas Paine's critique of Christianity <em>The Age of Reason</em>, Voltaire's <em>The Bible Explained at last</em>, Bertrand Russell's <em>Why I am Not a Christian</em>, Robert lngersoll's <em>Some Mistakes of Moses</em>, and books on Gandhi, David Hume and Thomas Huxley.</p>
<p>The arguments of these men stunned him. For about six weeks he stopped preaching "The way back was tortuous and slow."</p>
<p>He met his future wife, Constance Orosco, during an evangelistic campaign in Grand Rapids, Michigan. "She was the singer and I was the evangelist. We were married six weeks later."</p>
<p>Together, they took all their savings, $600, and rented an empty church in Toronto. Within six months it was impossible to find a seat in the Sunday night service unless you were on hand by 6:45. Every week hundreds were turned away at the doors."</p>
<p>The board agreed with Templeton to enlarge the church. But before the morning of the rededication, an arsonist set the building ablaze. Public sentiment was so positive that enough money was pledged in one service to rebuild the church. It was during the time spent as minister of the Avenue Road church in Toronto that Templeton witnessed two cases of instantaneous healing. Not to say that he is in favor of mass healing rallies, which he has always viewed as a health hazard rather than a blessing "since they leave behind an emotional wreckage and illnesses often worsened by neglect."</p>
<p>The two instances that Templeton witnessed occurred in private. In neither did he expect a healing to occur.</p>
<p>In the first, an infant suffering a big defect-a muscle that was misattached, causing the baby's head to be twisted to one side-was healed within minutes after Charles laid his hands on the child and prayed. The child's condition prior to and after the healing was documented at the time by hospital physicians. <em>New World</em>, a Canadian version of <em>Life</em> magazine, ran the story and a full-page picture of the mother and child.</p>
<p>In the second instance, Templeton prayed for his aunt after exploratory surgery revealed that her stomach cancer was both malignant and inoperable. As he laid hands on her and prayed, he says he "felt something akin to an electrical charge flow through my arms and out my fingers."</p>
<p>Within hours his aunt, who had been bedridden for weeks, was up and about. The cancer did not return, the pain from the adhesions ended, and she lived for another forty-two years.</p>
<p>Despite his opposition to "the public healing services of contemporary evangelism--wherein "the 'healers' are often simpletons or rogues or both"-Templeton says he is convinced that "what may loosely be called faith healing is an area of medicine with unrealized potential".</p>
<p>Templeton first met his long-time friend Billy Graham in 1945 at a Youth for Christ rally in Chicago. He had been invited to attend by Torrey Johnson, the pastor of an evangelical church in that city, and the founder of Youth for Christ. That night, hundreds of young people in an audience of twenty thousand responded to Billy's invitation to come forward and receive Christ.</p>
<p>Templeton returned to Toronto and immediately began his own Youth for Christ rallies. They soon became "the largest of the more than one thousand weekly rallies in North America."</p>
<p>Youth for Christ International was formed, and Billy Graham was chosen as the group's official evangelist. Together, Templeton and Graham alternated as preachers in London, York, Manchester, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast, Copenhagen, and Stockholm.</p>
<p>Returning home, Templeton continued to preach at Youth for Christ rallies and at his church in Toronto. Frequently he would fly to Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and other cities to preach in stadiums and major auditoriums. One Easter sunrise he preached to fifty thousand in the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>Back home in Toronto, he arranged yearly rallies in Maple Leaf Gardens. "Much of what we did was show business. Spectacle. The thousand-voice choir was dressed in white except for a number in black forming a cross at the center. There were five grand pianos, an international pageant in full costume, vocal soloists, a trumpet trio, the Octette, and to climax it all, Connie's "The Lord's Prayer."</p>
<p>"For Christian young people the Gardens rallies were pop extravaganzas. They were participants in something larger than life. Surrounded by thousands of their fellows, holding a common faith, they found a tangible justification of their religious commitment."</p>
<p>Then Templeton's doubts began to resurface. "Following our return from Europe, I had been fighting a losing battle with my faith. I had been so busy that there had been little time to take stock. But in the occasional quiet moments, questions and doubts resurfaced. There was a shallowness in what we were doing, a tendency to equate success with numbers. There seemed to be little concern with what happened afterwards to the youngsters who responded to our appeals. Billy, too, was troubled by it, and we talked about it many times. It undoubtedly contributed to his move from Youth for Christ to conduct his own campaigns.</p>
<p>"But my dilemma was of a different kind. I was discovering that, as I matured, I could no longer accept many of the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. I had been converted as an incredibly green youth of nineteen. I had only a grade-nine education and hadn't the intellectual equipment to challenge the concepts advanced by my friends and mentors. I <em>wanted</em> very much to believe. There was in me then as there remains now an intense, inchoate longing for a relationship with God. In the beginning, I accepted the beliefs of the people around me, but I read widely in every spare minute; on planes and trains and in bed. Slowly against my will, for I could perceive the jeopardy-my mind had begun to challenge and rebut the things I believed.</p>
<p>"I had never believed all that fundamentalists believe-the Genesis account of creation, for instance, or the monstrous evil of an endless hell. But now the entire fabric was coming apart."</p>
<p>At this time a fiend suggested to Templeton that he quit preaching and return to school if he wanted to continue to be useful in the ministry. He was "startled" by his friend's suggestion. What would happen to the various projects he had founded over the years?</p>
<p>After "brooding, appraising, praying" he concluded that what his friend had sensed was true. His faith was disintegrating. "I lacked the intellectual training to deal with the questions that were beleaguering me. If I continued as I was going, I would soon become a hypocrite, mouthing what I no longer believed."</p>
<p>He applied to Princeton Theological Seminary but was rejected--his ninth grade education being less than the bachelor's degree requisite for attending. After a personal appeal to the president of the seminary, he was admitted as a "special student."</p>
<p>A month before he enrolled at Princeton, Templeton visited Billy Graham in Montreat, North Carolina. "Billy and I talked long about my leaving Youth for Christ. Both of us knew that, for all our avowed intentions to keep our friendship alive, our feet were set on different paths. He was as distressed as I was. We both knew that I was not simply giving up Youth for Christ, I was leaving fundamentalism."</p>
<p>Over the years, Templeton and Graham had often discussed their beliefs. "Once we spent two days closeted in a hotel room in New York City, exchanging experiences, discussing the Bible and theology, and praying together."</p>
<p>It was at one such meeting that they debated the Genesis creation account. Templeton couldn't accept it. But Billy defended it, pointing out, "When I stand before the people and say, 'God says,' or 'The Bible says', there are results. People respond. I don't have the tune or the intellect to examine all sides of each theological question, so I've decided, once and for all, to stop questioning and to accept the Bible as God's Word."</p>
<p>"But Billy," Templeton protested, "you can't do that. You don't dare stop thinking. Do it and you begin to die. It's intellectual suicide."</p>
<p>There are accounts in a few biographies of Billy Graham that claim this particular exchange between Graham and his friend led to a temporary crisis in Billy's faith.</p>
<p>Here was Templeton about to leave for seminary, but not wanting to part from his old friend. "'Bill,' I said, 'face it we've been successful in large part because of our abilities on a platform. Part of that stems from our energy, our convictions, our youth. But we won't always be young. We need to grow, to develop some intellectual sinew. Come with me to Princeton.'"</p>
<p>Graham replied that he could not because he was president of Northwestern Bible College, a small fundamentalist school in Minneapolis. He suggested that they seek admission to a seminary somewhere outside the U.S. "Oxford, for instance". As a measure of his sincerity, Graham held out his hand. There is no doubt in Templeton's mind today that if he had shaken Billy's hand "the history of mass evangelism would be different than it is" "But, he "couldn't do it" He could not give up the opportunity to enter Princeton for the possibility of a chance to enter Oxford later.</p>
<p>"Not many months later," Templeton recalls, "Billy traveled to Los Angeles to begin a campaign that [with the aid of a newspaper magnate's publicity blitzed], would catapult him overnight into national prominence."</p>
<p>While at Princeton, Templeton hoped to resolve some of the questions that were eroding his faith. "Paramount among them was the question. Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was he a moral and spiritual genius or was he, as the Christian church has always held, 'very God of very God'"? In his search for answers he found the "stacks of relevant material in the library" to be of more value than his classes and conversations with his professors.</p>
<p>But his searching was not merely intellectual. "I knew that faith is more a matter of the spirit than of the mind". So, in his second year, Templeton began to fast one day a week "in imitation of Mohandas Gandhi--who remains one of the formative influences on my life."</p>
<p>Every night he walked for an hour on the golf course back of the seminary, straining to get in touch with God, "to grasp something of what the theologians have described as 'the mysterium tremendum.'"</p>
<p>One night as he stood beneath the stars, looking skyward, he went though what he later realized was a mystical experience "I was caught up in a transport. It seemed that the whole of creation, the trees, the skies, the very heavens, all of time and space and God Himself was weeping. I knew somehow that they were weeping for mankind for our obduracy, our hatreds, our ten thousand cruelties, our love of war and violence. And at the heart of this eternal sorrow I saw the shadow of a cross, with a silhouetted figure on it weeping."</p>
<p>Templeton sought to repeat the experience. He studied the writings of the Christian mystics and eventually realized that such experiences had no special significance--members of various religions have had similar experiences. Indeed, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was able to go into a transport at will merely by repeating his name aloud.</p>
<p>Leaving Princeton, Templeton had reestablished his faith. He had "found a measure of certainty through a conscious act of commitment."</p>
<p>He was ordained into the ministry by the Presbyterian Church, and the National Council of Churches hired him in July 1951 to conduct "preaching missions." He traveled from city to city across the United States and Canada under their auspices, which included most of the churches in each city he visited.</p>
<p>To avoid "the scandal of love-offerings," he put himself on a yearly salary of $7,500. It was traditional for an evangelist to be paid all the money contributed during the closing night of a campaign, when the largest crowd is in attendance, which could amount to thousands of dollars. When it was publicized that Templeton was receiving a meager salary for his services, <em>Time</em> magazine used the opportunity to shaft Graham. Billy had just completed a campaign in Atlanta, and <em>Time</em> ran a picture of him. Over his shoulder was a mail sack bulging with the love offering presented to him on the closing night. To his credit, Billy immediately put himself on a salary at $15,000 a year.</p>
<p>Two significant differences between Templeton's and Graham's evangelistic campaigns remained. Billy spoke a lot about heaven and hell, and asked converts to come forward. Templeton seldom spoke about heaven, never preached on hell, and "deliberately avoided" applying any emotional pressure. At the end of his sermon, he would announce that an afterservice would be held for any who wanted to make a commitment, and would then dismiss the meeting. Those who wanted to remain had to move against the flow of the thousands leaving. Each night, hundreds chose to stay.</p>
<p>The other difference between their campaigns, when they preached south of the Mason-Dixon line, was that "in the beginning Billy's were segregated, mine were not."</p>
<p>As the crowds attending Templeton's campaigns grew larger, so did the newspaper coverage.</p>
<p>In the August 1953 issue of <em>American</em> magazine Edward Boyd wrote an article titled "Religion's Super Salesman." Boyd commented, "I have just seen the man who's giving religion a brand-new look; a young Canadian by the name of Charles B. Templeton. Passing up the old-style hellfire-and-damnation oratorical fireworks, he uses instead a persuasive, attractive approach that presents religion as a commodity as necessary to life as salt, and in doing, has set a new standard for evangelism.</p>
<p>"Dispensing with . . . tricks from the old-time evangelist's repertoire, he is winning converts at an average of 150 a night, and-what is something new in modern evangelism-they stay converted.</p>
<p>"At a recent two-week stay in Evansville, Indiana, for example, a count showed that Templeton had drawn a total attendance of 91,000 out of a population of 128,000. A survey taken six months later showed that church attendance was 17 percent higher than it had been before he'd come.</p>
<p>"He is booked two years ahead, a situation that the biggest Broadway hit can't boast, and the demands for his service are ten times greater than can be met. Moreover, observers who have closely followed his progress say that Templeton has not yet begun to hit his stride."</p>
<p>However, during this period Templeton began to experience pains in his chest and arms, sudden sweats at night, and a pounding of his heart that would shake his bed.</p>
<p>He was examined by a doctor who could not find any physiological causes for the problems. One specialist, however, told Templeton that his symptoms might be a psychosomatic disorder, some conflict or unresolved problem in his life. The physician added that unless the problem was resolved, the symptoms would continue and new ones could arise, adding to his discomfort.</p>
<p>Templeton knew what the problem was--doubt. "How does a man who each night tells five thousand to ten thousand people how to find faith confess that he is struggling with his own?"</p>
<p>Following the closing service at a campaign in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, described in the press as "the greatest crowd ever to gather in the history of Harrisburg, "Templeton made the decision: he would no longer conduct campaigns. He accepted a position as head of the Department of Evangelism for the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. He taught at seminaries and universities and wrote two books, one of them being <em>Evangelism for Tomorrow.</em></p>
<p>During this period, Templeton spoke at Yale for a week, meeting afterwards with various students. One was the outstanding man in the senior class. He was also the captain of the debating team and an avowed atheist. The two of them debated the truth of Christianity alone in a borrowed office. At the end neither had convinced the other. The student conceded, however, that Templeton had made "a hell of a good case."</p>
<p>Templeton's first reaction was elation, but he realized that he too had a concession to make-his arguments no longer convinced himself. "In the heat of discussion I believed them, but, alone, I knew that I had been role-playing."</p>
<p>During this time Templeton was hosting the CBS network's religious television program "Look Up and Live" (1952-55). Not long after his debate with the Yale student, Templeton quit the television program and "gave up the ministry."</p>
<p>About his irrevocable decision to leave the ministry Templeton states, "There was no real choice. I could stay in the ministry, paper over my doubts and daily live a lie, or I could make a break. I packed my few possessions in a rented trailer and started on the road home to Toronto."</p>
<p>Thus began his various careers as writer, editor, producer, politician. "The only activity I will not return to is the Christian ministry; I am and will remain a reverent agnostic."</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-11919419025902799272012-04-17T00:29:00.000-07:002019-09-02T03:56:40.193-07:00WHO is God?<p>A response to message: <a href="http://edwardtbabinski.us/religion/gloria_commandments.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ten Commandments Controversy</a> - America Founded on Judaic-Christian Priniciples</p>
<p>From: "ricky"<br />To: edwardtbabinski.us<br />Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:47 AM<br />Subject: WHO is G-d?</p>
<p>Gloria, I can see that you, like myself, are searching for the true G-d, because, for all these years, you have been inundated with conflicting information that has you confused and uncertain. Let me relate a true story of something that happened to me just last week that should help you find an answer.</p>
<p>For the past 35 years I have been an absolute atheist. Raised a Roman Catholic, I, of course, began to question the veracity of the scriptures and the authenticity of the new testament. It has been my belief that the story of Jesus was the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind in all of history. NOBODY could convince me I was wrong. With this in mind, last week, Monday, September 15, I was checking out the stocks, looking for something to buy low and sell high, watching CNBC, when I realized it was time to take my granddaughter to the schoolbus, which has become a daily ritual for me. Before I disconnected from the trading site I said to G-d, "Father, I TRULY believe that YOU are the one true G-d and Jesus was not your son. I believe that Christians, believing otherwise, are breaking the first commandment. If I am on the right path, and YOU are the one TRUE G-d, please send me a sign...mess up my computer; leave a message across the screen....ANYTHING to give me a sign that I am on the right path."</p>
<p>I, then, shut down, went over to my son's house and picked up my granddaughter. After she wasdriven off, I returned home and returned to the very same website I had been on, only THIS time I couldn't submit a buy order, I couldn't browse, couldn't send or recieve EMail...in other words, my computer had gone haywire.</p>
<p>I packed up my equipment to take it to a computer expert to have it purged of this virus, and, later that night I was washing the supper dishes. My wife was gone, playing Bingo, and, as I rinsed a glass, with the TV on in the backround, I said aloud, "Well, G-d, I guess you showed me."</p>
<p>IMMEDIATELY, one of the characters, I think it was a woman, (and I really don't know what was being shown on the channel, or even WHICH channel I had on) said, "That's what you asked for, Ricardo". I know you must think I'm some lunatic, but the fact that I found your website should convince you that, since I experienced those two miracles, I have done little except try to find out whether this was truly a connection to the one, true G-d. Take it for what it's worth. I swear that EVERY word I have written here is the absolute truth. As hard as it is to go contrary to the Christian faith, I am CONVINCED now that the Jews and the Muslims might just be correct in their assertions that Jesus was no more than a man and that G-d is angry that this carpenter has been given a status<br />he does not deserve.</p>
<p>What do YOU think?</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Gloria M.<br />To: edwardtbabinski.us<br />Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 9:44 AM<br />Subject: Re: Hello</p>
<p>I read, with interest, your miracle, and certainly will not argue with your interpretation.......except........when I read:<br />"later that night I was washing the supper dishes."</p>
<p>Now we all know that male/washing dishes do not belong in the same sentence. What planet did you say you live on?</p>
<p>Just joking, I also, have a husband who washes dishes - (lucky me) -</p>
<p>Now for your question: What do YOU think?</p>
<p>You know 'Ricky' it is not for me to question your interpretation of an experience that you call a 'miracle'. I will share with you that my computer crashed last year, and it did not occur to me to put a 'God did it' interpretation on it. - and I will say that I disagree with your characterization of God as 'angry' - (amused, maybe), but we've got to stop attributing to God all these negative human emotions - Isn't it amazing he has not sued for defamation of character a long time ago?</p>
<p>Sincerely, Gloria, ss (struggling soul)</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-85939698495958977942012-04-17T00:26:00.000-07:002019-09-02T03:56:55.968-07:00Testimonies of Exorcism<p>From: Winston<br />To: ed.babinski<br />Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:02 AM<br />Subject: Link to my article debunking Christian fundamentalist arguments</p>
<p>Hi there,<br />I just put up my article debunking the main arguments of Christian fundamentalists. Here is the link. I was wondering if you could post it somewhere on your site. It was written to help newly ex-fundamentalists.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm</a></p>
<p>Thanks,<br />Winston</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Winston<br />Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:37 AM<br />Subject: I read your testimony, Winston, very interesting!</p>
<p>Hi Winston,</p>
<p>Thanks for writing edwardtbabinski.us</p>
<p>I enjoyed your <a href="http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">personal testimony</a> about leaving fundamentalism at your website.</p>
<p>...especially this part: <em>"My mom... took me to see some Spiritualist healers and Taoist-like temples to try to get help for the mental illness I had for 2 years. Three Different spiritualists who didn't know each other told her that they could 'see' two souls inhabiting me for a past karmic crime I committed against them. She was instructed by the leaders of a Taoist-like temple to perform these strange exorcism rites, which involved putting leaflet spells above the bedroom I slept in and having me take baths in some hot herbal water tossed in with yellow spell leaflets.<br /></em></p>
<p>It was all weird to me and my Christian world view taught that Satan was behind these kind of things. But I thought oh well, being a Christian never helped me through those 2 hellish years anyway, so why not give Satan a chance at helping me?"</p>
<p>Your testimony parallels that of another former fundie friend of mine, Will Bagley, who lives in Washington state. Will was "born again," but later read the great Catholic mystics, then the great Eastern mystics, and today studies Taoism, vegetarianism, meditation, mental and bodily healing, life extension, channeling, massage, etc. Will sends out a regular e-newsletter on those topics. You two should meet for coffee and tell me all about what you discussed! Will's photo and testimony about how he left fundamentalism can be found in a book I edited, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists (Prometheus Books, 1995). Though my book was published by that skeptical organization, it included testimonies of former fundamentalists who remained Christians, though more moderate and liberal, as well as the testimonies of two folks who left fundamentalism for Wicca and eastern mysticism, respectively. Only the final third of the book contains the testimonies of former fundamentalists who ecame agnostics and atheists. I thanked Prometheus for including such a broad range of former fundie testimonies.</p>
<p>Today there is a great website run by Steve Locks that features the testimonies of many former fundies, possibly the most well indexed and widest collection of such testimonies on the web. His site is simply named, "Leaving Christianity." Easy to remember, check it out by simply googling, "Leaving Christianity." It's number one.</p>
<p>Will and yourself also agree that the skeptics are too skeptical. Will is quite well read and also quite deeply into spiritual practices, and I am sure you two will find much to talk about, wish I was there to listen! Maybe send me a cassette tape of your conversation! And play a game of chess too! Why not some speed chess? (Will once won the championship of a large prestigious chess club in New Jersey, but hasn't played in years. Like Will, I was a top ranked high school chess player.)</p>
<p>Cheers!<br /><a style="text-decoration: none;" href="http://edwardtbabinski.us/">Edward T. Babinski</a></p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>edwardtbabinski.us writes:<br /><em>Did you hear the story on the news about a preacher who sat on an autistic boy's chest, the mother believed her son could be healed of the demon causing the illness...</em></p>
<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179789.stm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Faith kills boy</a>, 8.</p>
<p>An autistic eight-year-old boy has died during a prayer service held to supposedly cure him of the evil spirits blamed for causing his condition. "[We] didn't do nothing wrong," the pastor, David Hemphill, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper.</p>
<p>US boy dies during 'exorcism' An autistic eight-year-old boy has died during a prayer service held to supposedly cure him of the evil spirits blamed for causing his condition. Torrance Cantrell was wrapped in sheets and held by his hands and feet while members of the Faith Temple Church of the Apostolic Faith in the city of Milwaukee prayed over him. This procedure had been taking place three times a week. However, on Friday those involved in the ceremony - including his mother - noticed the boy had stopped breathing. Paramedics were called to the scene but were unable to revive him. The brother of the church's pastor, Ray Hemphill, who was also present at the ceremony, was arrested shortly after the incident on suspicion of physically abusing a child, local police said. "[We] didn't do nothing wrong," the pastor, David Hemphill, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper. "We did what the Book of Matthew said... all we did is ask God to deliver him." 'Tormented' Autism causes children to have severe problems relating to, and communicating with, people around them. In interviews with local newspapers, neighbours of the Cantrell family alleged that Torrance hated being touched and said that having people restrain him would likely have caused him a great deal of stress. However, David Hemphill said that the boy had been wrapped in sheets and had his shoes removed in order to prevent him from being hurt. "We were asking God to take this spirit that was tormenting this little boy to death," Mr Hemphill said. "We were praying that hard, but not to kill." David Hemphill started the independent church in 1997. It has a small congregation of six families. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3179789.stm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Story from BBC NEWS</a>. Published: 2003/08/25 14:41:23 GMT © BBC MMIII</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-81160474001845936032012-04-17T00:19:00.001-07:002019-09-02T03:57:13.821-07:00Evolution of Animals - Species which share traits in common with two species<blockquote>October 10, 2005 at 22:19:00
<p>Name: levi</p>
<p>Email: levi</p>
<p>Most Interest: Creation vs Evolution</p>
<p>Found edwardtbabinski.us via: Other Search Engine</p>
<p>How found edwardtbabinski: dogpile</p>
<p>Religious Belief: Christian,</p>
<p>If Preterist: pre-millennialist</p>
<p>If Creationist: Other</p>
<p>I believe: Other</p>
<p>comments: Please enter your comments here.</p>
<p>I enjoy you thoughts althought I do disagree on some major points. I was raised a theistic evolutionist who grew up in the episcopol church. I am now a creationist who has done some study and an 18 page report on the creation side. I don't know if you have time to read it. I am not an expert but no one seem to write back to me after I present the evidences I have found. Let me know if you would like it. I like your thoughts on power options and lots of other areas too. God bless p.s. if we can get a mule out of a donkey and a horse... do you think we could get a human from an ape and a pig? :)</p>
</blockquote>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Dear Levi,</p>
<p>Hi, Ed here.</p>
<p>You mentioned that you had become a creationist. Did you become a young-earth creationist?</p>
<p>You asked me whether I believed human beings were a cross between pigs and apes. I don't think so, just a cousin of the apes. So why did you mentioned "pigs?" I do know that pig heart valves have been used to replace human heart valves, but aside from the usefullness of the shape of the pig's heart valves, there is nothing particularly human about pigs. We'd probably be using chimp heart valves if there were more chimps and if there wasn't as great a protest over it. Did you know that Christian Barnhart, the famed surgeon, said he wouldn't operate on such feeling intelligent creatures as chimps in order to use them merely for spare parts?</p>
<p>As for "inbetween" species, the fossil record contains amphibian-like fishes, mammal-like reptiles, bird-like reptiles, and of course many species of extinct ape with shorter arms and longer legs than modern day apes (in terms of arm-to-leg ratios). So the many species of extinct primitive apes were more "human-like" in that respect than modern day apes are. And there's the dog-bears of the Miocene that preceded the later arrivals of both dogs and bears in the fossil record. There's also small four footed mammals that preceded the arrival of larger tapir, elephant and horse species in the fossil record. Tapirs, elephants and horses apparently shared a common ancestor. In fact, elephants and sea-going dugongs also shared a common ancestor as seen in the dugong's snout and the elephant nails on its front fins. And if you've seen my website, there's plenty about cetacean evolution, land-living ancestors of modern day whale species.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>"levi" October 11, 2005 PM: I mentioned pigs because my biology teacher (an evolutionist) said we were closer related to pigs than apes.</em></p>
<p>ED: Hi Levi, Perhaps you could email your professor to ask him what he meant when he said that humans were more closely related to pigs than to apes? The human genome is nearer to the chimpanzee genome than to the genome of any other living species. (See below where I discuss the way even the chromosomes match up between chimp and human, and evidence that the human line underwent a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes as still seen inside human chromosome #2.)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: On the age of the earth I am uncertain just like the age of the universe. Scientist believe some are really old galaxies but when the Hubble telescope did some pictures and measurements and it was way different than what they had thought before and the 2 ideas just did not fit, with one the big bang was possible and with the Hubble there was no way (I will try and send you the report from my other computer sometime). When certain measurements of time are used they always seem to find problems with them and then other measurements contradict many others. There seems to be no real good way to measure time looking back for most things from what I have seen.</p>
<p>ED: There are parameters of uncertainty, but the antiquity of the cosmos is not something that cosmologists are very uncertain about, while a cosmos only thousands of years old is something it would take far more blind faith than scientific evidence to believe in. Also, there are plenty of old-earth creationist Christians who have Ph.D.s in astronomy who continue to point out the ludicrousness of young-cosmos arguments. Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, as well as Dr. Robert C. Newman of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute are two such astronomers who have replied to young-cosmos arguments. For links to their websites and to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism#External_links" target="_blank" rel="noopener">old-earth creationist replies</a> to young-earth arguments.</p>
<p>Also see these <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/hypothesis.html">admissions made by YOUNG-cosmos</a> astronomers.</p>
<p>Also if you are not averse to reading non-Christian articles, please see Dave Matson's well organized research paper on the age of the earth and cosmos (Dave is not a Christian, and can be intimidating in his speech, however he has done a fine job of collecting replies by scientists to a host of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">young-earth arguments</a> with bibliographic notes).</p>
<p>Also visit this fully <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indexed list of creationist arguments</a> and replies, argument by argument.</p>
<p>The abandonment of young-earth geology (or "flood geology") was something that Christian men of science did before Darwin's Origin was published. By the 1850s, leading Christian scholars heading the geology departments at Cambridge and Oxford, agreed the earth was extremely old and that flood geology did not explain the evidence. See, "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html">Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned</a> in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science".</p>
<p>For the history of modern day "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/age_of_earth.html">flood geology</a>" and the ridiculous <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/dinosaur_tracks.html">disproven arguments that young-earth</a> creationists began to present in the 1960s as "facts".</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: Also with the speed of light being slowed to the point of 35mph in super cold; if there was a big bang in super heat, could it have been much much faster than we are aware of?</p>
<p>ED: Could the universe have expanded faster than the speed of light during the inflationary period of the Big Bang? <a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=167" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here's one astronomer's inconclusive reply</a>.</p>
<p>Neither does the question concerning the speed of the inflationary period of the Big Bang make the cosmos only a few thousand years old. You should visit some of the old-earth websites that I mentioned above, send them some questions if you think otherwise. Read about the multitudinous evidence for an old-earth and an old cosmos, and read about the way young-earth creationist arguments continue to dry up in respect to the age of the cosmos and the earth, and how the young-earthers are resorting more and more on ad hoc belief to try and reconcile their extremely young-earth and extremely young cosmos beliefs with the evidence that modern astronomers and geologists continue piling high.</p>
<p>One added note. I read about the experiment in which "light" was "stopped" or "paused" by a particular bunch of atoms that the light was made to pass through and that absorbed the light after which an identical bit of "light" or an indentical "photon" came out the other end. The "coldness" had little to do with the pausing of light, since atoms of another element that was not cold, but instead was heated, also paused the photons. Here's <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/news/stories/s518907.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the article</a> I googled.</p>
<p>Not just photons (photons travel at the speed of light), but also neutrons (a heavier particle found in the nucleus of every atom) have been slowed down. In the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/caltech_slow_neutrons/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">case of neutrons to 15 miles per hour</a>.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: I know if evolution is real that it is not keeping up with animals that are becoming extinct so the earth as a whole is in big trouble. I don’t believe that we can get life from none life that was also taught by my biology teacher in high school. All I see is more and more animals becoming extinct since the beginning of creation.</p>
<p>ED: What I see is that the earth now contains human beings, apes, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, non-vertebrates, all the way down to single-celled species. (Today's modern world also contains the two largest plant and animal species of all time, the redwood/sequoia, and the blue whale, neither of which are found in the older fossil record.) So diversity and evolution has increased over time. Various branches of the animal and plant kingsoms have each experienced peak periods of diversity, and also experienced eight major trimmings or major extinction periods and many minor extinctions as well. But evolutionary diversity overall has increased as species moved from single cells to multi-cellular species, and from fish to amphibian-like fish, to amphibians, to reptile-like amphibians, to reptiles, and then the reptiles branched off into mammal-like reptiles and bird-like reptiles, and then mammals and birds arose, and then from one branch of the mammals came lemurs, monkeys, then primitive apes, and then modern apes and man both arose from the primitive apes. So greater diversity over geological time has occured.</p>
<p>Glenn Morton's excellent article, <a href="http://home.entouch.net/dmd/livfos.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Living Fossils? There are None</a>.</p>
<p>Neither is the evidence for such a progressive diversification of species over geological time an illusion created by flood geology depositing layers in such a deceptively pro-evolutionary order. See the website I mentioned above that mentions plain and obvious reasons why flood geology was rejected by the Christian geologists who studied the geologic record before Darwn's Origin was even published. And read the rebuttals by modern day Christians who are geologists. There is an entire society of old-earth Christian geologists you can find linked to this Christian website:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.asa3.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American Scientific Affiliation</a> (ASA)--Investigating issues relating Christian faith and science. Includes on-line back issues of the journal, and news about the organization.<br />Henry Morris used to be a member of the ASA, above, in the 1950s, until he started reading the works of a 7th Day Adventist janitor, named George MacCready Price [for a full history of creationism see the work by Ronald Numbers, The Creationists], who believed that the entire geologic record was topsy turvy, including the Lewis Mountain Overthrust, that he presumed was not really an overthrust, but topsy turvy strata. Morris used Price's arguments in The Genesis Flood without giving him credit. Morris also tried to interest fellow Christian members of the ASA in Price's "Flood geology" arguments, and got the wind kicked out of him by replies from his fellow Christians and so Morris left the ASA to found his own splinter group, the Institute for Creation Research. A lot of people joined Morris's ICR based on his book, The Genesis Flood, which offered up "Paluxy man prints" and "The Lewis Mountain Overthrust" as "disproofs" of modern geology. Later, even ICR abandoned both the "man print" evidence as questionable, and ceased trying to use the Lewis Mountian Overthrust as evidence against modern geology (Austin and Wise of ICR have both agreed that the evidence is conclusive that the Lewis Moutain Overthrust is indeed the result of an overthrust fault of immense dimensions.)</p>
<p>Also read this admission by a young-earth creationist:<br />"When I visited the Institute for Creation Research towards the end of 1978... The associate director is Duane T. Gish... When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science the points in a debate which he felt least comfortable in answering - he answered after a moment's thought that it was the apparently great age of Earth as shown by the fairly recent advances in radiometric dating; and that the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages - the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles, and so on up to the present. "<br />Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, pp.115-121)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: If the selacampise (sp) fish caught of Madagascar has not changed in “16 million years” I don’t think anything really does change that much; only slight adaptations and those that don’t just die out. DNA and other such deep designs of life are so complex I just don’t see it coming about by chance.</p>
<p>ED: Concerning the claim that "species have not changed," please see <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/extinction.html">Extinction</a></p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: I think I was brain washed to an extent with evolution being presented as a fact in the schools, TV, and museums etc.</p>
<p>ED: Let me know what kind of new questions your brain asks after studying the above evidence, research articles, and after you have communicated with some old-earth creationist, and/or old-earth evolutionist Christians on the internet.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: I never even heard that there was a scientific creation side to it until I was 19 and for the most part all it does is point out the problems with the hypothetical reaseach program of evolution. Have you ever read the book “Evolution a theory in Crisis” by an evolutionist? Sorry I can’t think of the authors name.</p>
<p>ED: Michael Denton. I read that work. Denton was highly praised in the creationist press, especially in Origins Research in the 1980s (a newsletter that eventually evolved into the magazine, Origins and Design, and the Access Research Network). Denton and his book has even been considered a grandfather or forerunner of the I.D. movement. But his arguments were flawed, as pointed out in many reviews by scientists (see for instance the reviews at the National Center for Science Education website: http://www.ncseweb.org/ --and also those at the "Was Darwin Wrong?" website: http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/). Today Denton is an email friend of mine, and about a year or so ago he asked the Discovery Institute to cease listing him as a fellow of that institute. He is an evolutionist, though he was a creationist in his youth. He believes in a supernatural beginning to the cosmos, but that it evolved afterwards, just as stars form naturally (and we still view them forming, the evidence for which continues to pile up in astronomical journals), and just like the whole table of the elements forms inside stars out of simple the simplest of all the elements, hydrogen, and so on, right down to planets forming, and then molecules forming on their surface, and he also is convinced by the smallness of the genetic distances between species that their evolution in the sense of common descent--is a fact. I've exchanged emails with him recently in which he's affirmed his pro-evolution views. As for mutations, they continue to happen, naturally, as we have learned just by comparing the genomes of human beings, which contain individual genomic differences, and regional genomic differences, right on up to whole genome duplication as seen in two species of zebra fish, one of which has nearly twice the genomic material as the other species. Does it need that much extra genomic material? No it doesn't, as the existence of the other zebra fish species demonstrates. But a total genomic duplication has occured, called a whole genome duplication, or WGD, and many of those genes have been analyzed and seen to be duplicates, many of them non-functioning as well, with no on-off codons near them. In fact, geneticists have so far analyzed practically the whole genomes of humans, chimps, mice (or is it rats?) and a few other mammals and reptiles and fish, and they have been able to determine by comparing the whole genomes of species from fish to human that two whole genome duplications took place in the line leading from sea to land vertebrates. That's mutation for you, from the genomic differences that exist between human beings individually and regionally, as I mentioned, right on up to whole genome duplication, which leaves behind lots of duplicated genes (for evolution to further mutate).</p>
<p>I am saying mutations happen all the time, from point mutations to whole genomes being duplicated, and leaving behind plenty of duplicated genes after that process.</p>
<p>Also, take a close look at human chromosome #2. Do some web searches. All of the human chromoseomes and their length and their banding patterns match those of chimp chromosomes, except for human chromosome #2. But that single long human chromosome matches the length and banding patterns of TWO of the chimp chromosomes, thus all the human and chimp chromosomes and banding patterns DO match up. Moreover, inside human chromosome #2 are the remnants of a second centromere, and teleomeric regions where they should not be (they should be at the ends of the chromosome, not inside it, and not in reverse order!), all of which points to clear evidence of a sloppy fusion of two chromosomes that occurred in the ancestor shared by both humans and chimpanzees.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: There are other things too that has me believe that there is a God</p>
<p>ED: I never said there wasn't a Higher Power. I have even put together a <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html">list of Christians who are professors of science and defenders of evolution</a>, including many defenders of Darwin as well.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: and one is a friend of mine who is not a Christian and leans more toward being a Buddhist (I think) who was first an Atheist. What change him? He saw a buddy of his possessed with at least 3 demons that spoke through him in languages he could not understand and one was a ladys voice all at the same time. I know its wild but this guy has no reason to lie about it.</p>
<p>ED: Did you see the new National Geographic series, "Is it Real?" They did a show recently on exorcisms. It was worth catching. Also I can send you some quotations from other books I've read about the subject, especially quotations from a journalist who toured the U.S. and Canada and was present at hundreds of exorcisms, seeking to learn all he could about the matter.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: Well that’s all for now. Thanks for writing.</p>
<p>ED: I can't answer all my emails, but the ones written in a friendly manner catch my eye, such as yours. Thanks.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LEVI: W.W.J.D. Two natures in me, One I love, one I hate, the one I feed will dominate.</p>
<p>ED: Hmmm, sure there's only two? The philosopher Mary Midgely wrote in Beast and Man (if I paraphrase her correctly) that human beings are riven by far more than just two natures or two desires. And often it's difficult for us to choose between two or more things we simultaneously desire. It's even difficult to choose how to react to two or more things we are repelled by. To take one example, if you're in the company of some people you like and others you might not admire or get along with very well. Do you stay to be with the ones you like, or leave because of the people in the group you dislike? Or maybe the group as a whole is attending a place whose food you dislike. Such a thing as the menu in that case might tip the balance not to go. There's always choices, always many decisions we each have to make about a wide variety of things from choosing lifelong careers to puruse to choosing which toothpaste to use, and so our basic needs, desires and interests all vie for attention.</p>
<p>Perhaps that's how general rules of ethics came into fashion as well, to try and simplify such decisions, at least in the ethical realm. We also have brains capable of envisioning future consequences of each of our decisions based our accumulated lifetime of knowledge about how different people and different events affect one another.</p>
<p><strong>QUOTATIONS REGARDING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND ETHICS</strong></p>
<p>In 1997 Henry Jordan, a “born again” Christian on the State Board of Education in South Carolina, tried to get a copy of the Ten Commandments hung in every classroom in the state. When it was pointed out to him that members of other religions might not appreciate having only the Judeo-Christian teachings on display, he replied, “Screw the Buddhists and Kill the Muslims.”</p>
<p>Screw and Kill? Lot of good knowing the commandments did for him.</p>
<p>E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>In the same year and the same state as the above incident the Charleston County Council of South Carolina unanimously passed a motion to post the Ten Commandments on a plaque outside the council chambers. Oddly enough, when a local reporter for the Post and Courier asked the nine council members to name the Ten Commandments, none could recall all ten. Two members refused to even try. Snapped Councilman Barrett Lawrimore, “I don’t have time for this pop quiz.”</p>
<p>Church and State</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>LET'S COMPARE THE U.S. CONGRESS WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS</p>
<p>Beginning with “Do not bear false witness,” don’t all Congresspeople “stretch the truth,” depending on which group of constituents or special interests or foreign dignitaries they are trying to woo or impress?</p>
<p>I also suspect there’s some “Sabbath-breakers” and “adulterers” in Congress.</p>
<p>Does Congress agree with the command, “Do not kill?”</p>
<p>How many Congresspeople have “used the Lord’s name in vain” after discovering that their prize bill (say a bill to display the Ten Commandments) did not receive enough votes to become a law?</p>
<p>I don’t suppose Congress will vote to display the “penalties” that go along with the Ten Commandments, since “death” is mentioned so often, even for “Sabbath-breakers.”</p>
<p>Lastly, I wonder how Congress will address the difference between the ancient Hebrew’s “First Commandment” and our First Amendment? According to the “First Commandment” in the Bible “ye shall have no other gods before me” under penalty of death. While our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.</p>
<p>E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Preacher Pete: Without the Ten Commandments to lead them, people will wind up doing whatever they like.</p>
<p>Secular Sally: Most of us already do, but we like being liked, and hate being hated. In other words, most of us would sooner make friends than fill our freezers with heads, which, coincidentally, is a way to make enemies.</p>
<p>E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>“Thou shalt not kill” is as old as life itself. And for this reason a large majority of people in all countries have objected to being murdered.</p>
<p>Robert Ingersoll</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>How many people have to flip through the Bible, going, “Jeez, I want to screw my neighbor’s wife--don’t know if I should?”</p>
<p>Rick Reynolds, Only the Truth is Funny</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>I do not believe that ethics “without the Bible” are “completely relative.” People with no Bible to guide them still feel similar pains when stolen from, slapped, or called a stinging name. People with no Bible to guide them also feel similar pleasures when hugged, given a gift, or verbally petted. In other words, “ethical authority” resides in our bodies and brains, and in the multitude of lessons learned during lives of interaction with our fellow human beings. Neither is it easy for a person to turn to anti-social behavior if they have been taught from childhood to view other people’s feelings and needs through the inner lens of their own. People also recognize (regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof) that “joys shared are doubled, while sorrows shared are halved.” Such recognitions even form the basis for wanting to “double” society’s joys, and “halve” society’s sorrows.</p>
<p>Of course not everyone learns morality in the manner described above. Some are raised to “fear hell” and memorize lists of “holy commandments.” Such people are liable to “fear what they (and others) might become” once such “external” holy threats and commands are called into question. Ironically, in nearly all cases, such a “hell” does not exist to promote universal ethical behavior, but to promote belief in the truth of that person’s particular theology/denomination as opposed to rival theologies/denominations. So if you do not share their particular theology nor belong to their particular denomination, then they are convinced you are going to hell regardless of whatever kindnesses you share with them or society at large. Naturally such people understand the idea of a "moral" nation as one that consists solely of “fellow believers.” Of course any morality that tries to base itself upon purely “external” religious threats and commands will break down once the religion supporting it is called into question.</p>
<p>To avoid such “breakdowns” it makes more sense for a nation, culture, or family to emphasize “internal” rather than “external” morality/ethics, just as it makes more sense to raise children to think and act in terms of how “they would feel if what they did was done back to them,” rather than depending on rote memorization of lists to promote ethical understanding in all circumstances and among all people. All the world’s religions enshrine the principle, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself,” and, “Do to others what you would want done to yourself,” which assume in both cases that “you” already possess an “internal” recognition of what you should and shouldn’t do. So, there need not be any overt conflict between “internal” and “external” morality and ethics. However, stressing the “internal” variety seems to have a far greater chance of drawing society together, rather than tearing it apart.</p>
<p>“Internal” ethical recognitions preceded the composition of humanity’s earliest law codes such as those of King Hammurabi, or the moral injunctions found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the later but more famous, “Ten Commandments.” Such “internal” recognitions inspired the creation of laws, and still do, and remind us that laws are but dust when people neglect to seek out what is best within themselves and each other.</p>
<p>E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.</p>
<p>Albert Einstein</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion.~The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates...Reconciliation behavior [is] a shared heritage of the primate order…</p>
<p>When social animals are involved...antagonists do more than estimate their chances of winning before they engage in a fight; they also take into account how much they need their opponent. The contested resource often is simply not worth putting a valuable relationship at risk. And if aggression does occur, both parties may hurry to repair the damage. Victory is rarely absolute among interdependent competitors, whether animal or human.</p>
<p>Frans De Waal, Peacemaking Among Primates</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:</p>
<p>“Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man.”(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)</p>
<p>That, Darwin said, is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.</p>
<p>These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt--though of course usually an unsuccessful one--to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.</p>
<p>If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we--being creatures subject to gravitation--could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwin’s idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.</p>
<p>Mary Midgley, “Wickedness: An Open Debate,” The Philosopher’s Magazine, No. 14, Spring 2001</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>It is forbidden to decry other [religious] sects; the true believer gives honor to whatever in them is worthy of honor.</p>
<p>Decree of Asoka, famed Buddhist king of India</p>
<p>Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.</p>
<p>Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.</p>
<p>Islamic holy teaching (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>People were Christian before Christ ever existed. People were humanistic before humanism was ever organized. People were loving before LSD was ever discovered.</p>
<p>Timothy Leary, as quoted by Paul Krassner, “The Cynic Route from Crazy SANE to Loving Haight,” The Realist, 1967</p>
<p>BORN BELIEVERS?</p>
<p>Thank God He made it easy to find the “one true faith.” So easy that your parents can pick it out for you before you are even born, and, in most places on earth, they do.</p>
<p>It’s even easier to find a “true” Christian as opposed to a false one, or a “true” Moslem as opposed to a false one. The “true” believer who understands what his holy book “really” says, always happens to be the one addressing you.</p>
<p>E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>They told him a God of Near Eastern origin, the God of Abraham (who evidently had a stupendous bosom) and Isaac and Jacob, had made the whole universe, stars and atoms, from start to finish in six days and made it wonderfully and perfect, and had set it all going and, after some necessary setbacks called the Fall and the Flood, had developed arrangements that were to culminate in the earthly happiness and security and eternal bliss of our little Mr. Davis, which had seemed to him a very agreeable state of affairs. And further they had shown him the most convincing pictures of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and had given him a Noah’s Ark toy to play with [in times past the only acceptable toy to play with on Sundays was Noah’s ark] and told him simple Bible stories about the patriarchs and the infant Samuel and Solomon and David and their remarkable lessons for us, the promise of salvation spreading out from the Near East until it covered the world, and he had taken it all in without flinching because at the time he had no standards of comparison. Anything might be as true as anything else. Except for difference in color they put him into a world of Green Pastures and there they trained him to be a simply believing little Anglican.</p>
<p>H. G. Wells, “The Mind of Mr. Joseph Davis”</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced stage, but they still control that of children. This means that children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of evolution; about David killing Goliath instead of Koch killing cholera; about Christ’s ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier’s or Wright’s. [SEE NOTE] Worse than that they are taught that it is a virtue to accept a statement without adequate evidence, which leaves them prey to quacks of every kind and makes it difficult for them to accept the methods of thought that are successful in science.</p>
<p>J. B. Haldane</p>
<p>[NOTE] Montgolfier ascended into the heavens via a balloon filled with hot air, and the Wright brothers designed and piloted the first successful heavier-than-air flying machine.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHILDREN’S LETTERS TO GOD</p>
<p>“Dear God, Why is Sunday School on Sunday? I thought it was supposed to be our day of rest.”<br />- Tom L.</p>
<p>“Dear God, What does it mean you are a jealous God. I thought you had everything.”<br />- Jane</p>
<p>“Dear God, How come you did all those miracles in the old days and don’t do any now?”<br />- Seymour</p>
<p>Children’s Letters to God: The New Collection, compiled by Stuart Hample and Eric Marshall</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-6940242987946439052012-04-17T00:17:00.001-07:002019-09-02T03:57:28.544-07:00Question Regarding Apostasy<p>From: Mark<br />To: Ed Babinski<br />Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:15 PM<br />Subject: Question regarding Apostasy</p>
<p>Although I have not read your book Leaving the Fold, I am familiar with several of the testimonies as well as many other similar ones. However, I am wondering if you have ever heard of a case where a true 'saved' Christian left the Christian faith temporarily (during which they rejected the faith or viewed themselves as an unbeliever) but eventually returned to a full/orthodox Christian faith. I am doing some research and am trying to address the claim that "it is impossible to renew them unto repentance" (impossible to return to the faith) once one has "fallen away". If you are unable to answer this that is fine. Thank you.</p>
<p>From: Edward T. Babinski<br />To: Mark<br />Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:28 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: Question regarding Apostasy</p>
<p>ED: I am sure that there are cases of people raised Christian who leave the fold temporarily and consider themselves apostates, and then return.</p>
<p>Lots of people are raised Xn, then reject that upbringing, only to return later, like many in the Baby Boomer generation did, according to polls I read in some news magazine a while back, either Time, Newsweek or U.S. News. The Baby Boomers had kids and then many of the Boomers went back to church to give their kids the same nominal Christian upbringing they had had, -- and perhaps because they recalled the way they "raised hell" in their own youths, and hoped that by bringing their kids to church, they would not grow as out of control as they once were. *smile*</p>
<p>One person in my book whose testimony was listed in the agnostic section did return to the fold. He was an Assembly of God minister, but saw the fall of Jim and Tammy Baker up close, knew them, and also saw how the Pentecostal leadership in the Assembly of God spread nasty rumors about him being an adulterer when he wasn't. They ruined his life and ministry. He left and for a while rallied to get taxes levied on churches, and exposed some televangelist tricks. Later he returned to the fold, during the laughter revivals of the 1980s was it? He didn't rejoin the Assemblies of God, but FORMED HIS OWN DENOMINATION, and it was more open than the faith he had previously left. So, in a sense, he didn't return to exactly where he was before, and I spoke with him after he returned and he told me it was O.K. that his testimony was in the AGNOSTIC section of my book, even though he felt more Christian. Truth to tell, in his own book, he said he was giving church and religion a "break," at the end of his autobiography, he didn't say he had definitely left it behind.</p>
<p>As for myself, I don't deny that I have a religious side, a side that really wants to pray and speak with a higher power instead of simply talking to myself when I'm alone. But my studies have not brought me nearer to believing once again in the inspiration of any particular holy book, so I remain outside the fold.</p>
<p>Let's see, there was Lambert Dolphin, who went through a period of doubt, and returned to the fold. I cited his testimony in my reply to chapter 12 of Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict. It's online in the "library" section of www.infidels.org, titled, "The uniqueness of the Christian experience," you can google it by name I'm sure, and then do a word search in the manuscript for Dolphin, or Lambert.</p>
<p>There are also two atheists ASA Jones and someone else named, Jordan, friends of Bob Holding of Tekton Apologetics, who claim that they were once "atheists" and then became fully orthodox Christians. I think they may have been at least nominal Christian prior to becoming atheists. So that could be looked at as a sort of return.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the way you phrased your question raises too many questions, such as what is a "truly saved Christian" and how would you know one if you met one? Everyone who has ever written me, tells me that THEY are "truly saved Christians."</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-50766764377293905742012-04-17T00:14:00.000-07:002019-09-02T03:57:43.245-07:00Questions on the Pentecostal Religion<p>Hello, my name is Verónica. I was searching on the web some sites related to Pentecostal religion but I need information about some specific points, that's the reason why I'm writing to you. I'll be very thankful if you help me to answer the following questions about this religion:</p>
<p>1) Is economical support to the religious community compulsory? If yes, how?<br />
2) Are there any precepts regarding food?<br />
3) Does hell exist?<br />
4) Is divorce allowed?<br />
5) Is marriage with somebody of a different religion allowed?</p>
<p>Once again, I will really appreciate your help, I'm doing a homework for college.</p>
<p>Thanks, bye!</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>Ed Babinski: I ONLY HAD A PENTECOSTAL MINISTER FRIEND IN COLLEGE AND ATTENDED A FEW PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES FROM TIME TO TIME. MOST OF THE TIME I ATTENDED NON-PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES.</p>
<p>I THINK THE LARGEST SINGLE PENTECOSTAL DENOMINATION IS THE "<a href="http://www.ag.org/top/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ASSEMBLIES OF GOD</a>," CHECK THEM OUT ON THE WEB FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS</p>
<p><em>1) Is economical support to the religious community compulsory? If yes, how?</em></p>
<p>ED: All churches try to get people to give them money, the usual scheme is called, "tithing," based on some misunderstood bible verses that appear to say you should give 10% of your income to the church, priests, whatever.</p>
<p><em>2) Are there any precepts regarding food?</em></p>
<p>ED: In Pentecostalism? None that I know of. Though Pentecostalism includes many weird sub-sects with odd beliefs.</p>
<p><em>3) Does hell exist?</em></p>
<p>ED: For most of them yes. In fact, I believe I recently read in CHRISTIANITY TODAY about a Pentecostal minister who became a universalist and who was forced out of his denomination because of that.</p>
<p><em>4) Is divorce allowed?</em></p>
<p>ED: Heavily frowned upon, though it happens.</p>
<p><em>5) Is marriage with somebody of a different religion allowed?</em></p>
<p>ED: Again, frowned upon. Anyone who marries a devout Pentecostal will likely be taken to church by their spouse until they either convert or frictions develop. That's true of all heavily devout evangelical religions.</p>
<p>Once again, I will really appreciate your help, I'm doing a homework for college.</p>
<p>Thanks, bye!</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-26835621698624839632012-04-17T00:04:00.002-07:002019-09-02T03:58:00.993-07:00More on Mother Teresa<p>From: "ed babinski"<br />To: annica<br />Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:47 PM<br />Subject: Mother T.</p>
<p>"annica..." writes:<br /><em>I read your article on the web about Mother Theresa and was amazed at what a nerd you are;</em></p>
<p>ED: Dearest Annica, thank you for introducing yourself. My name's Ed. May I remind you at this early juncture in our conversation, invective is not argument. As for you being "amazed," it appears that my tiny little piece is the sole piece you have ever read questioning Mother Teresa. There are others on the web, and in books and in newspapers. I mention some that I have run across below. May your "amazement" continue.</p>
<p>I pity the woman who ends up with a pinhead that has no deeper sense of (what you believe) analysis than what you have presented.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>I am not a christian. Nor am I any follower of Mother Theresa.</p>
<p>------------</p>
<p>ED: And I am neither a christian nor an atheist. I think Mother T. was fine at what she did, but her legend has been puffed up, blown out of proportion. Other Indian charities were not given as much press after she became famous, while her activities and doings were puffed up by the press and by Western Christians from the Pope to Malcolm Muggeridge. She ignorantly opposed birth control in a land where the population is growing faster than the economy (India will soon have more people than China; and India's water needs have grown so much that she is building dams near the source of her major rivers, rivers that also flow into Pakistan, and Pakistan also is dry and her water needs are increasing, so disputes over water may lead to further wars between those two nations), even justifying her views with the platitude that "There can never be enough children."</p>
<p>Mother Teresa used to say, "God always provides. He provides for the flowers and the birds, for everything in the world that he has created. And those little children are his life. There can never be enough."</p>
<p>"God provides? . provides for the birds ... There can never be enough?" Scientists who study birds have found that one-third of adult birds and four-fifths of their offspring die of starvation every year. (David Lack, "Of Birds and Men," New Scientist, Jan., 1996).</p>
<p>She was opposed to pain killers even in cases of a man with severe pain from cancer.</p>
<p>She accepted money from a wall street banker who had gained that money via frauds and who went to prison, and then she kept that money, not returning it to the American judge so it could be sent back to the people whom Keating had stolen it from. She also kept asking for money when she already had tons of it in different banks the she wasn't even spending.</p>
<p>When the Bofal chemical plant explosion took place in India, the presence of her sisters of charity was front page news while most of the rescue and relief there was done by others and other organizations. The Western press idolized her.</p>
<p>I read an article about another woman in India, not Mother Teresa, but a native Hindu woman who teaches birth control. She discovered that when women practice birth control, they have fewer children and the children they have also have a lower mortality rate and are taken care of better. While the women who don't practice birth control wind up having more children, more of whom die, and the woman herself is sicker as well, from having undergone so many pregnancies and also despair over her dying children.</p>
<p>I agree that picking up people off the street who were extremely sick or near death and showing them some compassion before they died is admirable. But what about the folks seeking to end all caste divisions (they are already outlawed in India, but like racism in America, will take time to eradicate), and people working for birth control and a better economy and better health care and better education?</p>
<p>Moreover, various people have gone to India and stayed with Mother Teresa and her sisters and seen things that are less than admirable. I read a lengthy newspaper account in the London Times not too long ago of one woman from London who visited India to see up close what the Sisters of Charity were doing. That woman loved Mother T. but her view changed, not to hatred, but to less than adoration, after seeing how things are really run there by the Sisters. She cited specific examples in her article and stayed there for a while. Her piece was long, appearing in three separate installments.</p>
<p>All in all, I do not find Mother T. to be the saint that some have made her out to be. One could of course read some of the news articles and books concering such matters:</p>
<p>Food for Thought, <a href="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/9653/teresa.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Other Side of Mother Teresa</a> by Dr Rana Jawad Asghar</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<p><em>But it is very easy to see that you completely miss the point of everything that Mother Theresa stood for. </em></p>
<p>ED: As you perhaps miss the point of what I stand for?</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p><em>I lived in India for 10 years and met many spiritual teachers, political leaders and so forth, and interacted with people from all over the country, and also poor people. Your assumptions of Mother Theresa comes not from mistakes on Mother Theresa's part, but from your lack of understanding what the spiritual path is. </em></p>
<p>ED: I have read Gandhi. I applaud many of his views and his courage. I also have read about the 1997 winner of the million dollar Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The winner in 1997 was a Hindu, Shastri Athavale, whose spiritual and social activism was inspired by the The Bhagavad Gita. Athavale has inspired hundreds of thousands of people to spend two weeks or more visiting India's poorest villages where they seek to advance the self-respect and economic condition of those they visit. For more than four decades Athavale has taught that service to God is incomplete without service to humanity.</p>
<p>-------</p>
<p>I spoke with a lot of Indians who had interacted with Mother Theresa. They actual thing that had impressed them is not as you state that she and her nuns were trying to "convert" people under force of charity, but the fact that they had BELIEVED she wanted to convert everyone (as many foreigners do, when they come on missions to India) and discovered she wasnt at all: she was simply following her own path.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>Mother Theresa made a vow as a very young woman. Even at an old age when the donations could have made all the nuns live comfortably, she still kept to her vow.</p>
<p>ED: Most of the poor people in the world don't have to take a vow to remain poor. Mother Teresa was assured that Mother Church would at least take care of her material essentials for life (and also in the life of the world to come as well). *smile* She also got the satisfaction of being the "head" of her own order, which must bring some sort of satisfaction that even money cannot buy, I imagine. She also had excellent hospital care when she became seriously ill at the end.</p>
<p>------------</p>
<p><em>I bet you cant keep a promise even for a day or two, but you pelt stones at someone who kept one single promise her entire life.</em></p>
<p>ED: If I "pelted stones" then what exactly does the name-calling that you showered me with in this email constitute?</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p><em> In spiritual practices (and especially in the east they can often understand this) it is essential to have the disciplin to keep ones word without fail, if you should 'grow' spiritually (meaning, if you should expand your soul). Nother Theresa certainly had that disciplin. If you are not interested to join any religious order, why do you spend your time defaming them?</em></p>
<p>ED: Not like I wrote a book defaming religious orders, I wrote a little piece is all, and it "amazed" you. There are two books above, written by people indeed have spent far more time "defaming" Mother Teresa as you call it. I happen to call it examining, not defaming. Famous people draw other people's interest and those people often grow curious to learn more about those famous people. Is that a sin? Why read about any famous religious person at all if you're not curious about their story, their fame, their activities? And if you do find things that are unedifying about such people, or questinable about their beliefs or activities, are you supposed to never discuss such matters? I think idolizing famous people can lead to blind devotion, and to lack of thought in general, and to ignorant decisions being made, and such things can be harmful. I also agree with you that talk is cheap. And anyone who performs acts of charity or philanthropy deserves some praise, as did Mother Teresa.<br />Florence Nightengale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession, also deserves praise, though she was disdainful of organized Christianity. I have also pointed out elsewhere the following:</p>
<p><strong>WHAT DO ATHEISTS DO TO HELP?</strong><br />If it wasn't for a host of scientists who happened to be either lapsed churchgoers, heretics, apostates, infidels, agnostics, or atheists, and their successes in the fields of agricultural and medical science, hundreds of millions would have starved to death or suffered innumerable diseases this past century. Those agricultural and medical scientists "multiplied more loaves of bread" and "prevented/healed more diseases" in the past hundred years than Christianity has in the past two thousand.<br />Florence Nightengale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession, was a bi-sexual who disdained institutionalized religion. The founder of the International Red Cross, Andre Dunant, was gay. The founder of the American Red Cross, Clara Barton, was a freethinker. Helen Keller, the blind and deaf woman who proved an inspiration to sufferers of severe disabilities, was a member of the American Humanist Society (and a Swedenborgian).<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>Suffering through the unusually hideous world events of the past couple of weeks, appalled by the role of religious belief in events as overwhelming as the atrocities in the Middle East and India, I find myself becoming less sanguine about the place of religion itself in public life.</p>
<p>For some reason, we don't read about mobs of atheists stoning and burning alive human beings who do not share their non-beliefs. So far, no agnostics have blown themselves up in discos, taking someone's children with them. No scientific determinists have been kidnapped and murdered by supporters of chaos theory. Moral relativists are not organizing militias for the purpose of putting people in jail for possession of the Ten Commandments; nor are agnostics firing rockets at pantheists from helicopter gunships.</p>
<p>It makes you think: Given the events of the past half year, why do non-believers continue on the defensive? Why do relativism and secular humanism continue to have such negative associations, especially in the conservative mind? Why does the word "liberal" inevitably trail the words "elitist" and "hypocrite" in its wake? Who is an elitist, if not the Taliban? Who is a hypocrite if not a Christian who shoots a gynecologist over the "right to life"?</p>
<p>For some reason, despite all evidence to the contrary, we uphold a persistent conviction that people who haven't found religion are more prone to do evil; that a secular family is lacking in family values; that a pragmatic administration is a soulless machine.</p>
<p>True, one could point to godless communism as the dystopia to be feared. And yet, looking back, it seems obvious that Stalin and Mao did not want to eliminate religion so much as to become gods themselves; that Pol Pot had more in common with the believer Adolf Hitler than with the atheist Karl Marx.</p>
<p>More to the point, confronted on an almost daily basis with the dangerous capacity of religious belief to drive people off the deep end (to induce a woman to murder her children, for example), why does belief continue to be encouraged, protected and accorded a special place in North American society? Why is a given belief system worthy of public support, simply because a given number of people believe it? Why, unlike the arts -- which are similarly nonprofit, state-supported, non-materialistic activities -- are religious institutions exempt from having to explain themselves to non-supporters, to demonstrate that they are a benefit to the community with graphs and multiplier effects and all the rest of it?</p>
<p>I'm not saying that believers could not make such a case for themselves to a public forum or a jury of their peers (think of the music, not to mention Good Works). What puzzles me is that they aren't called on to make it at all, before they achieve tax-exempt status, before they start a school.</p>
<p>At minimum, when a believer runs for public office, is it unreasonable to expect him to explain his convictions to people who don't share them? Should a candidate happen to believe in a coming Apocalypse and final judgment, should she not explain to the rest of us how this might tie in with her views on, say, crime and the environment? If you believe in predestination, what are the implications for health care? If you believe in karma and reincarnation, what is the point of a social safety net? After Sept. 11, can any political leader proclaim his beliefs to be "private"?</p>
<p>As North Americans muddle our way through the crises of terrorism and its aftermath, in which religion and a belief in the afterlife are demonstrably part of the problem and not part of the solution, isn't it a bit creepy to see the President of the United States spreading a religiously freighted abstraction ("evil" -- as in "axis of") whose purpose is to marshal support for an expansion of the war against terrorism to a level not unlike the Crusades? Why does the Commander-in-Chief have himself photographed in prayer, and not in discussion or thought?</p>
<p>-- John MacLachlan Gray, "Do We Have A Misplaced Faith in Religious Belief?" The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, March 13, 2002<br />globeandmail.com & jmgray@globeandmail.ca</p>
<p>----------</p>
<p><em> Seems you are trying to "convert" them to atheism!</em></p>
<p>ED: "Atheism?" No. but a little more agnosticism wouldn't hurt.</p>
<p>I am currently in India with my wife who is of Indian origin.~I always find it a little humorous when the Hindus and Muslims parade down the main streets waving their flags and banging their drums.~Naturally they don't hold their parades at the same time as they would kill each other . and they always make a point of marching through each other's turf.</p>
<p>The part I find funny is that they use the exact same identifying colors as the two major Christian opposites in the west, i.e., Catholics are green, and Protestants are orange.~ Here in India the Musilms' color is green, and the Hindus' is orange.<br />- Craig and Yesamma (craighendry@yahoo.com)</p>
<p>Devout Israeli Jews continue to march at least once a year through the Moslem half of the city of Jerusalem, and proclaim loudly that God has given the Jews "all the land." -- E.T.B.</p>
<p>So many gods, so many creeds,<br />So many paths that wind and wind,<br />While just the art of being kind,<br />Is all the sad world needs.</p>
<p>-- Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919)</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>So what's really the difference between religious groups that annoy you, and your own efforts. None whatsoever.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>Your comments on the donations are also ridiculous. You are forgetting that people who donated to Mother Theresa's organisation, donated in the wish that they funds would be used according to Mother Theresa's instructions. No one forced them to donate anything. They could have donated the money to UNICEF or some other organisation who spends most of their monies on salaries and advertisement, if they had wanted to. It was up to them.</p>
<p>ED: Which raises the question exactly of where Mother T.'s money went. I mean, according to one London Times reporter who visited the Sisters of Mercy, they reused dirty diapers as wash cloths, they even reused needles. They spent no money on air conditioning, no money on anything apparently, yet Mother T.'s fame brought her tons and tons of money, including the Nobel Peace prize. I certainly would like to know where it all eventually went.</p>
<p>---------</p>
<p><em>You're pretty callous: you have more concern for the donation money than the fact that she wanted to offer love to these people. What love have you given to anyone in your life?</em></p>
<p>ED: Which brings up the question, what love are you giving me right now? There are people I work with each day, a Mom and Dad I love, I give of myself to help people who ask around me, and listen when people are talking, and share music and humor. I like to lighten people's day.</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p><em>Probably hardly even noticeable.</em></p>
<p>ED: Sounds like you're on the right spiritual path all right, believing that only you and your spiritual path gives love to other people. (Come to think of it I read somewhere recently about a study done on regular meditators in which it was found that a proportion of people who meditate often are prone to sudden explosions of anger and resentment. I think it may have even been in Time magazine.)</p>
<p>------------</p>
<p><em>There is no price on love. You may love someone but it doesn mean they love you back, or feel that you love them. Even in Mother Theresa's case there will always be some who had complaints and were not happy. I could ask in your friendship circle, and lets see how much crap people would talk behind your back!</em></p>
<p>ED: My philosophy about "crap behind my back" is that it doesn't bother at all. Most people know more about you than you suspect, and also are less likely to care about what they know, than you fear they do.</p>
<p>--------</p>
<p>People simply talk and view the world and the people around them according to their own feelings and not necessarily according to accurate assumptions. Your writings simply show your own shallowness and does not reflect on necessary wrongs on the part of Mother Theresa's efforts.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>Your writings that you have posted on the web doesnt make you look neither intelligent or reasonable. But hey, if that's what makes you happy, go ahead! After all, its happiness that counts.</p>
<p>ED: Does that mean you're against happiness? (I'm being fasecious of course.) I happen to like a saying in the Koran, "He who can make his companions laugh, deserves paradise."</p>
<p>--------</p>
<p><em>Annica</em><br /><br /></p>
<hr />
<p><br /><br /></p>
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Annica<br />Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:52 PM<br />Subject: Re: Mother T.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Ed, dear, with all respect to your personal evaluation of Mother Theresa, she has done TREMENDOUS work in India and your points are really meaningless.</em></p>
<p>ED: As are yours. Lots of organizations have been doing work in India, many indigenous organizations. For what Mother T. did, she received the lion's share of the publicity and funding from overseas by relatively wealthy Western contributors (including the stock market thief, Keating, who gave her millions he had stolen from investors). The point is that there were many organizations of charity in India doing more work than hers. They were ignored while she was recently beautified by the Pope. I told you about the Bofal plant explosion that killed many from cyanide gas, Mother T. sent a few sisters and they all arrived late, and they didn't do anywhere near what the other organizations did, yet she rec'd even there, the lion's share of the publicity. Moreover, Mother T. used her publicity to argue against birth control in INDIA of all countries (soon to be the most populous nation on earth, and soon to surpass China in population.)</p>
<p>Annica: As I mentioned before, I spent nearly 10 years in India and if you know India from actually LIVING there and not being a tourist (a tourist doesnt know anything of the real India) then you are simply blown-away at how she managed to accomplish everything she did. It is VERY, very difficult to even do a fraction of what she did in her life in that country - even with an army of a 1000 helpers.</p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p>What is interesting with Mother Theresa, is that she was even taking care of her enemies when they were dying too.</p>
<p>ED: If her "enemies" were dying in the streets of India, then how potent an "enemy" could they have been?</p>
<p><em>Annica: And these enemies where of concervative religious views and had done everything they could to stop and destroy her work over the years. You know yourself how unreceptive christians can be to other religions, but Mother Theresa not only allowed anyone from ANY religion to utilize her facilities but she also arranged for funeral procedures according to THEIR religion and not to her own christian belief.</em></p>
<p>ED: That's O.K., they were secretly baptized right before they died.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Therefore, any assumption that she was trying to convert people are really nothing but assumptions. Indians are really very resentful to christians and I am certain they have analyzed her efforts with a magnifying glass for years in Calcultta before even leaving her alone from harassment!</em></p>
<p>ED: I don't doubt she did some good. What I doubt is the trumpeting of her goodness above all others.</p>
<p><em>Annica: It is possible her organisation has been blown out of proportion and all that. But that is certainly not Mother Theresa's fault but the sensationalism of the press! They need something sensational to write about.</em></p>
<p>ED: Yes, they do. But I want to know where all the money went that she kept collecting, and why she constantly kept asking for more and more before she had spent much of what she already had collected. And why she refused to return the money that have been gained via thievery (Keating).</p>
<p>Annica: Some 3-4 years ago I had a talk with Mr. Chawla, who wrote a book on Mother Theresa in India. He knew her since she was unknown. He always used to tell me that she really NEVER liked the publicity and the constant hounding from press and people created around her but accepted it to the best of her ability.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>From persons like Chawla, I could inform you as to why Mother Theresa didnt support abortions and birth-control as I myself had wondered about this: her statement was that if women begin to use abortion each time they get pregnant, they lose their sense value for human life.</p>
<p>ED: I'm not talking about abortion, I'm talking birth control, condoms, the pill, etc. She was against those. She said there can't be enough children, God will provide, when obviously God doesn't even provide for birds, a third of whose young die from starvation each year.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Not only that, but too much uncontrolled sex (and believe me, the Indians are not one billion from self-control!) create an even worse situation for Indian women. By trying to encourage people to learn SELF-CONTROL instead of copulating like dogs</em></p>
<p>ED: More like Dogs with condoms who learn to CONTROL what vessel their semen is spilled into.</p>
<p><em>Annica: and aborting children or even killing them (which was common in India when I was there) her idea was that the force of self-control would keep sexual abuse of women in somewhat control than free sex ever would accomplish.</em></p>
<p>ED: Who said I was for "free sex?" I am in favor of birth control between consenting sexual partners. That goes for married couples too.</p>
<p><em>Annica: It may sound crazy to you, but believe me; out western reasoning does NOT work in a country with ancient cultural views like India.</em></p>
<p>ED: It does work, there are women laboring to spread the news about birth control in India and they have been very successful. Indian women often try to have lots of children, planning on several of them dying young. But they learned that if you used birth control and concentrated on one child at a time, the survival rate when up and the need to get pregnant often to ensure offspring went down, and the offspring were also far better taken care of than in cases of multiple births that tried to ensure surviving children. There is a group of women teaching birth control in India and producing better results than you could imagine. Mother T.'s views are medieval Catholic.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Also, it is somewhat difficult to generalize Mother Theresa because there are cases where she actually recommended birth control!!! I got the impression that while she had her own reasons for keeping to strict views and disciplines, she also was adjustable in many instances to personal cases of some individuals.</em></p>
<p>ED: Please share the cases with me. You mean in cases where the mother's life was endangered by an ectopic pregnancy?</p>
<p>Annica: There is no doubt that a lot of the topics and issued that confuse some people, seem to originate from decisions made by her order from their spiritual vows and for certain spiritual growth that they believe will occur if they follow these rules and regulations. I am familiar that in the east it is common to believe that if one allows ones own suffering to continue and learns to live through it, by overcoming the emotional resistance to it rather then seeking always to escape it or cover it up, you 'master' it and thus become free from its effect forever.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>I believe a lot of Mother Theresa's views and decisions follow these eastern principles. Your own statements on cases from her life which I have not been familiar with, further convinces me of it and are quite interesting.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>My point to you is: just leave them alone.</p>
<p>ED: They are doing what they are doing. The leader is gone but she's probably going to be made a saint.</p>
<p><em>Annica: They are doing GOOD work, no matter what petty people think or find to criticise. We should respect people like this no matter what religion or background they are.</em></p>
<p>ED: I am not arguing with what people do right.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Truly speaking, how many people have WE ever helped in our life and given up all our comforts for?</em></p>
<p>ED: Doing and saying what you believe in, is a great comfort to most people. She became the head of a holy order and got to have her say in worldwide media and now you are telling me she gave up all "comfort." There are different types of "comfort."</p>
<p><em>Annica: I think the numbers are very few. I have done a bunch of volunteer work but I really could NEVER be in a position to criticise and analyse anyone in a negative way who tries their best to bring changes of betterment to people.</em></p>
<p>ED: Ignorant anti-birth control views such as hers will damn India in the long run, just as the Vatican today is lying in Africa that "condoms spread AIDS" and "the AIDS virus can easily get through condoms," both of which are lies.</p>
<p>Annica: We simply have to respect and accept people's effort to try their best, to their own capacity.</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>To me its simply amazing that pencil pushers sit and publizise negative stories about someone sacrifizing so much in life. People worship Princess Diane, who really contributed little else but cutting ribbons, looking pretty and living a rich life</p>
<p>ED: Actually she wanted to help people. She was in love with a doctor before she died and both had quite an urge to help people. But yes, I don't adore the worship of such icons.</p>
<p><em>Annica: but jump on Mother Theresa and her simple and uneducated (some of them are) bunch who keep the slums somewhat less from expansion.</em></p>
<p>ED: A lot of factors could help keep slums from expansion, but I don't see anyone but Mother T. receiving "sainthoods" for their efforts to help educate and heal and better the economic growth of India. Mother T.'s views would bury India in bodies, fill every grave. Her love of every conjugal union, of every incipient sperm and egg about to meet, would spell the death of mankind as a whole. We see the world unraveling even now. Ignorance must not be welded to sainthood, whether it is an ignorant sister of charity or an ignorant pope.</p>
<p><em>Annica: Just makes no sense!</em></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-15615265499684036902012-04-16T23:59:00.001-07:002019-09-02T03:58:22.203-07:00Too much secular influence in media and schools<blockquote>
<p>Date: 5/10/2004 19:35:55 -0700<br />From: Michael M.<br />To: ed.babinski<br />Subject: Hello<br />Dear Sir:</p>
It is a real place. I would suggest that you reconsider your positions. You can't intellectualize yourself to be God. Sorry...it doesn't work that way.<em><em><br /></em></em>
<p>An Intellectual Christian who knows your viewpoints are complete bunk.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Micheal M.<br />Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:52 PM<br />Subject: Intellectual Xtian knows your view r complete bunk-o</p>
<p>Hello Michael,</p>
<p>How did you hear about www.edwardtbabinski.us ?</p>
<p>If you disagree with what is on somebody else's website and have nothing to say to them except to email them a threat and an insult, why not simply go visit another website? I don't visit Christian sites just to leave insults.</p>
<p>Was there a particular Christian web-apologist whom you were trying to emulate in your email message to me?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Ed</p>
<hr />
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Michael M.<br />Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 6:07 PM<br />Subject: Re: Intellectual Xtian knows your view r complete bunk-o</p>
<p>ed babinski writes:<br />Michael M. writes:</p>
<p>Mr. Babinski:</p>
<p>There is too much of the secular ideas promoted in the media and collge campuses.</p>
<p>ED: There might also possibly be too much "know-nothing theology" preached in<br />1) churches across the country,<br />2) in church-schools,<br />3) on Christian radio and TV,<br />4) in Christian books sold in Christian bookstores and at Walmarts across the nation,<br />5) in Christian websites and emails,<br />6) on Evangelical Christian campuses,<br />7) in Christian campus groups on secular campuses,<br />8) in Christian home-schooling courses, etc.</p>
<p>But I don't get involved with arguing THAT point so much as explaining at my website why I personally left the fold. There are other websites like mine, as Steve Locks at "Leaving Christianity" proves with his list of links. (Just google, "Leaving Christianity")</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>In fact, Christianity is under constant attack from persons of the more liberal bent just because it evokes the concept of absolutes.</em></p>
<p>ED: Christianity is in constant martyr mode. "We're being attacked!" But in fact, we have a president who says Jesus is his favorite "philosopher" (sic). We have a fundamentalist Attorney General, Ashcroft.</p>
<p>We have Washington Prayer Groups galore, and influencial preachers meeting with Senators and Congressmen. The Bush Administration has spent hundreds of millions on faith related programs and on training churches how to apply for such programs. Christians have their own news (700 Club), radio, satellite networks (Catholic and Pentecostal), bookstores (Zondervan and others), Christian book and music kiosks in WalMarts.</p>
<p>Polls reveal that people with Evangelical Christian views number about a third of the U.S. population, that's enough votes to take over the country (since most of the eligible U.S. voting population doesn't even vote). If all Christians voted together, politically, they could take over.</p>
<p>As for absolutes, even Christians have not been able to demonstrate to fellow Christians exactly what those absolutes are across the board.</p>
<p>Christians who agree that the Bible is uniquely inspired, and/or without error -- and who agree that the Bible interprets itself ("Sola Scriptura") -- and who agree that the "Holy Spirit" guides them into "all truth" -- still find themselves disagreeing over what the Bible "really says." Protestant Reformers damned Biblical interpretations by fellow Reformers. Puritans split with Puritans. In our own day, America's single largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, fired missionaries and professors, split from the World Baptist Alliance, and incited the founding of the more moderate Baptist Cooperative Fellowship -- over differences in Biblical interpretation. Christian seminaries and universities have been founded in reaction to one anothers' differing Biblical interpretations. New translations of the Bible have been made to counter other translations.</p>
<p>Concerning differences in Biblical interpretation, the famed Scottish Christian, Thomas Erskine, said, "The most zealous defenders of the verbal inspiration of the Bible admit that there are parts of it of less importance than others. This is a great admission, because another is involved in it, namely that we ourselves must be judges of the comparative importance of these different parts."</p>
<p>At the very least, one must admit that disagreements and ambiguities exist among Christian interpretations of the Bible just as they do elsewhere in life and learning, so there is no evidence of the superiority of "revealled religion" when it comes to that.</p>
<p>Speaking of such disagreements and ambiguities, two Evangelical Christian presses, InterVarsity Press and Zondervan, began publishing books in the 1980s in which Evangelical Christian theologians explained their views and questioned each others' reasons for holding them. Keep in mind that the disagreements discussed in the books below are only between Evangelical Protestants (and E.P.'s do not constitute the biggest bulk of Christianity which remains Catholic). If the publishers began editing books that featured not only Protestant but also Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views, there would undoubtedly be more topics and more books required to discuss them. Moreover, there are disagreements between conservatives, moderates, and liberals within each major church division or denomination. The books below feature mostly the differing views of conservative Evangelical Protestants, while moderate and liberal views are under-represented (perhaps because moderates and liberals doubt that the Bible speaks perfectly clearly on as many matters as conservatives assume it does). Nor do the books below address many moderate/liberal questions concerning the historical development of Christian ideas and doctrines.</p>
<p>Books by InterVarsity Press:</p>
<p>Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog<br />Four Views on Divine sovereignty and Human Freedom<br />Four Christian Views of Economics<br />Four Theologians Debate the Major Millennial Views<br />Women in Ministry: Four Views<br />Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views<br />Theologians and Philosophers Examine Four Approaches to War</p>
<p>Books by Zondervan Press, part of their Counterpoints Series:</p>
<p>Two Views on Women in Ministry<br />Three Views on the Rapture<br />Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond<br />Three Views on Creation and Evolution<br />Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views<br />Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide<br />Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World<br />Four Views on the Book of Revelation<br />Four Views on Eternal Security<br />Four Views on Hell<br />Five Views of Law and Gospel<br />Five Views on Sanctification<br />Five Views on Apologetics</p>
<p>The Society of Christian Philosophers has also gotten into the act and published a debate book: Contemporary Debate in the Philosophy of Religion (Section III. features debates between Christian philosophers on questions such as "Can Only One Religion Be True?" "Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?" "Does God Respond to Petitionary Prayer?" "Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God?" "Is Morality Based on God's Commands?" "Should a Christian Be a Mind-Body Dualist?" Concerning such questions, none of the Christian/theistic philosophers were convinced by the others' arguments.)</p>
<p>Or take the disagreements within Protestantism between conservatives and moderates concerning Biblical inerrancy. One such debate took place in the pages of The Churchman (published in Great Britain): The moderate Protestant Christian theologian, James D.G. Dunn, argued for a less than inerrant view of the Bible in his article, "The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture" (in two parts that appeared in The Churchman 96.2 & 96.3, 1982) Dunn's article was challenged in that same journal by Roger Nicole (a founder and charter member of the Evangelical Theological Society). Dunn was not swayed by Nicole's lengthy three-part rebuttal, and answered Nicole briefly and with equanimity, seeking to widen the circle of Christianity that they may both inhabit it, even though Nicole filled pages of his reply with what can only be called "preaching" -- or quotations from past theologians who sounded more like preachers than anything else -- to try and rouse Dunn to convert back to Nicole's view of inerrancy.</p>
<p>James D.G. Dunn is a major theological figure among moderate Protestant Christians. His latest work, Jesus Remembered, is the first of a planned trilogy on the first 120 years of Christianity. Dunn argues that The Gospel of John's narrative is not reliable, nor the claims it makes for Jesus' quasi-divine status. (In his earlier work, Evidence for Jesus, Dunn didn't imagine that Jesus spoke even one word reported in John.) Dunn admits there is little to support the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, and little evidence that Jesus supported a mission to the gentiles, and no evidence that Jesus saw himself as any kind of messiah. (The term does not even appear in Q.) Nor is there much left of the "Son of Man," except for a few uncertain eschatological allusions. Dunn argues that Jesus did not claim any title for himself. Jesus may have believed that he was going to die, but he did not believe he was dying to redeem the sins of the world. "If Jesus hoped for resurrection it was presumably to share in the general and final resurrection of the dead." There is astonishingly little support for what Jesus' last words were. There is a certain squirming as Dunn admits that Jesus believed in an imminent eschatological climax that, of course, did not happen. "Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events." Then he goes on for four pages trying to argue that we shouldn't be too concerned about this. Dunn's account of the resurrection notes all of the weaknesses of the tradition: The link of Jesus' resurrection to a falsely imminent general resurrection, confusion as to what sort of Jesus the witnesses were seeing, a persistent theme of failure of the witnesses to recognize Jesus (in Matthew 28:17 the disciples are seeing him in Galilee yet "some doubted," not just Thomas), confusion as to where they were seeing Jesus (in Jerusalem and Galilee? On earth or in heaven?). Which is not to say that Dunn does not affirm the resurrection -- he does, which is what still puts him in the Christian camp (though somewhat doubtfully in the eyes of conservative Evangelical inerrantists like Roger Nicole).</p>
<p>Another leading moderate whose views conservatives find unsettling is William G. Dever, the son of a fundamentalist preacher. After starting his education at a small Christian liberal arts college in Tennessee he went to a Protestant theological seminary that exposed him to critical study of the Bible, a study that at first he resisted. In 1960 it was on to Harvard and a doctorate in Biblical theology. For thirty-five years he worked as an archaeologist, excavating in the Near East, and he is now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona. In his book, What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, he writes, "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'" He writes of archaeological investigations of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that the Biblical Moses was entirely mythical, though he does admit that ".the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region." About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."</p>
<p>Dever's conclusions about what archaeology tells us about the Bible are not very pleasing to fundamentalists or conservative Evangelicals, and I gather that Dever and his colleagues of high standing likewise dismiss fundamentalists and hard-core conservative Evangelicals who want to consider themselves scholars without accepting that which good scholars must do: engage in extensive critical analysis. Those testifying for Dever's book (on the back cover) are: Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Divinity and Old Testament at Harvard University; David Noel Freedman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; Philip M. King, Professor at Boston College and author of Jeremiah; William W. Hallo, Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University; and Bernhard W. Anderson, Professor of Old Testament, Boston University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. Like Dever, these are not a bunch of radical revisionists, but moderates in the field of Christian archeology. Dever's latest book is, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Conservative and fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible literally will gain no encouragement after reading it.</p>
<p>Like Dever and Dunn, Bart D. Ehrman apparently started out as a conservative Christian, graduating magna cum laude with a B.A. from Wheaton College, Illinois (an Evangelical Christian institution) before attending Princeton Seminary and obtaining his doctorate. His highly successful introduction to the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (published by Oxford University Press) is now in its third edition -- "It approaches the New Testament from a consistently historical and comparative perspective, emphasizing the rich diversity of the earliest Christian literature. Rather than shying away from the critical problems presented by these books, Ehrman addresses the historical and literary challenges they pose and shows why scholars continue to argue over such significant issues as how the books of the New Testament came into being, what they mean, how they relate to contemporary Christian and non-Christian literature, and how they came to be collected into a canon of Scripture." Dr. Ehrman's university lectures are also sold by <a href="http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150&d=Bart+Ehrman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Teaching Company</a> which features tapes and CDs by leading educators</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>My apologies if you were offended. However, I often believe it is necessary to stand up for faith that makes sense in a world where "right" and "wrong" is an invention of man.</em></p>
<p>ED: I fear that in your original email you may have confused "standing up for your faith" with "sending out a hell-threatening insulting email void of content, except for a threat and an insult."</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>I don't believe that concept in the interests of our survival.</em></p>
<p>ED: I try to think in terms of here and now. Here's an interesting fact, you know all the killing going on in the Middle East? Most of the people there don't have problems with believing in life after death. To believe in life before death -- a life which is worth living -- that's the difficulty.</p>
<p>Speaking of a connection between belief in the afterlife and a less than noble regard for the lives of those in this world, I once read about a Catholic ruler and leader in war who apparently commanded his troops to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."</p>
<p>On the other hand, there's also fanatical atheists and people imbued with a superstition-based egoism, who have killed en masse, from Attila the Hun to Ghengiz Khan (Ghengiz was superstitious and believed he was chosen at birth to conquer the world); to Hitler (again, not an atheist, but a man of superstition who also had a sense of having been chosen); to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (communistic atheists three, though it must be admitted, communism echoed the religious mentality since it promised paradise, a "worker's paradise" following an "apocalyptic" overturning of the feared and hated "bourgouisie"--it seems that every religion needs its promise of a new jerusalem rising out of the ashes and also needs "demons" upon which to project the in-group's fears, failures and insecurities).</p>
<p>But the main thing that kills in all cases, either in cases of religion or atheism or egoistic superstition, is applying one's beliefs "fanatically."</p>
<p>As a satirical t-shirt suggest, "Death to All Fanatics!" --or at least death to the bloodthirsty fanatics who fire bullets rather than aphorisms at each other.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-20740051430528718602012-04-16T23:56:00.000-07:002019-09-02T03:59:49.199-07:00Common Progression in Religion<p>Scholars think that Jesus did not start out being "equal with God" but started out as a "heavenly mediator," a concept that became popular during the intertestamenal period, but most folks don't hear about intertestamental heavenly mediators in Sunday school, and instead think Christianity popped out of thin air. Here is a little discussion I had with someone recently on such topics:</p>
<p>CHRISTIAN: Jesus claim of being God was unique. He made the claim in a strictly monotheistic context and (not pantheistic) culture.</p>
<p>ED: We know only what others claimed about Jesus. Moreover, there were many Messiahs, Messiahnic ideas, and "heavenly intermediary" figures just prior to Jesus' day. The Melchizadek scroll found near the Dead Sea even says that God appointed Melchizadek (a human being) as a heavenly intermediary to judge the entire world. And that was before Jesus' day.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jewish Roman World of Jesus</a> (great scholarly articles, great site)</p>
<p>Even in the Gospels you can see how in the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke) Jesus pointed to doing God's will, "Do unto others, for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew's sermon on the mount). -- "How do I inherit eternal life?" "Obey the commandments." -- "Pray this way... Forgive us as we forgive others." While in the last written Gospel (Gospel of John) Jesus is portrayed as pointing almost always at himself. So, the earliest three Gospels began with Jesus directing people to stare at where his finger was pointing, toward God, doing God's will, following commandments, while the last Gospel ends by staring almost solely at the finger itself, worshipping the finger of Jesus.</p>
<p>The history of religion features the same theme of the heavenly messenger getting raised to the status of the divine, superceding the message, becoming the whole message, again and again. Happened with the Buddha in Amida Buddhism (they pray "save me amida Buddha"). Happened earlier in Judaism where the "Torah" itself became holy, or the tabernacle, or things associated with God. Happened in fundamentalism in the 20th century where the "Bible" became God's inerrant words, and to doubt it's truthfulness even in little matters was condemned. Happened in Catholicism where the Popes were at one point elevated to the status of infallible "god-men," some said, "born sinless." Happens in religion, very common. The saint who loves God himself get elevated to near-divine status.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: The penalty in that CULTure, which he, Jesus, paid, was death.<br />He was nearly killed by stoning several times for this claim, and ultimately crucified for it. His response was not, "Hey, don't you get it?<br />Each of us is God."</p>
<p>ED: Actually that WAS Jesus' response in at least one case, "Know ye not that ye are sons of God?"</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: His response was, "I am He, and if you don't believe Me, you will die in your sins."</p>
<p>ED: Late theological interpretation, that's from John 8:24, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins." Only the last written Gospel (The Gospel of John), has a theology of "believe" in a certain thing "about Jesus," or "die." (Also see John 3, "he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the son...")</p>
<p>Such a teaching does not appear in the three earlier synoptic Gospels, except in the LATE ADDED chapter of Mark. "he who believes not shall be condemned."</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: I understand that this is not the Eastern view of the nature of God or the Muslim view.</p>
<p>Thing is, if you go to Buddha's tomb, his bones are in the ground. Same with Mohammed's grave. Same with Krishnamurti, etc.etc. They are all dead and have remained so.</p>
<p>ED: What's really remarkable is that Buddha could grow into amida Buddha, the savior Buddha, that you pray to "save me amida Buddha," even without the need of hoaky resurrection tales. Hindus also have saviors, divine avatars that selflessly incarnate on earth rather than remain in heavenly bliss.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: Go to Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem.</p>
<p>ED: As if any archeologists have ever proven that we know where Jesus was buried.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: They'll say come on in and look around. "He is not here. He has risen from the dead!" This is not reincarnation, but resurrection. You'll get a glorified, perfect body. Jesus walked through walls after his rez. We maintain our identity. It's going to be great. Just great. Amen and Amen. God doesn't need America. He is raising up and toppling down governments over the centuries until one day His kingdom on earth is a reality.</p>
<p>ED: "One day," thousands of years later. The N.T. is now older than the O.T. was when the N.T. was first written. Still, no new revelations.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: He started with just 12 disciples, now over one billion people worship the One who rose from the grave. The Good news is spreading like wild fire in South America, Africa, and India.</p>
<p>ED: Yes, it's spreading, especially the kind of "good news" that includes Pentecostal teachings, aggressive claims of healing, end of world forecasts, speaking in tongues, and anti-intellectualism. A couple hundred million strong. This growth is bound to deepen the rift between the southern hemisphere where such "Christianity" continues to grow, and the more secularized and academic northern hemisphere. Catholicism of a more charismatic and conservative sort is also growing fast in the southern hemisphere, where the Catholic church continues having to ordain new bishops for her more numerous diocese, and that may lead to a future rift between more conservative and miracle-mongering Catholics in the southern hemisphere and their northern hemisphere brethren, especially a rift concerning which pope to next nominate. Not to mention what's going to happen as entire religions continue to collide. (You don't unconvert 900 million Sunni Muslims overnight.)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>CHRISTIAN: Some countries are now sending missionaries to the U.S! The future looks bright indeed.</p>
<p>ED: Do you imagine this is all just one big football game and you're a pep rally cheerleader? Christians are no different from other people, crazy about some things, crazy hateful about others. Trouble is when any LARGE group of such people gets together, trying to steamroller the world with their craziness. Then hell starts a poppin', hell between family members, between nations, etc. The drive to evangelize via emotional cheerleading is linked to the drive to demonize via equally emotional name calling. Beliefs in ancient religious dogmas and holy books are not a step up the evolutionary ladder, but more like jogging in place, because for every good thing Christianity does, it also tears apart families and weakens nations. The most Christian nation on earth fell, the ancient Roman Empire, after spending zillions on "faith based programs." And for all of Christianity's sins, not matter how many dirty ditches it fell into headlong, it never lost faith that only "it" was forgiven by God, how self-righteous. Christianity is like geocentrism, provides the same sense of confidence and security. Yes, it has survival value, because it confronts people's primal fears of death and the unknown, and simplifies it all down to "have faith, we are promised resurrection," and, "anything anyone else tells you is from the devil." No religion puts things in such a starkly primal primate fashion.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-78029255542435068232012-04-16T23:51:00.001-07:002019-09-02T04:00:05.288-07:00Mental Manipulation by Maria Ferrara<p>From: pema<br />To: Ed Babinski<br />Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 2:41 PM<br />Subject: Mental manipulation</p>
<p>Dear Mr Babinski,<br />I was born in Poland Warsaw and by reading your name it led me to believe that your origins were too from Poland. I Found your web page very creative and humanitarian.<br />My web is <a href="http://www.onlyonetruth.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.onlyonetruth.com</a><br />which I would love to shear with you and which I believe that could be helpful for many peoples to recover from religious addiction and abuse. I have written a book " Anatomy Of A Life Possessed" It is a true story of main and which I have self-published. Since the book is against religions it is very difficult to promote not only my book but even my articles where I try to urge people to not allow any one to possess them and their families. I have discovered recently the Web Ring where I try to place my articles. But I have technological difficulties and I found Web Ring quit complicated. Moreover my English is not my first language. I speak Polish and Italian and now since seven years I am struggling with my English. I would love to link my web page to yours I have join Free Thinkers but I can't link to your page . Could you help me in this as well as to promote the subject about which I care very much such as the mental manipulation practice in all religions. I hope to hearing from you soon with the best wishes to you Maria Ferrara<br />pema@nyc.rr.com</p>
<table style="width: 450px; height: 36px" border="3" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" align="center">
<tbody style="font-size: 11;">
<tr>
<td style="background-color:white"><center><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971922152/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/feedback/0971922152.jpg" alt="" align="baseline" border="0" hspace="0" /></a></center></td>
<td style="background-color:white;color:#000">Find it at Amazon.com<br />A graphic, disturbing memoir, October 8, 2002<br />Reviewer: Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews<br />Anatomy Of A Life Possessed is the personal memoir and testimony of Maria Ferrara Pema, a woman who was possessed and tortured by a Catholic priest for 27 years. Anatomy Of A Life Possessed is a graphic, disturbing memoir that hides no secrets and spares no sharpness in its accusations. With today's focus on pastoral pedophilia, it is an unhappy and overlooked truth that most sexual, physical, and emotional abuse and exploitation by priests is perpetrated against their female parishioners -- and always has been. Anatomy Of A Life Possessed is raw, severe, and unforgettable reading.<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971922152/edwartbabinth-20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971922152/</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>From: Ed Babinski"<br />To: pema<br />
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:14 PM<br />
Subject: Re: Fw: Mental manipulation</p>
<p>Dear Maria,</p>
<p>Yes, I have Polish roots, but I am third generation, fully "Americanized." Interesting and scary story at your website. I've never heard anything like that before. I hope your health has recovered since then. My website administrator, Sharon, may have linked your site to the necessary webring(s), but she is quite busy with many things, so I cannot speak for her. She has graciously created the sites where my articles reside. I hope more people who are addicted to religion will read your book.</p>
<p>Other books that come to mind regarding the psychology of religious addiction include:</p>
<p>Leaving the Fold (by an Australian psychiatrist -- not to be confused with the book of the same title that I edited)</p>
<p>The Mind of the Bible Believer by Edmund Cohen</p>
<p>and a very new work I just saw by a Canadian psychologist, titled PsychoBible</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-19911996713825444322012-04-16T23:44:00.001-07:002019-09-02T04:00:21.271-07:00A Belief in Near Death Experiences<p>From: Kathy G.<br />To: Ed Babinski<br />Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:08 PM<br />Subject: Jesus</p>
<p>I wish there was something profound that I could say to make you change your mind about this man Jesus. I wish you could know him Like I do as a comforter, heavenly father, a friend that I can tell anything to, teacher, answerer of prayers.</p>
<p>You are missing so much without him in your life. My father is 91 years old and loves the Lord. I know that he will be gone before long and it gives me such great peace to know that he is Heaven bound. He always tells me, "the best is yet to come, and that's Heaven."</p>
<p>I truly believe he lived and died for me, and I am so humbled and grateful for that, all I want to do is tell others about his love for them.</p>
<p>I will be praying for you that someday your eyes will be opened and you too will know, as the Bible says, "the peace that passes all understanding."</p>
<p>Kathleen G.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Kathy G.<br />Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:03 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: Jesus</p>
<p>Dear Kathleen,</p>
<p>I sincerely appreciate the love with which your email to me was filled.</p>
<p>Robert Ingersoll, America's "great agnostic," used to remark that there were sometimes hundreds of people outside his home praying for his salvation. He didn't mind he said, because it was like a boy holding a girl's hand, it didn't do either of them any harm, so long as the boy didn't squeeze the girl's hand too tightly.</p>
<p>I don't even feel any desire to disagree with you, or try to convince someone such as yourself of anything other than the joy you have found in your present beliefs, just as I wouldn't seek to convince anyone of any religion to leave it if they were wearing it fully, and practicing love as a result.</p>
<p>A mystical friend of mine who used to be a fundamentalist Christian once wrote in LEAVING THE FOLD that religion was like a cloak or clothes that you had to put on fully to see how they fit, and in the end after entering fully into love and also growing to recognize that love in others of other religions, and even in people of no religion, that cloak would grow lighter and lighter until you didn't even realize you were wearing it, but merely that you were a member of all faiths and non-faiths that practiced love.</p>
<p>Gandhi used to say that Christian missionaries shouldn't be trying to get people to leave their major religious faiths to become "Christians," but people should be trying to encourage each other to travel deeper into the heart of love that is found in all religious traditions and holy books. (See the book titled, ONENESS, a small volume, that mentions such verses in all the world's major religious traditions.)</p>
<p>So many faiths that wind and wind,<br />yet what the world needs most<br />is just the art of being kind.</p>
<p>Lastly, I am not an atheist, but think there may be something to Near Death Experiences.</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Kathy G.<br />To: Ed Babinski<br />Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:56 PM<br />Subject: Near Death Experience</p>
<p>Thank you for your answer to my e-mail. You mentioned near death experiences. A few years ago I worked in an office with ten men. One of these men was a 37 year old by the name of Gene Mose. Gene underwent surgery on his foot in November of that year and as a result he got a very bad staff infection that put him in the hospital for 6 weeks. By January they realized that he had developed a heart problem and they immediately did heart surgery to replace a bad valve. During the surgery his heart stopped three times.</p>
<p>When he came back to work he came to my office one day and said, "Kathy, I want to share something with you. I don't feel I can tell any of the guys my story because they will think I'm nuts, but I know you will believe me." He then told he how when his heart stopped, his spirit rose above his body and he watched the surgeons frantically trying to save him. He said, "Kath, I saw Linda (his wife) sitting in the waiting room, I saw people going up and down the halls, and heard everything that was being said and done to save me. But the best part was the complete feeling of peace and joy and love that surrounded me during that time. I could feel the presence of God all around me and I really didn't care to come back. Noone will ever convince me there isn't life after death." He said, Do you think I'm nuts, Kath?"</p>
<p>I told him of course not. He said, "everything was as real as my sitting here talking to you today, and when they got my heart started my spirit went down until it was back in my body again."<br />That was in January of that year, and in August he layed down on the couch one night and died. Only 37, but he was ready to meet the Father.</p>
<p>If I had one wish in this life it would be that every person in the world would know beyond a shadow of a doubt what lies beyond this life. I'm sure we'd all live differently.</p>
<p>Sincerely, Kathleen G.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Kathy G.<br />Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 4:29 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: Near Death Experience</p>
<p>Thanks, I love hearing about such things. Who is your friend? He should contact Raymond Moody, the author of the bestseller, Life after Life, or Dannion Binkley, author of Saved by the Light (I think that was the title). They are not evangelical Christians, but they collect Near Death stories. Moody has an institute for such things up in North Carolina. Their studies revealled to them that one's religion didn't matter. You could be an evangelical Christian or something completely different, and still feel the love and the recognition that there was life after death. And yes, along with your friend I wish everybody got to experience that kind of happiness in the midst of suffering, pain and death, it would bring a lot of us closer together here on planet earth.</p>
<p>Or on the other hand, perhaps it would also make some of us ignore those who are suffering, since they knew they'd be going to a better place? Hmmm. A wise rabbi was once asked if there was any time in which it was best to think like an atheist, and he said "Yes, there is one time when it is appropriate to think like an atheist, in the giving of charity, since you must not imagine that God is going to right all wrongs and take care of the poor and suffering."</p>
<p>That being said, I still think that if everyone had such an experience as your friend, the planet would be a happier better place, with less fear and tension. Certainly if Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants both had it, along with Muslims and Christians and atheists and agnostics, then people could speak of their shared experience. On the other hand, some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims might still find ways to denounce each other's experience as "fake" or "phoney" or "of the devil." I know there are some fundamentalist Christians like Habermas who co-wrote a book on The Afterlife in which he argued that all of those positive loving and life-changing NDEs that non-evangelical Christians have are all a "delusion" and don't mean those people are going to avoid hell.</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-40335772904182333052012-04-16T23:36:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:00:37.023-07:00Book of Enoch and the Bible's Judgment<blockquote>
<p><em>DOUG: Hi i need to clarify how when the Lord comes with all His saints in Jude 14-15, do you think that is the day of judgment as written in Rom 2:16 "when the God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel". Plus could you tell me if you consider that Math 13:46-51 , 25:31. John 5:28-29 Rev 20:11 are all the same judgment. Then, are the saints of Ist Cor 6:1-3 the same as the "judgment was committed to them" of Rev 20:4 and Math 19:28 you who have folowed me will sit in 12 thrones judging 12 tribes of Israel. And of course Rom 2:16 and Jude 14-15 , Ps 149:9, Zec 14:6 Hope you can shed some light on these judgments and apparent judges.<br />Bless you,<br />Doug B. </em></p>
</blockquote>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>ED: Dear Doug, Thanks for writing. Concerning your questions, I do not view the Bible as an inerrant heavenly puzzle book such that you can catalog and clearly define every reference to "judgments" and "judges" and fit each reference together in a tale of dogmatic, theological, and mathematical precision. Even inerrantist Bible believers disagree as to how many judgments the Bible speaks of, how many resurrections, even how many raptures. And there are dispensationalists and preterists who disagree on the "real" or "metaphorical" meanings of various descriptions of judgment, or whether such descriptions apply to the entire earth or only to the desctruction of one city on earth. Concerning such debate among Christians see:</p>
<p>InterVarsity Press:<br />Four Theologians Debate the Major Millennial Views</p>
<p>And Zondervan Press, Counterpoints Series:<br />Three Views on the Rapture<br />Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond<br />Four Views on the Book of Revelation</p>
<p>According to the modern historical approach to the Bible, the Bible is a book made up of many books, each of which is related individually to the times in which it was written and to the literature and ideas of its age. When the book of Jude was written, the book of Enoch was still popular. The "judgment" mentioned in the book of Jude (14-15) is actually a citation from Enoch 1:9, an intertestamental work:</p>
<p>Jude 14-15: 14Now Enoch, who lived seven generations after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, "Look, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones. 15He will bring the people of the world to judgment. He will convict the ungodly of all the evil things they have done in rebellion and of all the insults that godless sinners have spoken against him."<br />The quotation comes from the Apocrypha: Enoch 1:9.</p>
<p>I highly recommend the study of intertestamental works in order to understand N.T. apocalyptic passages in their historical perspective. The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism (2 vols.) by Stephen J. Stein (Editor) and John Joseph Collins is the best starting point I know. The article in by Collins is a "must read" overview of the topic. It is evident that the nearness of a final judgment of the entire earth was a view held by some before Jesus' day (including a prediction in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the earth's final judgment within a generation of the death of the "Teacher of Righteousness").</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Doug, You may also want to read my replies at my website to someone who asked me about the <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/prophetic-passages.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bible's end times prophecies</a> compared with modern history.</p>
<p>And see my online article, "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/christ_return.html">The Lowdown on God's Showdown</a>"</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Doug B.<br />Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004<br />Subject: Re: The Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraph (written under the pseudonymn of "Enoch</p>
<p>Doug B. writes:<br />Hi Ed , thank you so much for your lenghty and very interesting <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/enoch.html">article on Enoch</a>, marvellous.</p>
<p>Ed you touched on the expression "sons of God' as either angelic or sons of Seth, from that would you have an opinion(probably already documented, by that I mean I am sure you have) on the "Sons of God" of Hosea 1:10/Rom 9:24/Gal 3:26, now I know the Sons of God are the church, but could they relate to a position similar to the Genisis "sons of God'. Making us divine, possibly?.</p>
<p>ED: There are currently about nine different interpretations of the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis. The words, "sons of God" are so general they have found usage and applications by different Bible writers, who wrote at different times, of different things. I don't think is there any one way to sum them up in any single easy fashion, just as I think it's impossible to try and get every different interpreter of the term, "sons of God" in Genesis to finally agree.</p>
<p>If you are interested in different opinions concerning the "sons of God" in Genesis, the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY ON GENESIS (2002) by Watson at Wheaton College, provides a summation of some of the major views. That commentary is an excellent read for a variety of reasons, check it out when you have the time. Watson acknowledges the original Hebrew meanings and original context of Genesis, as all scholars today must, but adds of course, his own "bridging concepts" to try and bring modern scholarship in line with 3rd century orthodox Christian interpretations of Genesis. It's an interesting attempt at being honest and also orthodox. I think his attempt fails, since his bridging concepts are really an example of "fudge factors" to try and bring his data in line with his orthodox Christian conclusions. But at least he has indeed presented the original Hebrew concepts and ideas of Genesis to the Evangelical public, including the flat earth, the firm firmament, no mention of Satan in Genesis, nor any inference that the serpent was nothing but evil (a crafty beast, a trickster, but not evil).</p>
<p>Besides the above commentary I suggest <a href="http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the following website</a> for a scholarly list of different interpretations of the "sons of God" in Genesis.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Or, is God just relating to us a separation of Israel as , "daughters of Zion/Jerusaelm", from the, "Church/body of Christ/Sons of God", giving a feminine role to Israel and a male role to us.</p>
<p>Israel as daughters and us as Sons.</p>
<p>ED: I would suggest getting your hands on the Anchor Bible Commentary volume on Hosea, for a fleshing out of that book's historical context and what Hosea was most likely trying to get across to his readers. The Anchor Bible Commentaries are some of the most in-depth available.</p>
<p>THE WEBSITE BELOW WAS CREATED BY A LIBRARIAN/THEOLOGIAN, WHO COLLECTED AND ARRANGED THE PREMIER SCHOLARLY RELIGIOUS URLS INTO HANDY CATEGORIES FOR EASE OF USE:<br /><a href="http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/Internet/front.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wabash Center</a></p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-68670841498730989072012-04-16T23:24:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:00:52.549-07:00Bible a Dangerous Moral Guide?<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Jen<br />Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:00 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: "<a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentals/bible_moral_guide.html">The Bible a Dangerous Moral Guide</a>"</p>
<p>ED: Jen, Please see my replies, interspersed within your email below.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: Jen<br />Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:44 PM<br />Subject: "The Bible a Dangerous Moral Guide"</p>
<p><em>Hello,</em></p>
<p>ED: Hello, pleased to meet you.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em> I, as a born-again Christian, have to say that this article takes everything it quotes from the Bible out of context on top of the fact that it is using the wrong translation. </em></p>
<p>ED: I did not write the article in question, a former minister did, and that minister died in the first half of the 1900s.. In my own discussions I use the King James almost all of the time, since some Christians read nothing else but the King James, and it's also not copyrighted, so it's free to use.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>On part of that slavery thing, I do not agree with slavery, and it is not taught in the Bible. To make your point you should have used the version of the Bible (the true version) that the people were using at that time, which is the KJV Bible. </em></p>
<p>ED: Whether or not "slavery is taught in the Bible" was the very question that split America's Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian denominations in two right before the Civil War. Major theologians on both sides debated this question and could not arrive at an answer from the Bible that they all could agree upon, instead splitting their denominations right down the middle. Today, most scholars agree, like Mark Nolls of Wheaton College and author of America's God (read the chapters on the slavery debate amongst churches back then), that the Southern ministers had a greater prima facia case in favor of slavery that the Northern ministers did against it. The Bible never declares slavery to be a sin. It says it is O.K. for Israel to buy slaves from the nations around you.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>People who were pro-slavery used the passages out of context. They took the mark of Cain in Genesis to be that Cain became black, but as the Bible clearly shows that all of Cain's descendants were destroyed in the flood, this cannot be. The Hebrew slave thing, in context is teaching that if someone owes you something, and cannot pay you back, he can work to pay you back for a set amount of time. The year of jubilee also requires all slaves are free. That is only one of the issues that the author has misrepresented.</em></p>
<p>ED: Actually, "the mark of Cain" is far off the mark concerning the slavery question. Though some verses in Genesis were used to support slavery, verses that mentioned "the curse of Ham," whose descendants (via one of Ham's sons) were allegedly "cursed by Noah" to be the "servants of servants" (or "slaves of slaves") for eternity. The history of how those "cursed" descendants came to be identified with the Black race is interesting -- there are books on that topic. But that was not the only reason why Bible scholars in the South defended the right to own slaves. There are plenty of other verses that mention the everlasting practice of slavery.</p>
<p>Concerning the "year of jubilee," it only refers to HEBREW slaves. And even then it only included the freeing of MALE Hebrew slaves, the females remained slaves as did any children the females bore. And a male slave must speak up the first time freedom is offered and take it, otherwise his ear was pierced with an awl and he remained a slave for life. I suggest you read something that I wrote on the Bible and slavery, it contains the verses concerning such matters and it is far more complete than the short essay by the former minister that you read:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/christian_experience.html#humanity">"Jesus' Wide and Profound Effect Upon Humanity"</a></p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>Another thing he misrepresented is that he says the Bible is incorrect scientifically? How can this be if it was written way before scientists knew many things? For instance, Leviticus 17:11 says that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and it took scientists many years to discover this.</em></p>
<p>ED: Ancient peoples all agreed that the pounding heart and racing blood (and loss thereof) caused the loss of life, along with the loss of one's "breath" that also ended at death. In other words, science was not needed in order to draw attention to the blood and the heart and the breath, all of which were viewed by the ancients as belonging to "life." So the Bible merely reflects that ancient view, not modern scientific views. What science eventually did was to explore that quiet organ, THE BRAIN, and understand it's necessity for the "life" of people's emotions and decision-making abilities, and also to run all the other organs, via the nervous system. The Bible authors were ignorant of the primacy of the "brain and nervous system," and hence the Bible does not draw any concerted attention to the brain, but instead mimics the old ancient pre-scientific ways of envisioning "life" as being directed by the "heart," depending on the "blood" and "breath," not to forget the fact that the Biblical authors also believed that other organs also "directed" human being, like the "kidneys and bowels":</p>
<p>Here are some of the verses in the King James Bible in which the Greek and Hebrew terms for bowels and kidneys are literally translated:</p>
<p>My bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the Lord Jer. 31:20.<br />Be ye straitened [restrained] in your own bowels 2 Cor. 6:12.<br />I long after you in the bowels [affection] of Christ Philip. 1:8.<br />(T)he bowels of the saints are refreshed.... (R)efresh my bowels in the Lord Philemon 7:20.<br />(S)hutteth up his bowels of compassion 1 John 3:17.<br />Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins [Latin, renes, which means kidneys, a literal translation of the Hebrew] Ps. 73:21.<br />My reins [kidneys] also instruct me in the night seasons Ps. 16:7.<br />Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the heart and reins [kidneys] Ps. 7:9.<br />Yea, my reins [kidneys] shall rejoice when my lips speak right things Prov. 23:16.<br />I am He [God] which searcheth the reins [kidneys] and hearts Rev. 2:23.</p>
<p>The Talmud (Berakhoth 61a) says that one kidney prompts man to do good, the other to do evil. The kidneys (among other organs, yet excluding the brain) were especially reserved for Yahweh and sacrificed to Him as a burnt offering Lev. 3:4-5. Even if the Hebrews regarded this insight into the kidneys as "pure poetry" (which is doubtful, based on historical comparisons, and since figures of speech have to originate from ideas), it is a poetry that no longer survives or interests mankind. In fact, in the above verses the Hebrew word for kidneys has been translated soul in modern English Bibles to avoid cumbersome explanations of why the ancient Hebrews attributed moral significance to a person's kidneys.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em>Also, the Bible says that the earth is a sphere (a circle, in other words) and it took many years for scientists to figure this out, too.</em></p>
<p>ED: The Bible says no such thing. It says circle. No translator at all ever has translated that word as "sphere." And in fact, read the context of that verse in Isa. It describes heaven as a "tent," not a spherical image at all. Furthermore, the Bible never says the earth moves. Never. Except during an "earthquake" when both heaven and earth are moved out of their places.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em> There are other facts that the Bible said before they were even discovered. This proves that it is written by God using "holy men of God" to write it as well as that it is infallible.</em></p>
<p>ED: It proves no such thing. See my replies above.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em> This is all I have time to deal with right this moment since I have toget ready to prepare for our Christmas performance at church to glorify God through my instrument. I await your reply. I would be much interested to see if you can disprove what I have said. </em></p>
<p>ED: There are disproofs to what you have said. The question is whether or not you will continue to read and learn more about the Bible and it's all-too-human failings. That does not mean you need to become an atheist! There is still a huge middle ground of various options that lay between atheism and inerrancy of the Bible.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Jen</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>P.S. Another thing I noticed is that you never really dealt with your title, as well as, if the Bible is not God's word, the why do you capitalize Bible and Scripture? JG</p>
<p>ED: I did not write that article. "Bible" is capitalized when referring to either the Jewish or Christian Bible. Though the word "bible" does simply mean literally a collection of books. There is after all, a Hunter's Bible, and other sorts of bibles out there. Scripture is also capitalized for the same reason, when referring to the particular scriptures (literally the word scripture means simply, "writings") of a particular religious tradition.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-72261781453311168032012-04-16T23:14:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:01:08.186-07:00Jehovah Witness Debate: Doctrines; Prophecy, Biblical Flat Earth and Serpent Handling<p><strong>Jehovah Witness Debate</strong><br />by Edward T. Babinski and Alfonso W.</p>
<p>From: alfonzo w<br />To: edwardtbabinski.us<br />Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:24 PM<br />Subject: DEBATE BAPTIST VS JEHOVAHS WITNESS</p>
<p>MR BABINSKI,</p>
<p>SIR I RECIEVED THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS A RESPONSE TO A DEBATE MY QUESTION IS DID YOU RESPOND OR SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS Kenneth Nahigian? HERE IS THE EMAIL: ALSO (MR HOLLANDS) VERSION OF THE DEBATE COULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE NEW REDACTED VERSION</p>
<p>ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO DEBATE YOU ABOUT WHY I KNOW NOT THINK, NOT JUST HOPE , THAT "GOD EXISTS"<br />THANKS</p>
<p>AL W.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>"Kenneth Nahigian" writes:<br /><em>Ed, would you like to help out these guys? (In your copious spare time, of course!)<br />- Ken</em></p>
<p>JW versus a Baptist? Please forward these email comments to them!</p>
<p>Hmmm, I might tell the Baptist that it's difficult to find in the synoptics anything like the verses in the Fourth Gospel concerning the "divinity" of Jesus (even the "logos" concept doesn't necessarily refer to the word of God being a "third" of "God" but the logos is merely an extension of God, his divine "word," but that "word" or logos alone is not equal to "God" in all ways, it's just God's "word" -- such was the understanding of the Hebrew Hellenistic scholar Philo when he wrote of "the Logos" about a generation before the N.T. was written. In similar fashion, the Fourth Gospel also contains other verses that continue to distinguish between Jesus and God). I'd also ask the Baptist to read a chapter of the online book, BEYOND BORN AGAIN, the chapter that discusses "proof verses" of Jesus' divinity.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Robert M. Price</a></p>
<p>Personally, I like it when Bible believers of various denominations and sects argue with each other. That's the way it should be. In fact, I'd like nothing more than to produce a website someday that pitted Christians against Christians, for instance, geocentrists against heliocentrists, old-earth creationists versus young-earth creationists, Dispensationalists versus Preterists, etc. I mean it's THEIR "holy book," and they all claim it's "inerrant" and not liable to anyone's indivudual interpretation, and they all claim to be guided into all truth by the same Holy Spirit, just as their "holy book" promises, so let THEM duke it out, and if they don't come to any firm conclusions and can't convince all the rest of their fellow inerrantists that "the Bible sez" the earth goes round the sun (or vice versa), or that it's billions of years old (or only thousands), then I say to heck with them. They really need to get their shit together, I'm sick of trying to do it for them. So, a website that puts forth that challenge that I have just stated and then lists major old-earth creationist sites and major young-earth sites, and geocentrist sites, and Dispensationalism and Preterism sites, etc., and let them tear and rend Scripture till the cows come home and they still can't agree. And rub their noses in it. I mean, if fellow Evangelicals can't agree on what "the Bible sez," even with a perfect book and the Holy Spirit "leading them into all truth," then what's the point of even CLAIMING you have a perfect book and a spirit that leads you into all truth? Make the claim and then demonstrate to me how this "perfect book" and it's interpretation works in practice with fellow believers. 2000 years of Christian history demonstrates without a doubt that it DOES NOT WORK. That would be the basis for a cool little website in my opinion.</p>
<p>And then I can get along with my own life, or just keep advertizing that website in every Christian discussion group on the internet. Let the Jehovah's Witnesses and Armstrong's Church of God, and Mormons be listed at the site too, let them all rend and tear at each other, damning each other to hell or soul extinction or whatever they happen to believe they are damning each other to. *smile*</p>
<p>There's lots of categories of differences too, not just creation evolution. Heck, there's articles on how long a man's hair should be. There's various Christians colleges with rules that other Christian colleges disagree with.</p>
<p>And let's not forget to get the moderates and liberal Christians involved too. That liberal Anglican minister, Bishop Spong, has his own site now. Let them all have at it. And I'll ask at the end of my site just how many of all these questions have been settled based on interpreting the Bible alone with the help of the Holy Spirit. *smile*</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p><a href="http://edwardtbabinski.us">Edward T. Babinski</a></p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>From: "ed babinski"<br />To: alfonzo w<br />Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 12:19 PM<br />Subject: Dear Al, thanks for the invitation to a debate</p>
<p>Dear Al,</p>
<p>Kenneth Nahigian is an old friend of mine and a former fundamentalist Christian like myself.</p>
<p>I am not personally interested in a debate right now. The internet is filled with debates (I am happy about that, seeing so much information being shared and swapped so openly and easily) , and the Jehovah's Witness belief system interests me very little. I have read books by several former Jehovah's Witnesses like THIRTY YEARS A WATCHTOWER SLAVE, and, A CASE OF CONSCIENCE, the latter book being far more thorough than the former. And I cannot buy that Charles Taz Russell uncovered the one true interpretation of the Bible anymore than I can buy that Athanasius and the Catholics did, or Luther and the Protestants did. And of course, neither can I buy that God keeps things "secrets" for millennia until he reveals them to only one poor soul, while people perished in ignorance and darkness concerning the truth during all that time previous to such a revelation. In fact, I don't think one's beliefs about God or the Trinity matter one way or the other. And as for you "knowing" that God exists, I am sure there are people of many different faiths who feel and argue the same way, I know. I have heard from them all.</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><strong>Jehovah Witness Doctrines : Prophecy, Biblical Flat Earth and Serpent Handling</strong><br />by Edward T. Babinski</p>
<p>Jehovah Witnesses need to simply read more, debate their own beliefs in their own mind after reading more. That's the only way to see things in a broader fashion, because converting others is easy, converting yourself is difficult.</p>
<p>Here's a list that they could get at amazon.com if they took the trouble to simply type in Jehovah's Witness in their book search engine.</p>
<p>The people who wrote these books were often former JWs.</p>
<p>1) Crisis of Conscience -- Raymond Franz, Commentary Press (Franz's book is cool because he writes in a very dry and composed style and even includes photocopies of original JW documents to verify what he says. Written by former Governing Body member Ray Franz. Ray Franz was responsible for the writing and editing of many WT Publications, including the Aid Book. Seven years before the above book he also wrote, In Search of Christian Freedom. )</p>
<p>2) M. James Penton's Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses, a history of the movement that seeks not just to discredit and refute the Watchtower, but to understand it.</p>
<p>3) Awakening of a Jehovah's Witness: Escape from the Watchtower Society -- Diane Wilson</p>
<p>4) The Gentile Times Reconsidered: Chronology & Christ's Return by Carl Olof Jonsson (Introduction) (Paperback - July 1998) An extremely important work that goes into the history of the Watchtower's 1914 Chronology. Was Jerusalem really destroyed in 607 like the Society says? Or was it 586/587, like all historians say?</p>
<p>There are also booklists at amazon.com composed by former Jehovah's witnesses, from which I obtained the above titles:</p>
<p>Good Books for Jehovah's Witnesses: A list by Kelly J Brazil, Former Ministerial Servant<br />Good Ideas for Jehovah's Witnesses: A list by immanence, Former Ministerial Servant</p>
<p>Of course, you're going to find reviews for these four books that range from "great!" to only one-star. The folks who gave it one star are JWs who dislike that an apostate dares to publish an account of their religious journey out of the JW fold. (Much like the one-star reviews of my book, LEAVING THE FOLD, left by fundie Protestants who most likely have only skimmed its 400+ pages.)</p>
<p>I say, that if anyone is going to boast that their faith is the one and true faith in the world, and yet haven't read at least the few books above, written by people who "lost" that same faith, then THEY need to.</p>
<p>I know all about being "in" the fundie Protestant fold, I was there, I read pro-testimony books galore. But I simply ask people who were once like me to consider reading testimony books of people who had the same faith they did, like this JW, and yet who journeyed out of it. If they don't read them to broaden their understanding of others, then they will truly never understand people who do leave the JW fold. Even if after reading such books they remain JWs, that's O.K. too, because at least they will learn more and understand more about people who have undergone changes that to them would be like tearing their own heart out, and perhaps by reading such things they may gain a bit more respect for other people's experiences and points of view rather than knocking on doors and boasting to strangers how much they know about God, Jesus, the end of the world and the afterlife. Amen. My sermon is ended, go in peace. Take and read the above four books.</p>
<p>Also Witnesses can visit the <a href="http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum</a> / Watchers of the Watchtower World.</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><br /><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p>MR BABINSKI SAYS JWs SHOULD READ APOSTATE INFO, AS A JEHOVAHS WITNESS, I THINK NOT!!</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>A Jehovah Witness wrote:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>1 John 2 SAYS:<br />1 John 2 :: New Living Translation</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>These people left our churches because they never really belonged with us; otherwise they would have stayed with us. When they left us, it proved that they do not belong with us. But you are not like that, for the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and all of you know the truth. So I am writing to you not because you don't know the truth but because you know the difference between truth and falsehood.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>MR BABINSKI SAYS HOWEVER:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>WE SHOULD READ THIS TYPE OF LITERARY JOURNALS, OF APOSTATES,OR HOW THE APOSTLE JOHN CALLS FROM HIS GRAVE:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>These people left our churches because they never really belonged with us</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>SO THEN WHO DO THEY BELONG TO<br />TWO CHOICES</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>(1) TO GOD<br />(2) THE DEVIL</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>WHO WOULD YOU SAY?</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Ed Babinski: Dear Winternatt,</p>
<p>If you've got the one true faith, what could reading a few harmless books do to you? Don't you see that you need precisely this kind of reading the MOST because the books are by people who went to the JW church like you, know the church doctrines like you? That's the most interesting and challenging type of reading, and if God gave you a mind, I don't think he intended it to ignore challenges. Do you think reading such books will "offend God?" Is that it? That you're wasting time reading them, when what you want are piable minds of people who have never been JWs before?</p>
<p>Is that what you're looking to spend your time on, on people who know less about the JW religion than you do? Wow, you're really shooting high there! Or would you rather read folks who know as much as you do about the JW religion, who have lived and practiced it themselves and studied it as deeply as you have, either very nearly as deeply, or more deeply in some instances? I say, read those few books, write their authors. Be challenged. Even if neither of you convert the other, at least you have faced your fiercest demons, and maybe learned something in the process about your fellow human beings. And it's only a few books. Quit getting upset, it's not like I asked you to read the Encyclopedia Britannica.</p>
<p>When I was a fundamentalist Christian I read maybe 100 or more books written by evangelical Christians and for evangelical Christians, books of testimonies, inspiration, interpretation, apologetics, novels, etc. I read Lewis, Schaeffer, Chesteron, Williams, McDowell, and others. I still pick up Christian books and read from them, even today. So you are telling me that you don't have the guts, nor the intellectual curiosity or chutzpa, to read less than a handful of books by former JWs?</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><br /><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p>Hello MR BABINSKI</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Im honored sir to finally engage in dialogue with you. As you know im the one who challenged you several weeks ago to a debate ,which you declined,i meanwhile i have posted several responses in this forum.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>As to the reading" books" by ex-witnesses here is my thoughts bu example.<br />"If, out of curiosity, we were to read the literature of a known "apostate", would that not be the same as inviting this enemy of true worship right into our home to sit down with us and relate his apostate ideas? Let us illustrate matters in this way: Suppose your teenage son received some pornographic material in the mail. What would you do? If he was inclined to read it out of curiosity, would you say: `Yes, son, go ahead and read it. It won't hurt you. From infancy we've taught you that immorality is bad. Besides, you need to know what's going on in the world in order to see that it's truly bad'? Absolutely not! Rather, you would surely point out the dangers of reading pornographic literature and would require that it be destroyed. Why? Because no matter how strong a person may be in the truth, if he feeds his mind on the perverted ideas found in such literature, his mind and heart will be effected...Well, if we would act so decisively to protect our children from exposure to pornography, should we not expect that our loving heavenly Father would similarly warn us from spiritual fornication, including apostasy?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Listen to what the Almightysays as to the matter:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>2 Corinthians 6 :: New Living Translation</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Therefore, come out from them and separate yourselves from them, says the Lord. Don't touch their filthy things, and I will welcome you.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>When Jesus was tempted by Satan what do you think his objective was?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Was it just to see a demonstration ,a display as proof that he was the LORD?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Luke 4</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Then the Devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, change this stone into a loaf of bread."</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Jesus was now at His weakest. He had just fasted for forty days. the first temptation involves food. It comes in the form of a challenge, "if thou be," then prove it by doing this or that. you sir may say, this sounded reasonable, after all, Jesus was hungry. This temptation certainly would have appealed to His flesh. What really was at stake here was this: would Jesus be led of the Spirit of God? or would He be led of the devil? Would Jesus follow and obey God? or would He follow and obey the devil? Jesus is the Son of God. He had the power to turn the rocks into bread; however, it needs to be noted, that doing so would not have been the will of the Father, but rather, what Satan desired Him to do. This temptation was also devoted to "self." He was being tempted to satisfy His hunger by using His divine power. The miracles that Jesus later did benefited others, not Himself. Satan wanted Jesus to act independently from His Father. Should Jesus have been disobedient in even the smallest matter</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Now what is the purpose of writing books to point out mistakes made by witnesses,is it for financial gain? or is it to prey on the weak,Jude says:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>JUDE:NLT</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>God gave this unchanging truth once for all time to his holy people. I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you,</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. I must remind you--and you know it well--that even though the Lord rescued the whole nation of Israel from Egypt, he later destroyed every one of those who did not remain faithful.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Yet these false teachers, who claim authority from their dreams</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction. How terrible it will be for them! For they follow the evil example of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they will do anything for money. And like Korah, they will perish because of their rebellion. When these people join you in fellowship meals celebrating the love of the Lord, they are like dangerous reefs that can SHIPWRECK YOU.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>They are shameless in the way they care only about themselves. They are like clouds blowing over dry land without giving rain, promising much but producing nothing. They are like trees without fruit at harvesttime. They are not only dead but doubly dead, for they have been pulled out by the roots. They are like wild waves of the sea, churning up the dirty foam of their shameful deeds. They are wandering stars, heading for everlasting gloom and darkness.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>So there it is ,the goal is to "SHIPWRECK" the faith.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Sure Im a Jehovahs Witness Minister Ordained for 30yrs, Appointed ,Confirmed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>But Paul Warned'</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>1 Corinthians 10 AMP</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Therefore let anyone who thinks he stands [who feels sure that he has a steadfast mind and is standing firm], take heed lest he fall</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Thats the goal to sow seeds of doubt:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>James 1 :: Amplified Bible</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Only it must be in faith that he asks with no wavering (no hesitating, no doubting). For the one who wavers (hesitates, doubts) is like the billowing surge out at sea that is blown hither and thither and tossed by the wind. For truly, let not such a person imagine that he will receive anything [he asks for] from the Lord, [For being as he is] a man of two minds (hesitating, dubious, irresolute), [he is] unstable and unreliable and uncertain about everything [he thinks, feels, decides].</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>I hope this sheds light on this subject.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>I dont need to put my head into a garbage can to see if it smells,that is what this information is, Garbage... i should not label this stuff garbage, im sorry,</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>GARBAGE IS OF A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD!!</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>winternatt</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>WINTERNATT: Hello MR BABINSKI</p>
<p>ED: Hello Mr. Winternatt.</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: Im honored sir</p>
<p>ED: No need to be "honored," it's enough that you be "human" and act "humanely" toward others. (I wonder why you say you are "honored" when below you are quite certain that it is wrong to "honor" what you and your religion consider to be "filth" or "garbage." A bit of a tricky deal I'd say. )</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: to finally engage in dialogue with you. As you know im the one who challenged you several weeks ago to a debate ,which you declined,</p>
<p>ED: You have not told me yet what you are hep on "debating." I have been debating on the internet since the mid-1980s (on the Prodigy network), and in lengthy letters even earlier than that period. When did YOU begin "debating" people on the internet?</p>
<p>Secondly, I prefer humane discussions, tempered by a bit more modesty of prose, rather than engaging in grand and glorious "debates" in which people pull out all the stops and start invoking "God Almighty" at the start, and also start by invoking metaphors like "filthy" and "GARBAGE," as you do below.</p>
<p>I am also declining to get heavily involved in reply to you because I am in touch with as many people as I care to handle right now with my time schedule, including Bob Holdings of Tekton apologetics (Bob would probably have some choice words for you since he's an Evangelical Christian who has just finished a book critiquing Mormonism, check out Bob's website at http://www.tektonics.org/ Bob apparently does Evangelical apologetics full time and you can post questions at his site). I am also in touch with several "Intelligent Design" folks, and with an email list of Christian philosophers, and there are folks who send me individual emails each week. I am also editing four large pieces at home and continuing my research for those pieces. There isn't enough time in a day. My advice to everyone, including yourself, is to engage in discussions with people of widely diverse opinions and likewise read widely. If I don't have the time or interest to debate you, then keep in mind there are thousands of others on the internet who probably do, and who may even have much bigger bones to pick with JWism than I do.</p>
<p>-----------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: As to the reading" books" by ex-witnesses here is my thoughts bu example. "If, out of curiosity, we were to read the literature of a known "apostate", would that not be the same as inviting this enemy of true worship right into our home to sit down with us and relate his apostate ideas?</p>
<p>ED: Yes, but ironically, if I was to cite those folks at length in emails to you, would that not constitute the same thing, and entail the same "danger" to your soul?</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: Let us illustrate matters in this way: Suppose your teenage son received some pornographic material in the mail. What would you do? If he was inclined to read it out of curiosity, would you say: `Yes, son, go ahead and read it. It won't hurt you. From infancy we've taught you that immorality is bad. Besides, you need to know what's going on in the world in order to see that it's truly bad'? Absolutely not! Rather, you would surely point out the dangers of reading pornographic literature and would require that it be destroyed. Why? Because no matter how strong a person may be in the truth, if he feeds his mind on the perverted ideas found in such literature, his mind and heart will be effected...Well, if we would act so decisively to protect our children from exposure to pornography, should we not expect that our loving heavenly Father would similarly warn us from spiritual fornication, including apostasy?</p>
<p>ED: That sounds to me like the church's way of keeping you in their particular church, but telling you that God doesn't want you to read non-JW books, and to compare information about your church that is not favorable to the "JW party line" with "pornography."</p>
<p>But think about this, if every one of the 30,000+ denominations and missionary organizations of Christendom worldwide followed that same advice, then the religious population would remain permanently stagnant -- no one or their children ever changing their beliefs. Kind of like what happens in Northern Ireland where the Catholic kids attend private Catholic schools and the Protestants likewise, and each learns in their schools the beauty of their own faith and the errors of the other person's, with very little "inter-religious" dialogue, which consists mainly of shooting each other in the streets or blowing each other up. Kind of like Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan, still fighting in Kashmeer. Kind of like Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims fighting in the Balkans.</p>
<p>By the way, what if the serpent-handling Christians are the "true" ones? They sound to me like they have more faith than JWs who merely reject blood transfusions. *smile*</p>
<p>WHAT IF SERPENT-HANDLING CHRISTIANS ARE THE “TRUE” ONES AND ALL THE REST ARE “FALSE?”</p>
<p>After I wrote news accounts of the serpent-handling churches, sociologists visited and studied the congregations. One administered a psychological test to the Scrabble Creek flock, and gave the same test to a nearby Methodist congregation as a control group. The serpent-handlers came out mentally healthier.<br />- James A. Haught, “Adventures in the Bible Belt” (1997), adapted from a Gazette column, Dec. 7, 1993.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>COMMANDS AND PROMISES OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS:<br />“THEY SHALL TAKE UP SERPENTS”</p>
<p>And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.<br />- Mark 16: 15-20 (KJV)</p>
<p>(Note: Jesus’ words above are not found in the earliest known Markan manuscripts, so scholars have doubts as to their authenticity.)</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>THE SIGNS AND WONDERS MINISTRY</p>
<p>[In His Own Words, Joe Robert Elkins] “Lot of people think all we do is handle serpents. We pray for the sick. They’s some sick people that’s healed here. We drink the strychnine. We don’t deny none of the five Signs. We do our best to put all five in action, because He said “these” Signs. We don’t just pick out praying for the sick or speaking in tongues, but all five Signs is going to be made manifest in God’s church. You are either a believer or an unbeliever, and the unbeliever is going to hell. I believe they are going to burn. … The Bible says to pray without ceasing. See, you go with a prayer in your mind all the time, lest you enter in the temptations. Prayer is what keeps the temptation away. When you are approached by the devil, you pray. God moves that thing. He said to resist the devil, and he would flee from you. … God talks to people, if they would just slow down and listen. God talks. I hear Him. He speaks to you through the heart. It is a small, still voice. It is real quiet. It speaks within you. You hear it. … But it ain’t every spirit that talks to you that is God. … People think we are crazy, but it is a wise man who fears the Lord and keeps His Commandments.”</p>
<p>[Introduction] The serpent handlers practice their religion daily in though, word, and deed. When they fail, they suffer, pray, and try harder the next day. Their religion demands a price too high for most of us to pay. Imagine having enough faith to pick up a deadly reptile to confirm God’s Word, knowing that a bite could be crippling or even fatal.</p>
<p>What about the miracles? How can they be explained? We have seen people hold flame in their hands and dance on fire without being burned. We have witnessed believers drinking strychnine with no ill effects and handling poisonous snakes without being bitten. Other miracles are related in this book -- healings, casting out devils baptism by an unseen spirit. Even these stories seem plausible because we believe in the veracity of the people who witnessed such events firsthand. …</p>
<p>[In Her Own Words, Cynthia Church] “This religion is not David Copperfield. It’s not smoke and mirrors and magic. … It makes me angry when people think serpent handlers are ignorant rednecks from Appalachia. They way people talk here is cultural. Just because some of them are uneducated doesn’t mean they are ignorant, but that is the way they are portrayed by most of the press. … Mamaw had the gift of fire. She would pour kerosene on a little white handkerchief -- you know, the kind ladies used to carry -- and she would set it on fire and burn it in her hand. The hankie would burn with fire and smoke, and Mamaw held that fire in her hand for about fifteen minutes while she danced [in the spirit]. Finally, she closed her other hand down over it and put the fire out, and her hand was not even burned, and the handkerchief was not even burned or scorched.”</p>
<p>[In Her Own Words, Linda Turner Coots] “They were handling serpents. My brother-in-law was handling fire. And Joyce leaps up shouting, speaking in tongues, and Greg’s dad, he held up his hand and wanted everybody to listen. And he said, ‘There’s something that just don’t sound right.’ Joyce was speaking in tongues, but it wasn’t God. And when he pointed a finger at her, she just fell on the floor. And then he begin to pray for her, and that devil was talking, and it was saying that Jesus was the devil. And he cast the devil off her. Joyce repented of her sins, but somewhere, that devil took over, and she didn’t know how to resist him. … Hayden, Greg’s dad, prayed for him one night at my mom’s and cast the devil out of him. He told the devil to go into the dog that was outside. And when he done that, the dog howled, made the awfulest, pitiful sound. It went mad a few days after that, and my uncle had to kill it. He had to destroy the dog. … Yeah, I been to a lot of baptizings. I’ve seen the Lord baptize Greg’s dad one Sunday: They was about fifteen people being baptized that Sunday, and he baptized every one of ‘em, and then he was just standing in the water after everybody else walked out, and it was just like something just laid him down in the water and brought him back up. It was beautiful. He never said anything [about that experience]. We watched it. It was amazing. … I just know that the Word of God is the truth. They say that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Ghost, but I believe the real gift of God is eternal life. I wish everybody could see heaven, but they can’t. It’s not for everybody. It’s only for a chosen few. Everybody’s not going to see Him. I have friends who say they’re Christians, but the way I feel about it, they don’t believe in the full Gospel, and they’re not gonna make it. They’re not gonna go where Jesus is. … I just want to make it [to heaven]. Love. That’s the most important thing, to have that love.”</p>
<p>[In His Own Words, Charles Church] “Miracles are performed every day in the church. Ceil’s mother, Barbara, had the gift of fire. She had a great anointing to handle it. She used to dip her hands into a coal stove and carry out hot coals with her hands, and she was never burned. Ceil has that gift too. She says the fire feels cool. Barbara would actually pour kerosene on the floor and set it on fire and dance barefooted in the fire and never be burned. Once, I saw her hold out a sinner man’s tie and put that torch under it, keep it there for five minutes, and it didn’t ever burn. … And when Brother Raford Dunn was bitten in Brother Carl Porter’s church, we took him downstairs, and he was laying on a bed. Lydia was sitting next to him and praying for him, and she said she could actually feel his heart beating. And then she felt it quit beating. We prayed for him down there, and he came back to life.”</p>
<p>[In His Own Words, Dewey Chafin, born 1933] “The first time I ever handled a serpent, the anointing felt just like it does now. It starts in my stomach, the feeling does. It works different in different people, but I get a little feeling right here [in the pit of my stomach], and it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and from there on up through my chest and my shoulders. It is a good feeling, a warm feeling. You can feel it. … Over the years I have been bitten 133 times. … Some people don’t understand our religion, but it determines everything I do in life. I don’t drink coffee. I don’t chew gum. I don’t smoke cigarettes, argue, fight, cuss. If you start an argument with me, just start, and I’ll be out of your way in less than a minute. Cussing is definitely a no-no. People take cussing being just one thing, like using God’s name in vain. But cussing is a lot more than that. There are a lot of ways you can cuss without using God’s name in vain.”</p>
<p>The rules of the church hang above the pulpit, their supporting Bible verses listed in parentheses. They read, “Women are not allowed to wear short sleeves, jewelry and makeup (I C 3; I Tim. 2:9); No gossiping (James 1:26); No tale-bearing (Prov. 18:8); No lying (Col. 3:9, Rev. 21:8); no backbiting (Rom. 1:30); No bad language (Col. 3:8); No tobacco users (II Cor. 7:1, I Cor. 3:17). Men are not allowed to have long hair, mustaches or beards (I Cor. 11:14); Men are not allowed to wear short sleeves; Women not allowed to cut hair (I Cor. 11:15); and wear dresses above the knees (Tim. 2:9).” At the bottom of the sign, in parentheses, it says, “Members only,” meaning that visitors are excluded from adhering to these mandates. …</p>
<p>Since his evangelist brother, Punkin, died from snakebite in 1998, Mark Brown is the lone surviving child of one of the best known serpent-handling families in the Southeast. Now Mark is more wary, but not afraid. … He believes that he has a personal mandate from God, told through a prophecy related to him by family friend Cameron Short. “The Lord told me that my hands would do the work of the Signs [and Wonders ministry].”<br />- Fred Brown and Jeanne McDonald, The Serpent Handlers: Three Families and Their Faith (Winston-Salem, North Carolina: John E. Blair Publisher, 2000)</p>
<p>------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: Listen to what the Almighty says as to the matter:</p>
<p>ED: I have read the Bible, several times in fact, and used to cite similar Scriptures. As to whether it is the "Almighty" speaking in every verse in the Bible, or a human author speaking at least in SOME instances, is a matter of faith that I am afraid you are assuming right off the bat.</p>
<p>-------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: 2 Corinthians 6 :: New Living Translation</p>
<p>Therefore, come out from them<br />and separate yourselves from them, says the Lord.<br />Don't touch their filthy things,<br />and I will welcome you.</p>
<p>ED: Again, why are you at this forum if you don't believe in even "touching" anything that is "filthy?"</p>
<p>Secondly, are you even READING this response I've written or would it be "too filthy" to read every one the words I wrote you? You're probably just skimming my replies to see if I have finally "broken down and repented in sack cloth and ashes" as a consequence of being hit with the New Living Translation.</p>
<p>In other words, if you are indeed following the above "teaching of the Almighty" to the strictest "letter" then you probably haven't even read this far and I am wasting time discussing anything with you.</p>
<p>Here's a quotation from the "honorable" stand up comedian and former fundamentalist Baptist, Bill Hicks: "Christianity has a built-in defense system; anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It is a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it, and believe me I was raised Southern Baptist, is to take heroic doses of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, 'Show me.' "</p>
<p>---------------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: When Jesus was tempted by Satan what do you think his objective was?</p>
<p>ED: How do I know if the story of Jesus' temptation story is true, or totally accurate? Did you know that the story of Zoroaster includes the detail that he too was tempted by the devil in the wilderness? And that was long before Jesus allegedly was tempted by the devil in the wilderness:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0340Baptism.html#The%20Temptation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Temptation</a></p>
<p>As for what happened out there in the desert, it's a story that nobody saw or could attest to, since the story admits that even the apostles weren't there.</p>
<p>------------------------------</p>
<p><br /><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><br /></span></span></p>
<p>WINTERNATT: Was it just to see a demonstration, a display as proof that he was the LORD?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Luke 4</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Then the Devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, change this stone into a loaf of bread."</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Jesus was now at His weakest. He had just fasted for forty days. the first temptation involves food. It comes in the form of a challenge, "if thou be," then prove it by doing this or that. you sir may say, this sounded reasonable, after all, Jesus was hungry. This temptation certainly would have appealed to His flesh. What really was at stake here was this: would Jesus be led of the Spirit of God? or would He be led of the devil? Would Jesus follow and obey God? or would He follow and obey the devil? Jesus is the Son of God. He had the power to turn the rocks into bread; however, it needs to be noted, that doing so would not have been the will of the Father, but rather, what Satan desired Him to do. This temptation was also devoted to "self." He was being tempted to satisfy His hunger by using His divine power. The miracles that Jesus later did benefited others, not Himself. Satan wanted Jesus to act independently from His Father. Should Jesus have been disobedient in even the smallest matter</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Now what is the purpose of writing books to point out mistakes made by witnesses,is it for financial gain? or is it to prey on the weak,Jude says:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>JUDE:NLT</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>God gave this unchanging truth once for all time to his holy people. I say this because some godless people have wormed their way in among you,</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>The fate of such people was determined long ago, for they have turned against our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.<br />I must remind you--and you know it well--that even though the Lord rescued the whole nation of Israel from Egypt, he later destroyed every one of those who did not remain faithful.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Yet these false teachers, who claim authority from their dreams</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction. How terrible it will be for them! For they follow the evil example of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they will do anything for money. And like Korah, they will perish because of their rebellion. When these people join you in fellowship meals celebrating the love of the Lord, they are like dangerous reefs that can SHIPWRECK YOU.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>They are shameless in the way they care only about themselves. They are like clouds blowing over dry land without giving rain, promising much but producing nothing. They are like trees without fruit at harvesttime. They are not only dead but doubly dead, for they have been pulled out by the roots. They are like wild waves of the sea, churning up the dirty foam of their shameful deeds. They are wandering stars, heading for everlasting gloom and darkness.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>So there it is ,the goal is to "SHIPWRECK" the faith.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Sure Im a Jehovahs Witness Minister Ordained for 30yrs, Appointed ,Confirmed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>But Paul Warned'</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>1 Corinthians 10 AMP</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Therefore let anyone who thinks he stands [who feels sure that he has a steadfast mind and is standing firm], take heed lest he fall</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Thats the goal to sow seeds of doubt:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>James 1 :: Amplified Bible</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Only it must be in faith that he asks with no wavering (no hesitating, no doubting). For the one who wavers (hesitates, doubts) is like the billowing surge out at sea that is blown hither and thither and tossed by the wind. For truly, let not such a person imagine that he will receive anything [he asks for] from the Lord, [For being as he is] a man of two minds (hesitating, dubious, irresolute), [he is] unstable and unreliable and uncertain about everything [he thinks, feels, decides].</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>I hope this sheds light on this subject.</p>
<p>-------------------</p>
<p>ED: You have shed absolute pitch darkness and sermonized till your ministerial heart's content above, and made no sense whatsoever except to point out how afraid you are to<br />1) think on your own<br />2) choose to read books of your own choice, and, you are<br />3) failing to exhibit the faintest trace of natural human curiosity outside of robotically repeating JW church-language and dogmas.</p>
<p>In short, you appear to be exhibiting some prime examples of behavior of someone in a cult.</p>
<p>HOW TO KNOW YOU'RE IN A CULT<br /><a href="http://wellspringretreat.org/thought_reform.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://wellspringretreat.org/thought_reform.html</a></p>
<p>No one gets up in the morning as says, "Gee, I think I'm going to ruin my life today. I think I'll join a cult, or maybe get into a relationship where I'm in constant fear of my life." We are often asked, "What kind of person joins a cult or gets involved with a psychopath?" Our answer? "We don't know, we never met anyone who joined a cult or who fell in love with a psychopath." We at Wellspring have helped more than 600 people recover from both of these and never once did any of them say, "I knew exactly what I was getting into."</p>
<p>The kinds of groups these people join, and the kinds of people others get involved with, are more loving, dedicated, and exciting than those they have previously experienced. They join because we all need love, purpose, and adventure. People are attracted to groups and relationships that later turn out to be abusive because they are tricked into believing that either the person or group is not harmful or whatever problems it may be known to have can be overcome by dedication and commitment. Deception involves getting the prospect to suspend disbelief temporarily and then control how information is communicated until critical thinking skills become less effective.</p>
<p>Exactly how the critical thinking skills of members can be impaired by these environments has been the subject of study and controversy for nearly fifty years. We owe a debt to the research and the work of pioneers such as Robert Lifton and Margaret Singer for their insights.</p>
<p>The processes of thought reform have been shown to be present in virtually all high-demand group settings and are strongly associated with the loss of personal critical thinking skills and meaningful "informed consent." The following is adapted from Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, by Robert Lifton.</p>
<p>Milieu Control<br />Control of communication within the group environment resulting in significant degree of isolation from the surrounding society.</p>
<p>When nonmembers are labeled as ignorant, unspiritual, satanic, etc., group members conclude that outsiders have nothing worthwhile to teach them. Thus members are unlikely to look outside the group for information, especially spiritual information. Milieu control includes other techniques to restrict members' contact with the outside world and to be able to make critical, rational judgments about information: overwork, busyness, multiple lengthy meetings, etc. Lifton: "The most basic feature of the thought reform environment, the psychological current upon which all else depends, is the control of human communication. [This includes] not only the individual's communication with the outside..., but also...his communication with himself... [T]hought reform participants may be in doubt as to who is telling what to whom, but the fact that extensive information about everyone is being conveyed to the authorities is always known... Having experienced the impact of what they consider to be an ultimate truth..., they consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more and no less than this 'truth.' [The group member] is deprived of the combination of external information and inner reflection which anyone requires to test the realities of his environment and to maintain a measure of identity separate from it..."</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>There's <a href="http://wellspringretreat.org/thought_reform.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">much more to the above article</a> worth reading</p>
<p>---------------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: I dont need to put my head into a garbage can to see if it smells,</p>
<p>ED: Citing "smelly" metaphors is not argument. Metaphors prove nothing. Would you consider it an "argument" if I replied, "Actually, I find the doctrines and dogmas and history of the JW religion less than fragrantly scented?"</p>
<p>----------------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNAT: that is what this information is, Garbage... i should not label this stuff garbage, im sorry, GARBAGE IS OF A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD!!</p>
<p>ED: Your own sentences explain why I feel that I am having more interesting discussions with others and would prefer not wallowing in a den of your "smelly" metaphors.</p>
<p>There are plenty of Evangelical Christian just itching to debate someone like yourself however, at your present level of discursive reasoning. Such Chrisitans even endorse the "God Almighty spoke" approach to the Bible that you do. It would appear that those are the people you should be going after. At least you both speak the same language in that respect.</p>
<p>And when you tire of them, you can read those few books I suggested and go after those JW apostates who once spoke your language more clearly than Evangelical Christians do.</p>
<p>Keep at it and you will learn more as you go along, "contaminating" yourself with so many interactions with folks whose beliefs differ from your own. Perhaps in time, when you tire of demonizing others, you might even begin to gain a glimpse of goodness in people whose only fault happens to be that they disagree with you on matters pertaining to religion and faith.</p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<p>Daniel 12:4 predicts, we live in a time of increasing knowledge. We enjoy being able both to obtain and dispense God's truth so abundantly. " Jesus cautions, "For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>And these sign will follow those who believe . . . In My name . . . they will take up serpents . . ."<br />—Mark 16:17-18</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Are they commands for the followers of Christ or promises? In particular, does Jesus say Christians should handle snakes, or does He promise to protect them if they are bitten?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>So mr Babinski what is your point?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Between 1936-1973, 35 persons died from poisonous bites,</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Was Christ commanding us to perform these practices or promising protection? Many in the church believe, and it may well be, that Christ was speaking only to those God has called to preach the good news of Jehovahs Kingdom. After all, in verse 15, He had said to the eleven remaining disciples, "Go into all the world." Combine this with the fact that we can see examples of the apostles fulfilling these signs in the New Testament and a case can be made for this view.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>A snake bit the apostle Paul while he was on the island of Malta, and no harm came to him . However, he did not go looking for the snake in an effort to prove his faith. The snake bit him unexpectedly, in front of others, and God protected him as promised.Through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people." It is quite possible that this section of Mark applies to the apostles and perhaps is further limited to their lifetimes, that is, the first century</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>These spirtual "gifts" ceased when tha last of the apostles died,as fortold at</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>1 cor 13</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>love never fail; and whether [there be] prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>what was to remain?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>and now there remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these [is] love.<br />Psalm 91 says:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>we will "tread upon the lion and the cobra" and that we will "trample underfoot" the "young lion and the serpent"</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>So we should find a circus with lions and "trample them down too i guess</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Protection is promised here, not a command to flaunt their God-given authority. He specifically instructs them "not [to] rejoice in this" because it was not of their doing, not a show of faith. It was God's protection pure and simple.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>The prophet Isaiah pens words of God similar to these in Isaiah 43:1-3, 5:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Fear not, for I have redeemed you; . . . you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, nor shall the flame scorch you. For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. . . . Fear not, for I am with you.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Throughout His Word, God has promised us His protection. He is especially watchful over those He has commissioned to carry out His work, as well as all those whom He has called to make a witness for Him. The Bible is full of examples of His power to deliver His servants from life-threatening situations.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>However, He does not guarantee to cover our foolishness when we put ourselves into potentially dangerous situations. He abhors being tempted—tested—as if He needs to prove Himself and His power to us. Psalm 78 shows His distaste for the Israelites' constant testing of Him in the wilderness. The last thing He desires is for members of His church to follow their example of unbelief</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Faith is not some kind of formula that we can use to manipulate the power of God on our behalf. Biblical faith is a deep continuing relationship with God. True faith centers in God and He is glorified. False faith centers in the individual and puts God to the test and attempts to manipulate Him.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>When Jesus says to be "wise as serpents," he is not referring to the manifestation of Satan in the Garden. For all their fearfulness, snakes are really very fragile creatures and are usually cautious in avoiding dangerous situations. Christians could here learn a valuable lesson from the snake. Rather than subjecting one's self to danger, we should "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>So where do these mislead people get the power to handle "snakes?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>is it from Jehovah?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Matt 7:22-23</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me on that day "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by your name and by your name cast out demons, and by your name do many mighty works?" And I will say to them, "I never knew you. Go away from me, you who work evil." Ann by the way Mark also said this:<br />Mark 16:17-18</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>And these signs shall accompany those who believe:<br />And if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them.<br />so we should march down to the hardware store and test GOD<br />Remember George Town Guyana<br />As long as we are at where are the Mountain mover groups did jesus say:</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Mat 17:20</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>And Jesus said to them...<br />if you all have faith even like a grain of mustard seed,<br />you all shall say to this mountain,<br />"Move away to another place", and it shall move.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>There is "a spirit of truth and a spirit of falsehood" (1 John 4:6). So false teaching will not be confirmed by a true miracle<br />Jesus followers raised the dead Raising the dead was a special sign of an apostle (Matt. 10: 8; 2 Cor. 12:12).<br />Matthew 10 infirm ones be healing, lepers be cleansing, dead be raising, demons be casting out -- freely ye did receive, freely give.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>And thus subvert the uniqueness of the Christian apologetic. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ would not have been "infallible proofs" . mind you if Satan could do the same miracles God can do, then there would be no supernatural way to discern truth. For Satan could confirm lying prophets to be telling the truth. Likewise, if Satan could give infallible prophecies, the test that a false prophecy is a sign of a false prophet would be ineffective True miracles are truly supernatural; false miracles(snake handling) are, at best, only supernormal. Satanic signs are earmarked by association with evil and falsehood. Supernatural acts are distinguished by good and truth. Nor does Satan have the power to perform a truly supernatural act. His are always deceptions and usually obvious counterfeits to anyone who knows the signs. He is the master magician and a super scientist. But only God can create life and raise the dead. Only God can infallibly predict the future. Only God can instantaneously cure the "incurable." Satan’s power is finite and evil. God’s power is infinite and good, and his supernatural acts give evidence.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Automobile manufacturers test cars for hundreds of thousands of miles to prove their ability to stand up to the rigors of daily driving. Children in school are regularly tested to see if they have learned the things they are supposed to have learned. Every day, lawyers in court rooms across our country examine and cross-examine witnesses to try to determine if they are telling the truth or not.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>In Exodus chapters 15-17 the Israelites continually questioned God's provision of their needs. Psalm 78:19 quotes them as saying "Can God spread a table in the desert?" Does God care about our needs? Does God have the power to provide us with a banquet in the desert?</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Promise of protection is not there so that we can take unnecessary risks. God's rescuing power is not something to be experimented with. We don't allow a rattlesnake to bite us just so we can see if our new anti-venom kit works. We don't frivolously run up huge bills then expect God to miraculously pay them off when we win the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes. We don't sleep in late then ask God's protection as we drive like a maniac on our way to work.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>The guard rail is like a promise of God. It is there to protect us from unusual danger and calm our fears–but we don't try to prove the strength of it by ramming the guard rail at high speed. The protection the guard rail affords is only for the posted speed limit. If we break the law we are no longer protected. Actually, we are to drive so as to miss the guard rail and never need its protection. God expects us to obey the speed limit and steer the car within the limits of the roadway. The rail is there in the event of a tire blow-out ,but it is not to be tested needlessly or recklessly,like snake handling.</p>
<p><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"><span style="color: #4a4d4d;"> </span></span></p>
<p>winternatt!!</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: Daniel 12:4 predicts, we live in a time of increasing knowledge.</p>
<p>ED: "Daniel predicts!?" Ed predicts that your knowledge of the Bible is never going to increase a whit, not ever, since you keep scrupulously away from a broader knowlege of history and the questions it raises. Historians know their answers are not absolute, even literary critics know their interpretations of an author's work is never necessarily complete. Ah, but you know God's own mind and predictions enough to sermonize about them incessantly. (I bet you bore even yourself, Mr. Winternatt.)</p>
<p>I am not going to keep this ping pong up with you, since replying to your sermons just inspires you to sermonize all the more and claim that the Bible commands you to sermonize about it (preach in season and out of season), and the Bible predicts that people who don't listen to you are damned to hell. So you're locked up pretty tightly in your full armor of Christ, flaying away with your sword of the spirit, and there isn't a ray of "increasing knowledge" that can penetrate your self-protective armor of JW faith. (Whether that is something to be intellectually proud of is another question.)</p>
<p>Even so, let me try to impart a bit of knowledge to you, increase a bit of your knowledge:</p>
<p>Daniel predicts nothing. Go study the full breadth of historical scholarship regarding the book of Daniel, especially some of the world's foremost Daniel scholars like John Joseph Collins or J.J.Collins (google his name along with Daniel or check amazon.com listings for that author). At most, the book of Daniel's predictions ended in the days of the Maccabean revolt against the Selucid rulers of Palestine about 200 years before the days of Jesus. That was the time when the book was supposedly "unsealed" (after being sealed since the days of the alleged "Daniel"). So Daniel is an apocryphal work that was found or appeared for the first time about 200 years before Jesus lived. Also found around that same time was the earliest installment of the Book of Enoch, attributed to "Enoch, the seventh from Adam." Both books by the way, agree that the earth is flat. The author of the book of Daniel assumes that Daniel has a dream of a flat earth, and nobody questions it:</p>
<p>I saw a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.<br />- Daniel 4:10-11</p>
<p>Compare:</p>
<p>The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.<br />- Matthew 4:8</p>
<p>Shown “all the kingdoms of the world” from an “exceedingly high mountain?” I suppose so, if the mountain was “exceedingly high” and the earth was flat. Verses in the Bible’s book of Daniel presume a flat earth the same way that verses in Matthew do, but instead of an “exceedingly high” mountain from which “all the kingdoms of the earth” can be seen, Daniel pictures a tree “whose height was great,” growing from the “midst” or center of the earth and “seen” to “the ends of all the earth.”</p>
<p>Funny how such flagrantly flat-earth verses appear in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as in the book of Enoch that was written between the Old and New Testaments. “Bible believers” will of course reply that such verses are only “apparently difficult” to explain, and not the “real truth” as they see it. But it is the “apparent difficulties” that remain in the Bible, as it was written, and they will always remain there, regardless of all the ingenuity employed in explaining them away.</p>
<p>As for Daniel's prediction that knowledge would increase, even ancient Assyrians living 2800 YEARS AGO, made similar predictions:</p>
<p>"There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end: Bribery and corruption are common. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book."<br />- Message found on a clay table from Assyria, written approximately 2800 B.C.</p>
<p>----------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: We enjoy being able both to obtain and dispense God's truth so abundantly. " Jesus cautions, "For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect.</p>
<p>ED: Deception is one thing, but RECEPTION of knowledge is another. And you sorely lack the latter. Your faith has made you an addict of mediocrity, mediocre scholarship, mediocre thoughts (mere Biblical mimicry), mediocre humor, etc.</p>
<p>-----------------------</p>
<p>And these sign will follow those who believe . . . In My name . . . they will take up serpents . . ."<br />—Mark 16:17-18</p>
<p>Are they commands for the followers of Christ or promises? In particular, does Jesus say Christians should handle snakes, or does He promise to protect them if they are bitten?</p>
<p>So mr Babinski what is your point?</p>
<p>ED: My point is that those serpent handling folks have a faith that rivals that of JW's who deny themselves blood transfusions after traumatic blood loss. And in both cases, people die, and each of their private worlds of faith continue on, usually as if nothing happened. It was just "their time to go" all part of "God's plan." Of course there is a difference between serpent handlers and JWs I forgot to mention. Serpent handlers don't usually let their children handle serpent or drink poison, it's only the older believers who do so, and only when they are certain that they feel anointed to do so. While in contrast, JW's will train even their children to refuse blood transfusions, leading to death after death. Of course your brain was too mediocre to get the point, must be your helmet of faith is on too tight.</p>
<p>-------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT:<br />These spirtual "gifts" ceased when tha last of the apostles died,as fortold at 1 cor 13</p>
<p>ED: Your understanding and interpretation of 1 Cor. 13 is as mediocre as the rest of what you have written. Paul wrote IN CONTEXT:</p>
<p>1 Cor. 13:8 "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. "</p>
<p>[Paul does not say WHEN such spiritual gifts would cease. Though Paul does expect Jesus to return soon, and "meet him in the air." Your church obviously interprets "when perfection comes" as a specific point in past history. But again, Paul is nowhere near as specific as would be necessary to claim that you had nailed a definitive interpretation down. Personally, I believe Paul is referring to meeting Jesus face to face, the parousia. That's when Paul would "know fully, as he is fully known," for instance, read the verses that follow. -- E.T.B.]</p>
<p>1 Cor. 13:11 "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."</p>
<p>---------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT: /snip/ So where do these mislead people get the power to handle "snakes?</p>
<p>ED: And where do JWs get the "power" to renounce blood transfusions, even for their own children? Stop your jabbering preacher's lips long enough to think about the power that churchs have over people, social constructs, group peer pressure.</p>
<p>------------------</p>
<p>WINTERNATT:<br />is it from Jehovah?</p>
<p>ED: Since you claim to speak for Jehovah, everything you say is allegedly "from Jehovah," and must be right. Nice vicious little circle of reasoning there.</p>
<p>Hey, here's a verse for you,</p>
<p>"Wisdom begins where the fear of God ends."</p>
<p>Maybe you'll learn some wisdom some day when you lose your fear that just speaking WITH people (instead of PREACHING TO them) isn't necessarily a "sin."</p>
<p>Please go read more widely, or find someone who shares your Biblical assumptions and wishes to puruse matters of doctrine with you.</p>
<p>Signing off,</p>
<p>Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-31827943618042042622012-04-16T22:45:00.001-07:002019-09-02T04:01:24.100-07:00Fifty Bucks to prove Evolution is a Lie<p>In reference to the <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kent Hovind 50 cents Challenge</a></p>
<table style="float: right;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="http://www.drdino.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/images/hovind.jpg" alt="" align="middle" border="0" hspace="0" /></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<blockquote><em>Hello, my name is Anna and i just found out that your offering 50 bucks to anyone that can prove that evolution is a lie. Well first of all let me ask you a simple question. Do you belive in evolution? personally i DO NOT!!!!!! There is a very simple , but true answer. God created the heveans and the earth and all living things. you are probably thinking that im another one of those people who think that they know it all, but i dont. but i do know that God created me and that i didnt come from some bubbling mass of chemical soup. now scince i told you what i know, it would be great if you could write back and tell me what you think know. <img src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/feedback/04.GIF" alt="" border="0" hspace="0" /></em></blockquote>
<p>From: Edward T. Babinski<br />To: Anna<br />Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004<br />Subject: Re: Fw: hello Edward</p>
<p>ED: Hello Anna,</p>
<p>A brief note, but if it wasn't for the "bubbling masses of chemical soup" inside the cells of your own body, you wouldn't be alive right now, certainly not physically. And if it wasn't for the simple oxygen atom, drawn in through your nostrils, you'd likewise be unconscious or worse right now.</p>
<p>And in fact, creation keeps evolving...</p>
<p>According to the Bible, God made the stars on the fourth day of creation. Even more remarkable is the fact that He is creating them still, though the latter miracle is considered not worth mentioning by any of the Bible's authors. (I wonder why? The creation of new stars is being chronicled continually in magazines and journals like Astronomy, Sky & Telescope and The Astrophysical Journal, just to name a few.)</p>
<p>And God is still creating new planets (that continue to form out of rings of matter circling stars -- see the above mentioned magazines).</p>
<p>And God is still fusing simple hydrogen atoms together inside stars to create other elements with greater proton and electron numbers (the heaviest known elements are created during super nova explosions of stars).</p>
<p>And God is still creating large multi-cellular organisms out of a single cell that keeps dividing over and over by a process called embryogenesis.</p>
<p>And God is still transforming mere water and inorganic minerals into increasingly larger populations of tiny living microorganisms since those microorganisms live off of mere water and inorganic minerals and turn those inorganic things into more members of their own species. That what keeps the "food chain" going, since all life depends on the daily transformation of the simplest of molecules (water and inorganic minerals) into living microorganisms. So, if you include the food chain leading from the simplest organisms to man, God is still turning inorganic matter into human beings (and turning oxygen molecules into "the breath of life" every time we inhale).</p>
<p>Yet creationists argue that aside from the creation of new stars, new planets, the diversification of elements out of mere hydrogen inside those stars, the turning of simple inorganic matter into an array of living organisms that keep increasing in number and branching off into new species [creationists admit the speciation occurs] -- aside from all of that -- they claim that evolution is "prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics." I'd say they are missing the forest for the trees which by the way, continue to grow from tiny seeds; trees that become forests that continue to reach out and envelop as much of the earth as they can, and whose members continue to branch off (forgive the pun) into new species as they do so.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-8552585080316827412012-04-16T22:41:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:01:40.870-07:00Cynicism on Christianity/Calvinism<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Erica<br />Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:54 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: Dear Ed</p>
<p>From: Erica F.<br />To: ed.babinski<br />Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 1:09 PM<br />Subject: Dear Ed</p>
<p><em>Hi Ed! I'm Erica and I'm 16. </em></p>
<p>ED: Hi Erica, I'm Ed and I'm 47.</p>
<p><em>I ran across your site while looking for stuff on Alexander the Great. I would just like to know why you are so sarcastic and cynical about the Christian faith?</em></p>
<p>ED: Perhaps because your history classes and Sunday School classes simply glossed over the history of Christianity, especially the 16th century (Luther and Calvin's era), the Thirty Years War (European Catholics vs. Protestants, possibly a worse war than WWII in terms of the porportions of people killed and the time it took to recover from all the damage done. If they had modern day weapons it would have indeed been the worst war. Also that was the century during which the most witches were burnt in all of western history, thanks to Catholics and Protestants getting together to finally get the job done right. And by the way, Luther and Calvin exiled Catholics. Calvin even had a 13 year old girl beaten in public for simply saying she wanted to be a Catholic. It was a crmie to be caught with Rosary Beads in Calvin's Geneva. You had to make sure you burned them. In fact, it was a crime to miss church in Calvin's Geneva, could cost you a day's wage or worse, or finally, exile. In fact, at the height of Calvin's influence a young boy was beheaded for striking his parents, another child was hung by his armpits to show that he deserved death, because he called him mom a she-devil. And today there are still Christians advocating the execution of disobedient children your age, as well as stoning homosexuals. Go to the Chalcedon website and read the articles for yourself by modern day conservative Calvinists. I am cynical because great men of faith like Luther and Calvin, the founders of Protestantism, do not seem to have enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Luther got the rulers of Germany to exile anyone who didn't adhere to the Lutheran faith as he understood it and with his version of the sacraments. That meant they even killed noisy Anabaptists, and unitarians, and even kept out Calvinists from Germany! Calvin exiled everyone from Geneva who didn't agree with his view of predestination, and put noisy unitarians to flight to sought to have them executed. If you don't know history, then you don't understand the basis of cynicism in regard to religious faith. Religious toleration is the result of Christians fighting it out amongst themselves in such bloody sixteenth century wars that they realized it was impossible for any one group to impose its faith on all the rest, hence religious tolerance was born. As for arguments from the Bible on religious toleration, Luther and Calvin and Catholic sixteenth century theologians agreed that Jesus never laid down the laws for a society. And if a society were simply to follow Jesus' law of turning the other cheek and giving to all who ask, asking nothing in return, it would collapse as a society. Jesus was interested in the individual and how he might "save his soul." God revealled the rules for societies to Moses, rules that fully honor God, including the command to stone disobedient children, stone anyone who tried to lead you to worship "other gods," etc.</p>
<p><em>And, I noticed, you don't seem to come down on or downplay any other religion besides Christianity. </em></p>
<p>ED: I was brought up in Christianity, raised Catholic, then converted to Protestantism when I was 15 or 16 in high school, was very convinced and a devout believer until a few years after college, when I began reading more widely. All I know is Christianity. Would you rather I wrote about things I didn't know?</p>
<p><em>You make remarks about the Bible contradicting itself, about verses that say to stone people who do things that displease the Lord, and about the inconsistency of Christianity. But, can I ask you, what about the other relnigions out there that are not consistent? Why don't you say things about them? Take a look at Islam. Muslims are called to wage a holy war (jihad, the inner and external war between good and evil), but some groups take this to the extreme, such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah. How about New Age religions that teach you to trust your feelings? If truth is relative, and I must trust my feelings, then I could do whatever I wanted. I could go kill people, steal things, sell my body (none of which I have any interest in doing), whatever. But you couldn't say I was wrong, even if you didn't like what I was doing, because it's my truth and that was how I felt. So what about consistency then? I ask that you be consistent in degrading religions. If you are going to find a point of faultn with Christianity, please follow through and find the points of fault with other religions. </em></p>
<p>ED: The Secular Web has a section on non-Christian religions with articles critical of them, and evangelical Christian websites contina even more pages denouncing Islam and the Koran.</p>
<p><em>And, I must say, for being so negative, you have read an awful lot of scripture, even analyzing and dissecting it. How did you miss the Gospel and the hope it offers? It's as plain as day.</em></p>
<p>ED: It is to you, obviously. But there are many Christian historians and theologians you have not read. Continue to read, branch out your reading patterns, things do not become so "plain as day" after a while, what with moderate evangelicals who are so happy to no longer be fundamentalists, and liberals who were once moderates. And agnostics and atheists who were once liberal Christians. Moreover, there are tons of fundamentalist groups that can't get along with one another's interpretations of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Some groups can't even agree on which translation to use.</p>
<p><em>I do admit that there are Christians who skip the loving people and go right to the part about hell, fire, and brimstone. But you know what? Though they may be harsh, they tell the truth.</em></p>
<p>ED: Like you know the truth about God, the devil, the afterlife, all religion. You're 16. My uncertainties are the result of reading and thinking about more than you will probably ever encounter even by the time you are my age.</p>
<p><em>I just have one more thing to ask you, and then I will be done. I ask that when you go through the scripture and use it for whatever pnurpose you will use it for, please look at it in context and use it in context. That is how so many things get misinterpreted. Take a look at the big picture and what the message of the entire passage is.</em></p>
<p>ED: Please give me an example. And please read what Jews have to say about "Christian contexts" applied to their own scriptures. Visit <a href="http://www.jewsforjudaism.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.jewsforjudaism.com</a></p>
<p><em>I appreciate the time you have taken to read this rather lengthy email. I pray that the Lord will take the scales from your eyes, soften your hard heart, and shed the light of His truth on you.</em></p>
<p>ED: And I pray that you continue to read more widely and slowly grow to recognize that my heart is about as "hard" as your head is presently "soft."</p>
<p><em>Sincerely and in Christ's love, </em></p>
<p>ED: What, no love from you? Just "in Christ?" Learn to love, Erica, for love's own sake. So many creeds that wind and wind, but all this sad world needs is the art of being kind.</p>
<p>Erica F.</p>
<p>Philippians 2:14-16, Matthew 6:33, Colossians 4:5, Jeremiah 29:11,13</p>
<p>"Live wisely among those who are not Christians, and make the most of every opportunity."</p>
<p>"Erica F." writes:</p>
<p>Dear Ed,</p>
<p>Thank you for responding. You made some really good points. Yes, at 16, I haven't totally learned much of what you have told me. Seeing as how I do enjoy learning, I will look into the various histories and view points you have presented.</p>
<p>You asked if I would rather you write about things you don't know. The answer is no. But I think it would be great if you looked into them, even if it's just to be familiar with them.</p>
<p>Thanks for you time again. God bless!</p>
<p>Love,</p>
<p>Erica F.</p>
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />To: Erica F.<br />Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:31 PM<br />Subject: Re: Fw: Dear Ed</p>
<p>Dear Erica,</p>
<p>Thanks for writing back.</p>
<p>I have read about Islam. But Christianity is far more interesting to me, especially the way the movers and shakers of Christendom keep getting put on pedestals far above the rest of us, folks like the popes, or Augustine, Luther, Calvin. If you knew what I knew about them, and about the history of Christian doctrines and divisions, you'd think twice before blithely attributing it all to the work of the Holy Spirit leading men into all truth with the aid of a perfect holy book. The same goes for the history of ancient Israel, and even the questions raised in the Gospels by the story of Jesus. Jesus did not fulfill prophecies for instance. The Gospel authors were stretching the Old Testament to suit their needs. Read what the Jews have to say about this matter at <a href="http://www.jewsforjudaism.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.jewsforjudaism.com</a></p>
<p>And also read <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/prophetic-passages.html">Multitude of Prophetic Passages</a> and <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/christ_return.html">Lowdown on God's Showdown</a></p>
<p>Best, Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-73083697373498575812012-04-16T22:10:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:02:01.358-07:00End Times Prophecies<blockquote>troy wrote:<br />I was wondering if you can steer me to some books and/or websites that critically examine the Evangelical end times stuff. You know, the Hal Lindsay, Tim La Haye style end times doctrines about barcodes, microchips, The Beast, New World Order, etc. Whether it be liberal Christian or secular in origin, I want to see something that challenges this stuff. I need to deprogramme myself of this shit. Thanks. TROY</blockquote>
<p>Dear Troy,<br />Thanks for writing. Hope these articles help:<br /><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepticism/prophetic-passages.html">How Do I Deal with the Multitude of Prophetic [End Times] Passages?</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/christ_return.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">THE LOWDOWN ON GOD'S SHOWDOWN</a></p>
<p>ARMAGEDDON NOW! <a href="http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/dwan/dwan.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Premillenarian Response</a> to Russia and Israel Since 1917</p>
<p>Also, some of my favorite stuff on the subject below.</p>
<p>According to the Gospels, the man from Nazareth virtually never used the word "church." There are no sayings of Jesus spoken in public that programmatically call for a community of the elect and for the founding of a church. Biblical critics are agreed on this point: Jesus did not proclaim a church, nor did he proclaim himself, but the kingdom of God. Governed by the awareness of living in an end time, Jesus wanted to announce God's imminent kingdom.<br />Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>The whole of Jesus's work implied that the apocalypse was imminent; some of his sayings were quite explicit on the point. The prima facie view of the Jesus mission was that it was an immediate prelude to a Last Judgment. Hence the urgency of the pentecostal task, an urgency which Paul shared throughout his life ["...brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly..." 2 Thes 3:1], so that his final hope was to carry the good news, while there was still time, to Spain - - for him, "the ends of the earth."</p>
<p>Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1979), p.38.</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><center>
<p>This poor deluded lady believed "Jesus is coming soon", so earnestly, she had it printed on her car door -- but Jesus didn't come, and that picture was taken around 1940.</p>
<p>"Get Ready" the door boldly proclaims.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/feedback/nothing-happened02.jpg" alt="" align="baseline" border="0" hspace="0" /></p>
<p><strong>Jesus is not coming back.</strong></p>
</center></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>EXCERPTS FROM "THE FALL OF FANATICISM" BY VOLTAIRE</strong><br />(WITH ADDITIONAL VERSES AND COMMENTARY BY E.T.B.)</p>
<p>Jesus allegedly told the people of his generation:</p>
<p>The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven . Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.<br />- Mark 13:24-27,30-31 (Compare the parallel verses in Matthew 24:29-31,34)</p>
<p>Luke echoed Mark and embellished the prophecy further:</p>
<p>And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.<br />- Luke 21:25-27,32</p>
<p>Generations passed, and if none of those things happened it is not my fault. When it was seen what a gross falsehood had been put forward, the Fathers of the Church asserted that Matthew, Mark and Luke had meant by these predictions the fall of Jerusalem. But what connection is there, I ask you, between the fall of Jerusalem, and Jesus coming in the clouds with great power and gathering his elect from the four winds?</p>
<p>The apostle Paul, like Mark, Matthew and Luke, indulged in equally gross falsehoods when he predicted:</p>
<p>The rulers of this age...are passing away ["will not last much longer"--Today's English Version]...Do not go on passing judgment before the time [i.e., "before the time" of final judgment], but wait until the Lord comes [i.e., the Lord will come soon enough to relieve the members of that church from having to "pass judgment"] who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts...The time has been shortened so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none . and those who use the world, as though they did not make use of it [i.e., Paul is warning his first-century brethren that the time has grown so "short" that they should no longer be overly concerned with marriage or buying or selling, but instead be preparing above all for the soon return of Christ]; for the form of this world is passing away ["This world, as it is now, will not last much longer"--Today's English Version]. These things were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Proclaim the Lord's death until he comes [i.e., Paul did not say, "Proclaim the Lord's death until the day you die," but rather, "until he comes," which means that he considered Christ's coming to be nearer than the time when the Christians he was addressing would all be dead, and he further emphasizes this by adding.] We [Paul and the first-century Christians being addressed] shall not all sleep. At the last trumpet. the dead will be raised. and we shall be changed [i.e., "we" included Paul and others whom he predicted would still be alive at Jesus's coming and hence not require "raising," but merely "changing"]. Maranatha [="Come Lord"]<br />- 1 Corinthians. 2:6; 4:5; 7:29-31; 10:11; 11:26; 15:51-52; 16:22</p>
<p>To the Philippians Paul wrote:</p>
<p>He who began a good work in you [the first-century Christians being addressed] will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus [i.e., rather than saying "until the day you die," which Paul predicted was not going to happen to all of them as Paul pointed out in 1 Cor., "we shall not all sleep"]...In order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ [Compare 1 Tim 6:14, "Keep the commandment...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."]. We eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ...Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.<br />- Philippians 1:6,10; 3:20; 4:5</p>
<p>To the believers in Rome Paul wrote:</p>
<p>The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is soon to be revealed to us...The whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now...We...groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed! The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand...The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.<br />- Romans 8:18,22-23; 13:11-12; 16:20</p>
<p>Moreover, Paul's earliest known letters were written to Christians of Thessalonica who were growing increasingly concerned because some of their brethren had died already without seeing the "coming of the Lord." Paul wrote to reassure them that the Lord would return soon:</p>
<p>For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord [i.e., Paul included himself as one who would be alive at the coming of the Lord]. shall be caught up together. in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.<br />- 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; 5:23</p>
<p>It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [i.e., the Lord Jesus would be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels soon enough to recompense tribulation to whomever was troubling that first-century church!]. the mystery of iniquity doth already work. Brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly.<br />- 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7; 2:7; 3:1</p>
<p>Let each person ask himself here: could it be possible to see the stupidity of fanaticism pushed further? Not only has Jesus been introduced upon the scene predicting the end of the world in his own time but such was the fanaticism of all those who are called apostles and disciples. I have already mentioned the case of Paul. Let us look at the rest.</p>
<p>Peter in the First Epistle attributed to him says:</p>
<p>He [Jesus] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times [or last days, or, end of times]...The end of all things is at hand . the glory that is soon to be revealed.<br />- 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7; 5:1</p>
<p>When Jesus did not return, the church had to deal with "mockers" who pointed to the false predictions of Jesus's soon return in the New Testament. In order to deal with such folks--who knew a false prophecy when they read one--a feeble attempt was made to explain Jesus's delay in a second letter attributed to the apostle Peter, which stated:</p>
<p>With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.<br />- 2 Peter 3:8</p>
<p>But this feeble attempt to silence the "mockers" fails miserably. It is like admitting that when God "inspired" the writers of the New Testament to proclaim that they were living in the "last hour," in the "last days," and that it was only a "very little while" before "He who is coming will come" (Heb. 10:37), that God really meant "last hours" and "last days" and "very little whiles" that were "thousands" of years long. I wonder what such an explanation implies about God's inability to put words into his prophets' mouths that meant what He truly intended, instead of having to cover His tracks in a late-dated letter like 2nd Peter? In short, the statement in 2nd Peter contradicts 1st Peter, and other New Testament predictions that Jesus (or "the Son of Man") was to come soon and initiate the world's final judgment.</p>
<p>Even the author of 2nd Peter did not suspect that the end was far off, for he wrote:</p>
<p>God is not slack concerning his promise.what manner of persons ought you [the second-century Christians he was addressing] to be...looking for, and hastening the coming of God...we are looking for new heavens, and a new earth.<br />- 2 Peter 3:9-13</p>
<p>And added:</p>
<p>...in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers [the earliest Christian leaders] fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice...<br />- 2 Peter 3:3-5</p>
<p>Speaking of "escaping their notice" (sic), it often escapes the notice of Christians as they read the above verses that they apply to "mockers" who were disturbing the faithful at the time 2nd Peter was written. So if the warning was about "mockers" who will come "in the last days," such mockers had arrived as early as the second-century, and were already asking, "Where is the promise of his coming?"</p>
<p>The First Epistle attributed to John says:</p>
<p>The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining...The world is passing away ["This world, as it is now, will not last much longer" - Today's English Version]. Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. [Notice the way the author emphasized the fact that not just a single Antichrist had arisen, but "many" Antichrists had already arisen, and pounded that point home to add weight to his prediction that "it is the last hour," and, "this world will not last much longer."]<br />- 1 John 2:17,18</p>
<p>The Epistle attributed to Jude, proclaims the same mania:</p>
<p><br />Certain persons have crept in unnoticed [i.e., they "have" already crept in, in Jude's own day], those who were long beforehand marked out for condemnation . about these [i.e., "these," refers to the people who have already crept in] Enoch prophesied saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment [i.e., the Lord was going to come soon with thousands of holy ones to execute judgment on people who had already crept into the church in Jude's day]."<br />- Jude 4,10-15</p>
<p>The Epistle of James speaks likewise:</p>
<p>Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you [directed at the rich people living in James's own day]...It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure . Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord . for the coming of the Lord is at hand...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.<br />- James 5:1,3,7-9</p>
<p>This ridiculous idea survived century after century. If the world did not end under the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, it had to end under Theodosius; if the end had not come under Theodosius, it had to occur under Attila the Hun. And up to the twelfth century this idea enriched the monasteries. A great many of the charters and donations to the monasteries began thus: "Christ reigning, the end of the world approaching, I, for the remedy of my soul, etc."</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>GIMME THAT OLD FALSE PREDICTION, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME</strong><br />The author of the letter to the Hebrews began his letter, "...in these last days," and argued on such a basis that, "He (Jesus) would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." With equal fervor he employed the phrase, "as you see the day drawing near."--and made the prediction, ".for yet a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay." (Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 10:25,37) Oops! There's been a sleight delay.</p>
<p>Even worse is the fact that "at the consummation" can also be translated, "at the end of the age." What does that phrase mean, "the end of the age?" A verse in the Gospel of Matthew defines it precisely: "At the end of the age...the Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Mat.13:40-41 - the author evidently based his description of "the end of the age" on Daniel 12, which was a description of the final judgment of mankind) So that is exactly what the author of Matthew and the author of Hebrews predicted would happen in their day, i.e., the final judgment of mankind.</p>
<p>Also note the logic behind the argument in Hebrews 9:26. The author argued that continuous sinning "since the foundation of the world" required blood sacrifices "often." But God saw to it that Jesus's sacrifice occurred at a time when no further sacrifices would be required. That time could only be "at the consummation" or "at the end of the age" when the time of final judgment for all sinners had arrived. Thus he hoped to persuade his readers of God's wonderful plan in having Jesus sacrifice himself "in these last days," and that it was only a "very little while" before "he who is coming will come, and will not delay." It would appear even to the most dense that the prediction has failed. So, the author of Hebrews was a false prophet.<br />E.T.B.</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>THERE'S NO REVELATION LIKE A FALSE REVELATION</strong><br />The book of Revelation begins with this prediction, "The revelation...which God gave to show...the things which must [shortly] take place." (1:1) The author, having addressed his letter to several churches in Asia Minor, circa 65-95 A.D., continued, "He is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him. Repent therefore; or else I am coming to you (the church at Pergamum) quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth...(To the church at Thyatira) hold fast until I come. Because you (the church at Philadelphia) have kept the word of my perseverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world. I am coming quickly...hold fast what you (Philadelphia) have." (1:7; 2:16; 2:25; 3:10-11)</p>
<p>In the final chapter of Revelation the author repeats his first chapter prediction of Jesus's soon coming, "...God. sent His angel to show...the things which must shortly take place...I am coming quickly...do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near...I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done [see the definition of the "end of the age" discussed above = the final judgment in Daniel and Matthew]...Yes, I am coming quickly...Come Lord Jesus." (22:6,7,10,12,20)</p>
<p>The idea of being either "sealed up" or "not sealed up" is something that the books of Revelation and Daniel both share. According to the author of the book of Daniel he was commanded to "seal up" his book "until the end of time": "Conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time. these words are concealed and sealed up until the end of time." (Daniel 12:4,9) The book of Daniel was composed from the alleged point of view of a Jew living in ancient Persia who had visions of "the end of time," or, "the end of the age," when all men would "rise again" and be judged. (12:2,13) "Seal up the book," he was commanded, or so the story goes.</p>
<p>But the author of Revelation was told, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book," adding that what is revealed in it "must shortly take place." The intent of the author of Revelation in alluding to the "non-sealing" of his book is obvious, the author believed and predicted that Jesus was about to "come" and judge the world "quickly." So, the author of Revelation was a false prophet. And, by the same token, so was the author of Daniel, since his book was "unsealed" long before "the end of time."<br />E.T.B.</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><center>
<p>For 2000 years they've been saying Jesus is coming.</p>
<p>These poor folks sincerely believed "Prepare to meet thy God" -- but God never came.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/feedback/nothing-happened01.jpg" alt="" align="baseline" border="0" hspace="0" /></p>
<p><strong>Jesus is not coming back.</strong></p>
</center></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>If Jesus and his apostles, for whatever motives, were mistaken in a matter of this consequence, how could I be certain that any one of them may not be mistaken in any other matter? If they were not inspired in what they said in their writings concerning the soon coming of Christ; how could they be inspired in those arguments they built on a foundation far from being so?<br />Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as Creation, A Republication of the Religion of Nature, 1730</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF BIBLICAL PROPHETS</strong><br />The Biblical prophets wrote book after book and epistle after epistle, yet never once hinted at the existence of a great continent on our side of the water; yet they must have know it was there, I should think.<br />- Mark Twain</p>
<p>Though Saint Augustine seemed inclined to yield in regard to the sphericity of the earth, he fought the idea that men exist on the other side of it, saying, "Scripture speaks of no such descendants of Adam." He insists that men could not be allowed by the Almighty to live there, since if they did they could not see Christ at his second coming descending through the air. But his most cogent appeal, one that we find echoed from theologian to theologian during a thousand years afterward, is to the nineteenth Psalm, and to its confirmation in the Epistle to the Romans; to the words, "Their line has [already] gone out through all the world, and their words to the ends of the earth." He dwells with great force on the fact that St. Paul based one of his most powerful arguments upon this declaration regarding the earliest preachers of the gospel (Rom. 10:18), and that, as those preachers did not go to the opposite side of the earth to preach the gospel, no people must exist there; hence those who believe such things, "give the lie direct to King David and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost." Thus the great bishop taught the whole world for over a thousand years that as there was no preaching of the gospel on the opposite side of the earth there could be no human beings there.<br />- A. D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Vol. 1</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p><strong>THE NEW JERUSALEM</strong><br />The last book of the Bible mentions a fabulous city called the "New Jerusalem":</p>
<p>And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth. twelve thousand furlongs [about 1500 miles according to most commentaries]. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.<br />- Revelation 21:16</p>
<p>In other words the New Jerusalem is a gigantic cube and it is supposed to descend out of heaven. The author who wrote about the city apparently made it of such gargantuan proportions so that the length of just one of its sides was equal to the distance from Jerusalem to the capital and heart of the Roman Empire. Or perhaps the author had in mind that God meant to flatten Rome just as Rome had flattened God's holy temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.?</p>
<p>Other questions also come to mind: Wouldn't a cube that was 1500 miles on all sides simply see-saw on the earth's curved surface, since the earth is not flat, but a sphere? Even if it didn't see-saw and settled onto the surface of the earth gently, would not its sheer mass cause the earth's crust to buckle or crack beneath it, and initiate earthquakes or volcanic eruptions? Wouldn't it also cause a wobble in the earth's daily rotation? (Just try gluing a small cafeteria-sized carton of milk to a large bowling ball and spin the bowling ball to see what I mean.) How could a cube that was 1,500 miles on each side maintain its cubic shape since much smaller objects in space that are merely 400 miles in diameter, collapse into spherical shapes due to the force of their own gravity? And, what would prevent the city, after it landed, from growing as wide and flat as any mountain range due to its mutual attraction with the earth's own gravity?</p>
<p>And the New Jerusalem is so tall it would extend 1,300 miles further out into space than the International Space Station that is situated only about 200 miles above the earth. In fact the New Jerusalem would block jet streams in the upper atmosphere, and be pummeled by natural and man-made objects orbiting the earth, as well as its topmost floors being hit by solar winds and radiation. If you happen to live on any floor higher than merely the first 100 miles above sea level, I wouldn't suggest opening your windows without first donning a space suit.</p>
<p>Do the questions end there? No. Here's another: The author of the book of Revelation wrote that the "twelve gates" of the New Jerusalem are "twelve pearls; every gate is of one pearl." (Rev. 21:21) Hence the slang expression for heaven, "The pearly gates." But where can you find "one pearl" large enough to make a "gate" for a city that size? I'd pay money to see the oyster that popped those babies out! It must be bigger than one of the biggest animal of all time, the blue whale.</p>
<p>Of course some Evangelical apologists like Grant R. Jeffrey simply assume that the description of "The New Jerusalem" must be true without a doubt because "what reason would God have for describing such details so precisely unless they were true?" [Apocalypse: The Coming Judgment of the Nations (Bantam Books, Toronto, 1994), p.351] But then, who ever said "God" was the one describing such details? And who ever said that human writers didn't have imaginations capable of adding details to a story? Maybe the author of the book of Revelation assumed like most people of his day that the earth was flat [see NOTE], so a cube-shaped object would sit securely and squarely on it? He probably also made the New Jerusalem a cube because that's how the holy of holies of Solomon's temple was shaped. The author of Revelation, probably had no idea that the enormity of the city he had envisioned would raise scientific questions in the minds of 20th-century readers, especially since he probably assumed that the heavenly abode of God and angels existed not very far overhead, instead of that region being filled with orbiting bits of matter, solar radiation, and the vacuum of space? [See the section, THE HOLY HEAVENS OF THE HEBREWS] Finally, maybe Grant R. Jeffrey should cease making a career out of trying to anaesthetize the frontal lobes of people's brains, and embark on an expedition to find that oyster that pops out pearls as big as city gates? And he had better hurry and find that whale-sized oyster before King Kong enjoys it as an appetizer. (But where is Kong going to find a lemon large enough to squeeze on it?)</p>
<p>[NOTE] The author of the book of Revelation wrote in flat earth fashion: "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1); and added elsewhere, "There was a great earthquake...and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind." (Rev. 6:12,13). "Stars of heaven falling to earth" after the earth below has been "shaken," mirrors the way that the sun, moon, and the stars are portrayed in the creation story in Genesis, being "made" and "fixed" above the earth. And just as those stars were "fixed" there, they would one day "fall to earth" like "figs" from a shaken tree after the earth below had experienced "a great earthquake," because to the ancient Hebrews the whole of creation consisted of a cosmos whose two halves were the earth below and the heavens above.<br />E.T.B.</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><center>
<p>If "Christ is the Answer", what was the question?</p>
<p>I guess after telling people for 2000 years "Jesus is coming" and he never came, and people stopped believing -- the answer is get "bigger speakers" then they'll listen.</p>
<p><img src="https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/feedback/nothing-happened03.jpg" alt="" align="baseline" border="0" hspace="0" /></p>
<p><strong>Jesus is not coming back.</strong></p>
</center></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Will Christ ever return? The New Testament is now older than the Old Testament was when the New Testament was written, and still no word from the God of the Bible. So, what's holding Jesus up? (Subtract two points if you answered, "The nails in his hands.")<br />E.T.B.</p>
<p>Troy,<br />Also consider that the alleged "end times" prophecy of Ezekiel, included his fears of "foes from the northern frontier" by the names of "Gog and Magog," and those names have been identified in ancient writings as referring to ancient Scythian tribes that existed back in Ezekiel's day, not ours. Ezekiel was focused on fears of his day, not ours. Ezekiel's prophecy about their weapons burning for "years" after that momentous "end times" battle only listed wooden weapons and not very advanced ones either, not even a crossbow is mentioned, nor gunpowder. And in Revelation, another alleged "end times vision" as interpreted by folks like LaHaye, Revelation mentions "servants=slaves" and "chariots" existing in "Babylon" when Jesus "comes quickly."</p>
<p>Cheers,Ed</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-45678168351089406312012-04-16T22:07:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:02:17.007-07:00Pentecostal Religion<p>From: monkey <br /><br />To: ed.babinski<br /><br />Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 4:33 PM<br /><br />Subject: Pentecostal Religion</p>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p><em><em> </em></em></p>
<p>My name is Emily. I wanted to write you a note regarding the <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/chicken_soup.html">Chicken Soup for the ...... Soul</a> article that I found while doing and internet search by typing in Pentecostal in the search engine. I not only am awe-struck by what you wrote I am praying for you as well. There are many "versions" of the pentecostal religion, united pentecostal, assembly of God, and then there is just the pentecostal religion. About 20 in all. But my point is this. Your article bashed ALL of them. You know, talking in tongues is NOT something bad. As a matter of fact I spoke in toungues last night at church. Praise God! There are MANY verses in the Bible where it refers to speaking in tongues as an act of God.</p>
<p>When you receive the Holy Ghost you speak in tongues.</p>
<p><strong><u>Acts 2:4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.</u></p>
<p>Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.</strong></p>
<p>Acts 2:1. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.</p>
<p>2:2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.</p>
<p>2:3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.</p>
<p>2:4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.</p>
<p>Acts 10:46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter.</p>
<p>Acts 19:6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied</p>
<p>1 Corinthians 14:18. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:<br /><br />1 Corinthians 14:22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.</p>
<p>14:23. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?</p>
<p>14:24. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:</p>
<p>14:25. And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.</p>
<p>14:26. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.</p>
<p>There are many more that verify that speaking in tongues is OF GOD! I do pray and hope that maybe someday you can experiance the JOY and peace that you receive from this. It is Amazing! There is nothing more amazing than feeling the presence of God come over you. Next time you feel like bashing a religion try looking it up in the Bible, so you don't bash the Truth.</p>
<p>In faith,</p>
<p>Emily</p>
<p>From: Ed Babinski<br />
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:48 AM<br />
To: monkey monkey<br />
Subject: Re: Pentecostal Religion</p>
<p>ED: Thanks Emily, I am happy your Pentecostal faith has saved you from depression. But you are only at the beginning of your Christian journey. To make a crass comparison, it is not unlike a heroin user's first injection (which they claim is always the best, and which they strive to acheive again for the rest of their lives). There is always joy in the beginning. Then comes the dogmas, the head stuff, like hell for non-believers which includes friends, relatives even perhaps for your own children who "go astray' concerning the "one true faith." And further questions such as "Why do other Christian denominations frown on speaking in tongues?" "Why do so many different denominations disagree over what the Bible really treaches from Genesis to Revelation?" What manner and types of "truth" are there "in the bible?" Or, what happens when Pentecostals themselves disagree?</p>
<p>"Emily !" writes: <br /><br />Ed, <br /><br />Is it not true that we are not to look into the future with doubt? Hasn't it been said, if you want it to be bad...it will? Rather than looking into the future, look at the present. I've been repeatedly told not to dwell on the past...it won't change it. As worrying on the future...it isn't going to change it. God's already got it planned. And I would much rather trust him and allow him to guide my steps rather than me worrying about when my depression will come back, but most importantly IF it will come 2back. I am not here to PLEASE other people. My friends and family, sure I love them. But truthfully their opinion doesn't hurt me or help me. They don't choose my eternity? Why should I live for and through them??? A thought provoking idea. From my theory, religion is not inherited which is what you made it sound to be. relatives even perhaps for your own children who "go astray' concerning the "one true faith." I am not allowing anyone to choose my faith I am going by a God led heart driven faith trusted feeling. As for my children (who may someday come...not now, I have none) but when and if they do, sure I will raise them in the religion that I am and allow them to grow and prosper as God leads them. <br /><br />If they choose to "go astray" that is between them and God. It will hurt, yes, but I won't allow it to crush my faith. If they find another religion that they like or deem more suitable for them then that is most e2xcellent. I will pray for and with them. Because it isn't about what building you go to, what religion you are, what clothes you where or what color your eyes are It is about the one God that you serve. It is about following your OWN heart, allowing God to work through you and obeying the convictions that he places on your heart.</p>
<p>With Faith,</p>
<p>Emily</p>
<p>From: Ed Babinski"<br/>
To: "Emily !"<br/>
Subject: Re: Pentecostal Religion <br /><br />Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:47:12 -0500</p>
<p>Emily,</p>
<p>You mentioned below something about "opinions hurting people," and how "their opinions doesn't hurt me or help me." But my opinions on the web still bother you?</p>
<p>Ed</p>
<p><em>I've prayed and will continue to pray for you. Last night I had a wonderful service and a wonderful encounter of the Holy Ghost. Life is on the up and up...;) Take Care.</em></p>
<p>ED: You too, Emily.<br/>
From: Ed Babinski"<br/>
To: "Emily !"<br/>
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 5:58 PM<br/>
Subject: Re: Pentecostal Religion</p>
<p>"Emily !" writes:</p>
<p>Ed,</p>
<p>Although I am at work I wanted to take a second to write. No, your opinion no longer bothers me. Truthfully they have never bothered me...they irritated me that the Devil could sway someone who HAS experianced truth.</p>
<p>ED: The author of WHEN CHRISTIAN KIDS LEAVE THE FAITH felt the same way about a friend of his who used to debate atheists and was extremely strong in his faith. His anguish at his friend's departure from evangelical Christianity is poignantly recorded in that book.</p>
<p>Why Christian Kids Leave the Faith by Tom Bisset, John T. Bisset</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-13326849113140444652012-04-16T22:04:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:02:32.704-07:00Holy Diana! and other religious parody<p>frches... writes:</p>
<p>Ed:<br />Holy Diana! I've apparently missed a lot, even though I've been involved in researching the mythos-logos, religious-secular scene for some years and have missed the Diana-channeling story.</p>
<p>Frank</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>ED: "Holy Diana" is right!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.voicenet.com/~dproject/links.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHANNELED DIANA LINKS AND BOOKS</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/goddess.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">THE MAKING OF A GODDESS</a> -- THE PRINCESS DIANA</p>
<p>WEIRD RELIGION at <a href="http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.surfingtheapocalypse</a></p>
<p>A KINDER GENTLER SATAN--The Vatican announced the need for a "more subtle and sophisticated" understanding of the nature of evil that will be better suited to the world of the 21st century. Evil should be thought of as a threatening force that dwells within every individual, the Church now advises, rather than simply an external malevolence, personified as Satan, which tempts people into sin. This new distinction comes as part of the Catholic Church's reevaluation of its official rites of exorcism, which are being substantially revised for the first time since Pope Paul V decreed them in 1614.</p>
<p>ACCEPT CHRIST BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2001 AND RECEIVE A FREE PCS DIGITAL PHONE!--From the Landover Baptist Church Website: "No Roaming Charges, No Hidden Costs! Praise The Lord! You have nothing to lose, except your soul. You have everything to gain; eternal life, a chance to become a member of the most powerful church in the United States, and a free wireless telephone, courtesy of AT & T! What are you waiting for? Read through our beliefs section, and sign a waiver form that shows you have accepted our Lord as your personal savior, promise to abide by all of our church rules, and pledge a 3-year tithing contract. Mail these forms along with a $225.00 membership application fee." ( I can't make this stuff up! ED.)</p>
<p>THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS HOMEPAGE--(Featuring the SIN-Cam!)<br /><br />THE GREAT GOD CONTEST--an attempt to "to bring a final resolution to all religious wars, controversy and hypocrisy."</p>
<p>CHURCH OF EUTHANASIA--"The Church of Euthanasia was inspired by a dream, in which Rev. Chris Korda confronted an alien intelligence known as The Being who speaks for the inhabitants of Earth in other dimensions. The Being warned that our planet's ecosystem is failing, and that our leaders deny this. The Being asked why our leaders lie to us, and why so many of us believe these lies. Rev. Korda awoke from the dream moaning the Church's infamous slogan, SAVE THE PLANET--KILL YOURSELF!."</p>
<p>CONTACT: The Phoenix Educator --"Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Make You Mad!" CONTACT is a vehicle for Commander Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn's most recent writings on matters "critical" to a responsible and informed public at this time of planetary transition and final days of battle between the Forces of Light and the "Evil Empire" forces of darkness. Commander Hatonn states:"We of the lighted brotherhood of the Cosmic and Galactic participants are ready to make our presence upon your place. We travel and act in the direct service and under Command of Esu Jesus Immanuel Sananda. Sananda is aboard my Command Craft from whence He will direct all evacuation and transition activities as regards the period you ones call the End Prophecies of Armageddon."</p>
<p>ASK SISTER ROSSETTA --Nuns, Clergy,and regular sinners like YOU ask Questions of the Lavender Nun. Sister Rossetta answers such poignant questions for readers as: "Does the Lord want us to have orgasms?AND "Bananas and Donuts:Sweet Dreams or Satanic Nightmares?"</p>
<p>CHURCH OF PRINCESS DIANA --The "church" run by Chairman Yao who claims that Diana appeared after her "death" exclusively to him to communicate her urgent message to humanity: "You are spiritually immortal, and it is your evolutionary destiny to manifest this immortality physically. And...it will happen in your lifetime.. ." Chairman Yao asserts: "Fat is the only abomination, but I've got the cure," declares Chairman Yao, who is eternally slim. "Old age and death shall be no more!" proclaims the youthful prophet to aging baby boomers. "Why has Diana picked me to teach you how to stay young, slim, and healthy? Because I'm young, slim, and healthy." According to his book DianaSpeaksT: The Uncensored Messages of Princess Diana, in the new millenium, everyone will be young, slim, and beautiful.</p>
<p>SUPERCHURCH--Millions and Millions Saved!"Commandments" of this group include: "Aim for variety in your snack foods" and "If you tell someone you will call them, call them"</p>
<p>McCHURCH--McChurch is a REAL religion, complete with iconographic images suitable for worship, a martyred saint, snappy advertising slogans, and easy to understand spiritual truths that make McWorship as easy as picking up a burger and fries on the way home from work!... easier, in fact! Followers of every creed, denomination and temperament are welcome to drive through and bask in the light of the new (and improved) McHoly of Holies.</p>
<p>TECHNOSOPHY--"Technosophy" is a word coined by Terry Alden (the maintainer of this site) to label certain concepts related to a kind of spiritual appreciation for technology. Among these and probably of primary importance is the inescapable observation that the physical vehicles of all life-forms (and human bodies, in particular) are extremely complex inter-functioning collections of technological systems. If you have a strong attachment to your body, you qualify as a lover of technology, which is an interpretive meaning of technosophy. Just because we are assembled from carbon-based organic compounds (and are largely unaware, in most cases, of how we are put together in a detailed technical sense) does not diminish the fact that high technology is involved in every aspect of our being and functioning. The term technology should not apply exclusively to externalized man-made gadgets and programming (i.e., the hardware and software that we normally think of when the term technology is used).</p>
<p>THE OFFICIAL GOSPEL OF ELVIS WEB PAGE--This is the genuine Gospel of Elvis edited by renown Elvisian scholar Solomon B. T. Church.<br />THE FIRST PRESLEYTERIAN CHURCH of Elvis The Divine--He has a hunka-hunka burnin' love for whosoever believeth in him.</p>
<p>ELVISIANS FROM ANOTHER PLANET--On the night Elvis was born, Vernon Presley saw a blue light over Tupelo. Could this blue light have emanated from an alien craft or K-Mart? We're not sure. We do know that Elvis was an extraordinary human being and highly spirtual. He studied many religions and theories about life outside of this earthly one. We are earthly "Elvisians" who believe that Elvis Presley fans can be found in outer reaches of the solar system and hope to someday communicate with these extraterrestrials through the music and art of Elvis.</p>
<p>THE 24 HOUR CHURCH OF ELVIS</p>
<p>THE CULT CONSTUCTION SET--"Build Your Own Religious Cult Within Minutes!"</p>
<p>THE JESUS DANCE --Dance the Millenium Away</p>
<p>THE NEW BEING PROJECT--The Institute for the Intensification of Non-Linear Intelligence (IINLIT) was established in 1988 as a (501)(c)(3) non-profit corporation. The New Being Project is a division of IINLIT that explores the strong likelihood that our species may be headed into a rapid evolutionary jump, one of comparable impact to the momentous and sudden leap from anaerobic to aerobic bacteria, or from asexual to sexual reproduction. We may even be at a juncture where we can invent such a leap. NBP's present task is to identify and study people who may be "edgelings"; those who might give us hints as to how to amplify or modify the direction the leap takes. We may all become co-architects in evolution: A radical venture indeed!</p>
<p>EVIL PEOPLE INC --EvilPeople,INC.(tm) is a corporation dedicated to the following ideals and dreams, as handed down by our founder, HeWhoTwistsInDarknessAndDevoursThePure. EvilPeople,INC.(tm) strives daily to adhere to his oft-used phrase, "God is the best there is in the genocide business. I want to be better." EvilPeople,INC.(tm) has worked on projects that have met with great success in the past, such as these: The Fall of Adam and Eve from Eden/The Spanish Inquisition/The Nixon Administration/Darth Vader/ Bill Gates and Microsoft/The Clinton Administration/Highlander II and III</p>
<p>JESUS 2000 CONTEST -- Attempt to help the Church pick a new look for Jesus for the new millennium. See how you can help out!</p>
<p>THE CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE! -- Jumping on the Christian "We Must Protect Our Children" bandwagon, Fade to Black Online Magazine contacted numerous religious organizations in attempting to save the children from the violent imagery many Christians seemed to have overlooked: The Crucifixion.</p>
<p>CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS -- Now at last! The step-by-step process is revealed! This explosive new futureligion BEYOND science may raise your intelligence, transform your life, improve your health and luck, and end financial woes!! THIS IS IT - the weirdest supercult of them all!!! THE ONLY "FAITH" THAT PROMISES ACTION - THRILLS - SUCCESS IN SEX AND BUSINESS! THE PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA --or, How I Found the Goddess and What I Did To Her When I Found Her THE MAGNUM OPIATE OF MALACLYPSE THE YOUNGER Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything</p>
<p>THE BIBLICAL ACTION FIGURES COLLECTION --Here you can purchase such Biblical greats As Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus and Mary and many more. Poseable figures with background play scenery!</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-6205016806420569002012-04-16T21:55:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:02:48.247-07:00Fundamentalists Anonymous and a Question<p>Friday, March 26, 2004</p>
<p>"Debra" writes:</p>
<p>Dear Mr. Babinski,</p>
<p>I found your name on the webring and hope you don't mind my contacting you. I am a graduate student in a distance learning program at Goddard College. My thesis is about religious addiction and recovery. I would very much like to dialogue with you, either by phone or via email, about your work and fundamentalists anonymous. I have been in recovery from religious addiction since about 1995, after 24 1/2 years as a born again, fundamentalist, Pentecostal thus my interest in the subject.</p>
<p>Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.</p>
<p>Debby T.</p>
<p>P.S. I ordered your book from amazon and look forward to reading it. :-)</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p>Thanks for writing Debra,</p>
<p>Part of my own past experience was Charistmatic/Pentacostal in nature. (I still cringe recalling that I used to donate 25$/month to the 700 Club.)</p>
<p>Here's some quotations that you may have already seen at the website...</p>
<p>Feel free to write back.</p>
<p><strong>PENTECOSTALS</strong></p>
<p>Loresa Goodly filed a lawsuit in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, in November for injuries she incurred just after she had received the Holy Spirit at a tent revival meeting and passed out on the floor. Moments later, another woman received the Holy Spirit and fell on top of Goodly before ushers could catch her, breaking three of Goodly's ribs.<br />- Baton Rouge Morning Advocate, Nov. 18, 1995</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>THE MANY FACES OF BENNY HINN<br />After different occurrences of televangelist Benny Hinn's famous antic "slaying in the Spirit," during which crowds of people fall over, one young girl's leg was badly injured and an elderly woman died from complications following a broken hip. Her family sued for $15 million; Hinn settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.</p>
<p>Hinn has been fooled more than once during his crusades by hired actors who pretended to be handicapped, then pretended to be healed -- despite Hinn's past promises not to televise healings until they had been medically confirmed. Other people who really were sick had been pronounced healed and were televised as such. Reporters discovered, in case after case, that no one followed up on them and that none of them had really been healed. This included a half-dozen AIDS patients, several deaf or blind children, a quadriplegic teen and a woman with cancer, who quit her chemotherapy and died two months later. Reporters could not find a single verifiable healing, although in one chilling interview, a woman with multiple sclerosis serenely announced that she had discontinued her medication because she believed, thanks to Hinn, that her healing would arrive at any moment.</p>
<p>Hinn has also claimed -- each time on record -- that<br />1) He conducted services in a hospital overseas and healed so many people the place nearly shut down (a reporter checked up on this and the hospital categorically denied it).</p>
<p>2) Someone videotaped him raising a man from the dead in Guyana (this was also refuted and ultimately retracted by a ministry spokesman).<br />- Information drawn from The Many Faces of Benny Hinn (a video and book of the same title that summarizes a host of investigative reports on Benny Hinn), produced by The Door Magazine. "Even the most credulous, faithful followers of Benny Hinn would be hard-pressed to explain why so many national TV newsmagazines and local stations, from Chicago to Orlando to Dallas to Sydney, Australia, keep uncovering the same damning facts year after year."<br />-- <a href="http://www.christianhumor.about.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gregg Hartman</a><br />See also Matthew Barry, "<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march98/barry.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Adventures in Faith Healing</a>," Freethought Today, March, 1998</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>THE LARGEST CASE OF CHILD PROSTITUTION IN U.S. HISTORY<br />Reverend Tony Leyva, Pentecostal TV-evangelist who used to wear a Superman costume and carry a Bible, nicknaming himself "Super Christian," and who was in the Guinness Book of World Records (for four years) for preaching the longest known sermon (72 hours straight), and who was hired by a Georgia television station to replace Jimmy Swaggert's show, was arrested by the FBI, along with three of his fellow fundamentalists, on charges of transporting boys across state lines for the purposes of prostitution or criminal sexual activity. Reverend Leyva railed in public against "filth" and "smut." In private he sodomized more than 100 church boys, and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison in 1989.<br />- Mick Echols, Brother Tony's Boys: The Largest Case of Child Prostitution in U.S. History</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>THE DEVIL HAD "GOTTEN INTO THEIR THINGS"<br />Police in Vinton, Louisiana were surprised when a driver wearing only a towel got out of a car, then got back in and sped off. They were dumbfounded when the car hit a tree and disgorged 20 people wearing nothing at all. There were fifteen adults in the interior of the 1990 Pontiac Grand Am and five children in the trunk. The driver of the car, Sammy Rodriguez and his brother, Danny, both said they were Pentecostal preachers. They made statements that the devil was after them. And their hometown, Floydada, Texas, was going to be destroyed if they stayed there.<br />They fled Floydada in five cars, but wound up abandoning four of them, along with the family's clothes, pocketbooks, wallets and other belongings because "the devil" had "gotten into those things."<br />- Associated Press, "Cops Chase Car With 20 Naked Passengers," Aug. 20, 1993</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>YOU MAY ALREADY BE A WINNER YOU SINNER<br />An unemployed maid and mother of seven burned a winning $60,000 lottery ticket because her minister at an Assembly of God church in Fortaleza, Brazil, said her plane would "sink in sin in hell" if she went to claim the prize money. "Destroy the ticket -- the devil's work -- to save yourself from hellfire," Preacher Wagner said, as the congregation chanted, "Burn, burn, burn." So Maria Banoiza Nascimento returned to her one-room shack (where she lived with her unemployed husband and her four seriously ill children), and burned the ticket. Then, for good measure, she burned her identification card and her children's birth certificates as well.<br />- Associated Press, 1995</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>H. L. MENCKEN, COMPARING CATHOLIC WORSHIP WITH PENTECOSTAL WORSHIP<br />A devotee on her knees in some abysmal and mysterious cathedral while solemn music echoes, and clouds of incense come down the wind, and priests in luxurious, operatic costumes busy themselves with stately ceremonials in a dead and not too respectable language -- this is unquestionably beautiful, particularly if the devotee herself is attractive. But the same devotee aroused to hysterical protestations of faith by the shrieks and contortions of a Pentecostal preacher, her knees trembling with the fear of God, her hands clenched as if to do combat with Beelzebub, her lips discharging hosannas and hallelujahs -- this is merely obscene.<br />- H. L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy</p>
<p><strong>SPEAKING IN TONGUES</strong></p>
<p>GARRISON KEILLOR REMEMBERS A DEBATE HIS UNCLE HAD WITH SOMEONE CONCERNING "SPEAKING IN TONGUES"<br />One summer night Louie and Mel set to over the issue of speaking in tongues, Louie arguing that this manifestation of the Spirit was to be sought earnestly, Mel holding that it was a miraculous gift given to the early church but not given by God today. I forget the Scripture verses each of them brought forward to defend his position, but I remember the pale faces, the throat-clearing, the anguished looks, as those two voices went back and forth, straining at the bit, giving no ground -- the poisoned courtesy ("I think my brother is overlooking Paul's very clear message to the Corinthians.," "Perhaps my brother needs to take a closer look, a prayerful look, at this verse in Hebrews.") as the sun went down, neighbor children were called indoors, the neighbors turned out their lights, eleven o'clock came -- they wouldn't stop!</p>
<p>"Perhaps," Grandpa offered, "it would be meet for us to pray for the Spirit to lead us," hoping to adjourn, but both Louie and Mel felt that the Spirit had led, that the Spirit had written the truth in big black letters -- if only some people could see it.</p>
<p>The thought of Uncle Louie speaking in tongues was fascinating to me. Uncle Louie worked at the bank, he spoke to me mostly about thrift and hard work. What tongue would he speak? Spanish? French? Or would it sound like gibberish? Louie said that speaking in tongues was the true sign, that those who believed heard and to those who didn't it was only gabble -- what if he stood up and said, "Feemalator, jasperator, hoo ha ha, Wamalamagamanama, zis boom bah!" and everyone else said, "Amen! That's right, brother! Praise God!" and I was the only one who said, "Huh?"<br />- Garrison Keillor, "Protestant," Lake Woebegon Days</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>A FORMER PENTECOSTAL ON "SPEAKING IN TONGUES"<br />Anyone interested in the phenomena of "speaking in tongues" should try a google search ( <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://www.google.com</a> ) on "glossolalia" and read about some of the scientific studies on the subject. Or you could try going to the Discovery Channel's website and searching there on the term. I recently saw a documentary featuring a linguistic expert who has studied people speaking in tongues all over the world in many different religious settings. He said that it is all gibberish, not anything akin to a genuine language, and that it is also all remarkably similar in tone and sound. He played examples from several Christian groups, some voodoo and vodoun practitioners, and some Hindi festivals and some Polynesian religious rituals. The sounds were all remarkably similar in their use of vowels and consonants but none of the examples fit the definition of actual language. His theory is that the similarity is accounted for by the human subconscious producing certain sounds when an individual is in an auto-hypnotic state. [My theory is far simpler, you let some air out of your mouth and start repeating the first nonsense syllable your tongue naturally forms, rolling it over and over again on your tongue, until another syllable is added, and keep repeating them as more syllables arise, as they will, naturally. Anyone can be taught how to do it without "auto-hypnosis." I can still speak in tongues just as I did as a Christian. -- E.T.B.]</p>
<p>I used to pray in tongues when I was a Pentecostal. I can do it now anytime, on demand, it was just freeing the subconscious and spouting whatever gibberish came into my head. If this was truly a "gift from God" I certainly would have lost the ability when I gave up Christianity and became a Witch.<br />- Pat fatmama67@hotmail.com</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>For the last 20 years, between 7 and 9 percent of Americans have spoken in tongues -- but almost the same percentage said the practice is evidence of demonic possession.<br />- Bernard Katz, "Quoteline and Commentaries," The American Rationalist, July/Aug. 1998</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>Michael Trofimov pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the murder of his father. Trofimov, who had recently joined a religious group, was found was his hands around his father's neck "speaking in tongues and screaming for God." His uncle said, "He was a good young man and then he started going to these [religious] meetings."<br />- Chuck Shepherd, John J. Kohut & Roland Sweet, More News of the Weird (1990)</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>True story: A young Pentecostal girl dared her girlfriend in church to shout out some nonsense syllables just to see if someone would stand up and "interpret the tongue." So the girl shouted, "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola" and a church member promptly stood up and "interpreted the tongue" as a message from God.</p>
<p>Years later, I read that when the Coca-Cola company tried selling their brew in China, they discovered that the Chinese symbols that were pronounced, "Coca-Cola," meant literally, "Bite the wax tadpole." So maybe you can get a "message" out of "coca-cola, coca-cola, coca-cola," albeit a stuttering and meaningless one.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>As a former tongue-speaking Christian it wasn't the repetitive nature of many of the syllables I spoke that raised doubts. It was the fact that people in our group would sometimes "speak in tongues" a long time yet the "interpretation" could be quite brief. Or they would "speak in tongues" briefly and the "interpretation" came out long-winded. Folks who loved the King James Bible naturally "interpreted tongues" in Elizabethan English, while those who loved other translations of the Bible delivered less Elizabethan-sounding "interpretations." And the messages received via this miraculous discourse were as trifling as the simplest cares and woes found in the Psalms with which everyone in the congregation was familiar -- as if God didn't have anything more relevant or specific to say to us. Yet it seemed to me that if God was going to give people miraculous linguistic and translation abilities, He'd have found far better uses to put them to.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>CONVERSATION CONCERNING "SPEAKING IN TONGUES" ON THE "EX-TIAN" LISTSERV:<br />Rob Berry: I've heard that a trained listener can tell the difference between a New Yorker and a Southerner speaking in tongues, so the "tongues" spoken by an individual reflect the normal language of that individual. And a Japanese person speaking in tongues is not going to have any "L"s in their babbling.</p>
<p>David O. Miller: Actually this is true only for those Japanese who have never studied English. Those who have, consistantry have "L"s whele the "R"s berong and "R"s whele the "L"s berong. And that could totally change the meaning of the babbling couldn't it? Obviously, "uga-bali-raka-fulu" and "uga-bari-laka-furu" are two entirely different things, right?</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>I used to speak in tongues. Now it only comes in handy when I perform cunnilingus.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p><strong>EVANGELICALS</strong></p>
<p>EGO-GAMES THAT EVANGELICALS PLAY<br />An evangelical Christian once told me, "Only Jesus Christ can save man..." (What about woman, I wondered? Oh, well, one does not expect semantic sophistication from literalist Bible believers) "... and restore him to his lost state of peace with God, himself and others." Yeah, sure, and only new Pepsi can make you feel really happy, and only our brand is better than the competition, and only our country is the best country. It is truly amazing to me that people can utter such arrogant nonsense with no humor, no sense of how offensive they are to others, no doubt or trepidation, and no suspicion that they sound exactly like advertisers, con-men and other swindlers. It is really hard to understand such child-like prattling. If I were especially conceited about something (a state I try to avoid, but if I fell into it...), if for instance I decided I had the best garden or the handsomest face in Ireland, I would still retain enough common sense to suspect that I would sound like a conceited fool if I went around telling everybody those opinions. I would have enough tact left, I hope, to satisfy my conceit by dreaming that other people would notice on their own that my garden and/or my face were especially lovely. People who go around innocently and blithely announcing that they belong to the Master Race or the Best Country Club or have the One True Religion seem to have never gotten beyond the kindergarten level of ego-display. Do they have no modesty, no tact, no shame, no adult common sense at all? Do they have any suspicion how silly their conceit sounds to the majority of the nonwhite non-Christian men and women of the world? To me, they seem like little children wearing daddy's clothes and going around shouting, "Look how grown-up I am! Look at me, me, me!"</p>
<p>There are more amusing things than ego-games, conceit and one-upmanship. Really, there are. I suspect that people stay on that childish level because they have never discovered how interesting and exciting the adult world is.</p>
<p>If one must play ego-games, I still think it would be more polite, and more adult, to play them in the privacy of one's head. In fact, despite my efforts to be a kind of Buddhist, I do relapse into such ego-games on occasion; but I have enough respect for human intelligence to keep such thoughts to myself. I don't go around announcing that I have painted the greatest painting of our time; I hope that people will notice that by themselves. Why do the people whose ego-games consist of day-dreaming about being part of the Master Race or the One True Religion not keep that precious secret to themselves, also, and wait for the rest of the human race to notice their blinding superiority?<br />- Robert Anton Wilson</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>YOUR OWN PERSONAL JESUS<br />Many evangelical Christians boast that they have a "personal relationship" with Jesus. What makes it so "personal?" Well, they say, we have the words attributed to Jesus in the four Gospels. But there are so few of them, a couple thousand. You could fit all of Jesus' words into a small 16-page booklet. And they are subject to interpretation.</p>
<p>Well, they say, there are "answered prayers." But again, that is a matter of interpretation, because no matter what happens, an evangelical Christian interprets it as "Jesus' will," even when bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.</p>
<p>Whenever I have a "personal relationship" with someone it does not consist of a few thousand words spoken two thousand years ago, recorded accurately (or inaccurately) by someone else, and which require interpretation from third parties for me to "truly" understand them (especially when the third parties disagree concerning the meaning and intent of those words).</p>
<p>Neither should a "personal relationship" depend on me having to interpret the results of every prayer uttered. And the range of interpretations covers every conceivable outcome: "strongly positively answered," "weakly positively answered," "strongly negatively answered," "weakly negatively answered," or even, "try again later when you have more faith."<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>Question: What's the difference between a trained psychologist and a born again Christian?</p>
<p>A trained psychologist can read a person like a book, but a born again Christian reads a book like it's a person.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>CONVERTED OR ADDICTED?<br />Psychotherapists will tell you that in dealing with an addict, you have to understand that the person's primary relationship is with the drug.~The drug has the ability to control the addict's thinking to a remarkable degree, and you must understand that any relationship you may feel with the addict is a distant second to the one they have with their drug.</p>
<p>Fund-geli-costal Christianity (conservative hard-line Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal Christianity) is open and unabashed about this. The relationship with Jesus is supposed to be the primary relationship in a believer's life. There is even a scripture that goes something like, "Not unless you hate your mother and father blah blah." The interpretation of this scripture I've heard from believers is that it isn't absolute hatred, but relative. In other words, you love your mother, but you should love Jesus so much that it in comparison it's like you hate her. Doesn't this sound an awful lot like a drunk's love for the bottle?</p>
<p>It may be helpful when trying to have a relationship with a believer to remember that you and their relationship with you means very little to them compared to their need to continue in their thought addiction. Kind of interesting that "true believers" will happily sacrifice a relationship with their own children in order to cling to the comfort of belief.~<br />Comfort is a poor choice of words really because anybody here can tell you being a fundamentalist is anything but comfortable.~ They promise you comfort, security and power just like the ads for alcohol promise sex, power and a rippin' good time, but it sours fast with either addiction.<br />- Saint Vilis</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>A MINISTER CRITICIZES HOW OTHER MINISTERS SEEK TO DRIVE PEOPLE TO DESPAIR<br />(The 'Methodists') demonstrate to secure, contented, happy mankind that it is really unhappy and desperate, and merely unwilling to realize that it is in severe straits it knows nothing at all about, from which only they can rescue it. Wherever there is health, strength, security, simplicity, they spy luscious fruit to gnaw at or to lay their pernicious eggs in. They make it their object first of all to drive men to inward despair, and then it is all theirs.<br />- Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison [Bonhoeffer is a famed moderate Christian minister who was imprisoned by the Nazis for his opposition to Hitler. His book, The Cost of Discipleship was once widely praised and read in Evangelical Christian circles, though perhaps less so today.]</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>The church must stop trying to act like a "spiritual pharmacist" -- working to produce acute guilt, and then in effect saying, "We just happen to have the remedy for your guilt here in our pocket."<br />- Dietrich Bonhoeffer</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>A MODERATE EVANGELICAL AND PROFESSOR OF RELIGION WHO AGREES WITH THE ABOVE MINISTER<br />Evangelical Christianity = Being made to feel sinful and guilty for not having felt sinful and guilty, in order that one might experience release from sin and guilt; Like donning lead boots and walking about in them until totally exhausted in order to have the exhilarating experience of taking them off again.<br />- Conrad Hyers, Once-Born, Twice-Born Zen [Hyers is a moderate Evangelical Christian and former Chair of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College]</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>IS THE HEART OF MAN DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS AND DESPERATELY WICKED?<br />According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus taught, "If you see a woman and lust after her, I say that you have already committed adultery in your heart." In other words, even if you don't commit adultery "in the flesh," you've committed it just by lusting after someone. Now suppose you see someone in need, who needs some cash or a kind word, and you yearn in your heart to give it to them (but don't do give it to them "in the flesh"). Does that mean you have "already committed charity in your heart?" Think about it. If a lust-filled yearning is evidence of the depravity of the human heart, then what about the yearnings people feel to help and support one another? Is that not an indication of goodness in people's hearts?</p>
<p>Gandhi, the famous Hindu peace-activist, taught that people should seek out what was best in their own religions and hearts. Even Jesus put a positive spin on "the heart" when he taught that "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart" (Luke 6:45 & Mat. 12:35), and when he taught that people ought to "Love God with all their heart," (Mat. 22:37). How is that possible if the heart is merely "wicked and deceitful?"</p>
<p>No doubt the "wickedness" of "the heart" expressed by Jeremiah 17:9 ("The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked") applies to some people at some times when they do certain things, especially when they are at their lowest and weakest points. But to take Jeremiah's hyperbole and bake it in an oven until it becomes as dry and hard as a brick of dogma, and make that brick a cornerstone of your theology takes a heart dry of compassion and lacking in honest appraisals of others' beliefs and actions.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>OVERHEARD ON THE INTERNET.<br />Kano V.: In my opinion Man is innately evil.</p>
<p>David Worrell: Then feel free to kill yourself. Think of it as one less evil person in the world.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>CHRISTIANITY CAN MAGNIFY HARMLESS ACTIONS INTO DEADLY OFFENSES<br />One of Christianity's chief offenses is not that it has enlisted the services of bad men, but that it has misdirected the energies of good ones. The kindly, the sensitive, the thoughtful, those who are striving to do their best under its influence, are troubled, and consequently often develop a more or less morbid frame of mind. The biographies of the best men in Christian history offer many melancholy examples of the extent to which they have falsely accused themselves of sins during their "unconverted" state, and the manner in which harmless actions are magnified into deadly offenses.<br />- Chapman Cohen, Essays in Freethinking</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>ROBERT INGERSOLL ON "REVIVALS"<br />I regard revivals as essentially barbaric. The fire that has to be blown all the time is a poor thing to get warm by. I think they do no good but much harm; they make innocent people think they are guilty, and very mean people think they are good.<br />- Robert Ingersoll [America's "Great Agnostic"]</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>INSTANT CONVERSIONS<br />Some people have an instant "conversion" to alcoholism.~They take their first drink, or have their first good drunk and understand (in the words of a very young alcoholic client I once had) "This (drinking) is what I was put on this world to do."</p>
<p>For some people their religion is an illness they are trying to recover from and the recovery process is more difficult than recovering from alcoholism.<br />- Saint Vilis</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>ROBERT INGERSOLL ON "REVIVALS" (CONTINUED)<br />In the days of my youth, ministers depended on revivals to save souls and reform the world. The emotional sermons, the sad singing, the hysterical "Amens," the hope of heaven, the fear of hell, caused many to lose what little sense they had. In this condition they flocked to the "mourner's bench" -- asked for prayers of the faithful -- had strange feelings, prayed, and wept and thought they had been "born again." Then they would tell their experiences -- how wicked they had been, how evil had been their thoughts, their desires, and how good they had suddenly become.</p>
<p>They used to tell the story of an old woman who, in telling her experience, said, "Before I was converted, before I gave my heart to God, I used to lie and steal, but now, thanks to the grace and blood of Jesus Christ, I have quit 'em both, in a great measure."</p>
<p>Well, while the cold winter lasted, while the snows fell, the revival went on, but when the winter was over, the boats moved in the harbor again, the wagons rolled, and business started again, most of the converts "backslid" and fell again into their old ways. But the next winter they were on hand again, read to be "born again." They formed a kind of stock company, playing the same parts every winter and backsliding every spring.<br />- Robert Ingersoll, "Why I am An Agnostic"</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>HOW DIFFERENT ARE MOST "CONVERTED" PEOPLE?<br />Were it true that a converted man as such is of an entirely different kind from a natural man, there surely ought to be some distinctive radiance. But notoriously there is no such radiance. Converted men as a class are indistinguishable from normal men.</p>
<p>By the very intensity of his fidelity to the paltry ideals with which an inferior intellect may inspire him, a saint can be even more objectionable and damnable than a superficial "carnal" man would be in the same situation.<br />- William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>HOW TO SPOT "CHRISTIANS"<br />One Sunday afternoon my cousin and I were eating at a restaurant. He paused, and started pointing at people. "He's a Christian . He's a Christian . So is she and she and that other guy." I asked how he was so sure. His reply? "I was a hard-core evangelical Christian for a few years, remember? It's not hard to see once you know what to look for. Look for someone who looks like they're wearing clothes just a little bit nicer than they're comfortable in, that have a smile on their face. It won't look like a happy smile, it'll look kind of contrived and forced, like they're trying to convince themselves they're happy and rich."<br />- Justice McPherson</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>KNOCK! KNOCK!<br />Two evangelical Christians at the door: May we come in and share some good news with you?</p>
<p>Me: Don't you mean, "May we blatantly disregard your privacy for a few minutes in order to further our own personal goals?" Tell me, which denomination do you belong to, and when was it founded? That's Protestant, isn't it? I bet the Pope has rings older than your denomination. I bet your denomination numbers a couple million at most. Catholics number far more. In fact, if you added up every member of every Protestant denomination on earth, the Catholics equal or exceed that number. You say that's a logical fallacy, truth is not determined by sheer numbers? That's what all small denominations say. Heck, maybe you're knocking on doors because you're bored seeing the same faces in church or you fear your heaven won't have enough folks in it to form a decent choir. I have a hot tip for you, you'll be happier if you seek out people whom you admire -- and things you enjoy -- on an individual basis, rather than try to pour yourself and the whole world into a "one size fits all" religious Jello mold.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>I believe part of the appeal of the evangelical religion is for offering certainty, not faith, certainty about what is doctrinally correct. I think one of the dangers of religion is to believe we have got God all buttoned down. I believe just the opposite. I believe in the freedom and mystery of God that doesn't allow us to be certain but allows us to be loving. To put it in street talk, I look more to how people live than what they say they believe.<br />-The Rev. Albert Pennybacker, a Lexington, Ky.-based pastor, is head of the Clergy Leadership Network, a new, cross-denominational group of liberal and moderate religious leaders seeking to counter the influence of the Religious Right and to mobilize voters to change leadership in Washington.</p>
<p>_________________________</p>
<p>Evangelist = A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors.<br />- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>IS "SANTA" JUST "SATAN" MISSPELLED?<br />I once heard an Evangelist warn, "Santa is just Satan misspelled!" If that's true then maybe "Evangelist" is just "Evil's Agent" misspelled? And maybe, "Fundamentalist Christian" is "Filthier Mad Cunts in Satan" misspelled?<br />- Source unknown</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>FURTHER MISSPELLINGS?</p>
<p>Maybe "God Bless America" is "Assbead micro gel" misspelled?</p>
<p>Maybe "House of Worship" is "Whore of his opus," or, "Whore sushi poof" misspelled?</p>
<p>Maybe "Christian Fellowship" is "Lisa, his elf porn witch," or, "Elf porn with ass chili," misspelled?</p>
<p>Maybe "Assembly of God" is "Bloody fag mess," misspelled?</p>
<p>Maybe "Praise Jesus" is "Jesus is rape," misspelled?</p>
<p>Maybe "Pensacola Christian College" is "Gil selects a choice anal porn," misspelled?</p>
<p>- Darin Boyd ( darinboyd@yahoo.com )</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>A nifty slogan to have printed on a T-shirt before being dragged to an evangelistic rally by your friends: GOD DAMNED ME TO HELL AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY T-SHIRT.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>____________________________</p>
<p>When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Yahoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.<br />- Jack Handey, The Lost Deep Thoughts</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-25747402345972611752012-04-16T21:50:00.000-07:002019-09-02T04:03:02.256-07:00Supernatural<p>From: "Ed Babinski"<br />To: "Daniel B."<br />Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:25 PM<br />Subject: Thanks, Daniel, for your email</p>
<p>Date: 6/16/2004 11:58:52 -0400<br />From: "Daniel B."<br />To: Ed Babinski<br />Subject: a mere moment of your time...</p>
<p>Greetings Mr. Babinski,</p>
<p>ED: I appreciate the kind tone of your email, thank you very much.</p>
<hr style="color: black; height: 1; width: 75%;" />
<p><em> I have experienced so many things in this current span of time that the scientific or scholarly community can not explain. These supernatural occurences occur on a daily basis throughout the world. </em></p>
<p>ED: Though you haven't actually been experiencing ALL of those "occurences" yourself, the ones that "occur on a daily basis throughout the world."</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p><em>At one point in my past, I was skeptical as well, until He revealed His Greatness unto me personally....many times & continues to do so. </em></p>
<p>ED: When someone speaks to me in King James Bible talk, and ends their emals with quotations from Scripture, it usually means they are repeating a form of speech and even entire verses from the Bible. And that means you may be slowly morphing into a "Bible Borg." That does not seem to me to be the height of objectivity, but rather the reverse of it. For instance, you write that "He revealled His Greatness unto me personally." Did "He?" You sure it was a "He?" You sure it was "His Greatness?" Exactly how much of "His Greatness?" You sure like to speak in Elizabeethan English too, viz., "unto."</p>
<p>Please don't imagine that I am an atheist for writing the above. I am just not into the Bible, or the way some people become so absorbed with its language and verses that they lose their individuality and objectivity. There is a group of Christians who recruit students on college campuses and preach utter simplicity and Bible memorization, and sometimes even eat out of dumpsters. They were interviewed on 60 Minutes not long ago, but of course, they shun the media. One of them was a promising young college student, extremely intelligent, had founded his own business to boot. Quite college and gave everything to the ministery after hearing one of these preachers at his campus. Became a preacher himself, using a bicycle, memorizing the Bible, speaking in King James Bible-speak all the time, quoting direct verses. Soon he could and would only communicate in that language. His parents had to send a detective out to find the boy, because the ministery he was involved with stressed time apart from his natural family and more time spent with his heavenly family and memorizing the Bible. The beliefs of this group are orthodox Christian by the way. His parents caught up with him via the detective's search, and found they could no longer even speak with him. He just spouted Scripture at them. Scripture had become a sort of mind parasite feasting on this boy's intellect.</p>
<p>I am not saying your case is identical to his, only similar. I too spoke in King James Bible-talk once, and cited Scripture to people a lot, though I never went totally off the deep end like the people in the ministry above. But I do know that once you get to the point where you appear to be, there is not a lot you want to hear or discuss except Bible verses about God's greatness and "unto" whom he is being great.</p>
<p>In other words, are you willing to question those "worldwide supernatural" and "personal" experiences of "God's Greatness" that you mentioned? Are you willing to look at things in other ways?</p>
<p>My first question to you is how big is your church and/or believer's group, and approximately what percentage of mankind (or what percentage of your own family and close relations and past friends) do you fear might be heading towards hell? I am just wondering.</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p><em>These occurences can not be contained within the crafted box of educated lectures, historical documentation or scientific research programs. They are of God. I hope that you live long enough to experience a true relationship with The Father. He awaits you patiently as you read this message....</em></p>
<p>ED: And I wait patiently for your reply.</p>
<p>-----------------</p>
<p>Best of luck on your quest for The Truth,<br />Daniel B.<br />Caryville, Tennessee</p>
<p>Daniel's "Scripture of the Day"<br />I Corinthians: 27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;<br />28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:<br />29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.</p>
<p>"For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with Him that is also of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones." -Isaiah 57:15</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-19761633277508649652012-04-16T20:54:00.001-07:002019-09-02T04:03:18.723-07:00Seventh Day Adventist: Closet Catholic?<p>I can't imagine why an adventist believer sent me the following email trying to convince me about the evils of Catholicism.</p>
<p>Frankly, I don't believe the Bible and their interpretations of it any more than they don't believe the Pope.</p>
<p>In fact, if you want to believe the Bible...</p>
<p><strong>GOD HAD TO TAKE A BREATHER</strong></p>
<p>The Bible states:</p>
<p>In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.<br />- Exodus 31:17</p>
<p>According to learned editors of a Bible published in 1774, the true meaning of the Hebrew is, "on the seventh day He rested, and fetched his breath." So, God is depicted as panting after over-exerting Himself?</p>
<p>Isn't it a bit of an insult to depict an infinite Being getting worn out from six day's work?</p>
<p>Or to depict a God who works for only six days then spends the next 6,000 years on holiday? (Then again, for all anyone really knows, God may have spent the first five days of creation just futzing around, then pulled an all-nighter.)<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>--------------</p>
<p><strong>NASAL ADDICTIONS OF THE GODS</strong><br />The ancients routinely gathered together the finest of their flock and the finest of their crops, and set them aflame so that the smoke would rise to heaven and appease a particular god or gain their blessed attention. According to The Epic of Gilgamesh (an ancient Babylonian tale that featured the story of a worldwide flood), the gods had been denied their sacrifices during the time the world was flooded, so they all gathered round eagerly to get a whiff of the first animals sacrificed after the flood. A similar scene appears at the end of the flood tale in the Hebrew Bible. Noah holds a huge barbecue after leaving the ark, sacrificing "two of every clean animal" to the Lord. The Bible author added, ".and the Lord smelled the soothing aroma." (Gen. 8:21 -- a similar phrase is found elsewhere in the Bible as well, see Ex. 29:18; Lev. 1:17, 3:5; Num. 15:13,24; 29:28). "Smelled the soothing aroma?" What a pretty piece of anthropomorphism to attribute to God. As if the creator of the universe needed to be "soothed" by the "aroma" of barbecued bison.</p>
<p>Question: Why did Noah have to murder those animals? Didn't the Lord get his fill of "smelling the soothing aromas" of countless critters He sacrificed to Himself via the Flood? If you reply, "It's because charbroiled critters, not drowned ones, have the 'smell' whose 'aroma' is 'soothing,'" then I've got another question. What about Jesus' death? He wasn't charbroiled. (Please don't tell me after Jesus died he got a little singed in hell just so God could once again "smell the soothing aroma.")</p>
<p>Those Bible verses about God "smelling the soothing aroma" do make ya wonder though, whether God still lusts after the scent of burnt animals. Today, if He did, He'd probably have to settle for a barstool at a steak house with Zeus, Odin, Marduk and Baal by His side, chatting about the good old days, all sneaking a whiff of that old "soothing" stuff.</p>
<p>Course, maybe God's addiction just kept getting worse, from flaming farm animals to His own son, and now He's probably addicted to "smelling the soothing aroma" of whole planets filled with living creatures exploding into cosmic fireballs. Wait, isn't that mentioned in. the Book of Revelation? Quick, somebody call the Pope to arrange an intervention, we gotta get God into rehab! And tell Outback to double my order.<br />- E.T.B.</p>
<p>adventist_believers@yahoo.com writes:<br />SUNDAY IS THE DAY OF THE BEAST, SABBATH 7TH IS GOD´S TRUE DAY. EX. 20.<br />http://www.biblerevelations.org/sundaylaw<br />http://www.lasprofecias.com<br />http://www.sdagospel.com<br />http://www.lightministries.com/id800.htm#4<br />http://www.geocities.com/adventistfriends/emailEnglish1.htm</p>
<p>ADVENTIST SENVENTH DAY DOCTRINE</p>
<p>GOD SAID: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shalllabor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter,</p>
<p>nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle,nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."<br />(Exodous 20:8-11)</p>
<p>SABBATH =GOD`S HOLY DAY (SATURDAY 7TH DAY) SUNDAY= DAY OF THE SUN (1ST DAY) JESUS IS COMMING SOON , PREPARE</p>
<p>THE DEAD WILL RESURRECT, THEY ARE NOT IN HEAVEN OR HELL<br />John 5 28<br />Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.</p>
<p>JESUS IS THE WAY NOT MARY OR THE POPE<br />John 14:6<br />Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.</p>
<p>JESUS IS THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE NOT PETER<br />1 Corinthians 3:11<br />For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>THE PAPACY IS THE ANTICHRIST .<br />VICARIOUS FILII DEI = V(5)I(1)C(100)ARI(1)OV(5)S FI(1)L(50)I(1)I(1) D(500)EI(1) 5+1+100+1+5+1+50+1+1+500+1=666</p>
<p>ALL THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM IS A COPY OF BABYLON`S RELIGION ITS THE MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS. SHE KILLED MILLIONS CHRISTHIANS<br />Revelation 17:4<br />The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.</p>
<p>CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ANTICHRIST THAT CHANGED THE LAW OF GOD .<br />Daniel 7:25<br />He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be<br />given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.</p>
<p>DON`T CALL FATHER TO THE POPE OR PRIESTS<br />Matthew 23:9<br />Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.</p>
<p>THE TRUE PEOPLE OF GOD KEEPS THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND THE FAITH OF JESUS<br />Revelation 14:12<br />Here is the patience of the saints; here are those[1] who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-20155086462762768662012-04-16T20:38:00.002-07:002019-09-02T04:03:39.593-07:00Mel's Former Fundamentalist Story<p><em>Mel gives his account of deconversion from Fundamentalist Christianity.</em><br /><br /></p>
<p><strong>Mel's Former Fundamentalist Story</strong><br />by Mel Emurian 09/23/2000</p>
<p>Hi Ed,</p>
<p>You had mentioned to me before that you would be interested in reading the story of my exit from evangelicalism. I am including it as part of this email, not knowing whether you would be able to read it as an attachment. Thanks for your interest!</p>
<p>Mel</p>
<p><strong>THE DEPARTURE OF MEL EMURIAN FROM EVANGELICALISM</strong><br /> Sorry that this is a bit impersonal, but it saves me the aggravation of doing separate names on each copy. I will get right to the point. I can no longer accept the biblical Christian faith that I once believed. My life's journey has been a long and rough one at times, but I was in no way prepared for the harsh realities of the Christian ministry. The treatment that my family and I have had to endure in the name of God has been nothing short of brutal. Oh, not brutal in any sort of physical way, and not brutal as with some forms of persecution from those antagonistic to Christianity, but brutal in the damage done to the soul. Were the perpetrators of this cruel treatment those hostile to Christianity, it would not have affected me so deeply. Sadly, the perpetrators have been and are fellow Christians. These Christians include those in the pew, former friends, fellow clergy, and other leaders. No, not everyone has been so harsh, but more than is acceptable to me. This mistreatment resulted in my having serious doubts about the validity of evangelical Christianity and the biblical understanding of God. As such I began to read other viewpoints, and now see evangelical Christianity in a new light. For me to reconsider it would be akin to an African-American reconsidering Jim Crow. I do want to stress that not all evangelicals are cold-hearted, indifferent, and rigid. Some are kind, concerned, and considerate. But there are way too many that are hard-line, and sometimes it seems that all of them are that way.</p>
<p>I entered the ministry in November of 1988 with high hopes of serving God in that capacity and bringing increase to his kingdom. The church I served was the Kingsborough Presbyterian Church in Gloversville, New York. Things were going along well when in July of 1989 I contracted CFIDS (Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome). This was not diagnosed until a year and a half later. All I knew at the time was that after having the flu I could only sleep 3 to 4 hours a night. It doesn't take long under those conditions for depression to set in and mental impairment to take place. Some in the congregation understood, but others held me to a standard that I could not live by. Key fellow presbyters thought that my problems were all in my head, and that I just was not cut out for the ministry. The attitude was one of "how dare I, a pastor, need a great deal of encouragement and uplifting." So there I was, essentially alone, in a difficult situation with peers who were tired of hearing my struggles at presbytery meetings.</p>
<p>About a year after I contracted CFIDS, the church went through a split. Among others, we lost our pianist, treasurer, and two Sunday school teachers. The reasons for the split revolved around me not being Calvinistic enough (I was a five-point Calvinist at the time, but I believed in such horrible things as love of the self (love your neighbor as yourself) and practical preaching. I was supposed to believe that to love the self is a sin and that all preaching was to be primarily doctrinal, with an emphasis on the doctrine of Christ), and the way I was dealing with an abused woman (my approach was supposed to be distant and aloof. After all, I was the pastor). Of course no split is without its "love letters". "In love" I was told that I was a heretic, an Arminian, and perhaps unsaved. The letters were very hurtful. Other clergy in the area were quite willing to take those that left, with no questions asked. In one case, a pastor believed the things said about me without any attempt at verification. After this the church rebounded somewhat, but never fully recovered. This was a very painful time for Cheryl and me. Several of the people that left had been good friends, and their loss was difficult for us, especially considering their change of heart toward us.</p>
<p>With all of the stress, even though I was now on medication, my condition slowly deteriorated. People started leaving the church, discouraged with the church and with me. I almost had a nervous breakdown. Finally, in June of 92, I resigned from that particular ministry, hoping to rest and recover.</p>
<p>The next several years were better. My health improved and I worked the interim ministry circuit. My first interim ministry began in the fall of 1993 at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Gloversville. At the time, I was still a member of the presbytery in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the denomination to which the Kingsborough Church belonged. My taking the interim position at Emmanuel did not please the presbyters, and at a presbytery meeting (which I was unable to attend) it was decided that I was an affront to the Kingsborough Church congregation in doing so. I was told that if I was going to minister at a Baptist Church, I should do so in another town. Prior to taking the Emmanuel ministry, I had discussed it with the elder at Kingsborough, and he had no problem with it. Later I learned that no one from the presbytery had contacted the elder prior to the meeting, to see what his take on me taking the Emmanuel ministry was. That was it for me, and so I resigned the presbytery and joined the Conservative Baptist Association (CBA).</p>
<p>I was at Emmanuel for a little over a year and a half. Overall, the work there went fairly well until near the end of my time there. Two deacons at the church would go to Florida for the winter, and during the last winter I was there, I preached a series on divorce and service in the church. Sadly, my more liberal view on that issue upset one of the women in the church, and she called the deacons in Florida and complained. When they returned, I was not Pastor Popular with them. One was upset that I had stirred things up by preaching on such a touchy issue. The other (and I still can see this clearly) pounded his fist on the table and essentially accused me of being too forceful in pushing my views on the subject. A third deacon sided with them while two younger deacons sided with me. After the meeting, I called the CBA New York State Director and sought his advice on whether I should resign or not. It is my belief that once a majority of the leadership in a church is against you, your ministry in that church is over. We agreed that it would be best if I resigned (I was not forced to, it was a mutual decision), so I did. Fortunately, some good came out of it in that my resignation shocked the deacons who were opposed to me, and they said that they would not accept gossip against a pastor again. I accepted their apology, and we went our separate ways.</p>
<p>My next interim was at Trinity Reformed Church in Rotterdam, New York, where I served from October of 1995 until June of 1996. This church was evangelical, but part of the more liberal Reformed Church in America. I was there just over eight months, and I found it to be the best church that I had ministered in. There wasn't a lot of quarreling, and when there were differences, I found it easier to get people to compromise. I left that interim when a permanent pastor was hired. It was so good to leave on good terms.</p>
<p>Immediately after this I ministered for about a year at New Covenant Community Church in Johnstown, New York. The work there was OK. Nothing really bad happened, but I really did not fit in that well, in my own estimation. After just less than a year, the church hired a permanent pastor and my work there was finished.</p>
<p>That brings me to where I am currently, the Living Hope Baptist Church in Gloversville. Like Emmanuel Baptist, this too was a CBA church. My ministry began in May of 1997. The previous pastor had been gone for about a year, and a young interim served until I started. The church was small, but in a very large building. It was a congregation of 20 in a building that would hold 1200. Obviously something had to be done, so I took my time and eventually convinced the folks to move from the building to another more suitable location. The church had also developed a bad reputation over the years (mainly due to church splits - it was so bad that a local attorney gave me his condolences when he heard that I had become the pastor) and so along with the move I encouraged a name change to give us a fresh start. All of this went well, and we moved to our current location in January of 1998. At that time, our name became the Living Hope Baptist Church (formally we were the First Baptist Church). We did not lose one person through all of these changes, so I knew I had a good group of folks to serve and work with.</p>
<p>As we were preparing for our changes, I approached CBA state director Peter Mason about the possibility of getting some support from the two other CBA churches (Emmanuel Baptist and the Baptist Church of Northville) in the area. We did not want financial help, just several families to help us in areas we were weak in, such as children's Sunday school. Peter Mason encouraged the pastors of the other churches to help us, and that was the end of it. I finally had to approach one person myself (this was either the late winter or early spring of 1998), and not long after she began working with us, that turned sour. I will have more on that later. These two churches had a combined attendance of 300 - 350 people, but they could not help us, a church of 20. Whether you are an evangelical Christian or not, I hope you see that there is something wrong with this picture. In fact, experience has taught me that those reading this who are not evangelical Christians will have more of a problem with this than those who are. I have found the attitude of many evangelical churches to be what I call "ecclesiastical Darwinism". That is, survival of the stronger, larger churches.</p>
<p>Things were going along well when I learned that my secretary, Michelle, was having marriage problems. She and her husband Chuck were members of the church, and she had begun to open up to Chuck with her concerns as to how he was treating her after I had preached a series on the responsibilities of men and women in the home and in the church. He was manipulative and emotionally abusive, and knew how to use a Bible to keep his wife under foot. Well, abuse is one of those things that I do not tolerate, and next to physical abuse, abusing someone in the name of God is anathema to me. Michelle was also a good friend from the Emmanuel days, so I stood with her. The church did also, with no opposition.</p>
<p>This infuriated Chuck, and he accused me of interfering with his ability to work out his marriage problems. (Previously, I had met with him and explained to him what I saw as the problems, and he said he would work on them. But it did not take long for him to fall back into his abusive ways.) He tried to turn the elders on me, but that failed. Then he went to CBA state director Peter Mason. To say it mildly, this is where the dung hit the fan, so to speak, and as a result our church withdrew from the CBA in May of 1998.</p>
<p>This is what happened. Mason received the accusation (without two or more witnesses - a biblical requirement) that I was interfering in the marriage, and Chuck left a message on my answering machine saying that I was to meet with him, Mason, and another CBA official named Andy Alexson. Mason also called me and said that I was to have no further contact with Michelle, and that she should step down as secretary. I refused. I also refused to be at the meeting, because I knew what Chuck was up to. Peter Mason had the meeting anyway, and then called our head elder, Ted Perham, and was rough with him over the situation. He told Ted that we were not a true church but only playing church. He also said that I was a smooth talker in order to discredit my views on the matter. Enclosed is a letter from Ted to another local pastor regarding the way he was treated by Peter Mason. By the way, the pastor did not respond to Ted at all. All of this is bad enough, but it gets even worse. It seems that Chuck overheard this phone conversation, or he was briefed on it at a later time, based on a letter he wrote to Michelle. Enclosed is the letter. Is this what Christianity has become?</p>
<p>Whatever went on during that meeting, Chuck came out of it ready for bear. In his writings to Michelle and to other people, he has called me a "cult leader" and our church a "cult". He also sent letters with misleading information and out and out lies to my in-laws and to Cheryl, both at home and at work. Depending on whom he was talking to, he accused me of adultery. He even went so far as to file a police report accusing me of molesting he and Michelle's then seven-year-old daughter. Obviously, he wanted me out of the picture, and he hoped to do this and gain leverage in his court action to get custody of her with the accusation. Fortunately, the interviewing officer saw through him and no charges were placed. He also failed in getting custody.</p>
<p>When Chuck finally settled into a local Assembly of God church, Ted and I went to meet with the pastor so he would be aware of what his actions had been concerning our church and me. We told him of the molestation and adultery accusations, as well as the name-calling. The pastor seemed as if this was hard for him to believe. We were glad that at least he now had been made aware of the situation. Sadly, nothing was done. Chuck is now a member of the church, and somewhat active in it. Strange isn't it?</p>
<p>Leaving Chuck behind, now I want to bring up Marcy Stearns. She is the one that came from Emmanuel to work with us. Being that neither Emmanuel nor Northville Baptist provided help for us after our needs were made known to them, I approached Marcy to see if she would teach our children's Sunday school for one year. After the year was up, she could choose to stay longer or go back to Emmanuel. She agreed, knowing the situation with Chuck and Michelle, and began to work with us in late April. Then she discovered that Michelle and I worked alone at times. (I thought she already knew this). On a Sunday after church she and her husband Russ, who rarely attends church services, approached our head elder and gave him the "above reproach" argument against it. Then that afternoon Russ called me and gave me the same argument. In essence, I was not to be alone with Michelle, ever. There was no regard for the impact of that on her or her daughter. My image was everything. He did push several of my buttons during the conversation and I said some things to him that I should not have said. The next day I apologized to him. Then Marcy tried to convince me to never be with Michelle alone and when that failed, she quit with no notice and returned to Emmanuel. There she was welcomed back and we were not contacted so we could present our side of the story. All of this occurred in June of 1998, about a month after we withdrew from the CBA.</p>
<p>Marcy had been my friend and she and Cheryl were best friends. Not any more. Marcy hurt Cheryl, Laurel, and me very much. Laurel cried when she learned that Marcy had quit. She didn't do our Sunday school children any favors either.</p>
<p>Oh, it gets even better. That September we found out that Marcy had had contact with Chuck earlier in the summer, enough so that he subpoenaed her to appear in court on his behalf concerning custody. There were also several comments in the spiteful letters he sent to my in-laws and Cheryl that could have only been learned through Marcy. When the court date arrived in September, those from Living Hope that went to support Michelle saw Marcy sitting with Chuck's brother and wife in the waiting area and heard them discussing me in a negative light. All of this, my dear readers, was done using the "the Lord wanted me to do it" argument. As for Emmanuel's pastor and church leaders, their silence shows me that they had no problem with any of this. I should add that in May of this year, Marcy, along with her four children, left her husband and moved in with her parents who live over an hour away.</p>
<p>Please understand, I do not spend time alone with women with reckless abandon. But I have no problem being alone with one whom I trust, especially one that is going through a difficult time and needs all of her friends and her support system in tact. And I will not let what other people might think be the supreme concern in the decisions I make. There are without any doubt much higher values that come into play. Grace, love, and compassion are among these.</p>
<p>It must not go unmentioned that several other evangelical pastors know of my struggles and yet have not reached out to me. Back in June of 1999 I wrote to Pastor Rick Klueg of the Baptist Church of Northville, explaining my situation to him. He was head of the local evangelical pastors' fellowship at the time. In his response he was more concerned that I did not take Peter Mason's counsel and that our church had withdrawn so quickly from CBA than anything else. I responded, clarifying our reasoning further.</p>
<p>I also explained to him the Marcy Stearns situation, and how Emmanuel took her back into full communion and fellowship without contacting us. He had previously sent out a letter to all of the pastors in the fellowship and included a paragraph on the discouragement some of the pastors were facing. He mentioned how we needed to be more encouraging to one another. Here is the pertinent paragraph from the letter I wrote to him: "Further, there is the matter of Marcy Stearns. You wrote in your letter to the pastors about discouragement in our ministries. Cannot you see that what Marcy Stearns did to us would be discouraging to me and the church? Being so, is it right for her to be accepted back into fellowship at Emmanuel without their leaders at least hearing our side? I think not. If we are going to talk about encouraging one another, that kind of thing should not happen. Consider also that Marcy must believe that what she did was all right, being that she was accepted back into full communion and fellowship at Emmanuel. Seems to me that we are teaching others that it is fine to discourage other pastors and other churches."</p>
<p>Sadly, I have heard nothing from Rick Klueg since. I should add that back in the Kingsborough days I suggested to the pastors fellowship that we should each make a covenant that we would not take people in from other churches without contacting the leaders at the other churches first. Only one pastor liked the idea. His church had lost a number of people to other churches without contacts being made. More recently, the new Free Methodist pastor was telling me that he suggested a similar thing at the pastors' fellowship. He got nowhere either. I hope, my dear readers, that you understand how this makes evangelicalism look.</p>
<p>Another pastor that knows of my situation but has remained silent, at least to my face, is Peter Ellis of the Emmanuel Baptist Church. He's the one that told me that my TV show "Life Issues" was bringing great harm to the cause of Christ. He was more of an isolationist and expected that all pastors should be like him. Wrong! But that is the way it is too often in the evangelical camp, you are supposed to think right down to the nth degree on doctrine or else it's "lets lord it over the conscience" time. There is a contemporary evangelical song about freedom that goes something like this: "...freedom, freedom is in Jesus, or it's just another wall." That really is a bunch of bull. Too many evangelicals want to enslave you to their unique way of thinking and acting. Actually, it is the evangelical faith that is just another wall!</p>
<p>Anyway, Peter Ellis's silence, as well as Rick Klueg's, speaks volumes to me. Perhaps they are afraid that I will refute their arguments, especially with me being such a "smooth talker" and all. Or perhaps they see me as a threat, and hope that if they ignore me I will just go away. (Obviously they don't know me very well.) Ultimately, to me it says that they really do not care, especially with what they believe about eternal life and eternal punishment. It's not that they would convince me to see things their way, but at least touching bases with me would show me that they care. Then again, that is not the way the evangelicalism works. I do not want to play along with the program, and so I am expendable. You see, with evangelicalism, if you don't play, you are just a thing to be discarded. You are hardly a recipient of love.</p>
<p>Without going into details about how it came about, Ted and I had a meeting with Peter Mason and Andy Alexson in June of 2000 to discuss a number of concerns that I had with Mason over his handling of the above situation. When I asked him why he received an accusation without two or more witnesses, he interpreted his actions with Chuck in such a way that he believed he had not done so. As for saying that we were not a true church, Mason didn't remember saying it. He did remember the smooth talker comment, and said it was intended to reference my very persuasive abilities. I thanked him for the complement, although he did not intend it as such. Mason also said that he did not suggest that Michelle step down as secretary, but that I was not to be alone with her. Yet Michelle, Ted, and I heard him say that she should step down.</p>
<p>It was obvious to me that Mason and Alexson were primarily concerned about image - God's image, their image, and the image of the CBA. They were concerned about what things "looked" like. In fact, Alexson went so far as to tell me that I was overly loving. Fine. I would rather overly love than be overly rigid, overly strict, overly legalistic, and overly image-conscious...well, you get the point. Mason also pointed out that our withdrawal was cultlike (sound familiar?), in that the church and I had no one to be accountable to. Well, what other options did we have, considering that our side was not being heard?</p>
<p>Ted and I also brought up the letter Chuck had written where he detailed certain parts of the phone conversation Mason had with Ted. Alexson was present with Mason when that conversation took place, and they both said that Chuck was not present at that time. However, as you can see, if he wasn't present he certainly was briefed about the conversation. Yet both Mason and Alexson denied any collusion or aiding and abetting Chuck. I even asked if it were possible that he could have listened in on the phone conversation without their knowing it, and they said that this was not possible. Something is clearly amiss, and I believe that I have legitimate reason to smell a rat.</p>
<p>Near the end of the meeting, Ted asked as a point of clarification whether we would have been disassociated by the CBA if we had not taken Mason's advice, and Mason said that it was possible. But in the phone conversation referenced above, Ted had been led to believe that we would in fact have been disassociated. Mason never apologized to us and in no way tried to understand our point of view. Ted had said to me that he found it odd that after we withdrew from the CBA, there was no attempt to meet with us to hear our side as to why we took such an action, or to see if we had misunderstood Mason's position. It really showed that they were glad to be rid of us.</p>
<p>Let me emphasize, ministry is tough when some in your congregation turn on you in the name of God. But that is small potatoes as compared to your peers doing so.</p>
<p>I sincerely believe that I have genuine concerns with the way that I have been treated in the ministry. It isn't about me being too sensitive and thin-skinned. Something is really wrong with evangelicalism!</p>
<p>All of this has led me to reconsider my former beliefs about the Bible and God. Over the years of ministry I have wondered how evangelical Christians could be so mean and unconcerned in the name of God, especially considering some of the teachings in the New Testament which revolve around love and concern for one's fellow man.</p>
<p>I was reading an article by Dan Barker, a former evangelical pastor who is now an atheist. When a similar thought was posed to him, he answered with something along these lines - "Look at who they worship." My dear readers, he is right. The God of the Old Testament was vengeful enough and cruel enough to justify the meanness and indifference that many of those who worship him today are guilty of. You see, the grace of Christ isn't enough. Step outside the boundaries that others expect you to stay within and you are done, unless of course you repent and step back inside those boundaries. You must think the way they want you to think, and act the way they want you to act. And not just in the core teachings of the faith, but in the interpretations and principles that man has added to those teachings.</p>
<p>Back while I was in Presbyterianism, there was a heavy emphasis on doctrine, and as such you had better be correct with your doctrine. With the Baptists however, although there are certain doctrines like believers' baptism where there is no give and take, there is a greater emphasis on practice. You are freer to think, but not to act. So, for example, while broader than the Presbyterians on things such as God's sovereignty in salvation, they are stricter in things such as alcohol consumption.</p>
<p>Yet what both groups have in common is the placement of the "divine stamp" on what they believe, and there is little hesitation to manipulate you with it in order to get you to get with their program. And if you don't, well, you become expendable. You can expect to be called names, looked down on as inferior, mistreated, shown little respect, slandered, ignored, and ultimately rejected. In other words, your soul, that inward and immaterial part of you that makes you a special human being, gets trampled and spat upon.</p>
<p>And from the evangelical perspective, why not? If God in his vengeance could order such things as the slaughter of the Amalekites, right down to the nursing infants (1 Samuel 15), why not try to crush the soul of a person who doesn't get with their program? So you see, it is not too difficult for the evangelical to legitimize his actions. All he or she has to do is find some place in the Bible where God is pretty rough. Besides, the evangelical is to be holy as God is holy isn't he? Ludwig A. Feuerbach wrote "Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established." He is most certainly correct!</p>
<p>The mistreatment that my loved ones and I have endured has shown me that the God of evangelicalism is not worthy of worship. It offends my sensibilities as a human being to worship a deity that would order the slaughter of infants (contrary to the bumper sticker I have seen, the God of evangelicalism is hardly pro-life), or stand by and watch while his people use him to abuse and mistreat others who are supposed to belong to him, and do absolutely nothing about it. As a parent myself, if an actual child of mine or someone claiming to be a child of mine mistreated my daughter in my name, I would immediately do something about it as any loving father would. Yet the God of evangelicalism, who is supposed to be a loving heavenly father, does nothing, or acts in such an unclear manner that those who need to get the message do not. No, the God that I have been shown since I have been in the ministry is not a God that I want any part of. He is rigid, unmerciful, distant, untrustworthy, unloving, a betrayer, indifferent, unconcerned, a slanderer, and mean-spirited.</p>
<p>I have had it. I am tired of being told how to live, what to think, and how to pastor. I am tired of having people's own principles and interpretations from the Bible held up as the standard to which I must adhere. I am tired of the Bible being used by evangelicals to oppress, manipulate, and control people in the name of God. I am tired of evangelicals laying the pain that they inflict on others at the feet of God saying, "The Lord wanted me to do it". It is time that they start accepting responsibility for the pain they cause! The mistrust, the bitterness, the lack of grace, and the callused indifference to me, my family, my friends, and my church wear me down. As such, I renounce what evangelicalism is and have stepped outside of it forever.</p>
<p>Have I fallen away from the faith then? Evangelicals would have to answer yes. Yet it seems that the only stumbling blocks evangelicals are willing to consider are the ones put down by those who are too libertine. They do not want to see that being too strict, rigid, and callused can also be a stumbling block in the lives of others. Please understand, I suggest my own stumbling from the perspective of the evangelical Christian. I do not believe that I have in fact stumbled. This painful journey has had a positive influence on me, in that my eyes have been opened so that I may indeed see the light.</p>
<p>In my search for what is true I have read a number of books and articles with differing points of view on Christianity, theism, and atheism. When you are an evangelical, doing such a thing is considered taboo, unless you have someone to help you interpret any opposing viewpoints in evangelicalism's favor. For me, after what I have been through, I have seen that the search for truth must not be limited by any religious dogma. If the dogma is legitimate, it can withstand any other viewpoint.</p>
<p>I began by reading Robert Price's "Beyond Born Again: Toward Evangelical Maturity". It is an excellent read for those who realize that evangelicalism isn't it, yet do not want to jettison Christianity altogether. Price does a good job exposing the fallacies of evangelicalism, and does so tastefully.</p>
<p>I have also read "Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists" by Ed Babinski. It contains the stories of over two dozen fundamentalists who left that way of life and found fulfillment in other approaches. Some became moderate to liberal Christians. Others became agnostics, while still others became atheists. Some sought out alternative spiritual beliefs. I related to many of the contributors, and found their arguments compelling. There is an excellent part in the book entitled "Fundamentalism's Grotesque Past". Here Babinski exposes the persecutions and killings done by the evangelicals of yesteryear in the name of God. For example, in Saxony in 1536, the Protestant reformer Melanchton prepared and Martin Luther signed a document demanding the death penalty for the denial of any article of the Apostle's Creed. And both Luther and John Calvin, with the aid of the Bible and supposedly with wisdom from the Holy Spirit, advocated the persecution and/or massacre of witches, unbelievers, blasphemers, Jews, Catholics, Anabaptists, and others, without mercy. If these Christian leaders lived today and had the power, you who are reading this and who don't think like they do would be sentenced to death - in the name of the God of evangelicalism, of course.</p>
<p>Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong is the author of two books I have read. Both "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" are interesting works from a man who refuses to ignore the Bible's problems or deny the realities of the experiences of life in one's search for who or what God is.</p>
<p>The book that I am currently reading is Edmund Cohen's work "The Mind of the Bible Believer". It is a fascinating book that gets into the psychology of evangelical belief and exposes the mind-control techniques found in the Bible and used by evangelicals. I am finding this one especially eye-opening, and Cohen is helping me understand just why so many evangelicals are rigid and unloving toward other Christians who think differently than they do.</p>
<p>You may be wondering how I can still pastor a church with this change in beliefs and with where I will end up still in doubt. For me it is simple really. I love the people that I pastor, and while I do not expect their journeys of faith to be identical to mine, I want them to see that God is so much more than just one system of thought. I also want them to see that God does not carry a #1 driver so that he can tee people up and drive their heads 350 yards when they step out of line. I am so tired of seeing people question whether God is punishing them because they are going through difficult times. Some of the deepest despair I have seen in people occurs when they think God is making their lives a living hell because they haven't toed the line.</p>
<p>I want the folks I pastor to see that grace and love are to be central in their walk with God, and not peripheral to it. I want them to be unlike the local evangelical man who convinced a woman that God didn't want her to take her medications, with the tragic result that she committed suicide, or the evangelical who laughed when another evangelical threatened to "snap my neck". I want them to see that while people are not perfect, they are to be treated with dignity and respect. They are not to be used, abused, and considered expendable, for one cannot love God without loving his neighbor.</p>
<p>So where am I going, having experienced all of this? I believe that life teaches us many lessons, and that we ignore them to our own peril. Those lessons, if we listen to them wisely, direct our course and assist us in being better, more complete persons. We are growing up and in so doing we leave behind that which we have found to be false, destructive, and limiting. I believe that I am better equipped to be a positive influence in people's lives and to contribute my gifts and abilities toward making the world a better place.</p>
<p>Now, as for God and who he is, I am in a period of transition. I don't see myself becoming an atheist, because I don't believe that evangelicalism defines God. If that were the only choice, I would be an atheist! But I am searching for truth by broadening my horizons and by reading many different viewpoints. There really is nothing to fear in doing so.</p>
<p>As for evangelicalism, without intending to put anyone down, I believe I have grown beyond it to something more mature and humane. To remain in it would for me risk turning me into that which I abhor. The following paragraph of mine illustrates that plainly. "I was once a compassionate Christian. I never clobbered those who differed with me, but preferred to coexist with them and emphasize what we had in common while agreeing to disagree on the things with which we differed. Now I see that I had the wrong approach in dealing with other Christians who differed with me. The name of the game is to view them as adversaries with whom I must practice a scorched earth policy. After all, God at times did this with his adversaries. I must also see them as things to conform to my way of thinking and acting, and discard them if they refuse. I am much more at peace now that I am doing God's will and protecting his name from all those sinful and misguided Christians. And whom do I have to thank for my newfound attitudes? Evangelical Christians - former friends, fellow clergy, and zealous leaders. Their godly example has helped me see the light." It is so sad, my dear readers, that things are this way.</p>
<p>Things do not need to stay this way though, and while I realize that there is little hope that evangelicalism will change for the better, I am eager to do my part. I do want to reach out to those who have been hurt by evangelicals and give them hope for a better life. And although I am quite sure that I will be accused of being vindictive (those doing so not wanting to face the truth), I want to expose the faults of evangelicalism and help people from the outside to see what they would be getting into if they chose to get involved with it. This would not only help those people, but just maybe would help the evangelicals to clean up their own act. I don't believe the incentive will be there unless they begin to have some serious image problems. I will use my people skills, my writing abilities, and my on-air talents to get the message out. Simply walking away from it will solve nothing and will be of no help to anyone.</p>
<p>For those of you who are evangelicals and want to stay that way, I encourage you to address the kinds of problems that I have shared with you. You have some serious injustices to address, and I can only hope that you will address them. For those who are not, the next time the evangelist comes knocking on your door, ask him about the hurting, the persecution, and killing that has been done in the name of Christ. Ask him how he can worship a God who would order the slaughter of nursing infants. Get him to explain to you the bait and switch, where he will try to bait you with your supposed need for God's love and grace and then when you bite switch you to laws, rules, and principles ad nauseum. To you I say, please watch out for that hook. It really hurts!</p>
<p>Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias is quoted as saying "We search for thrills here and there and when each thrill is consummated our emptiness intensifies. The reason is that we are more than just empty. We are, in fact, broken." While I know Zacharias believes what he says, my experience is very different. I have never felt so empty and broken as I have at the hands of rigid, indifferent evangelicals. The truth is, too many evangelicals contribute to the emptiness and brokenness of people, and as such are a part of the problem, not the solution! My story proves that, beyond the shadow of any doubt.</p>
<p>Blessings to you and yours,</p>
<p>Mel<br />Gloversville, NY</p>
<hr />
<p>Dear Rev. Klueg,</p>
<p>Mel has given me the liberty of reading your letter, of June 07, to him and responding to all or any part of it as I choose. The paragraph concerning our abrupt withdrawal from the CBA concerns me and the church body more directly so I have decided to respond to that portion.</p>
<p>It was either our abrupt withdrawal or an abrupt dismissal. We choose to withdraw and save the CBA the embarrassment of terminating our membership. The verdict was in and the sentence already decided before we were even spoken to. Mel, as a pastor, would have to abandoned one of the members at a time when he was most needed. If we had taken the advice of the CBA our church would be non-existent. For myself, I was accused of being weak, not willing to accept a confrontation. It has always been my belief that the Christian society was to help and uplift one another. My experience has been quite the opposite. The greatest damage comes from within the church. The secular world has no concern for the church, but when the church starts judging it's members through the eyes of the world can destruction be far behind.</p>
<p>That seems to have been the situation.in our case. An accusation was made with no witnesses, no justification. A judgement was made that would have destroyed a church and damaged the lives of several individuals because of appearances and the perception of above reproach~ in the eyes of the world.</p>
<p>Thank God, He looks at the heart. I believe that the hearts of those accused is, and has been, in the right place. A full knowledge of the situation, and a close relationship has proven that to be true. At the time the full truth was not sought. The accusation was received from an individual that is still accusing us of practicing witchcraft, being a cult and putting Ideas into the mind of his spouse. We responded to a members request for help and offered advice to both parties with the hope of keeping the marriage intact. Unfortunately this wasn't accepted by the other party. It was all his way or nothing. Perhaps when all this is over the truth will be known. We took the steps we felt necessary to keep our church intact as I am sure you and your board would have done. What God has in store for us only He knows. We do not believe that the destruction of a church and individuals that truly believe in Him is taught in His Word. The Christianity that is taught in His Word certainly wasn't extended to us.</p>
<p>Yours truly,<br />Ted Perham. Elder</p>
<hr style="width: 50%; height: 1px;" align="left" />
<p>June 18, 1999</p>
<p>Dear Michelle, Here are some answers to you various letters,</p>
<p>Matthew 18:15 ¶ "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he shalt hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. I DID</p>
<p>Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. YOU HEARD - I heard Thats two - Then the Letters are proof- then there PASTORS Mason and Andy. There is David, Tom also asked Mel to get away (nicely) How many more do you need.</p>
<p>Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church, but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.</p>
<p>I think this was mentioned to the church by the letters and my letter. Mel was force to quit before being booted by the Conservative Baptist. I sat in Pastor Masons office and heard your heathen say on the answering machine I have talked it over with Cheryl and I've decided to resign, I then heard the message (Sunday) that the "church" voted to withdrawal from the CBA. Not only did he remove you from this home, he then takes a church as cover, the coward. If the ~'church" would have heard ALL the testimony, they may at that time, not have been so quick to keep that heathen. Heck, his own denomination considers him "checkered." So I think this Holy Joe attitude is somewhat over doing it.</p>
<p>Pastor Mason called Ted at work and asked if the church now supported adultery. Pastor Mason then asked him if he realized he was messing with the church of Jesus Christ. Do you know what Teds answer was, "well the church will close down if Mel leaves" that is almost funny, Pastor Mason then told him the "church" was already dead. If the spineless "waiters" would have upheld their sacred obligations this would not be happening. But, they are not obligated to me, even in this, they will answer one day to the person who put them there!</p>
<p>And while your at it, ask Ted what I wanted to start the healing process - That Mel get away from you and you be counseled by the older woman.</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1667813227597125890.post-61704260485430057402012-04-16T20:33:00.002-07:002019-09-02T04:04:04.742-07:00Still Silent, My Journey through Christianity<p><strong>Still Silent, My Journey through Christianity</strong><br />by Kevin</p>
<p>Hello, my name is Kevin and I am not a Christian. I was born a Catholic, baptised a Catholic, and got my First Communion as a Catholic. Am I the only person thinking of the Monty Python song, "Every Sperm is Sacred?" ;-) For the most part being Catholic is nothing like being a fundamentalist. Yes, I went to church. I sortof remember CCD (think sunday school) and stuff but church was never a big deal. My mom always believed strongly but was balanced by my dad who didn't care one way or the other. Then the worst thing happened.</p>
<p>My parents started having marital problems. These suck anyway but they were compounded by the fact that my mother firmly believed it was God causing the problems because my dad was a heathen. They went through almost annual seperations and I moved back and forth for several years. During this time my mother became disillusioned with the Catholic faith. We started church hopping. We tried all kinds of churches but mostly fundamentalist ones. I will skip a bunch here but right after 6th grade my parents finally divorced and my mother settled into the Assemblies of God church. This story might be a little confused chronologically but I am pretty sure I got first communion before this started.</p>
<p>My mother went pretty hard core for a while. We were there Fridays for Royal Rangers (their Boy Scouts), Saturday for prayer, Sunday -- two services, Tuesday youth group, and Wednesday mid-week service. All my friends were from the church and all my free time was spent there. I will be honest; I never was able to take religion seriously. Oh, I tried. But it was a constant battle trying to convince myself that I really believed it. Finally, I was convicted in service one night to really devote everything to God.</p>
<p>I tried for 7 weeks. I would pray everyday. I would read my bible and repeat affirmations in my head. I tried to feel God, even calling out to him to make himself known to me. I was determined to know God and live like he wanted me to. I even fasted a couple of those days trying to reach him. Finally, I was sitting in my English class and started to repeat to myself what I "supposedly" believed. After I finished my mental spiel the voice asked, "Do you believe this?" At first I almost laughed -- why would I even ask that? But then, deep down, I heard myself respond, softly "No." This was deeply convincing for me. I had suppressed this voice for so long that there was little denying it anymore.</p>
<p>I went through a period of doubt, depression, etc. Trying to figure out what I believed since I didn't believe in God. I wasn't a Satanist or an Atheist which were the only options I knew about. Eventually, I decided not to worry about it. I would have the rest of my life to decide what happens when I die or what I believe. Soon after that I found Erisianism (Sortof Zen Buddhism for Westerners) and have been one since. What really secured my conversion was the fact that while I was trying like hell to find God everyone thought my walk was horrible. But once I stopped believing in God several people commented to my mother and me that they could tell how strong my walk was growing. LOL</p>
<p>There was no way I could come out about my beliefs! I just played the game like a pro! I went on annual summer mission trips, did all the church things, and actually became a leader in the Youth Group. Of course, I wasn't their perfect person because I would rarely "go for the throat" and get people saved. I think I only led three people to the lord during the years that followed and all of them had made the choice without my assistence. I felt bad at times because of the double life I was leading. But I told myself that when I left home I would tell my mom.</p>
<p>I left home and went to college. I still couldn't tell my mom. I told myself that I would tell her when I turned 21. Now, to be clear, my beliefs don't require me to tell anyone and they don't discourage practicing any other beliefs so I wasn't actually hurting myself but I wanted to be honest with her. I tried to tell her when I turned 21. I got as far as, "Mom, I don't believe in God exactly as you do." That is when she lost it. I tried to wait it out. I had to deal with her, my sisters, my cousins, my aunt, and my uncle all trying to convert me back. All never asking what I really believed just assuming I was an atheist. The only other faith-based discussion was when I explain to my mom that heaven horrified me as much as hell. Any place without change would bore me to death. She assured me that God would "fix" my brain (aka lobotomy) so it wouldn't bother me.</p>
<p>After two weeks of this I ended up at a Christian camp ground. Surrounded 24/7 with people trying to win me back to God. I held out for the whole week. I did break down crying once because of guilt I felt over an injury my sister has to deal with but I held my ground. Finally we left. I sat down one morning and had a long, long mediatation -- just thinking really. I decided that not telling was just better all around. It wasn't hurting me and it made dealing with family easier.</p>
<p>I told them I was just kidding. I am serious that is all I said. It was magic. Everything went back to normal. It was as if nothing had happened at all. No need to pray the sinner's prayer... no interrogation... it seemed that if I was willing to pretend to be a Christian they could pretend I had never told them otherwise. It has been two and a half years since then. I am still silent about my religion. I expect I will be silent for much longer. I have reduced my participation in church as much as possible. I haven't been in five weeks at this point but I still get dragged along. Scheduling my job on Sunday mornings helps.</p>
<p>Well this is where I am at. Long pointless story really. I had a very short time of recovery because I never really bought the religion subconsciously. It never made sense to my inate world view. But I figured I would post it...</p>
<div class="separator" style="text-align:center"><iframe src="https://edwardtbabinski.us/related-content/related-content-27.html" style="margin-bottom:0em; margin-left:0em; margin-right:0em; height:400px; width:600px; border:0px"></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0