Reforming The Christian Taliban

Rethinking Xtianity

by James Peter Jandu

Published by: Xplore!

www.xplorewithjamespeter.com

This book or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any
means - Electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or
otherwise—without prior written permission of the publisher.

Copyright © 2016 by James Peter Jandu

All rights reserved

Printed in the United Kingdom

Dedicated to my Wife, Gabriella and my sons, Joshua and Michael

Suddenly every love song became about them.

 Contents

Preface 1

Introduction 12

Chapter 1: Can We Trust The Bible? 19

Chapter 2: Biblical Literalism 71

Chapter 3: Morality – Right, wrong and real 134

Chapter 4: Morality: Sexuality and the Bible 172

Chapter 5: John 14:6 Explained 276

Chapter 6: Science and Religion 297

Chapter 7: The Fuzzy History of Christianity 335

Chapter 8: What is God? 352

Chapter 9: Defending Christianity 375

Chapter 10: Judgemental Attitude 394

Chapter 11: Cultic Christianity 428

Chapter 12: Personal Evolution 445

 Dictionary
Religionist: Religious devotee, especially a religious fanatic.

Fundamentalism: A sect of religion characterized by a literal

interpretation of religious texts and a strict, unwavering adherence
to set beliefs, typically resulting in denouncing differing practices
and interpretations. [Groups labelled fundamentalist commonly
perceive it as a derogatory label].

Doctrinaire: An impractical theorist who foists a doctrine in all

situations irrespective of practical considerations.

Credulous: Credulous people believe others or things without

reasonable evidence or knowledge. Credulity is not merely a belief
in fabricated information. The belief may be truthful, but a
credulous individual will accept it without good evidence.
Salesmen seek out credulous people.

Rhetoric: Reading or writing aiming to be persuasive or

impressive, but deficient in sincerity or meaningful content. A
speech delivered cleverly without dealing with the issues. It is
waffling masquerading as intelligence.

Intellectual Honesty: A person is intellectually honest when they,

knowing the truth, state that truth. (1) Impartial: their beliefs do
not obstruct their quest for truth, (2) Do not omit evidence, even
when it contradicts personal beliefs. (3) The data is not twisted to
support their beliefs. (4) Never portraying your arguments as
stronger than they are. (5) Willing to concede weakness in your
views. (6) Publicly acknowledge that legitimate alternative
viewpoints exist. (7) Willing to admit publicly when mistaken. (8)
Never practice double standards by apply high standards to your
opponents and low standards to yourself. (9) Avoid
misrepresenting your opponent. (10) Being brutally honest and
critical of your beliefs. (11) Acknowledge when an opponent’s
argument is better.

Anecdotal Evidence: Anecdotal accounts are not necessarily true

or trustworthy as they are reliant on personal accounts,
interpretation, and explanations rather than facts or research. They
are unreliable as evidence.

Special Pleading: Special Pleading is a fallacy where standards,

principles, rules, etc. are applied to others while exempting oneself
without providing adequate justification for doing so.

Dogmatism: Dogmatism is stubborn, narrow-minded thinking

frequently established in prejudice and bigotry. A dogmatic person
embraces a view, even if evidence is presented that contradicts that
view. Dogmatism is confusion between fact and opinion.

Conjecture: A conclusion or proposition built on incomplete data

and lacking any evidence.
Bibliolatry: The worship of a specific book or the depiction of a
deity within a certain book.
 Truth or Consequences
― by Carlton Person

Believing something doesn't mean or make it true. Sacred

writings, scriptures, books, teachers, preachers, etc. can all
mean well and be “good” while the theology (God logic)
behind them can be profoundly destructive, superstitious and
superficial. Most modern interpretations and proliferations of
the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines of Ancient religions
are cryptic, corrupted, antiquated and spiritually irrelevant.
Over the years, most of them have deteriorated into ego-
driven politics and manipulation with authentic spiritual
power gone from them.

I understand both that and how my postulates can be difficult

and, in fact, impossible for some to accept. It's like adopted
children being told after 25 years that their adoptive parents
are not their biological parents along with any and many
other related inaccuracies, and then someone un- or less
related tells the child otherwise and documents it. You can
imagine that that would be significantly stunning,
disillusioning, disappointing and even disgusting to hear.
Nevertheless, the adoptive child's faith in their parents and
solid belief and acceptance of the story they've been told or
sold all their lives, no more makes it true than the feelings,
sentiments and memories of a life believing it to be. The
belief is authentic, original and completely palatable, based
on years of general acceptance and perhaps specific
repetition. Still the beliefs or faith as such is in an untruth and
is indeed untrue!
What if we got most of our religion wrong? What if the so-
called greatest story ever told, was nothing more than the
greatest story ever sold? Would your faith in God or
something related to that consciousness remain? Is the only
reason you love Jesus, is your belief that he washed your sin
away, protected you from the wrath of God and has prepared,
reserved and preserved you a place in heaven?

If you found out that God requires nothing, expects nothing

and demands nothing of you, what kind of life would or could
you live? Why would you live it? And upon what moral
and/or ethical basis would you establish your integrity?

Can you believe in a God you don't fear and can you truly
love and trust the one you do?

The Bible, faith, demons, a devil, Jesus, God, angels, hell,

purgatory, life before or after this one are all powerful life-
changing and life-challenging beliefs held by billions of
people, many of whom can’t tell you for sure why they
believe such things or how doing so separates them from the
masses who don't, other than the presumption of pie
in the sky, by and by.
 Preface
"I am not here attacking Christianity, but only the
institutional mantle that cloaks it" ― Pierre Berton

“If you change the way you look at things, the things you
look at change.”
― Wayne Dyer

Andrew walked up to me and smiled. “What do you do?” he

asked. The strands of white hairs that poked out of his
balding head told me that he has had plenty of life
experience.

“Oh, I teach the Bible,” I replied kindly, the concealed pride

in my voice barely audible.

His eyebrows rose, and he shot me a look of curiosity. “Oh,

you do? Have you been to seminary?”

I had barely pondered his question before responding with,

“No, I already know everything.” This time, the pride in my
voice lit up the room. Andrew rolled his eyes and gave me a
look that said I was too pompous for my own good.

---------------

If I could relive that cringe moment I would place my hand

on his shoulder and hung my head. “I’m sorry, sir. I’m an
arrogant Christian teenager. What I meant to say is that the
Holy Spirit teaches me everything that I need to know.”
These days I hold my views with humility and even today I
chuckle to myself when I discover errors I’ve made in
reading the Bible. I appreciate constructive criticism and
certainly do not claim to have all the answers, but I have
discovered a few insights I’d like to share. To the rational
mind they may make perfect sense, but to a brainwashed
mind they will appear outright blasphemous and offensive
since to hold to fanatical Christian terrorist views you will
have to compromise your rational mind.

My past objective was to indoctrinate the world with my

version of Christianity. I loathed being labelled homophobic,
judgmental and legalistic; subconsciously I knew they were
accurate labels. Eventually, I grew bored rigid with
Churchianity, Charismania, Emptycostals, and
Judgementalists. Today my commitments are focused on my
family, charitable work, social activism and studying the
mechanics of religion to aid others in enriching their life
journey.

Over the years, I have chosen to be mercilessly honest when

examining my perspectives and it has cost me handsomely. I
abhor intellectual deceit; it ferments ignorance. Education
commences when we acknowledge our mistakes. The
information age academically challenges religious status quos
and religion must now change or die. Religionists have
bought a lie and forced to defend it. Damage control is the
order of the day, and the haemorrhage is ineffectively
‘controlled’ by applying a cheap Band-Aid with a bible verse
scribbled on it.

Without reservation, the Christian Community should be

recognized for their charitable deeds. Some of the kindness
people I know are Christians. The fact remains, the facade of
mainstream Christianity is the greatest fraud in history. Far
too many of its spoke persons suffer from verbal diarrhoea;
this misinformation needs to be thwarted. Modern
Christianity is not the solution; it’s the problem - its own
worst enemy.

The word ‘Taliban’ is rooted in the Arabic word ‘talib’,

meaning ‘student.’ Students of fundamentalist Christianity
absorb radical viewpoints comparable to Islamic
fundamentalism, just compare the Old Testament to the
conducts of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and the so-called
Islamic State. A common thread of beliefs includes
paedophilia, slavery, male chauvinism and homophobia, all
beliefs rooted in primitive thinking.

The information age makes vast amounts of facts, figures and

statistics accessible at our fingertips, enabling cross checking
of any data fed to us. When I refer to information, I am not
only referring to data, facts and figures but also, creative
abilities by which your brain remains intellectually curious
and invents solutions. This ability frustrates religious efforts
to continue to blindfold the masses as it has done for
millennia’s.

Why I Wrote This Book

“It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.”

I want to engage the fundamentalist religionist, not convert

them by sadistically lampooning Bible believers. This writing
is not a scathing critique of Christianity; it’s a passionate
writing tailor made for Christian fundamentalists. It may
create more questions than answer, for that I apologise. I’m
just sharing what I have learnt over the years. In the words of
Bryan Mills Liam Neeson in Taken 2008, “If you are looking for
ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have
are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over
a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for
people like you.” Excuse my sarcasm, I’m not superior or
better than you, I just have a weird sense of humour. On a
serious note, what I’m about to tell you in this book might
ruin you, but if it doesn’t, I wish you all the best.

Hypocrisy

“The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on

fighting the old, but on building the new.”

My goal is not merely to expose hypocrisy within the

religious community. Those who seek only to expose
hypocritical behaviour do nothing dissimilar to criticizing the
legitimacy of overweight gym members. Hypocrites can be
found in every arena of society, heck at times you and I might
be ones too.

Contradictions
Those who merely seek to expose contradictions within the
pages of the Bible to discredit it merely reveal the
fingerprints of human involvement. What now, throw out the
baby with the bath water? The Bible is full of ancient
wisdom, principles and hidden meanings beneath ingenious
layers of a literary masterpiece. It should be a case of eating
the meat and throw away the bones, not abandon ship.
The contradictions can be present in layers, from surface
layers to the deep complexities of the original languages
which only experts in those languages recognize. Antagonists
predominantly quote surface ‘contradictions’, but too often
they are not genuine contradictions. The more serious Bible
complexities and issues are beneath the surface.

A frank and close analysis of the Bible is in order, without

beating around the bush. The proverbial ‘sword’ is being
used to harm, instead of heal. To understand the Bible
accurately involves digging deep, perhaps unearthing
uncomfortable facts, and simultaneously uncovering ancient
history, wisdom, and principles.

Answering Questions
I am indebted to all who influenced me on my journey and
presented convincing answers that humbled me, changed my
views and reformed me. I made choices regarding what to
believe based on the information I had. New information
changed my previous beliefs.

I am frequently questioned about how and why I adopted my

current stance. Instead of repeating myself, I thought a book
would be an ideal solution. Maybe I owe an explanation to
those that knew me as a fundamentalist Christian preacher.
Perhaps this writing is nothing more than an itch I must
scratch - my thoughts, notes and research combined into a
simple presentation.

Simplification
I was initially reluctant to write and publish this book since I
loosely entertain the notion that academia should exclusively
explain the Bible. However, in my humble opinion academics
don't know how to communicate with the average churchgoer
and tend to fly over their heads, so here I attempt to gather
my research notes and thoughts to simplify, to the best of my
ability, the lofty discussions academics debate about the
Bible. I can only scratch the surface.

By no means am I a scholar or academic, nor a trained writer.

This is not an academic work for scholars, just a guy penning
his thoughts for the regular churchgoer. I write as a student
with an incomplete understanding, sharing material that has
liberated me and desiring others to consider the material that
has ignited my passion for evolving. Make no bones about it,
my research and work will contain faults and require
tweaking. I’m comfortable with being mistaken. Critical
reading is welcomed and recommended. I purposely did not
reference every point due to time restraints; I’ll leave the
comprehensive explanations to competent Biblical scholars,
but if you need to clarify a point the research is pretty simple.

Pushing My Chips to the Middle

Writing this is me pushing all my chips to the middle. It may
appeal to those seeking answers, but trapped in religiosity. I
will seldom revisit it to enhance it. It’s not that I don’t care, I
do, but you can only lead a horse to water. At times when I
encounter the opinions of religionists I just stop, shake my
head and am tempted to slowly back away. Maybe this is
therapeutically a part of that backing away. I’ll toss this book
into the arena of religious discussion and leave it at that.

After reading this, you will not be able to label me. From the
onset, I know many will not be able to swallow the
inescapable conclusions nor fathom the implications of the
content. For those who are short-sighted, the content will
appear as an attack. Maybe it’s not their time. The old
Chinese proverb suitably describes this: “When the student is
ready the teacher will appear.”

If life is the practice of living flawlessly or being entirely

accurate on every view, then I fail miserably. If after reading
this writing, or meeting me, you conclude I am not as
knowledgeable and upright as you then I hope I can become
as virtuous as you. My theological knowledge may not be as
advanced as yours, but I certainly don’t tip toe behind the
barn to get a point across. My expounding of Biblical
passages does not automatically mean I endorse them since
my intention is to merely clarify meaning and not outline my
views.

I am aware that many fanatical religionists may not

understand me. My mind has had to travel rebelliously to
destinations my previous religious mind did not permit. The
result is I have zero tolerance for falsehood, even when
confronting my beliefs. You may hate me initially, but if the
penny eventually drops you will love me; I hope. This
presentation may be a ‘blessing in disguise’.

A Call for Reformation

I choose to focus on Christianity since it is the religion I am
most acquainted with though the principles outlined apply to
other inflexible religions.

I submit this presentation in light of my current

understanding. It is an appeal to certain segments of the
Christian Community to reevaluate their position on some
issues to function more productively as part of a global
community. I point towards the direction of further study
while hopefully dispelling the notion that the readers view is
the official version of Christianity. I will be satisfied if this
presentation is a catalyst to tease you into energetic
contemplation.

Religionists have asked me not to write this and to let

sleeping dogs lie. The title ruffles the feathers of the religious
chickens. Fear not, that was my intention. I know that stirring
the saintly beehive will mean the godly meddlers will attempt
to fly like a chicken and sting like a bee. Don’t get your
knickers in a twist until you have read the whole book. Once
in a blue moon, I am accused of confusing them and advised
to improve my communication skills. I disagree. I merely
shine the light to reveal the confusion already present, just
like drawing open the curtains and allowing the morning light
to reveal the dust that has settled during night.

If you want to pick a fight with me, you are barking up the
wrong tree as I am genuinely not interested. I have zero
desire to patronize the audience I speak to, an audience who
are members of a large community of passionate individuals
who seek to make the world a better place. My motivation is
the fact that the sleeping giant needs to be awakened and
driven into action. Your world needs you. It needs a refined
version of you. I would recommend that Christians work to
change the world’s perception of Christians and the Christian
perception of the world. I am not here to pamper those in
delusion. This appeal is a call for change. The ‘Jesus
Movement’ is still largely perceived as exclusive and
sectarian. It's true image should be one of diversity and
inclusiveness. The public ‘face’ and ‘voice of Jesus’ is in
desperate need of transformation. It requires rebranding to
become truly relevant.
Some readers will fail miserably to understand the subject
matter presented, unable to grasp the purpose of the book
they will even admit it. It is astonishing how people do not
want to face facts but would rather hide under the rock of
religion. Some will preach from this writing; others will
preach against it. Either way, I want to thank them for the
free publicity. I welcome and appreciate constructive
criticism. Your response will be very revealing. If you query
the whole purpose of this book, I would seriously doubt your
sincerity and motives. It will speak volumes to the target
audience. I hope you capture its tone since the tone of
mainstream Christianity must urgently become more
inclusive. [Occasionally my tone is somewhat severe; excuse
my ‘British Bulldog’ tone that is aimed at fundamentalists on
par with Westboro Baptist Church].

There was a time that I would have considered my current

views insulting. I was vehemently against anything close to
what I am writing here, especially since it calls for change.
Sadly, the unforgiving tide of religious thought that has
prevailed throughout the centuries will not permit many
readers to accept the content of this book. The wound from
brainwashing is deep. The damage is done. The result is a
bunch of near insane individuals who wave the arms in the air
like they just don’t care. This carelessness is precisely the
problem; they seem not to care and are absorbed in their self-
delusion and self-interests. The mind is powerful enough to
self-deceive. Many religionists retain strongholds in their
mind and are oblivious to it. Deceived people are unaware
they are deceived. Brainwashed individuals do not
immediately recognize it. To open their eyes to it is a
gruelling task. It involves a careful reprogramming of a
cooperative mind. When we cooperate with our inbuilt nature
to self-correct, possibly with outside assistance, we reform
ourselves and change begins. Obviously, I am not referring to
you and I, am I?

This is a simple book with a simple message. Don’t

overcomplicate the issues raised, think but don’t over think. I
would be astounded if fundamentalist zealots learnt
absolutely nothing after reading this.

Intellectual Dishonesty
We should all be swift to acknowledge when someone
presents a superior, more rounded and accurate view than one
we hold. It is only the proud and egotistical that would deny
it. Psychologically, the common knee-jerk reaction when
presented any information that challenges one's view is to
dismiss or ignore it, essentially to hide from it. To be ignorant
is not to be necessarily stupid, but to ignore.

A drop of dogmatism may reject a mountain of evidence.

Dogmatism is like cyanide to truth. A healthy conscience is
not easily bribed; you know when you’re mistaken or doubt.
The obstinate religionist sticks to their guns, and comes out
swinging and screaming, “Facts and evidence won’t change
me!” Such is the response of the Christian Taliban, who are
like an irritating wasp at a picnic. You mean to tell me you
speak in tongues, and lie in English?

Cognitive Dissonance
Bad mental practises result in cognitive dissonance: the
tension when holding two conflicting views simultaneously.
The religionists ‘accepts’ information while simultaneously
their logical instincts reject that information, leaving them in
a state of subconscious confusion. Usually, they cover up this
confusion by forcing themselves to believe ‘the truth’ over
evidence and facts – this is what religious faith is. Repeated
suppression of one’s natural instinct to be sceptical weakens
the triggering of survival impulses, placing the victim in a
precarious position. I genuinely hope to awaken these
desensitized minds.

How to Read This Book

This project is a compilation of a collection of writings
written over a long period. Occasionally there are repeated
sentences and passages. Excuse my laziness.

My objective is for it to be enjoyable and simple. I may quote

a few biblical passages and occasionally include Greek and
Hebrew meanings of Biblical words for the sake of clarity,
not to prove my intelligence, which I can assure you is
limited. I am more concerned about traveling where the
evidence leads rather than backing traditionally ingrained
thinking. I like to think of myself as a seeker of truth rather
than a defender of harmful traditions.

My lofty aim is to unify humanity and horrify religious

insanity. It may seem hostile at times, but it’s not merely
another head-butting book. No one wins in a head-butt.

Consider these points as you read:

1. Don’t rush and gloss over golden nuggets nestled in

these passages. Press the pause button and chew on
what you read.
2. Be brutally honest, don’t just switch into a defensive
mode. You will experience ‘ouch moments,’ it’s what
 you do with them that counts. Fasten your seatbelt; it
may be a rough ride.
3. Take notes, highlight stand-out points and fact-check
(I could be mistaken)
4. Avoid glossing over questions. Take a moment to
answer them mentally.
5. Consider reading the book twice; the second read can
be revolutionary.
6. Quote me, but do not misquote me. I was born at
night, but not last night.
7. Read in any chapter order.

If I have made any errors or misjudgements, forgive me. My

heartfelt intention is to be helpful. You can relax and be real
in front of me; I won't misjudge you. I hope I am real and
have not misjudged you. Pull up your chair, let’s have a
friendly chat.
Introduction
Ecclesiastical skittles are tumbling one by one. Religion is
big business, and those who financially benefit don’t want
anyone tampering with their nest egg. They have invested
their life, and their reputation is at stake; the last thing they
need is someone exposing their bad investment. It’s amazing
how people don't comprehend truth when their salary or
reputation depends on it.

Like a dog chasing its tail, certain religionists are frantically

struggling to hold together the pieces of their public image
that is shredded in the information age. The rest continue
wearing blinkers oblivious to the slow painful death their
movement is undergoing.

I’m sure some readers will scrutinizing each point I make, I

welcome that and am open to correction. With your thinking
cap on, remove the lens of defensive thinking. Go where the
evidence leads, towards the doorway to freedom. You won’t
know unless you are willing to walk through that door and
embrace new realities. The prepared are fed up with artificial
morality and will naturally progress into healthier thinking
and explore where few have dared to.

The Cult of Christianity

Though the media love to portray Spirituality and Christianity
as dying movements, it is, in fact, growing at an alarming
rate. Indeed, Pentecostalism on its own is believed by some to
be the fastest-growing faith movement in the world. Some of
the most rapid growth are occurring where persecution is the
12
most intense. Still, Christianity is a cluttered house in need of
de-cluttering so that facts, logic, and rationality become the
norm.

Its calling card is forgiveness of sins and a personal

relationship with God. The experience of conversion is
solidified in the memory by emotions, and regularly revisiting
these memories triggers the initial conversion emotions; the
new convert becomes addicted to the chemical juices of a
transcendental experience, oblivious to the fact they have
been injected with venom.

An individual who had based their whole life on an ideology

they were convinced was a fact, would be stunned to discover
their life was built on fabricated information. Many would be
shell-shocked to discover that a zillion practices and beliefs
taught by Christian extremists are grounded on man-made
ideology and not from a divine source. The evidence of
history and science far out-way the evidence for traditional
religious views. The evidence presented in this book will
demand a verdict. Change or die protecting a splintering
religious system that will soon fade into insignificance.
Christianity needs a facelift to be respected by an advancing
global community.

I am not targeting every religionist. A small number of cultic

Christian ‘Jihadist’ have hijacked Christianity. It only takes
one popular fanciful fanatic to spread a false idea through
Christian media. The blind often lead and teach the blind. (Or
rather the blindfolded). With excellence Christian Jihadists
create the impression their interpretations, thinly veneered
with scripture, are the official interpretations. These Jihadists
tend to demonize harshly and publicly ridicule those that
13
oppose their particular view. When anyone attempts to
address the ignorance and prejudice, they are predictably
rejected and crushed by an onslaught of rhetoric in an attempt
drown out or silence opposing voices. Religious fanatics are
predictable, identical, widespread and uninformed. It is as if
they were all mass produced at the same factory minus their
brain cells and shipped worldwide. They assume they have
arrived and have nothing more to learn.

What religionists often believe and understanding is second-

hand rather than ‘divinely revealed’ truth. A considerable
amount, if not all, of our responses and reactions to emotional
experiences, are learnt and not as essential to our life as we
perceive. Certain habits and beliefs have become fossilized in
the mind of the religionist, so much so that it is near
impossible to get them to differentiate fact from error. The
result is classic cultic behaviour. Education is the solution - to
learn and unlearn.

New Christians are expected to find their way around the

complex maze of Christianity. The Christian world is quite
bewildering. It might not seem that way to the ‘long timers’
and those who have endured the subtle process of
brainwashing. It is a minefield that has resulted in many
injuries and fatalities. The Christian world is full of wounded
individuals who silently tolerate and ignore the
inconsistencies, often not knowing how to respond. I care for
these casualties of faith. I will stand up and speak on their
behalf, whatever the backlash. I am willing to speak out
publicly about things they only think about but dare not say. I
understand their reluctance. The hostile response from
Christians can be merciless and vicious – all in the name of
God.
14
The Questioning Minority of Progressives
Biblical scholarship is gradually filtering down to laity
resulting in a groundswell of disillusioned religionist. Some
are secretly uncomfortable, content to maintain the status quo
without rocking the proverbial boat of peace. The passionate
voice of another type of progressive is being amplified by the
need for urgent change since they refuse to repress their
doubts in their pursuit of truth beyond the borders of their
past. Show a progressive a 10ft wall and they will show you a
12ft ladder.

To those who are ready, the words of this book will echo their
thoughts and concerns. I accept that many statements in this
book will cause toupees to spin full circle. Radicals will begin
to doubt, but then crush those doubts believing doubt is
forbidden. Others will salute the book privately, but deny it
publicly or remain silent supporters.

There is a shift taking place with many of the ‘old generals’

fading into obscurity. Key celebrity spokespeople that once
represented mass segments of the modern day global
Christian community are challenged by those raised in the
information age.

Anyone who suggests reformation faces hostility. The attack

strategies of the religious are predictable and used to stifle a
healthy debate. The strategy is to zero in on an opponent,
isolate, demonize and marginalize to mute their voice.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident.”
15
 ― Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how

deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round
that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a
well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the
masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly
preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." ― Dresden
James

I am not attempting to confuse your faith. This book exposes

the confusion of religiosity. Hard-line religionists stubbornly
refuse to admit when a fault in their philosophy is identified. I
hope readers will avoid this self-harming reaction that is
blatant arrogance camouflaged as a stand for uprightness and
join those that bravely go against the grain of religious
fundamentalism to create a better world. Do you suffer from a
herd mentality [follow-the-crowd] or are you willing to
follow the evidence?

The Problem or the Solution

Mainstream Christianity has become a nuisance as a direct
result of defective methods of evangelization and faulty
beliefs. Pride has led to arrogance. Christian religiosity has
solidified over the centuries to the point now that it either
must change or live out a short life span. It has become the
problem rather that the solution. As mentioned, it is its worst
enemy. It has believed its hype.

“A Gallup Poll reveals that 78 percent of the public believes

televangelists are untrustworthy with money, 71 percent say
they are dishonest, 67 percent say they are insincere, and 61
percent say they don't care about people.”
16
 ― Quoted in Moody Monthly, December 1989, p. 72

To the general public, it appears that Christian media shows a

lack of sincerity: people are suspicious of their motives.
Christianity has a lot to answer.

Truth Hurts
I am not attempting to rock the boat; I am attempting to blow
up the ship of crooked religiosity in individual lives by
prodding and nudging you a few steps further in your
journey. You may experience a few ‘ouch!’ moments as you
read, but it’s medicinal.

Here is a great illustration:

A man saw a farmer with a cow that had one wooden leg. He
stopped and asked why it had one wooden leg. The farmer
began to explain how wonderful the cow was, how it saved
his life and on and on and on. Then the man stopped him and
said, “I am sure the cow is wonderful but why has he only
got one wooden leg?” The farmer replied, “You cannot eat a
nice cow like this all at once!”

It may not be possible to kill the cow of religion in one blow,

so progressives seek to gradually destroy the sacred cows by
throwing the inkpot at pious religiosity and shallow theology.
Join us in the blood bath slaughtering of these sacred cows
that imprison countless numbers.

Some will read this writing and not change, having

swallowed religious painkillers that mask doubt.
Psychological tricks are used to brush aside or bury doubts.
Stiff-necked Christians who dig their heels in place
17
roadblocks in their path to progress. Others will be stunned as
it dawns on them that they will have to abandon beliefs taught
as fact. Corrective truth does not hurt if you are humbly open
to correction. Instead, it comes as a breath of fresh air.

18
 Chapter One
Can We Trust The Bible?
"To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. They
don’t read it; instead, they just scroll to the bottom and click
‘I agree.’” - Unknown

In legal terms ‘reasonable doubt’ is when a complete

assessment of all the evidence results in jurors unable to state
a verdict with certainty and conviction. An assessment of the
Bible warrants reasonable doubt and caution as to its
reliability as an absolute moral guide. I recommend reading it
objectively and not merely subjectively so the reader can
travel beyond yesterday’s certainties. The difficulty is not
necessarily the Bible, but rather our infantile understanding of
it. The simpleton assumes they can just pick up a Bible, read
it and understand it, declaring “I go by the plain reading of
the text, no interpretation required!” They chant the mantra
“God said it, that settles it” - a strong indication of
embarrassingly severe biblical naivety and deficiency in
Biblical studies. If the Bible is so plain why are there so many
contradictory doctrines? Sixty hundred and sixty-six
Christians will have conflicting interpretations, and each
claims their interpretation is objective. Card-carrying
Christians are more committed to the Bible than
knowledgeable about it.

You cannot single-handedly comprehend or wrestle with the

Biblical text without counsel and scholarly commentary, to
think you can is to walk on thin ice and not engage the Bible
seriously. The Bible is best filtered through a fine 21st-
century sieve. Hopefully, this chapter will leave you more
19
biblically literate and not divorced from reality and the
tension in Christian scripture.

A Work in Progress
The Bible is a library and a work in progress. The average
churchgoer is oblivious to this fact. They assume the Bible is
complete, and ‘The Final Perfect Translation’ is in existence,
which just happens to be the version they read. This grand
delusion can be easily dismantled with basic facts and a dose
of humility. This fact is hard to swallow for those who have
been sold the lie that the Bible is without error. The Bible is
continually modified.

Has the Bible been accurately translated from the original

language into your language? Whatever your answer, how do
you know?

Sold a Lie - Inerrant and Infallible

New converts to staunch Christianity are taught to believe the
Bible is inerrant and infallible. They are taught to accept
prepacked interpretations as their own before they have even
had a chance to read and decide for themselves.

“They want to be known as teachers…., but they don't know

what they are talking about, even though they speak so
confidently.” I Timothy 1:7

The average reader of the Bible, both those for and against,
misguidedly adopt a simplistic methodology rather than a
simple rational approach. Readers either believe the Biblical
text they possess is [virtually] 100% unblemished and crystal
clear or it should be abandoned. In the mind of the
religionists and the sceptic, a book authored by God would
20
contain flawless, unchangeable and absolute truth, plainly
comprehensible. The religionist must make a distinction
between the Biblical text they desire to have, and what they
truly possess.

Logical, Rational and Reasonable Approach

Though the Bible contains great wisdom and useful
information, not exclusive to it, it must be read sensibly and
cautiously due to several complexities. I’ve met extremely
intelligent individuals who excelled in various fields of
expertise, but who have surrendered their capability to think
logically when approaching the Bible. For some reason, these
staunch believers do not engage the Bible with the same level
of intellect and rationality they do other fields of study. It
seems they have been taught to remove their thinking caps
when engaging with the Bible. It is disturbing and amusing
when they accuse me of being logical and rational in my
approach. Are they seriously admitting they are illogical and
irrational in their approach?

The Greek for ‘Word’ is logos, from which we get the term
‘logic’. Isn’t everything related to God logical, sensible and
rational? Before you answer, take your head out of the clouds
and plant your feet firmly on the ground. To be logical is
considered by religionists a deviation from loyalty to their
holy scriptures. Intellectual trustworthiness should be a virtue
applauded; not one viewed with contempt.

Textual Errors and Inconsistencies

The English Bible contains errors and inconsistencies. The
complete Bible is available in over 500 languages, and
portions of the Bible in over 2,800 languages. The unknown
number of inconsistencies that must exist are staggering. I
21
have taught from the Bible in India numerous times and many
times the English and the particular Indian language
translation varied so much I could not make my point. In
some cases, entire verses were missing.

If the Bible is the ‘word of man’ about God, copied by scribes

who believed they were transcribing the literal dictates of
God, then we would expect reasonably accurate copies
inconsistencies, mistranslations, alterations and interpolations
[additions]. Precisely what we have; there is nothing
miraculous about it.

If God were miraculously preserving the text, we would

expect perfect copies. If not, why not? Was he not able to
preserve the original manuscripts? Why has God permitted so
many versions and revisions? Why are errors permitted in all
the versions?

Christian apologists spin the existence of discrepancies as

evidence that the Bible is true by arguing it proves the writers
were truthful since independent witnesses commonly
contradict each other. Had there been no discrepancies they
would credit it to divine preservation, a classic example of
slippery argumentation by snake-tongued apologists. They sit
on the side of the fence that suits existing needs, wanting the
best of both worlds.

There is an abundance of inconsistencies and problematic

passages the spokesperson for God will not address during a
regular Sunday Service while claiming to declare the full
story. It’s pure ignorance. As mentioned before, ignorance is
not necessarily being stupid, it is choosing to ignore and

22
childishly burying one's head in the sand and turning a blind
eye in order to avoid the implications of accepting the facts.

The elephant in the room is ignored in a desperate attempt to

patch up the discrepancies by claiming the errors are
irrelevant. These insecurities arise with the unwarranted
notion that the Bible must be and is without error. It opens up
a can of worms of epic proportions. The can of worms is
typically discarded with the claim that the Holy Spirit will
enlighten regardless of the textual errors. I am yet to come
across one person who has come to know of serious
discrepancies through divine revelation.

Even a basic comprehension of the copying and transmission

history of the biblical documents help us understand they are
human writings. The average Bible reader has little or no
interest to examine the origins and reliability of the Bible. It
is almost as if they believe the book was printed in the print
room of heaven and delivered on a golden chariot from
heaven as a perfectly bound book with the title ‘Holy Bible’
imprinted on the cover. Just as you should never watch how
sausages are made, if you enjoy eating them, so too knowing
the journey of the Biblical documents from the original
author’s pen to the copy we have today has left many
disillusioned; some have concluded it is not the ‘Word of
God’ but the word of man about God.

Christian apologists make a fuss about the Bible being the

most historically consistently transcribed book. It will be an
interesting study to see if the Quran is just as or more
accurate in its accuracy and consistency. I’m sure if you or I
were to copy by hand the gospel of John and then pass it on
to twenty literate people for each to make copies of copies;
23
the final copy would be reasonably accurate. It’s not such a
great achievement. Until Gutenberg invented the printing
press around 1440, everything was hand copied which
resulted in errors and scribes making alterations. Even with
the printing press, countless printing errors occurred.

Those who believe the Bible is 100% accurate and without

error are either totally oblivious to the facts, choose to ignore
them or they put a spin on it to maintain the illusion of a
perfect Bible. The question I would ask is, “What percentage
of the Bible has to be erroneous before you cease referring to
it as the Word of God?”

Flat Reading
The most common error I come across is a flat reading of the
text. You can read the Bible academically or devotionally.
Your perception of the Bible determines the attitude with
which you will approach it. If you think of it as an impersonal
rulebook, you will tend to consult it only regarding violations,
rather than be motivated to meditate on it with the intent of
improving your character. If you think it is only a sketchy
history book, you may read it with little more than a detached
curiosity. If you consider it the infallible word of God, you
will read it passionately. Either way, you should take care to
interpret it correctly. The common approach is by
intertextuality: to combine a verse from here with a verse
from there to construct a doctrine. All Christian doctrines are
formulated in this manner; each considers their interpretation
is accurate since they have a combination of verses that
appear to sum up their beliefs. Christians get locked into one
of these viewpoints, and it becomes the lens through which
they view the entire Bible.

24
Leafing through the pages of the Bible and applying the ‘Tea
Leaf Reading’ approach is not a valid method of interpreting
the Bible. When you incorrectly read a text, it may appear to
be clear to you since you are arbitrarily reading with
preconceived ideas [cart-before-the-horse approach] instead
of reading it contextually and rationally taking into
consideration historical, linguistic and cultural settings.
Simply picking up the Bible, reading it in English and
thinking you ‘got it’ is extreme naivety. Anyone with any
respect for the Bibles knows it's not as simplistic as that. A
Jewish book should not be read with a Gentile slant.

Instead of biting off more than you can chew, my advice is,
don’t dogmatically quote Scripture soundbites until you have
investigated the context of the passage. You cannot walk in
ankle deep water and then claim to have gone deep sea
diving.

Why are Bible Scholars Disliked?

Modern technology and science aid a detective at a crime
scene. In the distant past, with no knowledge of fingerprints
and DNA, solving crimes was hit and miss. Today people
cannot get away with the crimes they did yesterday.
Similarly, modern biblical scholarship, especially non-
fundamentalist, doesn't allow us to get away unchallenged
with past erroneous reading of the text. Modern scholars are
less concerned to shield Christian sects and interpretations,
and more focused on a scientific methodology; the modern
approach leans more towards historical realism, caution and
humility rather than dogmatism, ideology and brash
confidence.

25
Hard-core religionists scorn academic Christianity for being
reliant on intellectualism; in some circles, education is
frowned on since ‘the end is nigh.’ They embarrassingly bite
the hand that feeds them by overlooking that their Bibles
were painstakingly translated by highly educated Biblical
scholars and academics and without them Bibles would not
exist in thousands of languages. Who do you think
exhaustively studied Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to give you
the Bible in your language?

The knowledge gap between modern expert scholars and

those who sit in the pews is colossal. Everyone seems to be
an expert on the Bible while being oblivious to the
complexities involved in translating, reading and interpreting
it. If you don’t know, you just don’t know. Pretending you do
know will not cut it.

Comfort food sermons today lack accuracy in light of modern

biblical scholarship. In a nod to the truth, sermons may
contain some biblical terminology, but the content betrays the
well-meaning preachers desire to remain loyal to the truth.
There is a need for religionists to realign much of their
understanding of scriptures to that of the majority of scholars.
Scholarship advances and as it does the serious student of the
Bible seeks to correct previous inaccuracies they supported.
Biblical scholarship is advancing. Outdated theology has
served its usefulness and now needs to be served its eviction
notice.

It’s obvious why fundamentalists Christians dislike scholars.

Recent critical scholarship has opened up the Bible in fresh,
yet uncomfortable ways. Academia seeks accuracy whereas
evangelicals seek to defend what they already believe. Those
26
who object to experts and scholars have something to hide. A
criminal never wishes a detective to snoop around their home.
Their objection to biblical scholarship is a security system;
it’s a defensive wall to hide behind to avoid hitting the books.
Avoid wasting time by cutting corners and only reading on
the fringe of Biblical theology. If you need brain surgery, I
don’t recommend a butcher; I recommend a qualified brain
surgeon.

Worshipping the Physical Good Book

You’ll never witness those who worship the physical book
placing the Bible on the ground. This form of idol worship ,
known as bibliolatry, is common in religions with ‘Holy
Scriptures.’

Experts state that a move occurred around the 3rd century

towards dependence on a physical text and away from
personal divine revelation as an authoritative source.
Christian began to worship the letter [literal text], not the
Spirit, and living by a verse instead of the spirit of the text
according to the authors original intent.

Jesus discouraged dependence on a literal text as a source for

eternal life. He taught eternal life was found in him [The
Word] not the Scriptures [the text/book]. John 5:39-40. You will
often hear the Bible referred to as ‘The Word.’ Is God a
book? According to the scriptures, the ‘Word’ is a person,
namely Jesus or God. John1:1, 14; Revelation 19:15. To reduce the
Biblical concept of the ‘word’ to a book makes critical study
problematic.

The Lens of Selective Reading

27
The lens you read with will colour your interpretation,
Viewing through a red-tinted lens colours everything red.
Hence Christendom in filled with various camps each with
their coloured lens and pet doctrines. Attempts to convince
them a white wall is white will be fruitless since they will
only see the colour of the lens they wear and insist they see
the truth right before their eyes.

The Christian reads through a believing non-objective lens.

The presuppositions we bring to the reading can practically
rewrite the intended meaning of the author. A biased
cockeyed reading through the reverse end of a telescope will
cause you to home in on specifics. A panoramic reading of
the Bible will reveal the big picture and help you slot the
pieces into a more accurate framework. The skill of reading
while shelving preconceived baggage can be challenging. To
read in this manner will cause your preconceived ideas to
collide with facts.

Most readers deny reading with distorted presuppositions.

Everyone is right in their own eyes. Proverbs 21:2. Whether you
recognise it or not, you read the Bible with a lens that colours
your interpretation. The lens you use may be misguided or
outdated, either way, it is invalid. Using the wrong lens
undoubtedly results in misguided interpretations. To
recognize your error be open to interrogation by others and
continually question your interpretation methods and
conclusions.

Most Christians would deny selectively emphasizing cherry-

picked verses while adamantly claiming to stand for the
“complete Word of God.” Emphasizing pet doctrines is
common practice whereby the reader highlights specific
28
themes and passages with greater emphasis. Reading through
the reverse end of a telescope means you will see what you
want to see. The result is often proof texting where a reader
will constantly be referencing certain verses to prove their
particular view at the expense of other verses that seemingly
contradict it. Selective readers read with blinkers, construct
pet doctrines and defend them dogmatically.

A Christian, who rejects the Trinity reads the Bible with lens
and sees only one person in the Godhead. A Trinitarian
wearing another lens sees the Trinity everywhere they look in
the Bible. The same is true with Calvinists and Armenians.
Each claims to hold the truth; each claims divine revelation
and each claims their teaching is biblical. One Christian’s pet
doctrine is another Christian’s belly laugh.

Inspired on dictated?
When the verse, “All scripture is given by inspiration…” 2
Timothy 3:16
was penned it was referring to the books we know as
the Old Testament. The New Testament as we know it did not
exist at the time. Was the writer claiming his writings were
inspired? Was the writer proposing that all his future writings
were would be inspired too? Who decided to apply this verse
to imply the New Testament writings were inspired by God
and by what authority did they imply this? In early
Christianity there were different views as to which texts were
inspired and which were not.

Those who believe the text is 100% accurate quote the above
verse. However, note the word inspired does not mean
dictated. If I claimed I was inspired to write a song or a book,
would that mean God dictates every word? The Greek word
Paul uses translated ‘inspiration’ is ‘theopneustos,’ it is an
29
expression first found in the Greek New Testament which
indicates Paul coined the term. It means, ‘God-breathed.’
Interestingly none of the original ‘God-breathed’ texts have
survived.

The Bible contains the personal opinions of the writer: “But

to the rest, I say, not the Lord…” 1 Corinthians 7:12; “Now
concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord,
but I give an opinion…” 1 Corinthians 7:25; “But in my opinion, it
would be better for her to stay single…” 1 Corinthians 7:40.

The writer is informing the reader that he is stating his

opinion. What about other passages where we are not
informed that an opinion is stated? Some argue that every
Biblical book is the opinion of the writer. The writers did not
write knowing that one day their writings would be
considered by some as the literal words of God. God did not
dictate to a scribe with a quill.

Original Copies
It is not unusual to catch people saying, “In the original
Greek it says…” Not a single copy of the original
manuscripts of the books that are included in the Bible exist
today. What we have are copies of copies. The oldest copy
we have is a tiny fragment of the Gospel of John dating from
the first half of the second century; that’s over 90 years from
the crucifixion. Others originate hundreds of years after that
time. Imagine how many copies down the line they were.

Currently, there are approximately 5,600+ manuscript copies

for the New Testament. Some of these are just fragments as
small as a credit card. None of the 5600 manuscripts are
100% identical to another. In most cases the difference is
30
minor though this fact does highlights the fact that errors
were very common. These errors are more common in the
earlier manuscripts than later manuscripts since earlier scribes
were less trained. We have few of these early manuscripts, so
there is no way of identifying errors and alterations made
during this period subsequently copied in future editions.
When Christian apologists ‘explain’ that all the manuscripts
are virtually identical, they never mention that they are only
referring to the later manuscripts produced by trained scribes.

To claim, “In the original it says…” is misleading.

Other Gospels, Epistles, and Forgeries

Throughout the first few centuries of the early church,
numerous writings appeared claiming to be authoritative. The
average churchgoer is oblivious to the existence and the
extent to which these manuscripts were considered Holy
Scripture by early Christians. They read certain manuscripts
as Scripture, texts that we don’t have in modern mainstream
Bibles.

There were plenty of stories circulating about the Jesus

character. A good number of these were written down. The
gospel of John hints on this:

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them

was written down, I suppose that even the whole world
would not have room for the books that would be written.”
John 21:25

Paul mentions a letter from Laodicea:

31
“After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read
in the church of the Laodiceans and that you, in turn, read
the letter from Laodicea.” Colossians 4:16

He also mentions other letters: “Then, when I arrive, I will

give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send
them with your gift to Jerusalem.” I Cor. 16:3; “When I wrote to
you before, I told you not to associate with whoremongers” I
Cor.s 5:9
.

A text, known as 3rd Corinthians, also exists but is not

included in the New Testament.

The New Testament book of Jude, supposedly written by the

brother of Jesus, quotes an apocryphal book called ‘Enoch’ as
though it too was authoritative Scripture or read as containing
truth: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about
them: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon
thousands of his holy ones.” Jude 1:14.

As we can see the New Testament indicates the existence of

other texts not included in the modern New Testament. It is
evident that other books were read, taught from and even
considered Scripture by early Christians.

Other Gospels
The New Testament gospels are not the only works claiming
to detail the life and sayings of Jesus. Legends of Jesus were
doing the rounds in the early church. We know of quite a few
gospels that were in circulation, and some still exist today.

Completely preserved Gospels:

32
Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Luke, Gospel
of John, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Coptic Gospel
of the Egyptians, Gospel of Nicodemus (also identified as the
‘Acts of Pilate’), Gospel of Barnabas, Gospel of Gamaliel.

Infancy Gospels: (stories of Jesus as a child)

Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew,
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of James, Arabic
Infancy Gospel, Syriac Gospel of the Boyhood of our Lord
Jesus.

Partially preserved Gospels:

Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of
Philip.

Fragmentary preserved Gospels:

Dialogue of the Saviour, Papyrus Egerton 2, Gospel of Eve,
Fayyum Fragment
Gospel of Mani, Oxyrhynchus Gospels, Gospel of the
Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin Gospel), Gospel
of the Twelve.

Reconstructed Gospels:
Gospel of the Ebonite’s, Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of
the Hebrews, Secret Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthias,
Gospel of the Nazoreans, Gospel of Q (also known as the "Q
document"), Signs Gospel, Cross Gospel.

Lost Gospels:
Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Seventy, Gospel of the
Four Heavenly Realms, Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of
Marcion, Gospel of Basilides, Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of
Apelles, Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel
33
of the Encratites, Gospel of the Gnostics, Gospel of
Hesychius, Gospel of Lucius, Gospel of Longinus, Gospel of
Manes, Gospel of Merinthus, Gospel of Scythianus
Gospel of Simonides, Gospel of Tatian, Gospel of Thaddaeus,
Gospel of Valentinus
The Clementine Gospel.

Those who selected and compiled the New Testament as we

have it had quite a selection to choose from, they often
disagreed on what to brand as Scripture.

Other Acts of the Apostles

The New Testament contains one book that narrates the
history of the early Apostles. Numerous other similar
manuscripts were in circulation. They include the following:

Acts of Barnabas, Acts of John, Acts of the Martyrs, Acts of

Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter
and Andrew, Acts of Peter and Paul, Acts of Peter and the
Twelve, Acts of Philip, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Thomas, Acts
of Timothy, Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca.

Other Epistles
An Epistle is a letter written to an individual or community.
Alongside those included in the New Testament, there were
several others in circulation. They included:

Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement, Epistle of the

Corinthians to Paul, Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans,
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians, Epistle to Diognetus, Epistle to the Laodiceans
(an epistle in the name of Paul), Epistle to Seneca the

34
Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul) and Third Epistle to
the Corinthians.

Widely Read Non-Canon Books

The following books were widely used by Christians in the
first two centuries, though not included in the New Testament
Canon.

The book of Jubilees, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of

Hermas, Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, 1 Clement, 2
Clement, Preaching of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel
According to the Egyptians and Gospel According to the
Hebrews.

Forgeries
Forgeries were common amongst the early Christian
community. Manuscripts would be written either
anonymously or in the name of an authoritative church leader
to give it credibility. Writings also appeared that claimed to
have been written by Jesus. “Many of the New Testament’s
forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders
trying to settle theological feuds.” Bart Ehrman, Forged

II Thessalonians, claimed to be written by Paul, indicates he

had knowledge of epistles falsely written in his name: “…or
a letter seeming to be from us ...” II Thessalonians 2:2; “I, Paul,
write this greeting with my own hand, which is the
distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.” 2
Thessalonians 3:17

The critical question is, could some of these forgeries have

made their way into the New Testament? The majority of
scholars are persuaded this is so. The ancients were perhaps
35
not as skilled as today’s experts at detecting forgeries.
Fourteen New Testament books claim to be written by the
apostle Paul, only seven are considered authentic Pauline
epistles by Modern Scholars.

Those forging writings would insert distractions to avoid

suspicions. This may be the case with 2 Thessalonians,
considered a forgery by some scholars. The fact that it
mentions forgeries and insists it is authentic makes it highly
suspicious. Forgers often tried to hide their forgeries by, for
example, emphasising their authenticity or warning of
forgeries to avoid detection.

Forged apocalypses were also in circulation. In 1886, a

writing purportedly authored by Peter was discovered in
Egypt. It details Peters guided tour by Jesus of heaven and
hell. Astonishingly this manuscript narrowly missed out in
being included in the New Testament. Some early church
leaders considered it authentic and Scripture.

Other early church leaders disputed the authenticity of 2

Peter. Scholars today still dispute its validity as an authentic
apostolic writing. One of the concerns with any writing
claiming to be written by Peter is the fact he was illiterate. Acts
4:13

Anonymously written
Some early Christian writings were written anonymously; the
author does not identify themselves. A good portion of New
Testament was written anonymously.

The four gospels included in the popular canon today are all
written anonymously and later attributed to Matthew, Mark,
36
Luke, and John, but this is nothing more than guess work and
convenience. The Book of Acts is another writing by an
anonymous author. The writer of Hebrews is also unknown.

Christian apologists like to sweep this under the carpet, but

even they will admit the Bible contains books with unknown
authors. On what basis were they included in the canon?

Formation of the Canon

Early Christian did not have the Bible and, in particular, the
New Testament, in the format we have it today. Between
96% and 99% could not read let alone afford copies of
manuscripts. Numerous epistles and gospels were in
circulation, and a select few were selected for inclusion in the
canon. Early Church leaders argued about which books were
authentic. The dilemma for scholars is that they lack clear
indication of when exactly Christians initially accepted New
Testament writings. The whole process of selecting which
book to include in the canon was rather shady.

The Bible was not mass produced until 1400 years after the
time of Jesus. Previously the Bible was not available in mass
quantities. The Bible as a single book available so readily is a
recent phenomenon.

What if you had no New Testament scriptures as a whole?

The early church did not. What if you did not know what you
know about the Bible? The current fantasy with the physical
book and this specific canon is the product of the
institutionalizing of Christianity.

Hermeneutics - Interpreting the Bible

37
Not following certain rules of interpretation results in
distorted conclusions. The study of these rules is
hermeneutics. Though I am not an expert I have found a basic
study of this invaluable. Hermeneutic principles are ‘checks
and balances’ to ensure a more accurate interpretation of the
Bible. The standard and widely-accepted codes of biblical
interpretations state that interpreting a text out of context is a
pretext.

Interpreting the Bible is like a detective arriving at a crime

scene and having to work out who done it. The fact Joe Blogs
has the murder weapon in his possession does not prove his
guilt. In the same way, those whose only rule of thumb and
mantra is, “God said it, that settles” are in for a shock. If
only it were that simple. The fundamentalist claims they do
not practice any hermeneutics, unconsciously they are.
Explaining basic hermeneutics to the average churchgoer is
like trying to explain cricket to Americans.

There is no official, cookie-cutter or fool-proof approach to

reading the Bible; that’s the dilemma. Anyone purporting to
know the only way has an axe to grind. There are some basic
guidelines that aid understanding. Honesty and rationality are
a good start.

Writers write with an agenda. It is vital to identify that

agenda to comprehend the writing accurately. The Scriptures
were not originally written to target this modern culture, nor
in your mother tongue. This issue creates problems since
meanings become lost in translation. It is not possible to have
absolute interpretations because the goal posts can change,
for example if an older manuscript was discovered that differs
significantly to what we have now.
38
It reminds me of the illustration of four blind Indian men who
were each asked to describe an elephant. Each one touched a
separate part of the elephant, but each described different
parts. The first touched the tail and claimed elephants were
long and thin like a snake. The second blind man touched the
leg and claimed elephants were like tree trunks, followed by
the third blind man who touched the ear and announced that
elephants were thin like leaves. Finally, the last blind man
touched and hugged the elephant’s stomach and yelled,
“Elephants must look like my mother-in-law!”

A flat or shallow reading is as far as most are willing to go, or

know to go. The backstory can run deep. It requires hard
work in research time to read with depth, to allow Bible
passages to speak with their voice, time that many are not
willing to invest. In most cases readers rely on someone
else’s interpretation. Few, who are capable, are concerned to
check what they are taught.

Context is critical. Imagine I witnessed two individuals

physically fighting. If I told you I witnessed two people
fighting, you would instantly build a setting for that fight and
assume it was a real fight that was a social disturbance. But
then I add that the fight was at a martial arts tournament, this
shifts the context; now it becomes a legal fight with rules and
a referee. But if instead I told you the fight was in a
Hollywood movie, again the setting changes the nature of the
fight has a different meaning. What if I added it was a street
fight and one person had just published an insulting article
about the other man’s wife? In this sense, it is critical to
understand the full context of a Bible passage. The text that

39
appears as ‘plain reading’ can abruptly shift once the context
is grasped.

Those who simplistically attempt to reduce the Bible to a

strictly literal document trap themselves in a web of
contradictions they are forced to overlook or deny. Others
have so alienated the Scripture from the standard rules of
context, grammar, history, culture, target audience, original
language, semantics, syntax and logic that the author’s
original intent is misplaced in a haze of individual
assumptions. At first glance, various teachings can appear
scriptural since the verses that seem to prove them exist in
certain versions of the Bible. Examining the text using the
rules of hermeneutics may contradict traditional
interpretations.

At times, the true meaning is unknown since no scholar

knows the accurate translation of a word or verse. The Old
Testament produced by the Jewish Publication Society
contains hundreds of footnotes explaining blind spots where
the meaning of Hebrew words and sentence in the text are
unclear or unknown; this is according to the experts of the
Hebrew language. We can only go so far in understanding
some passages in the Bible.

Though I am far from an expert, it has become obvious to me

that examining the Hebrew and Greek does matter. I believe
it is essential to do our best to ensure we know as far as
possible what the text says instead of simply accepting what
another person thinks it says. People often believe a doctrine
then attempt to find a verse to back it up. Instead, we should
read the Bible with no preconceived conclusions.

40
There are two interesting terms used by theologians:
‘Exegesis’ - deriving from the Scriptures the meaning that the
author intended to convey and ‘Eisegesis’ - reading into the
Scripture our idea. We have ALL been guilty of an eisegesis
approach to scripture to make it say what we want. When
reading the text, we must seek to discover the author’s
original intent.

Many people are clueless as to the difference between

exegesis and eisegesis and are confident in their private
interpretation of scripture. One must beware of reading more
into a passage than is there and reading less than what is
there. Whole denominations, theories, and doctrines have
been built from this mistake. The issue is not the error, we all
make errors, but rather, the problem is an unwillingness to
correct the error to save face. Removing false ideas lodged in
someone’s mind is challenging.

These are the elementary rules widely accepted to safeguard

good interpretation of Scripture [as far as possible]:

1. Interpret literally and allow for language that is

evidently metaphoric or symbolic. Recognise the genre
of writing.
2. Consider the linguistic arrangement. Pay attention to
grammar, syntax and vocabulary
3. Consider the historical, social and cultural context.

These are easy errors to avoid when attempting to interpret

the Bible:

1. Don’t read it like it was all written to you.

41
 2. Avoid just searching for Bible verses that simply
strengthen your personal views or experience
3. Avoid superficial study. Interpreting more accurately
can involve investing time and money.
4. Avoid allegorizing or spiritualizing the text unless the
text or genre itself calls for it.

Versions and Revisions

Revisions and new translations will continually be required as
language evolves, and updates are needed. Today we have a
library of ancient manuscripts, versions and quotations to
which the KJV translators never had access. The science of
textual criticism has developed significantly over the last 400
years and scholars have an improved comprehension of the
original languages. The scholarship today is far superior to
that in 1611. For example 64,575 words 45 entire verses have
been removed in the New International Version, the most
popular Bible, for correction and improvement.

Experts have translated the Bible into many formats and

languages. There are numerous difficulties in translating from
one language to another. It is not uncommon that meanings
become lost in translation and readers are oblivious to this
fact.

There are over 100 versions of English Bibles with varying

translations. In some cases, translations differ significantly.
For example, the King James Bible says, “GOD IS angry
with the wicked every day.” Psalm 7:11. Young’s Literal
Translation states God “is NOT angry at all times.” Psalm 7:11.
Which version is true?

42
Defective and biased versions of the Bible have also helped
create the many sects and divisions in Christendom with each
referring to the translations that favour their view. Perfect
Bible translations do not exist, and so it is disputable which
version is the most accurate.

Translation into other languages causes issues due to the

limitations of some languages. According to Wycliffe Bible
Translators, conversion into other languages is a long and
arduous task: “From first writing down a language to
printing a complete New Testament it can take 5 to 20 years.”
That’s just the New Testament. Translating the Bible is a
huge task and errors are bound to occur.

There are those who claim the King James Version is the only
true Scriptures, yet the King James Bible has been changed
numerous times in the last 350 years, and there have been
thousands of corrections. The KJV translators were critical of
their version and amended it many times. They released new
editions, in 1613 and 1629. Originally the KJV contained in
the region of 8000 marginal notes removed in modern
printings. The King James Bible only enthusiasts assert that
the 66 books of the current KJV Bible are inerrant, but they
neglect to mention the absent 14 books present in the original
1611 King James Version. Also, allegedly, King James was
bisexual and had a boyfriend named George. ‘The Life and Times of
King James,' Antonia Fraser
.

Lost in Translation
The Biblical text is not always translated correctly from
Hebrew and Greek. Anything with human input is prone to
error or even tampering. Is it acceptable to change the

43
meaning of words and passages to suit personal beliefs?
Every English Bible is guilty of this.

Most variations among the manuscripts are minor, such as

alternate spelling, alternate word order, the presence or
absence of an optional definite article [‘the’], and so on.
Occasionally, a major variant occurs when a portion of a text
was unintentionally omitted (or perhaps, more astonishingly,
even censored), or additions inserted.

1. Trusting Unknown Scribes

During the New Testament period approximately 1-3% could
read and roughly one in a thousand were capable of writing.
Hence, people hired professional writers known as scribes.
When ancient scribes copied books, they wrote notes in the
margins of the page to correct their text (especially if they
accidentally omitted a word or line) and to comment on the
text. When future scribes copied the copy, they were
occasionally uncertain if a footnote was to be incorporated as
part of the text. Over a period, different regions evolved
different versions, each with its collection of omissions and
additions.

Earlier manuscripts of the New Testament text, mainly copied

by untrained scribes, contain more errors than later
manuscripts in existence that were copied by trained scribes.
Bart Ehrman

The work of a scribe was tedious, and mistakes were not

unusual. When copying Greek texts containing sentences
with no spaces between words errors are inevitable. Imagine
handwriting the whole Bible?

44
2. Trusting Translators
Very few people are capable of translating biblical Greek and
Hebrew into English. Both you and I are trusting translators.
Have they given us an accurate translation? Did they make
errors? Have you checked? If you are a Christian, you are
gambling your life on a translator’s knowledge and integrity.
We depend on the translator’s personal judgement of how to
translate a text. There is a lack of consistency in the way
different words are translated; sometimes a meaning was
imported wholesale.

When Jehovah’s Witnesses point to a text in their New World

Translation to prove a point it conveniently affirms their
argument. They have obviously created a biased translation.
All translators pad out a verse or two according to their
opinion. You will read with confidence, believing that you
are clearly reading the wording of the original writer, totally
oblivious to the mistranslation or bias of the translator. Since
a specific word or verse may be open to a wide variety of
interpretations, do you think the translator would opt for the
translation that contradicts their personal beliefs? In
translation, there is a balance between accuracy and
readability. The text may read a certain way, but the
translators have to decide how it would be best said in the
new language. The translator is in the driving seat.

The Hebrew and Greek languages contain idioms and

concepts that are difficult to translate. There is a continuing
critical tension about whether it is most beneficial to provide
a word for word translation or translate using a parallel idiom
in the target language. The further one drifts from a word for
word translation the text becomes more readable while

45
banking more on the theological understanding and opinions
of the translator.

An example is a text that states, “Women keep silent in

church.” Should this be interpreted literally or taken in its
cultural context? Isolating verses outside its context results in
misinterpretation and devastating abuse of Christians. The
verse is utilized as a weapon against women.

Bible sales are big business. Translators have to be cautious

not to be at odds with principal denominational doctrines
which would almost ensure the failure of the translation in
terms of sales.

Every serious student of the Bible should research Bible texts

rather than depend on the translations of fallible humans,
especially when dealing with monumentally significant
subjects. Learning the original languages is a great idea, but
not possible for most people. However, there are plenty of
study aids like Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and
dictionaries, keyword Bible aides and a host of other
resources. Checking translations, within reasonable accuracy,
is achievable by any serious student with the aid of Bibles
aids and referencing the works of experts in the field. A
systematic investigation can uncover remarkable truths.

3. Missing Punctuation
Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contained no
punctuations. The punctuation were later additions by editors,
according to their understanding of the text. The translators
could potentially force it to read consistently with their
beliefs by the use of punctuation.

46
Punctuation can make a huge difference. The following
example illustrates this: “Let’s eat Grandma!” - “Let’s
eat, Grandma!” The addition of the comma after the word
‘eat’ completely changes the meaning.

Littered throughout the New Testament numerous verses

exist where punctuation is missing; it begs the question,
“How many verses are being completely misunderstood?” As
you will see it is a significant amount causing substantial
misunderstandings. The majority of readers are totally
oblivious to this, yet they are dogmatic and adamant that their
interpretation and understand is accurate. Doctrines,
denominations, and divisions have been created based on
misunderstandings due to the absence of punctuation.

One of the major issues with missing punctuation is the

absence of quotation marks. In the writings of Paul, he would
quote a false teacher and then refute that teaching. In most
Bibles the quotation marks are missing, giving the impression
that what is on paper is the teaching of Paul when in fact he is
quoting a false teacher. Scholars in the past have been baffled
by what appeared to be Paul’s contradictory statements until
they understood this fact.

According to Michael Hardin, Paul would send a reader to

deliver his epistles. These readers would read the words of
the false teacher in a different voice to that of Pauls teaching
so that the hearers could differentiate the quote from his
refutation of the false teaching.

There are a number of passages where quotation marks are

missing. I cannot list all the examples, but a few will suffice
to illustrate this major problem.
47
(a) I Corinthians 7:1:
In the NLV, this verse reads: “Now regarding the questions,
you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual
relations. “ New Living Translation

It appears that Paul is teaching that it is good to abstain from

sexual relations. But this is not the case. In an accurate
correction the NIV adds the quotation marks to render the
text accurately:

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man
not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Paul is quoting a letter that was delivered to him; he was

stating what the false teachers were teaching. He was not
stating his personal view as some Bibles make it read. In the
next verse he refutes the false teaching:

“But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should

have sexual relations with his wife, and each woman with her
husband.” I Corinthians 7:2.

Let me paraphrase these two verses, “In the letter, you sent
me you state that “it is better for a man not to have sexual
relations with a woman.” I say to you that since sexual
immorality is the result of that teaching, then it is better that
each has their own partner to prevent immorality.”

Is the celibate more righteous and the married second class?

Countless numbers have remained celibate based on a
misunderstanding of this verse. It has been used to imply
celibacy is better than marriage.
48
(b) Romans 1: 18-32
This passage is mistakenly thought to state Paul’s clear
opposition to homosexuality. This interpretation seems to be
far from the truth. Verse 18-32 is Paul paraphrasing or
quoting the teaching of certain Jewish teachers in Rome who
were believers. The content of these verses is identical to the
teaching of certain Jewish teachers at the time, harsh and
graceless. Most of it is directly take from the Wisdom of
Solomon, an anti-gentile writing that was popular at the time.

In the next chapter, Chapter two and verse one, Paul gives his
response. Remember, the chapters and verses later additions,
so Romans 2:1 is a continuation of Romans 1. Notice how the
tone changes:

“You may think you can condemn such people, but you are
just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are
wicked and should be punished, you are condemning
yourself, for you who judge others do these very same
things.” Romans 2:1

Throughout Romans 1-4 Paul is going back and forth quoting

the teachings of the false teacher then refuting it. When he is
quoting the errors of the religious teachers, the tone of the
passage is harsh, when Paul responds the tone is loving and
graceful

Romans 1:18-32 has been totally misunderstood and resulted

in huge atrocities against homosexuals. I have only touched
on the issues in Romans 1-4, it dealt with in detail in ‘The
Deliverance of God’ by Douglas Campbell.

49
(c) I Corinthians 10:23
In the New American Standard Version, this text reads: All
things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify.

It appears like Paul is stating ‘all things are lawful.' It was the
religious leaders that were saying all things were lawful, not
Paul. The New Living Translation corrects this error and adds
the quotation marks:

You say, “I am allowed to do anything” - but not everything

is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything” - but
not everything is beneficial.

Notice how Paul quotes what they are saying then refutes it
with his view. When the quotation marks are missing, it
changes the meaning of the text.

(d) Romans 2:9-11

(9) There will be trouble and distress for every human being
who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but
glory, (10) honor and peace for everyone who does well: first
for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (11) For God does not
show favoritism.

Notice verse 9 and 10 show favoritism towards the Jews,

“first the Jew, then for the Gentiles.” Then then verse 11
seem to contradict that, “…God does not show favoritism.”

Verse 9 and 10 are quotations of Jewish teaching, namely that

God favors Jews first. In verse 11 Paul refutes that by stating
God does not practice favoritism.
50
(e) Luke 23:43
Move the comma, which was not even invented until 1490
and inserted in the 1611 King James Bible, and it does not
say when the man would be in paradise.

VERILY.I.SAY.UNTO.YOU.TODAY.YOU.SHALL.BE.WI
TH.ME.IN.PARADISE

Add the comma after the word ‘you’ and it communicates the
idea that the man would be in paradise that day: “Verily I say
to you, today you shall be with me in paradise.”

Position the comma after the word ‘today’ and it implies

Jesus is making the statement today and in the future the man
would be in paradise: “Verily I say to you today, you shall be
with me in paradise.”

The position of the comma is at the discretion of the

translator, and usually determined by their opinion of when a
person enters Paradise – immediately after death or much
later.

4. No spaces in Greek
The oldest surviving texts are all in capitals; the words are
unseparated. In those early Greek manuscripts the text is
written like this:

THEREARENOSPACESBETWEENEACHWORDINTHISS
ENTENCE

This style makes translation more challenging. Dots were

added into the Greek in the ninth century to separate the
51
words so it would read like this:

THERE.ARE.NO.SPACES.BETWEEN.EACH.WORD.IN.T
HIS.SENTENCE

This difference in sentence structure compared to modern

languages causes translating the Bible more prone to error.
Ancient scribes would have been more likely to make errors
while handwriting lines in this format. Imagine copying by
hand pages of text containing sentences with no spaces
between each word.

5. Addition of Chapters and Verses

The Greek text did not have chapters or verses. The use of
numbered chapters and verses introduced in the Middle-Ages.
Those that introduced the chapters and verses did so based on
their opinion of how the text should be recited. Introducing
chapter separations were the brainchild of by Stephen
Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1207-1228.
Robert Stephanus introduced verses in the mid-16th century.

This unregulated separation causes some issues, including

readers being led to believe the end of a chapter is the end of
a discussion when in fact it often continues in the next
chapter. Imagine reading half of a discussion then
formulating a doctrine. Disaster.

6. Additions to the Text

It may surprise you to learn that when earlier manuscripts
were compared to the later manuscripts, we find verses and
passages that have obviously been inserted. These insertions
are a serious issue that many Bible teachers gloss over as if
irrelevant. If we were to add verses and stories to the Bible
52
would it be acceptable? There would be uproar. Just because
the insertion occurred centuries ago, it is somehow
acceptable.

Woman Caught in Adultery

The story of Jesus forgiving a woman taken in adultery is
beyond any shadow of a doubt not part of John's original
Gospel. The New International Version splits this passage
from the rest of the text with the note: “The earliest and most
reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have
John 7:53--8:11.”NIV

In other words, the earliest Greek manuscripts available, the

earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all made
no reference to this story. Some manuscripts insert it at other
points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25). Others include
this story in the Gospel of Luke, placing it after Luke 21:38.
Many manuscripts have footnotes that specify that scribes
“were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials” Metzger
1994:189
. The records in existence show that no Bible teacher or
commenter made reference to this story for hundreds of years
and when they finally did it was to state that it seemed to be a
later insertion.

Internal evidence in the passage proves this is a non-

Johannine insertion. The story breaks the flow of the wider
passage from John 7:52 to John 8:12; read it and skip the
insertion and it reads smoothly. The vocabulary used in the
insertion differs from the rest of the Gospel of John. One such
example is, John never refers to “the scribes” – but they are
mentioned in John 8:3. Experts state that thirteen other words
in this short insertion cannot be found elsewhere in the
Gospel of John.
53
Scholars have exhausted the data available and cannot
uncover the mysterious source of the story. Bible manuscripts
did not include this story for hundreds of years, and suddenly
hundreds of years later someone inserts this story, and later
scribes copied that version. Is this acceptable? Are there other
additions to the Bible we are unaware exist?

1 John 5:7
Another verse that is spurious is 1 John 5:7: “For there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Some translations completely omit this verse or have a side

note explaining its bogus origins. It is the only verse that
attributes the number three to God, flowing contrary to the
preceding and proceeding verses. A study of the history of
this verse is quite interesting; it may shatter the confidence of
many who have built doctrines solely based on this verse.

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7…Of all the

Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two
manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or
fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century.
Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the
margin.”
― Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New, Testament professor. How We Got the
Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101

1 John 5:7 is clearly an insertion by Erasmus.

54
 “…made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek
NT1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church…
Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-
theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his
reputation ruined.”

― Daniel B. Wallace, Greek, and New Testament Scholar

We have to wonder how many other verses were inserted or

altered in manuscripts older than the ones we possess.

Mark 16:9-20
This famous passage that includes the well-known, “And
these signs will accompany those who believe…” list appears
to be a later addition. Older and more precise manuscripts
discovered show that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally in the
Gospel of Mark. These verses were clearly added later by
scribes. Stylistic differences indicate that it originated from
another writer.

The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome

confirm that virtually all Greek manuscripts accessible to
them did not include v9–20. The majority of modern versions
footnote this passage. In the NIV 2011, the passage is in
italics, clearing signifying uncertainty in regards to its
authenticity.

Mark 9:29
The KJV reads, “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by
prayer and fasting.” The NIV reads, “This kind can come
out only by prayer.” The word ‘fasting’ is not found in the
Greek texts. Many have gone hungry in pursuit of answers
thinking this verse endorsed fasting.
55
7. Mistranslations

666 or 616
Fragments of the Book of Revelation from the late third
century and written in ancient Greek were discovered within
a collection of previously incomprehensible manuscripts.
Astonishingly they contest the conventional acceptance that
the mark of the beast is 666. Instead, the manuscript specifies
the number appears to have originally been 616.

“It is clearly an important new manuscript, giving us a

relatively very early copy of the text of Revelation…It is
probably not the earliest manuscript of Revelation that we
have…but this is the first time [the 616 reading] has been
found in such an early text.”

― Christopher Tuckett, Theology professor, Oxford University’s

Pembroke College.

Other ancient manuscripts of the Book of Revelation also

state the number is 616 instead of 666. Scholar’s debate
which is the original digits, the older 616 or, the newer 666?
Indeed, it could have been a scribal error.

Virgin or Young Woman

“Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a

virgin [Hebrew: almah] shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14 ASV

The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures

translated the Hebrew word ‘almah’ as ‘parthenos’ which
56
specifically referred to virginity. According to experts, the
most accurate translation for the Hebrew word ‘almah’ is
‘young woman’ and not ‘virgin.’ In the NRSV, there is a
marginal note explaining that in the Greek translation of
Isaiah 7.14 the word ‘virgin’ is erroneously used. The use of
the word virgin is considered incorrect by some experts.

Matthew quotes this verse: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive

and bear a son…” 1:23. English translations use the word
‘virgin’ when Matthew quotes Isaiah, but not all use it when
translating the source of the quote in Isaiah.

The development of the virgin birth story is interesting.

Scholars continue to debate this translation. Interestingly,
Paul fails to mention the virgin birth. There is a clear question
mark hanging over the virgin birth story.

Camel through eye of a needle

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the

eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the
kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24

There have been various suggestions to explain the strange

statement referring to a camel going through the eye of a
needle.

It has been proposed that the Greek word ‘kamilos’ [‘camel’]

ought not to have been used, but instead the word ‘kamêlos’
meaning ‘cable or rope’ should have been used. Some late
New Testament manuscripts use this word instead.

57
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a rope to go through the eye
of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the
kingdom of God.”

This explanation seems to make more sense. However, it is

not the only explanation. Experts have suggested that the
Aramaic word ‘gamla’ has a dual meaning of rope and camel,
perhaps because ropes were on occasion made from camel
hair George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation.

Hell
The word ‘hell’ is hotly debated. In the Hebrew language, the
equivalent word for hell does not exist. The Jewish Old
Testament in Hebrew [the Tanakh] contains no notion of a
fiery hell. Some English Bibles mistranslated the word for
‘grave’ as hell, misleading the reader to think hell is revealed
in the Old Testament. The King James Bible inaccurately
translates the word ‘Sheol’ as ‘hell’ in 31 instances in the Old
Testament.

Newer Bibles have reduced the use of this word due to a

mistranslation by earlier versions. Some English translations
do not use the word at all.

 The KJV uses the word hell 54 times. 31 times in the

OT and 23 times in the NT.

 The NKJV uses it 32 times. 19 times in the OT and 13

times in the NT.

 The NIV, ASV, NASB, REB, NLT and the AMP uses
it 13 times. 0 Times in the OT and 13 times in the NT.

58
  The RSV, NRSV, Darby, NCV, use it 12 times. 0
times in the OT and 12 times in the NT.

 The following Bibles never use the word ‘hell’:

New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) Roman

Catholic
Wesley's New Testament (1755)
Scarlett's N.T. (1798)
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823)
Young's Literal Translation (1891)
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900)
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton's Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth's New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin's Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The People's New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson's New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson, 1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
World English Bible (in progress)
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha [NT Only]
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)
59
A Critical Paraphrase of the N.T. by Vincent T. Roth (1960

In the gospels, the word translated hell from the Greek word
Gehenna is a mistranslation. ‘Gehenna’ was a location in this
world and not the mythical underworld. Geh-Hinnom was in
the valley of Hinnom, just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Josh.
15: 8; 18: 6
. In ancient times, it was the location for the worship of
Moloch, where child sacrifices took place. II Kings 23: 10; Ezek. 23: 37,
39; II Chron. 28: 3; Lev. 28: 21; 20: 2
. Gehenna was a place where “the
Israelites sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch, and
also, a fire kept continually burning to consume the dead
carcasses and filth of Jerusalem” ― Dr. Bailey's English Dictionary. In the
New Testament period, it was nothing more than a location
for burning waste and those who heard Jesus mention it
would have known this. As a real name for a well-known
location, it should have been mentioned as Gehenna, as it is
in the French Bible, and some English Bibles including the
Berean Literal Bible, Aramaic Bible in Plain English,
Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible and
Young's Literal Translation. When you see the word hell in
the gospels, the translators have taken the liberty to betray the
text.

I am sure you will agree this word is a major issue and

doctrine in the majority Christian denominations. The use of
this word is debated and rejected by many scholars
significantly enough to cause serious concerns about the
accuracy and reliability of Bible translations. The apostle
Paul never uses the word ‘hell’ in any of his epistles or
sermons, even though he claimed to “declare the full counsel
of God” Acts 20:26, 27.

60
Eternity
The word ‘eternity’ is translated from the Greek word
‘aionion’. A serious mistranslation as occurred here giving
the connotation of never-ending time. The word basically can
mean, ‘a period; age-long.’ It is like the words ‘small’ or
‘large,’ they can mean anything relatively; and ‘time’ can
refer to any length of time whereas ‘hour’ is specific. ‘Aion’
is not a specific period, it can vary in length. We have to
know when to apply the correct meaning consistently with the
rest of the Bible.

In some Biblical verses, this word is used the translation

would not make sense if the word meant ‘never-ending time.’
The disciples ask, “…what will be the sign of your coming
and of the end of the age [aion]?” Matthew 24:3 It would not have
made sense if they had been asking about, “…the end of
eternity [aion]?” How can ‘never-ending time’ have an end?
Neither was Jesus speaking nonsensically when he said, “…
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age
[aion].” Matthew 28:20 NIV. He was speaking of the end of one age
or period of time. [In both these cases the King James Bibles
translates aion as ‘world’ instead of ‘age.’ Hence, people
speak of the end of the world, instead of the end of an age].
Pauls comment in Romans would not make sense either, “…
in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long
ages past [aionios - eternity]” Romans 16:25. Mysteries hidden for
‘never ending time’ [eternity] would remain hidden forever.
The Hebrew word translated ‘eternity’ in the Old Testament
is ‘alam’ and it too causes issues if it meant ‘never-ending
time.’ Jonah states he was in the belly of the fish for ‘alam,'
“the earth with its prison bars closed behind me forever
[alam]” Jonah 2:6 Was Jonah in the belly of the fish forever or a
short period?
61
In the Greek version of the Old Testament, we read about
“everlasting mountains” and “everlasting God” within the
same verse. Does this mean the mountains are never-ending
like God? Just using one-word ‘eternity’ and applying it to
every instance results in confusion. Some Bibles have
corrected the above error, and many biblical scholars grant
this viewpoint.

“The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of

time. Neither the noun nor the adjective IN THEMSELVES
carries the sense of “endless” or “everlasting.”

― Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, vol. IV, p.
59

“The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the concept
of eternity as timelessness.” Page 643 “The O.T. has not
developed a special term for eternity.” Page 644. “The use of the
word aion in the N.T. is determined very much by the O.T.
and the LXX. Aion means long, distant, uninterrupted time.
The intensifying plural frequently occurs in the N.T....but it
adds no new meaning.” Page 645

― The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4

Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible does not use

the word eternity at all. Many Bible translations have
endeavored to correct this mistranslation, but the concept of
never-ending punishment remains lodged in polluted minds.
Torment

62
 “…There they will be tormented day and night forever and
ever.” Revelations 20:10

In Revelation 20:10, the word mistranslated ‘torment’

originates from the word basanos. It was symbolic for testing
for the ‘divine nature’.TMP The Bible frequently speaks of
refinement by fire, including the testing of gold by fire.

“To test the quality of natural gold, they employed a black

stone mined in Lydia, a city north of Jerusalem called the
‘touchstone.’ In the Greek, it is called ‘basanos.’ It is found a
few times in the Greek New Testament but mistranslated. A
piece of gold would be struck against that stone leaving a
thin streak of gold on the stone. This mark would be
compared to the mark left by pure gold. To the expert eye,
one could thereby determine how pure the gold was or
whether it was gold at all. This stone is still used in some
parts of the world.”
― Gary and Michelle Amirault, Tentmaker Publications (TMP)

Revelations 20:10 speaks of testing and purification, not

tormenting punishment.
Can you see how mistranslations can occur when translators
are biased?

Eternal ‘Punishment.'

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment…” Matthew 25:46

This is the only verse in the entire Bible where a combination

of the words ‘eternal’ and ‘punishment’ are used, even then
it’s an obvious mistranslation. The word translated
63
‘punishment’ in Greek is ‘kolasis,’ and it means ‘to curtail,
retrain, chastise, or prune’ – as in “to prune a tree to make it
more fruitful.” It speaks of correction, not punishment.

Bible translators misleadingly used a hard word [punishment]

instead of a soft word. Fortunately, not all Bible translations
make this mistake but have instead remained faithful to the
Greek text. The concept of ‘never-ending punishment’ is non-
existent in the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible.

As already mentioned, ‘eternity’ is better translated ‘age’ as

in a period. Instead of eternal punishment, it should read
something like, “a period of correction” or “a time of
pruning.”

Repentance
According to experts, neither the word nor the concept of
repentance originates from the Bible. The word ‘repentance’
originates from the Latin word ‘penance.’ Penance is one of
the Sacraments of the Catholic Church that involves feeling
earnest remorse for sins and submitting to appropriate
chastisement. Penance was manufactured by the religious
elite to wring money out the guilty masses through financial
indulgences. Financial donations could secure forgiveness,
and the clergy could dictate the amount.

The ‘re’ was added to ‘penance,' to get more mileage out of

the sin conscious masses and the word ‘re-penance’ was
coined, later changed to ‘repentance.’ Penance thus generated
recurring donations, extended remorse for sins and protracted
punishment to secure forgiveness. This word and the concept
have become and remained widely accepted.

64
The Greek text uses the word ‘metanoia,’ which when
unpacked the word is enlightening: ‘meta’, meaning ‘after’;
‘noeo’ meaning ‘to think.’ It simply means ‘an after-
thought’; ‘think beyond what you know’; ‘reform your mind’;
‘new thought.’ or to ‘rethink.’ The word has zilch to do with
sin or remorse. Examine the scriptures and you will discover
there is rarely a verse where the words ‘repent’ and ‘sin’ are
next to each other; even then it is about rethinking, not
remorse.

The concept of ‘penance’ is not originally found in the Bible;

it was subtly imported. In the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate
‘metanoia’ was exchanged for ‘paenitentia’ which meant
‘acts of penance.’ The Latin meaning became widely
accepted, straying from the original meaning ‘rethinking’ to
an emphasis on ‘remorse and a sense of deserving
punishment.’

Both Luther and Calvin sought to eradicate the concept of

penance from the meaning of repentance. They highlighted
the root meaning of the word repentance ‘metanoia’ instead.
The erroneous word and definition have been so widely
accepted that the proud legalists would rather continue with
their warped versions of repentance than to admit error and
be humiliating. This insertion is further evidence the Bible
has been tampered with.

8. Words Evolve in Meaning

The meaning of words can be unclear. Since there is no such
thing as unchanging language, a word may mean something
today that it did not mean at the time of translation. For
example, the word ‘mansion’ in John 14 (KJV) is translated
from the word ‘mono’ means ‘dwelling place’ or ‘rooms.’ A
65
mansion in the time of King James meant any dwelling place.
Today it refers to a large residence with many rooms. Based
on this misunderstanding many Christians believe this verse
teaches they will have a ‘mansion’ (a large house) in heaven.
Does this house have a bedroom? Do you believe you will
sleep in the next life? Does this house have a toilet? Does this
house have a shower? Does this house have a kitchen? If you
answered no to all these questions, then it sounds more like a
barn than a house.

Hymns like ‘That Mansion over the Hilltop’ have been

written and sung, sermons preached and books written about
this verse – all with passion and sincerity. This point may
sound like a trivial matter, and it is to some extent, but the
problem is that misunderstanding of other words causes
major issues, and the results are catastrophic.

9. Idioms, Symbols, and Parables

The whole of the Bible should not be taken literally. Bible
passages that are poetic, parabolic and symbolic are
frequently mistakenly interpreted literally.

The ancients, including the Jewish people, would teach using

parables and idioms. In the Jesus story we are told that Jesus
would not teach except by parables:

“Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did

not say anything to them without using a parable.” Matthew 13:34

“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming

when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell
you plainly…” John 16:25

66
Parables within parables were common. Parabolic stories
were written where historical figures and locations are
interwoven with invented or borrowed mythical stories. Such
is the case with the Old Testament, the Gospels and some
would argue the Book of Acts.

Paul speaking of an Old Testament story writes, “Which

things are an allegory…” Galatians 4:24 KJV. The NIV read, “These
things are being taken figuratively…”

Again speaking of an Old Testament story, he also states:

“Now these things took place as examples for us…” I Corinthians
10:6
; “And all these things as types did happen…they were
written for our admonition…” I Corinthians 10:11 YLT; “For whatever
was written in earlier times was written for our
instruction…” Rom 15:4

When parables are read symbolically, as intended by the

writer, the text has greater meaning and impact in its
message. To take a text literally when it was intended to be
read symbolically is to commit intellectual suicide. There is
an abundance of instances when symbolic biblical language
has been incorrectly interpreted literally. It would take an
exhaustive work to detail them all.

10. Lazy Reading

The Biblically illiterate have the propensity to twist scripture.
Erroneous traditional interpretations can be passed from
person to person, generation to generation with few bothering
to check facts. Every serious student of the Bible should
invest in data mining to ensure they understand the biblical
text in its correct context.

67
Conclusion
Radical fundamentalists refuse to recognize what is obvious
to everyone else, that the Bible is covered with human
fingerprints. Bible texts were written to specific
individuals/groups, in specific locations, at specific times and
to deal with specific issues. You cannot just carelessly lift the
text and apply it to your generation and situation. In reading a
passage, we have to consider historical context, social
context, linguistics issues, translation and mistranslation
issues, translator bias, scribal errors, scribal intentional
alterations, chapter divisions, grammatical issues, advances in
scholarship, reader’s perception and preconceived ideas and
numerous other factors. This is just the way it is, the cold
hard facts. To assume it’s just the “plain reading” of the text
is naïve. It is helpful to read the Bible with critical eyes.

“This kind of Bible— the Bible we have— just doesn’t work

well as a point-by-point exhaustive and timelessly binding list
of instructions about God and the life of faith... When we try
to squish the Bible’s diverse voices into one voice, we are no
longer reading the Bible we have— we are distorting it and
cutting ourselves off from what it has to offer us.”
― Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So

The religionist idolatrously worships the Bible, their

doctrines, and interpretational methods, refusing to
participate critical thinking since their idolatrous concepts
may not survive the process. On the rare occasion they do, a
proven process ensues. First, the religionist will claim the
Bible is without error. When presented with the facts, they
change their story and admit the Bible contains errors, but
“nothing significant.” When presented with major errors they
68
change tune again and claim the message as a whole is still
intact. When shown that the message is not as clear as they
assumed they play their final card, “God speaks to me! I go
by that!” The Bible then loses its authoritative position to
subjective experiences.

Envisage this scenario: A group of Bible translators

mistranslates certain verses by slightly changing the meaning
of an important passage. Over the next two generations, the
Bible version becomes popular, but most readers are
oblivious to the mistranslation. You then discover it contains
mistranslations. What do you do?

Ancient texts and theological arguments are not comparable

to permanent mathematical formulas. The consequence of
slippery language and problematic translation issues is
imperfect Bibles. At best translators can take a shot at
generating probable translations limited by current
scholarship and subject to correction at a later date.

The religionist is happy to take passages out of context when

it suits them, thinking they have nailed their doctrines. They
mistakenly demonize others who sincerely read the Bible and
reach different conclusions. The following verse comes to
mind: “They want to be known as teachers…., but they don't
know what they are talking about, even though they speak so
confidently.” I Timothy 1:7

Study to correctly divide and explain the text. Examine the

text objectively, even if it agitates and hits you. Remain
intellectually alive by not becoming lazy about learning.

69
 Chapter Two
Biblical Literalism

The next clash of civilizations is between religion and

intelligence. If religions continue to adopt misguidedly literal
interpretations to their scriptures, we are doomed to continual
unnecessary conflict and tension.

Biblical literalism can mean reading the Bible literally in the

manner the text contextually demands. In this chapter I am
not using the word ‘literally’ in this manner, I am defining
this word to mean ‘taking the Bible at face value.’ We cannot
always take Bible passages at face value, to do so is naïve.
The Bible more about meaning than history. The real
question is not, ‘Did this happen?’ But rather ‘What does it
mean?’

The biblically illiterate approach the Bible simplistically,

instead of simply. To take the whole Bible literally robs the
reader of the rich meanings the author intended to convey. A
surface reading of the Bible converts it into a handbook of
strict legalistic rules and regulations.

Blind-sighted literalism forces the traditionalist to use the

Bible as a weapon of mass destruction. The Bible should be
taken seriously and but its entire content should not be taken
literally. Literalists take it literally because they choose to,
not because they have to. Certain Bible passages that are
poetic, parabolic and symbolic are incorrectly interpreted
literally through a non-Jewish lens.

70
Historically, Bible passages have been quoted to defend the
Inquisition, the Crusades, slavery, and sexism, anti-Semitism,
discrimination against disabled people and countless other
monumental atrocities. Each of these beliefs was constructed
on the literal words of particular Bible passages. The literal-
minded reader must re-examine texts from the Bible they
hold with bloodied hands.

Unlike the ancients, modern Western culture attaches truth

with factuality. They diminish the value of metaphorical
language, becoming tone-deaf to metaphor, symbolism, and
allegory. For example, names were significant in ancient
times. Names in ancient creative writing would carry
meaning; today name meanings are irrelevant. The Biblical
literalist undervalues Biblical symbolism, at best they loosely
acknowledge some symbolism. It’s a grave mistake to
literalize a writing that was never meant to be literalized. If
you were to take everyday slang, idioms and figurative
language literally, you would end up confused. Sadly, readers
make this error with the Bible.

In this chapter, I will deconstruct New Testament stories so

that layers are peeled to reveal veiled messages - veiled to the
untrained eye. Unfortunately, just has Peter cut off the ear of
the soldier, many preachers have used the ‘Sword of the
Spirit’ unskilfully to cut off the ears of the laity, thus this
chapter may be tough to swallow for the literalist. I aim to
strip the layers of the Bible, so it is read with Jewish eyes to
expose a literary montage. Resist any urge to skip this
chapter.

Are All The Stories in the Bible Historically

True?
71
The famous allegorical novel, ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ by the
preacher John Bunyan 1628 –1688 is clearly a parable. Its
parabolic style is apparent in how the people and locations
are intentionally named. The story centers on man named
Christian, who is on a journey from his hometown, the ‘City
of Destruction’ [this world], to the ‘Celestial City.’ Along the
way, he meets characters like Mr. Worldly Wiseman to Lord
Hate-good, Mr. Stand-fast, and Mr. Valiant-for-Truth. Any
claim this was a historical biography would be met with
mocking laughter.

[Translated into over 200 languages. At the time of this writing I live less than
150m from his residence].

The early church fathers, including Origen c.185 - c.254, Gregory

of Nyssa c.335 – c.395, and later Augustine c354 - c430 viewed the Old
Testament as a spiritual analogy; the stories were depictions
of ‘conflicts’ in our personal lives with egotism,
unforgiveness, lust and other evils.

Imagine an author in ancient times penned a parable designed

to make sense of the world using contemporary folk tales, and
centuries later that writing was discovered and interpreted as
literal history? This scenario describes what has transpired
with the Bible. The early Christians were predominantly
Jewish, so we would expect them to continue using Jewish
writing styles and techniques, specifically Parables and
Midrash, to convey truths.

What is Midrash?
It is critical to acknowledge the Bibles enigmatic and non-
literal style of writing. Midrash writing crafts stories by
intertwining creative storytelling with factual information to

72
create parabolic narratives with hidden meanings, a fusion of
drama-packed legends with facts and moral principles.

This is a definition from, ‘Lilith Evolved: Writing Midrash’:

“Historically, rabbis wrote Midrash to explain parts of the

biblical text that aren't clear. If there seemed to be a missing
piece to a story, an inconsistency between two different
passages, or a redundant word or verse, the rabbis would
explain the problem by writing a new Midrash, filling in the
missing dialogue, reconciling the seeming contradiction,…
Rabbinic Midrash has often been taught as if it were the way
things really happened.”

A well-known Jewish Midrash rectifies an apparent

discrepancy in Genesis: Initially, we are told God created
humans ‘male and female.’ Genesis 1:27 Then in the next chapter
we are told God said it’s not good for Adam to be alone and
so God creates him a helpmate. Genesis 2:18 Jewish teachers saw a
flaw here and created a Midrash. The Midrash rectifies the
narrative by adding that when God created humans, God
created Adam and the first woman, Lilith, and she rejected
being given an inferior role and ran off to bear the children of
demons. This was when Adam requested a helpmate. This
type of Midrashim was used by the writers of the Bible to
correct or enhance a passage.

It is critical to understand that Midrash was literary artistry

written as if it were historical, not to deceive but to add
impact, in the same way, a novel does. The Bible is not a
hoax. It's parabolic writing where the laws of nature are
broken as a norm, but the informed reader recognizes it for
what it is. We all recognize that The Three Little Pigs is not
73
historically true. That does not exclude it from being a deeply
meaningful story warning children to beware of wolves in
their lives.

We will now look specifically at New Testament Midrash,

which uses the Old Testament artistically to portray Jesus
more relevantly, significantly and meaningfully.

Parables
According to The Random House College Dictionary, a
parable is a “…short, allegorical story designed to convey a
truth or moral lesson.” When parables are read symbolically,
as intended by the writer, the text has greater meaning and
impact in its message.

Parabolic stories were written with historical figures and

locations interwoven with mythical stories invented or
exported from other sources. Such is the case with the Old
Testament, the Gospels and some would argue the Book of
Acts. It is not within the scope of this book to detail the
numerous examples or evidence to illustrate this, but the
evidence is overwhelming.

The classic mistake is to take parables as historical events.

Jewish authors of the Bible understood their writings as
parabolic. In the 6th decade Christianity attracted Gentile
attention and around 150 - 200 years later they were the
dominant force, unaware of the Jewish style of writing they
interpreted parabolic texts non-figuratively.

What Do Scholars Say?

Most credible scholars of the Bible agree that Bible stories
should not be taken literally since supporting records would
74
need to be consistent, unbiased and from an independent
contemporary eyewitness. These do not exist.

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told
literal stories, and we are now smart enough to take them
symbolically, but that they told them symbolically, and we
are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

― John Dominic Crossan, Irish-American New Testament scholar

“Yet as metaphorical narratives, they can be profoundly true,

even though not literally factual.”

― Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of

Faith, p. 50.

Sometimes people label the parallels between the Old and

New Testament as supernatural ‘types and shadows.’ These
explanations are of human construction and opinion. Students
of the Bible try to understand and explain the text in the best
way they can with the knowledge they have, but new
information can change previous views. Academia is fluid,
not stagnant. Modern Scholarship does not view the parallels
as supernatural predictions and fulfillment; rather it goes
where the clear evidence leads, not where blind faith directs.
If the blind follow the blind, both will end in the ditch of
ignorance.

Ignorance of the symbolism and what they represent will

result in attempts to lift these first-century picture language
stories and forcefully dump them in 21 st Century minds, a
disastrous enterprise.

75
What Does The Bible Say?

What Does Paul Say?

Literal interpretations of certain passages are lethal: “…the
letter [literal] kills, but the Spirit gives life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6. To
understand the spirit of a text is to comprehend the meaning
and intention of the author.

Paul speaking of an Old Testament drama writes, “Which

things are an allegory…” Galatians 4:24 KJV. The NIV reads,
“These things are being taken figuratively…” An allegory is
a story which must be interpreted to uncover a hidden
meaning, typically a moral one: “The law is only a shadow of
the good things that are coming, not the realities
themselves.” Hebrew 10:1. The Old Testament stories were
allegories, shadows and not reality.

What Do the Gospel Writers Say?

Ancient Jewish people commonly taught using parables and
idioms. In the Jesus tale we are told that Jesus would never
teach without using parables:

“Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did

not say anything to them without using a parable.” Matthew 13:34

“Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming

when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell
you plainly…” John 16:25

“Why is my language not clear to you?” John 8:43

These are clues that the gospels themselves are parabolic.

They are parables that contain parables. What would you
76
think of someone who claimed the parables Jesus told were
actual historical events? You would think they were
mistaken, right? It is also an enormous mistake to think the
gospels are accounts of actual historical events.

Ancient stories were often written skilfully to contain hidden

messages. On more than one occasion Jesus spoke in
parables, and the audience mistakenly took it literally. The
gospel of John contains hints that its content was not to be
taken literally.

In the second chapter of John Jesus declares, “Destroy this

temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” John 2:19 The
Jews questioned how he would raise a building in three days
that took forty-six years to build John 2:20. They interpreted what
he was saying literally; he was speaking figuratively. “But
the temple he had spoken of was his body.” John 2:21

In the third chapter of John Nicodemus comes to Jesus by

night. Jesus tells him he must experience a new birth.
Nicodemus interprets this literally and asks, “How can
someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter
a second time into their mother's womb to be born!” John 3:4
Jesus goes on to explain he is talking spiritually, not literally.
John 3:6

In the fourth chapter of John, a woman encounters Jesus at a

well. He claims that if she drinks the living water, he gives
she will never thirst again John 4:10. She interprets it to mean
literal water John 4:11. Jesus goes on to explain he is not talking
about literal water from a literal well, but the spiritual water
that is like, “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” John
4:14

77
In the sixth chapter of John Jesus proclaims that to inherit
eternal life his disciples must eat his flesh and drink his blood
John 6:53, 54
. The disciples believed he was speaking literally John
6:60
, but he was speaking figuratively John 6:63. This
misunderstanding of symbolic language resulted in many
disciples leaving Jesus John 6:63. It still offends people today to
learn that the gospels are not literal but figurative.

In the seventh chapter of John Jesus announces, “You will

look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you
cannot come.” John 7:34 The Jews questioned his words thinking
he was speaking about a literal destination John 7:35, but he was
speaking figuratively.

In John 8 Jesus speaks of his Father John 8:18. The Jews thought
he was speaking a literal earthly father and asked, “Where is
your father?” John 8:19, but Jesus was speaking spiritually of his
heavenly Father.

Even his disciples mistook his figurative speech as literal. On

one occasion he warned his disciples, “Beware of the yeast of
the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They incorrectly thought he
was scolding them for forgetting to purchase bread. Later he
clarifies that he was speaking figuratively; the yeast
represented the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees Matthew
16:6-7, 11-12
.

Reader, I hope you can see the magnificent way in which the
gospels were fashioned with hidden meanings and messages.

78
Examples of Biblical Parables
Biblical Parables are not like simplistic fairy tale stories told
to children. They are complex and intentionally created to be
hard to comprehend: “This is why I speak to them in
parables: ‘Though seeing they do not see though hearing
they do not understand” Matthew 13:13.

Parables can be somewhat complex and require more than a

little thought. The average reader is totally unaware of these
complexities and assumes they can just pick up a Bible, read
it and understand it. Even those who appeal to divine
revelation fail in this way, or dare I say especially those who
appeal to divine revelation.

Let’s now look at examples of overlooked and misunderstood

parables.

The Parable of Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-11

The incident with Ananias and Sapphira is commonly
understood literally and unfortunately used to instill fear in
Christians. Any reader without insider information will be
oblivious to the fact it is not describing literal events, but one
created to illustrate that law and grace are not to be mixed.

To understand this folktale, we must understand some

background information. The book of Acts is split into two –
the first half emphasizes the ministry of Peter, and the second
half the ministry of Paul. Paul was a preacher of grace while
Peter mixed the law and grace. Peter still partially adhered to
the law, preaching circumcision and even avoiding the
company of the uncircumcised. Paul confronted him,
accusing him of being a hypocrite Galatians 2:11-13. God gave Peter
79
a vision to show him his error Acts 10:9-16. When he changed, the
Christians who believed in circumcision criticized Peter for
interacting with uncircumcised non-Jews John 8:43. In Acts 15
there was a council held in Jerusalem where they discussed
the gospel message being preached to the Gentiles,
concluding that they should not be forced to keep the law and
be circumcised. This backdrop, the separation of law and
grace, is the context of the story of Ananias and Saphira.

The name ‘Ananias’ means 'Grace of God’ from Hannaniyah

in Hebrew, meaning the grace of Yah. Saphira means
‘Saphire Stone’ in Hebrew Strong’s 5601. According to Jewish
traditions, the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament
law were written on a blue sapphire gemstone.

The throne of God is made from sapphire, in fact, a special

kind of sapphire named lapis lazuli.

“…the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.”

Ezekiel 1:26

“…there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in

appearance like a throne.” Ezekiel 10:1

[Some Bibles mention here ‘blue lapis lazuli’; a blue gemstone]

Further, we are told the throne of God stands on a blue

sapphire surface: “…and saw the God of Israel. Under his
feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as
bright blue as the sky.” Exodus 24:10. Two verses later we are
told: “…and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law
and commandments…” Exodus 21:12

80
The literal rendering of the Hebrew reads: “…I will give you
tablets of the stone…” Which stone? Obviously, the blue
sapphire pavement mentioned two verses previously that God
is standing on. In other words, the tablets were carved from
the sapphire gemstone. See also Exodus 32:16; Exodus 28:31

Blue represented the commandments from the law. The

Jewish priests were required to wear blue tassels on the
borders of their garments: “…make tassels on the corners of
your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have
these tassels to look at, and so you will remember all the
commands of the LORD...” Numbers 15:38-39

Why would blue remind them of the commandments?

Obviously, since the commandments were written on blue
sapphire stone. The Jewish Talmud and other ancient Jewish
writings state that God wrote on two stones of sapphire.

“Moses departed from the heavens with the two tablets on

which the Ten
Commandments were engraved, and they were made of a
sapphire-like stone.”
― Legends of the Jews, Volume 3 by Louis Ginzberg, page 118 and 119

“Ancient Jewish scholar’s state that the sapphire employed

for the tables was taken from the throne of Glory.” ― Legends
of the Jews, Volume 6 page 49

Intense heat creates Sapphire. Intense heat and lightning were

surely present at Mount Sinai: “Now all the people
witnessed the thundering’s, the lightning flashes, the sound of
the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people
saw it, they trembled and stood afar off.” Exodus 20:18
81
The story of Ananias and Sapphira is clearing one created to
teach that mixing law and grace is lethal. It is not a literal
historical event. The clue is in the names. This is how ancient
parabolic stories were written.

The Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus Luke 16:19.31 - S. Cox Summary
The story of Lazarus and the rich man is typically understood
literally. This is a misunderstanding of epic proportions. In
some cases, it is obvious when a parable is a parable, and on
other occasions, it is difficult to distinguish easily between
the literal and the figurative. This parable is not as simple as
it appears to the casual reader.

It is astounding how many quote the parable of the rich man

and Lazarus as airtight evidence that it’s a biblical teaching
on heaven and ‘hell.’ The story never mentions the word
heaven, and in no way, matches concepts about heaven-
taught elsewhere in the Bible. Readers completely miss the
point of the story when they are unaware of the first-century
Judaic religious background context this parable is built on.

Just a few verses previously we are told of a conflict between

Jesus and the Pharisees about money and serving God: “The
Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were
sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who
justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your
hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God's
sight.” Luke 16:14-15

Jesus then tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to
mock what they valued: traditions and money. It is clearly a
parable. It begins, “There was a certain rich man…” Luke 16:19,
82
the same style of opening as a parable as in the previous
chapter, “A certain rich man had two sons…” Luke 15:11.

The parable mentions specific details for a good reason, as we

will see. It is critical to be aware that the Jews of Jesus’ day
had revised their belief system and merged them with pagan
concepts. Jesus (or the writer of Luke) utilized one such myth
and crafted clever parable from it.

There is an obvious parallel between the stories of Lazarus of

Bethany being resurrected John 11:1-44, and the parable about
Lazarus and the rich man Luke 16:19-31. It is the only parable in
which a character is given an actual name; that name is
suggestively Lazarus. This naming is no coincidence.

 In Luke 16 the rich man specifically requests that

someone be resurrected from the dead and sent to warn
his brothers.
 In John 11 Lazarus is resurrected from the dead.

 In Luke 16 Abraham proclaims that even if someone

rose from the dead to warn the rich man's brothers they
still would not believe.
 In John 11 Lazarus is resurrected from the dead and
the Jewish leaders still refuse to believe and recognize
Jesus as the life giver.

In this parable, there are specific characters mentioned: The

Rich Man, his father, his five brothers, Lazarus, and
Abraham. The question is, who or what do they represent?
The audience would most likely have recognized their
identity.
83
ABRAHAM is Abraham from the Old Testament.

LAZARUS is obviously Lazarus of Bethany raised from the

dead, the brother of Mary and Martha. When we compare the
two stories of Jesus being anointed with oil in Bethany in the
home of Simon the Leper in John 12:3 and Matthew 26:6, we
realize that Lazarus was also known as Simon, who had
leprosy. In the lesson about Lazarus and the rich man,
Lazarus is “full of sores.” Luke 16:20. He was a beggar on earth
with leprosy. Leviticus 13:46. Both men were Jews, named Lazarus,
were beggars, had lepers, died, and both cases their
resurrection could not convince people Compare Luke 16:30-31 and John
12:10.

THE RICH MANS identity can be deciphered by the clues in

the story:

He was rich Luke 16:19

Wore purple and fine linen Luke 16:19
Lived in luxury Luke 16:19
In life, he received good things Luke 16:25
Had five brothers Luke 16:28
Lived in his father’s house Luke 16:27
Had Moses and the Prophets Luke16:25
But failed to listen to them Luke 16:29
Unconvinced even if someone resurrected from the dead Luke

16:31

The description of this rich man is too detailed to be a

reference to all rich people. The Pharisees would have
recognized at the drop of a hat who Jesus was specifically
84
referring to – only one man in the whole of Israel dressed in
purple and fine linen: the Jewish High Priest, whose garments
had to be made using, “blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and
fine linen.” Exodus 28:5-8,15,31,39. The purple dyed fabric was
exceptionally expensive, so stating this is calculated.

During the period when Jesus spoke this parable the Jewish
High Priest was a man named Caiaphas. From the writings of
the Josephus, a Jewish historian who documented accounts of
this period in his writing Antiquities of the Jews, we learn that
Caiaphas met all four of the primary requirements to match
the rich man in Luke 16. He was wealthy, wore purple and
fine linen, lived in luxury and during his lifetime received
good things. See Antiquities, XIII: 10: vi: p.281, XVIII: 1: iv:p.377, also Wars of the Jews 11:8:
xiv: p. 478

The high priest who served with Caiaphas was Annas. Luke 3:2;
Acts 4:6
Annas was father-in-law to Caiaphas John 18:13. Josephus
writes that Caiaphas served as high priest from 18-35AD, this
includes the period of Jesus’ ministry. The Romans removed
Annas from his position for publicly disagreeing with them,
though he maintained his position of authority in the
background. Hence, Jesus is initially tried by Annas, and later
by Caiaphas John 18:13-24,28 but it is Caiaphas, not Annas, who
sends Jesus to Pilate John 18:29. This link fits the criteria for the
rich man requesting a witness be sent to his father’s house.
Luke 16:27

The rich man has five brothers. Luke 16:28. According to

historical records, the five brothers must be the five other

85
high priests, his five brothers-in-laws who were the five sons
of Annas.

“Now the report goes, that this elder Annas proved a most
fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed
the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed
that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened
to any other of our high priests…” ― Josephus, Jewish Historian
Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter 9, Section I, p.423)

They each served as High Priests: Eleazar 16-17AD; Jonathan 36-

37AD
; Theophilus 37-41AD; Matthias 41-43AD; Annas the Younger
62AD

It appears that the rich man was a reference to Caiaphas:

Both had five brothers Luke 16:2; both lived in his father’s house
Luke 16:27
; both had the witness of Moses and the Prophets Luke
16:25
; And neither listened to them Luke 16:29. Neither would be
persuaded even if someone was resurrected from the dead Luke
16:31; John 12:10

As we can see:

Abraham: Abraham from the Old

Testament.
Lazarus: Simon the Leper of Bethany, also
known as Lazarus, the one raised
from the dead.
The Rich Man: Caiaphas - High Priest.
His father: Annas.
His five brothers: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus,
Matthias, Annas the Younger.

This symbolism all leads to the meaning of this parable.

86
When a Jew became diseased, they were considered
‘unclean.' At best they were permitted into the outer court of
the temple; the impure were not permitted to eat from the
sacrifices offered in the inner court, so Simon of Bethany
[Lazarus] was disqualified from eating at the table of
Caiaphas in Jerusalem. [This is similar to the Canaanite
woman, labeled a ‘Gentile dog’ by Pharisees, who said to
Jesus, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their
master’s table.” Matthew 15:27].

Jesus is teaching that those who were feeble, the unclean, and
poor, were deprived of spiritual food by the reigning class of
high priests. He was deliberately criticizing the religious
leaders of the time. A parable can be long and detailed, but
the meaning explained in a few sentences.

This parable is not a description of two literal locations,

heaven and hell, to think so is naïve and a classic beginner’s
mistake. It is challenging to believe that people can view and
speak to people in Heaven, from hell. This parable is unique,
and if taken non-figuratively then it features regarding heaven
or hell, are not found anywhere else in the Bible.

The concepts of Hades and Abraham’s Bosom described in

this tale are not from the Bible but popular Jewish
superstition. Certain Jews of the time believed there was a
gap between the fiery section of Hades and where Abraham
was, and that a giant river ran through it that could be
traveled on a boat steered by an angel. See The Apocalypse of Zephaniah
150AD
The Pharisees believed all ‘sinners,’ meaning if you were
a publican, tax-collector, poor, crippled, blind, lame, a leper,
insane, a Gentile or a Samaritan, you would burn in the fire.
87
According to this myth, influenced by pagan religions, those
who adhered strictly to the law were ‘the righteous’ – a
reference to the wealthy, upright, scribes, experts in the Law,
rulers of the synagogues, priests and high priests, and
certainly the Pharisees. They all would proceed directly to be
with “Father Abraham” in the next life.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus ingeniously uses these
and other common features taken from contemporary Jewish
myths, concepts, and more specifically widespread teachings
of the Pharisees, and blends them into a stinging rebuke
aimed at the religious leaders of the time. Jesus was, in
essence, throwing back the Pharisees teachings back in their
face, something he did on more than one occasion. Matthew 12:22-
24.
He was not endorsing their beliefs about salvation, heaven
or hell, but mocking them openly, directly and unequivocally.

Jesus purposely contradicted their myths:

 The myth believed by Pharisees claimed one could

cross the gap between Hades and Abraham’s bosom
by boat. Jesus states no one can cross the great gap. Luke
16:26

 The Jewish myth also states that Abraham, Isaac and

Jacob prayed for those tortured in Hades. Apoc. Zeph. 11:1-2
Jesus challenges this by stating Abraham refuses to
help the rich man in his torment Luke 16:25.

 In the Jewish myth, Abraham is capable of

resurrecting the dead, just as the rich man requested. In
the first Century Jewish fiction ‘The Testament of
Abraham’ Abraham intercedes for the dead and 7,000
88
 are resurrected. Testament of Abraham ‘A’ 18:11 Jesus reverses the
myth, and in his parable Abraham declines
resurrecting Lazarus.

 In the story Jesus has Abraham saying, “They have

Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” Luke
16:25.
This is what he said to the Pharisees precisely. John
5:39, 44, 45.
Can you see how he is teaching in a veiled
parabolic fashion?

 According to the Pharisees opinion, Lazarus the

unclean leper should have been the one in torment, and
the rich man, Caiaphas the High Priest in paradise.
Jesus reversed this.

The parable is not detailing Jesus’ personal beliefs. Instead,

he intentionally extracts elements from the superstitious
beliefs of the Pharisees and constructs a parable to expose
and ridicule their false beliefs and hypocrisy. [It is precisely
this type of myth that Paul warned against, “…pay no
attention to Jewish myths.” Titus 1:14]. To ensure the message is
not overlooked, Jesus makes the main characters in this
allegorical story real people known to the audience.

Significantly, this unique parable is placed after a sequence of

four parables and contains indications it is parabolic. The
parable is not detailing literal events.

 Caiaphas had not died and descended into Hades; he

was alive and well Acts 4:6.
 In the parable, Abraham refused to raise Lazarus, but
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead John 11.

89
  A drop of water on the rich man's tongue would
obviously not realistically help the rich man burning
and in torment. Luke 16:24. This is figurative language.

Clearly these are not real events.

The parable contradicts church traditions. Do you believe

people in hell can communicate with those in heaven? You
cannot conveniently sit on both sides of the fence, either it is
metaphorical, or it is not. To cherry-pick elements that
support your view and ignore features that contradict them is
a serious violation of intelligent decency.

Without extra-biblical knowledge, it would be near

impossible unravel this parable in modern times. It is a
detailed parable within a detailed parable. Ultimately it is
building up to the account of Jesus’ resurrection.

The Parable of Adam and Eve Genesis 1-2

If everyone on a team called someone ‘coach,' would you
assume that was their name? The terms ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ are
not names; they are descriptive words. In Hebrew ‘Adam’ is
‘HaAdam’ meaning ‘the human’ or ‘mankind.’ In the story,
the generic term ‘Adam’ represents ‘humanity.’ The term
‘eve’ meant, ‘mother of the living.’

Adam was a symbolic character upon which Jesus was based

;
Romans 5:14 1 Cor. 15:45, 21, 22
. God made male and female Genesis 1:27 and
named them Adam [mankind]. King James reads, “Male and
female created he them…and called their name Adam.” Genesis
5:2
. More recent translations clarify this reading, “…he named
them ‘Mankind’…”NIV; “…called them ‘human.’…” NLT; “…

90
named them ‘humankind.’” NET;
“…and named them
Man…”EST.

Eden is also a symbol. Ezekiel states Assyria is a tree in the

Garden of Eden Ezekiel 31:3-9. Again in Ezekiel, we are told the
king of Tyre was in the Garden of Eden Ezekiel 28:12, 13. Eden is a
symbol of perfection and wisdom. Nations are described as
trees in The Garden of Eden.

The ‘Tree of Life’ is not a literal tree. The term is used

elsewhere in the Bible. It is a symbol of wisdom and
understanding Prov. 3:8, 13; wise words Prov. 15:4; the fruit of the
righteous Prov. 11:30; A fulfilled dream Prov. 13:12 [See also Revelation
22:2; Ezekiel 47:7, 12]

Biblical literalists have a vested interest in spinning a yarn

from this story. Do they genuinely believe in talking snakes
and that Adam suddenly came into existence in a puff of
smoke? Do you accept this an ancient tale illustrating the
world we find ourselves in and asking us to make choices
about what we will contribute to writing history?

--------------------

There are stories in the Bible that we may never know the
original meaning of, all we know is that the events are not
described anywhere else in history, and the evidence leads us
to believe they are fictional moralistic narratives.

The Root of the Gospel Stories

The writers of the gospels did not just carelessly make up the
stories. Instead, they deliberately rummaged through the Old
Testament to discover references they could use to pen
91
‘biographies’ that appeared as if they fulfilled Jewish
messianic expectations “according to the Scriptures” 1 Corinthians
15:3
. If this were the only sensible conclusion, we would
expect that no other writers during that period would record
the astonishing events recorded in the Gospels as history,
precisely what we find.

The Gospels seem to have been written after the destruction

of Jerusalem 70 CE. Historians suggest 88 CE as the year the
church and the synagogue split. Up until then synagogue
worship had been the primary mold that shaped the emerging
Christian sect, where the Mosaic writings were read at
assemblies. After the split, the Christian sect had no
scriptures of their own, and it was at this time the gospels
were written based primarily on the first five books of the Old
Testament.

Religionists read the gospels with blinkers, assuming the

gospels are purely historical events simply because they have
been told they are. Few have examined unbiased research on
the subject. They mistakenly reason that if the gospels are not
historical accounts, then they must be fraudulent. They are
unaware that the gospels have been written with literary
brilliance in a style where a message is communicated using
parabolic writing combining fact and myth [fiction and non-
fiction-]. The Jesus story echoes and is colored by stories
from the Jewish Old Testament scriptures. The similarities
between the Old and New Testament are not so evident at
first because readers are unaware there exists similarities, and
secondly the similarities are hidden in masked language.

Paul alludes to this: “For what I received I passed on to you

as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according
92
to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day according to the Scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. The
life of Jesus was not a fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecies. Instead, the story was written based on Old
Testament passages, sometimes stretching them to fit the
developing narrative.

Scholars have outlined far more parallels between the Old

and New Testament stories. Below are a few prominent
parallels that heavily indicate Jewish Scriptures influenced
the gospel writers. Pretending the Gospels are factual
historical biographies of Jesus does not stand in the presence
scholarship. It makes much more sense to conclude that the
gospel writers wrote in a style familiar to Jewish people.

Borrowed Features from the Old Testament

The gospel writers had access to Old Testament texts. They
constructed the Jesus story by exporting and adapting stories
from the Old Testament and embedding them into a tale
about Jesus. In this way, the Jesus story would be
interconnected with their Jewish traditions. This connection is
not a case of fulfilled predictions though it may appear to be
since Midrash writings purposely appear to be historical. Old
Testament writers were writing about current events, not
future events. To detect they were not predictions would
require knowledge of the clues to identify.

Three Wise Men and the Nativity Story

In Isaiah 60, Kings came to the light 60:3 from distant lands 60:4
on camels 60:6 bringing gold and frankincense 60:6. Myrrh is not
mentioned, but Sheba is mentioned 60:6 and so the writer of
Matthew returns to the Old Testament text to a story where
the Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon bearing gifts I Kings
93
10:1-13
including the greatest quantity of spices ever given I Kings
10:10.
Myrrh was the most popular spice in the Middle East.

[Interestingly camels are not mentioned in the gospel account,

yet all modern retellings of this fiction include the magi
traveling on camels. Clearly camels were inserted into the
story from Isaiah 60].

From the story of Balak and Balaam Numbers 22-24 the writer of
Matthew extracts the Davidic star that rose to create the
cosmic sign in the east Numbers 24:17. This story also tells of
someone visiting a king at his request.

‘Virgin’ Women
The concept of a ‘virgin’ birth appears to be the result of a
blunder by Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke use the word
‘virgin,’ but only Matthew mentions his source is Isaiah.
Matthew writes, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear
a son…” Matthew 1:23. The interesting point is that Isaiah 7:14
does not mention the word or concept of a ‘virgin.’ The
original Hebrew uses the word almah, meaning ‘a young
woman [of marriageable age].’ The Hebrew word betulah
means virgin. When the Hebrew text of Isaiah was translated
into Greek, it caused a translation problem; the Greek word
parthenos combines the idea of a young woman and virgin.
This is how the idea of a virgin entered Isaiah 7:14, and
Matthew chose to build his whole storyline on the concept of
a virgin birth.

Luke copied Matthew, but he does not mention the source

text. Perhaps he was aware of the discrepancy and did not
want to taint his account. Even early Jewish experts

94
attempted to point out the error to the stubborn Christians at
the time.

Most scholars consider Mark as the first written gospel. It

does not mention Joseph, yet it provides details about the
family of Jesus. We are told his family went to seize him
since people were accusing him of “being out of his mind”
Mark 3:21
. The teachers of the law were claiming he was demon
possessed Mark 3:22. Does it not seem strange that Mary would
have experienced a virgin birth and yet have suspicions
regarding the mental wellbeing of her miracle son? She does
not receive special treatment in Mark as someone who was
the recipient of divine favor, in fact, she is introduced in the
midst of a tense relationship with Jesus. She is not mentioned
at the scene of the crucifixion nor the tomb following the
resurrection. Later, Mark introduces us to Jesus’ mother as
the “son of Mary,” [which has a taste of scandal, as if to
question his paternity, since the father is unknown or
unmentioned]. His four brothers are cited by name and, at
least, two nameless sisters since females were less important
than men; but no mention of Joseph Mark 6:1-6. Mark seems
oblivious to the existence of Joseph, also to a virgin birth
incident, elements perhaps invented by Matthew in Midrash
style. Is it not a major theme to bizarrely exclude in what
Christians consider the first record of the life of Jesus?

Matthew obviously had Mark in front of him and copied it,

word for word in many passages, making modifications to fit
his version of the narrative. Where Mark writes, “Is not this
the carpenter…” Mark 6:3 Matthew changes it to, “Isn't this the
carpenter's son?” Matthew 13:55. Did you notice that clever
revision? He invents a father figure and introduces Joseph as
the carpenter, instead of Jesus as the carpenter as Mark does.
95
That’s not all. Mark writes, “Isn't this Mary's son…” Mark 6:3,
and Matthew revises that to: “Is not his mother called
Mary…” Matthew 13:55, removing the hint of scandal since he has
manufactured a virgin birth narrative and so fills the gap
related to paternity questions by making the Holy Spirit the
Father of Jesus. This is classic Midrash alterations to fill in
gaps.

The first [Mark] and last gospel [John] never mention the
virgin birth. Paul had penned his epistles before the gospels
were written; he never mentions a virgin birth. This is
peculiar in light of the importance given to it in the other
gospels and modern Christianity.

In the Old Testament, virgin women or young girls were

highly esteemed. It is obvious why a Virgin Mary would be a
suitable inclusion in the Jesus story.

As Christians were being questioned and harassed by Jews

and Pagans regarding their beliefs, they developed the story.
At first, Jesus was declared the Son at the resurrections Romans
1:4
, later at his baptism Matthew 3:17, then at his birth and finally by
the time of Johns gospel Jesus is divine from the beginning
John 1:1
.

The Manger
The Gospel stories make no mention of animals at the birth of
Jesus, nor a stable as do modern day nativity stories. Adding
and removing elements in a story like this was common,
especially with oral traditions.

A manger is mentioned. A manger was a crib or feeding

trough. This feature may have been mined from Isaiah
96
chapter one, “The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner's
manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not
understand” Isaiah 1:3. Perhaps this meant that animals knew
their masters and the trough they were fed from, but Israel
failed to recognize they were fed from Gods feeding trough
[manger]. Luke places Jesus (the bread and word of God) into
Gods manger; in other words, Israel should recognize the
manger from which they would receive eternal life.

The Birth of John the Baptist

The supernatural birth of John the Baptist, though not as
supernatural as the birth of Jesus, echoes a familiar Old
Testament story. His parents were passed childbearing age,
and conception would demand divine intervention.

Similarly, in the classic tale of Abraham and Sarah, Abraham

reaches the grand old age 100, and his wife was aged 90. She
too was passed childbearing age Genesis 18:11. God dispatches an
angel to confirm his promise to give him a son Genesis 18:14. Sarah
bore a son to Abraham names Isaac Genesis 21:2.

Luke retells this story, reinventing the characters as Zechariah

and Elizabeth, who have a son named John [the Baptists]. An
angel, named Gabriel, appears to Zechariah in the temple
while he was in prayer Luke 1:10-11, just as the angel Gabriel
appears to Daniel while he too was praying Daniel 9:21. Daniel
and Zechariah were terrified at the appearance of the angel
Daniel 10:8; Luke 1:12
and both were left unable to speak Daniel 10:15; Luke
1:20
. Both narratives end with a prophecy, yet to be fulfilled
Daniel 8:23-34; Luke 1:69
.

Names were specifically picked in stories because of their

meaning. Zechariah was a significant name and linked to the
97
prophetic book titled Zechariah. Passages from this book are
cited repeatedly or borrowed from in the Jesus story. In
chapter one Joshua the priest is described as “the anointed by
God” Zechariah 4:14 Joshua and Jesus are the same names in
Hebrew. Further, the term ‘anointed one’ and ‘Messiah’ both
originate from the same Hebrew words. Hebrew readers
would have read Zechariah and seen Jesus [Joshua] the
anointed one, for example, the following text would jump out
at the reader: “…and I will remove the sin of this land in a
single day” Zechariah 3:9.

Elizabeth was a rare name, and one other person is mentioned

in the Bible with that name but spelled differently. Elishaba
was Aaron’s wife. She had a sister-in-law named Miriam, in
Greek her name would be Mary – so here in the Old
Testament, we have Elizabeth and Mary. In Luke, Elizabeth
is referred to as Mary’s “kinswoman” Luke 1:36. It seems so clear
that the author of the gospel was hinting the source of his
narrative, he had partially based it on the story of Moses’
family.

These passages, and the like, were combined and used to craft
the Jesus story.

John the Baptist Likened to Elijah

According to Luke, John came in the Spirit of Elijah Luke 1:17.
We are told John would “prepare your way.” Mark 1:2 and be
the voice “crying in the wilderness.” John 1:23; Luke 1:4.

In an identical manner, it was said of Elijah, “I will send my

messenger, who will prepare the way before me” Malachi 3:1. The
reference to a voice crying in the wilderness is borrowed from
Isaiah 40:3. Elijah was to prepare the way for “the great and
98
terrible day of the Lord.” Malachi 4:5. Interestingly, the author of
book titled Malachi was not Malachi. Malachi simply meant,
‘my messenger.’

The clear mimicking of the character of Elijah becomes even

more evident with the description of John the Baptist. We are
told, “John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a
leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild
honey.” Mark 1:6 and that he emerged from a dessert life Mark 1:4

We are told of Elijah, “He had a garment of hair and had a

leather belt around his waist.” II Kings: 1:8 and that he also lived
in the wilderness I Kings 17:1-4.

Only the stubborn doctrinaire refuses to concede the obvious

conclusion humbly, choosing to save face rather than admit
they were wrong in believing the similarities were miraculous
parallels.

Joseph
As mentioned elsewhere, Mark, the first gospel to be written,
does not mention Joseph at all, yet it provides us details about
the family of Jesus. This I suspect is not as some assume that
Joseph passed away, rather that Joseph did not originally
exist as a character in the Jesus story.

It is Matthew that gives Joseph a grand entrance into the

Jesus story, a creative invention rooted in ancient Jewish
texts. In a dream, an angel refers to him as, “son of David”
Matthews 1:20
. He was warned through a divine dream to escape to
Egypt Matthew 2:13
and then instructed in a dream to return from
Egypt Matthew 2:20
Again by means of a dream he is tipped-off to
leave Judea and escape to Galilee Matthew 2:22 All these story
99
elements are rooted in the Old Testament Hosea 11:1; Isaiah 11:1; 4:3;
Judges 16:17

Note the number of dreams mentioned. In the Old Testament

the man known as a ‘the dreamer’ Genesis 37:19 and a dream
interpreter Genesis 40; 41:15 was Joseph, the patriarch. The first
person to have a dream in the New Testament is also a
Joseph.

When it was time for Joseph to return from Egypt with the
child Jesus he was told in a dream, “…for those who were
trying to take the child's life are dead.” Matthew 2:20 When Moses
was instructed to return to Egypt, he was instructed in a
dream, “…for all those who wanted to kill you are dead.”
Exodus 4:19

Lastly, both Joseph the patriarch and Joseph the earthly father
of Jesus had fathers named Jacob Matthew 1:16; Genesis 37:1-2. Even this
has an interesting twist as we will later see.
There are many other parallels from the Old Testament
connecting Jesus to Joseph; your research will easily uncover
them. These parallels are not accidental, nor predictions.

Nativity Tale: Hannah and Samuel

Both Joseph the patriarch and Joseph the father of Jesus are
said to have a father named Jacob. Luke states the father of
Jesus had a father named Heli Luke 3:23. This is noteworthy
because Luke has fashioned part of his nativity story on the
Old Testament tale of Hannah and Samuel I Samuel 1-3. The priest
that announced the birth of Samuel to Hannah was Eli. When
Samuel matured he served Eli in the Temple, Eli would have
been the age of Samuels’s grandad. Based on this it appears

100
Luke selects to name Jesus’ grandad Heli, the Greek word for
Eli.

When Hannah was informed she would give birth to a child I

Samuel 1:17
she replied, “May your servant find favor in your
eyes.” I Samuel 1:18
. When Mary was told she would have a child,
she replied, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me
according to your word” Luke 1:38. Hannah later says, “My
heart rejoices in the LORD! The LORD has made me strong”
I Samuel 1:21
.Mary responded similarly, “my spirit rejoices in
God my Savior” Luke 1:46.

Hannah and her husband presented Samuel at the temple

when he was of age I Samuel 1:22 and in like manner Mary and
Joseph took Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve Luke 2:41-50.

Jesus Cleaning the Temple

It states in three gospels that Jesus entered the temple and
drove out the traders Matthews 21:12-17. He declares, “My house
will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it 'a den
of robbers” Matthew 21:13. The gospel writers frequently use the
book of Zechariah as a source for framing the Jesus story,
exactly as done here. It reads, “…there will no longer be
traders in the Temple of the LORD…” Zechariah 14:21. Jeremiah
also says, “Has this house, which bears my Name, become a
den of robbers to you?” Jeremiah 7:11.

The writers then have Jesus quoting Isaiah, “…for my house

will be called a house of prayer for all nations” Isaiah 56:7.

Jesus and Moses

The parallels between Jesus and Moses are clear examples of
Midrash writing:
101
Moses hid in Egypt as a child. Exodus 2
Jesus hid in Egypt as a
child Matthew 2:13

After the birth of Moses, the leader of his birthplace ordered

the murder of all the babies to murder Moses Exodus 1:22. When
Jesus was born the leader of his birthplace ordered the murder
of all the babies to murder Jesus Matthew 2:16

Moses turned water to blood Exodus 7:20

Jesus turned water to
wine John 2:1-12

Moses fasted 40 days Exodus 34:28. Jesus fasted 40 days Matthew 4:2

Moses selected 12 leaders Exodus 1:1

Jesus selected 12 leaders
Matthew 10:2

Moses chose 70 rulers Numbers 11:16

Jesus chose 70 disciples Luke

10:1

Moses’s face shone with glory on Mount Sinai Exodus 34:29 Jesus’
face shown with glory on the Mount of Transfiguration Matthew
17:2

There are many more strikingly similarities between Moses

and Jesus. The list provided is sufficient to prove my point.
Any unbiased reader will sensibly conclude that the gospel
writers borrowed details from the story of Moses and
incorporated them into the story of Jesus. No doubt they
would have been aware of these factual details before writing.

Jesus and Joseph

102
The parallels between Jesus and another Joseph, one of the
twelve tribes of Israel, are plentiful. Here are a few:

Joseph was unrecognized by his brothers Genesis 42:8

Jesus was
unrecognized by the Jews. John 1:10

His brothers conspired against him Genesis 37:23

Jews made plans
to kill Jesus Matthew 27:1

Joseph was traded for silver Genesis 37:28

Jesus was sold for silver Matthew 26:15
Joseph stripped of his garments Genesis 37:23 Jesus was stripped
Matthew 27:28

Joseph was imprisoned on fabricated charges Genesis 39:19, 20.

False witnesses were brought in testifying against Jesus at his
trial Mark 14:56

Joseph was bound Genesis 39:30 Jesus was bound Matthew 27:2

Joseph was condemned with two criminals Genesis 40:2,3

. Jesus
was crucified in between two criminals Luke 23:32

Multiple other similarities exist. Without a doubt, the Jesus

story was patterned after the Old Testament story of Joseph.

Additional Exported Elements

 “You are my Son, whom I love; with you, I am well

pleased.” Mark 1;11 is extracted from Isaiah 42:1 and
Psalms 2:7.

103
  The story of Jesus entering into Jerusalem on a donkey
is constructed from Zechariah 9:9.

 The Israelites were in the wilderness 40 years because

of their disobedience Joshua 5:6. Jesus was in the
wilderness 40 days because of his obedience. Matthew 4:1-2

 Jesus’ miracle feeding of thousands with fish and

loaves is similar to Elisha multiplying twenty barley
loaves for a hundred men 2 Kings 4:42-44.

 Adam first sinned in the Garden of Eden Genesis 2:9. Jesus

first shed his blood in the Garden of Gethsemane Luke
22:44
.

 In the Garden of Eden, Adam was told: “By the sweat

of your brow you will eat your food until you return to
the ground.” Genesis 3:19 In the Garden of Gethsemane we
are told Jesus’ “sweat was like drops of blood falling
to the ground.” Luke 22:44

There exist numerous additional parallels illustrating how the

gospel stories were crafted from Old Testament passages. To
detail them all would convert this chapter into a heavy book.

Borrowed Stories from Pagan Religions and Extra-Biblical

Texts
Overzealous mythicism frequently exaggerates claims that
the Jesus story copied pagan sources. Christian apologists
attempt to wriggle out of blatant examples of parallels
between the Jesus story and pagan myths. Both these
approaches are disingenuous.

104
The Bible confirms that the early Christian were accused of
creating stories about Jesus. Epistles were usually written in
response to issues, so they contain clues. In 2 Peter we are
told, “For we were not making up clever stories…” 2 Peter 1:16.
This verse only makes sense if it were a response to a specific
accusation of fabricating stories.

Pagans accused Christians in the early second century of

copying their stories, here is the response of a leading
Christian apologist at the time:

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth
of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He,
Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing
different from what you believe regarding those whom you
esteem sons of Jupiter.“

― Justin Martyr 100-165, Analogies to the History of Christ

Experts in comparative religion and mythology confirm this

fact.

“That there are parallels between the Mysteries and

Christianity has been observed since the early centuries of
the Church, when both Christian and non-Christian alike
commented upon certain similarities.”
― Dr. Bruce Metzger, Historical, and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish
and Christian

To deny these similarities and debunk them as insignificant is

being intellectual unscrupulous.

105
Virgin births
Ancient literature predating the Bible reveal that virgin births
myths were abundant in pagan religions where ‘the gods
came down and lived on earth amongst humans.’ It’s naïve to
claim the virgin birth story is completely original when pagan
goddesses were often referred to as ‘virgins’ even after giving
birth to divine beings.

As cited above, early Christians were openly admitted

borrowing the virgin birth story from pagans.

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth
of God, was produced without sexual union…we propound
nothing different from what you believe regarding those
whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

― Justin Martyr, Analogies to the History of Christ

The fact that early Christians admit virgin birth stories existed
in pagan mythology and that the Christian version was
“nothing different” is more than sufficient evidence to prove
that the writers of the gospel cut from the same cloth as pagan
writers.

David Adams Leeming unsuccessfully attempts to prove that

the birth of Buddha was not similar to Jesus by focusing on
the virginity of the mother:

“The Virgin Mary was simply “found with child of the Holy
Ghost” before she was married and before she had “known”
a man. So, too, did the preexistent Buddha enter the womb of
his mother, but since she was already a married woman,
there is no reason to suppose she was a virgin at the time.”
106
 ― David Adams Leeming, History-of-religions scholar, EOR, s.v.
‘Virgin Birth’

The issue is not that the mother of Buddha was a virgin when
he was conceived, but that Buddha was conceived in her
womb without the involvement of a human father.

Glenn Miller of the Christian ThinkTank attempts feebly to

prove Buddha was not born of a virgin:

“Buddha was born of the virgin Maya… There ARE later

traditions. However, that assert that she had taken vows of
abstinence even during her marriage…He [the king of the
Shakyas] had a wife…called the Great Maya, from her
resemblance to Maya the Goddess….one day she conceived
the fruit of her womb, but without any defilement, in the same
way in which knowledge joined to trance bears fruit. Just
before her conception, she had a dream… According to the
later legend he is born not as other human beings, but in the
same way as a universal king he descends from the Tusita
heaven by his own choice, and with this, his father is not
concerned. This is not properly a virgin birth, but it may be
called parthenogenetic, that is, Suddhodana was not his
progenitor.”

Miller seems to think that pressing his point that she may
have had sex previously distracts from the fact that Buddha,
which even Miller admits, was born without a human father.
This explanation is a classic example of Christian apologists
desperately trying to stretch information to fit their bias.

Swaddling Clothes
107
The mention of swaddling clothes in the KJV is perhaps
significant, “You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling
clothes” Luke 2:12 KJV It again links back to Solomon.

An ancient book named the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ was

considered by some early Jews and Christians as part of the
Old Testament. Eusebius, Church Fathers: Church History, Book IV. In chapter
seven Solomon states: “I was nursed in swaddling clothes,
and that with cares. For there is no king that had any other
beginning of birth” Wisdom of Solomon 7:4-5

Could it be that the gospel writer borrowed from this text?

Baptism of Jesus Mark 1:9-11

A similar scene to the baptism of Jesus exists in pagan
mythology:

“The scene in broad outline may derive from Zoroastrian

traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry. Son of
a Vedic priest, Zoroaster immerses himself in the river for
purification, and as he comes up from the water, the
archangel Vohu Mana appears to him, proffering a cup and
commissions him to bear the tidings of the one God Ahura
Mazda, whereupon the evil one Ahriman tempts him to
abandon this call.”

― Robert M. Price, New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Jesus was also tempted of the devil following his baptism.

Miracle Feeding of Thousands

Dr. Robert Price shows how the miracle feeding of thousands
in the Jesus story is derived from the Odyssey:
108
 “But there are more elaborate details in Mark’s stories …
come from the Odyssey 3:34-38, 63-68; 4:30, 36, 51, 53-58,
65-68 MacDonald, pp. 89-90. The reason Mark has two feeding
miracles is to emulate Homer, who has Odysseus’ son
Telemachus, attend two feasts, and Mark has borrowed
details from both. For the first feast, Telemachus and the
disguised Athena sail to Pylos where King Nestor is
presiding at a feast in honor of Poseidon. It is a sailors’
feast, so only men are present. Four thousand, five hundred
of them are seated in nine units of five hundred each.
Everyone ate to satiety, and there were leftovers. In Mark’s
first feast story, Jesus and his men also sail to the site of the
meal. They encounter a group of five thousand men, and,
males (no explanation is offered for this, a simple vestige of
Homer). Jesus has them sit in discrete groups. After the
Elisha-style miracle, everyone eats and is filled, and leftovers
are gathered.”

― Robert M. Price, New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Walking on the Sea Mark 6:45-52

Again Dr. Robert Price shows how the water walking story in
the gospels has its roots in pagan mythology:

“Old King Priam is making the difficult journey to the Greek

camp, to beg the body of his son Hector. Father Zeus beholds
the king’s toiling progress and dispatches Hermes, guide to
travelers, to aid him. “Under his feet he fastened the supple
sandals, never-fading gold, that wing him over the waves and
boundless earth with the rush of gusting winds... {Hermes]
flew, the mighty giant-killer, touching down on Troy and the
109
 Hellespont in no time and from there he went on foot.” As
Hermes approaches Priam and his servant, they fear he is a
brigand who will slay them, but he reassures them, takes the
reins of their mule cart and speeds them on their way,
reaching Achilles’ ship in no time flat. Finally, he reveals his
identity: “Old man, I am a god come down to you. I am
immortal Hermes - my Father sent me here to be your escort,
but now I will hasten back.” Can anyone miss the parallel to
Mark’s story?”

― Robert M. Price, New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

Communion
A pre-Christian inscription to Mithras reads:

“He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so

that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same
shall not know salvation.”

― J. Goodwin, "Mystery Religions of the Ancient World," Thames &

Hudson, (1981), Page 28. Quoted in Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy,
"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" Acacia
Press, (1999), Page 49.

It seems rather similar to the words of Jesus in John: “Unless

you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you
have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last
day.” John 6:53-54

Other similarities are documented in a book by historian

Richard Carrier, ‘On the Historicity of Jesus.’

Historical Anomalies in the Gospels

110
Fiction stories permit the writer creative liberty to build
stories outside of the laws of nature. Pigs really can fly in
fiction storylines. Such genres are recognizable by their
unusual content, like talking animals and flying men.

Worldwide Census
The Bible states that Caesar Augustus ordered a worldwide
census. Luke 2:1. There exists no evidence for such an event in
Roman history. The Romans kept meticulous records.

“… we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar

Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of
an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by
returning to their ancestral home…There is not a single
reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart
from Luke.”

― Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted

Ehrman continues to explain that if this event occurred then,

Joseph would have to return to Bethlehem since his forefather
David originated from there. The problem is David existed a
thousand years before Joseph. Is it conceivable the whole
population of the Roman Empire was obliged to return to
their ancestral place of birth dating one thousand years
earlier? Ehrman states, “If we had a new worldwide census
today and each of us had to return to the towns of our
ancestors a thousand years back—where would you go? Can
you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind
of universal exodus would require? And can you imagine that
such a project would never be mentioned in any of the
newspapers?”

111
If such a monumental event took place, you would expect
ample records by historians of the time.

“…the [only] census that took place during this time frame
was in AD 6-7, and it did not include the areas of Nazareth
and Bethlehem. According to Luke, the residents were
required to travel to their cities of birth to be counted. This
absurd requirement was never applied to any census that the
Romans conducted throughout their empire. This would have
involved cases where families would have been split apart
going to different cities, and it would have devastated the
region’s economy.” ― Michael Runyan

In Midrash writings, the writer was handed a creative license

to craft events and characters so that their storyline was
consistent. Luke had to have Jesus born in Bethlehem though
it was known that he was from Nazareth since a passage in
the Old Testament states a savior would come from
Bethlehem. Micah 5:2. He had to clarify how Jesus came from
Nazareth, in Galilee, a small unheard of town, but originated
from Bethlehem, the ancestral home of King David. The
solution was to invent an empire-wide census.

Walking Dead

“And the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people
who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs
after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and
appeared to many people.” Matthew 27:52-53

The unthinking reader will overlook bizarre accounts like this

that casually mentions masses of dead people resurrecting
and walking amongst the living as if it were normal. Is it not
112
absurd that such a large-scale mass resurrection would go
entirely unmentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, and in
Jewish history? It also begs other questions, how many were
resuscitated? Did they die again?

Mass Murder of Children by Roman Leader

“Herod …gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem” Matthew

2:16

The Jewish historian Josephus wrote extensively about the

period before and after Jesus lived in, yet he never mentions
King Herod’s mass slaughter of children. Imagine Barak
Obama murdered every male child under two and no one
reports it, except one Republican website, would it not raise
suspicions?

It is more reasonable to conclude that this story was carved

from a similar Old Testament story where Pharaoh
slaughtered children in an attempt to kill baby Moses Exodus 1:22.

Historical Evidence
During the time Jesus is supposed to have lived, not a single
Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician,
philosopher, poet or any other contemporary writer mentions
Jesus and many events mentioned in the gospels. Naturally
we would expect that such a famous man, who performed
extraordinary miracles, would repeatedly be mentioned, or at
least once. Other cult leaders are mentioned, but Jesus is not
mentioned once.

113
The gospels are cited as historical evidence for Jesus, but this
is a circular argument – “Jesus existed because the Bible says
Jesus existed.” The gospels were written 40-70 years after
the crucifixion, so they do not count as contemporary
accounts.

The first writing in the New Testament was probably I

Thessalonians, written by the apostle Paul approximately AD
52. It mentions none of the stories mentioned in the Gospels
before the resurrection, nor do any of his future writings.
Significant themes like the virgin birth are totally absent in
the epistles of Paul, almost has if he had never heard of them.
Any mention of Jesus is transcendental supernaturalism; there
is little that is unmistakably earthy.

Different rules of interpreting history apply to Jesus than to

other figures in history, simply because it is claimed he
accomplished extraordinary feats. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary verification. It would be like claiming
Hercules was a real figure in history and accepting scanty
evidence like we do for other figures in history.

The only sensible conclusion is that the gospel accounts are

parabolic. Everything points to that. This does not mean that
Jesus never existed.

Words of Jesus
Red ink is not validation the words attributed to Jesus were
his words. The gospels are not contemporary eye witness
reports since anonymous writers wrote them 40-70 years after
the crucifixion; they would have been 70+ years of age,
considerably exceeding the average first-century life

114
expectancy. The gospels were Greek writings, neither the
disciples or Jesus seem to have been literate in Greek.

Virtually all the words attributed to Jesus in John are not

found in the other gospels. Matthew seems to have copied
Mark almost word for word. Between the gospels, they alter
the wording attributed to Jesus, to suit their narrative. Then
there are the private conversations, who recorded or made
public these private conversations? For example the
conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, or between Jesus
and Pilot? Any apologetic response is nothing but far
stretched speculation. Was a scribe eavesdropping on Jesus
and jotting notes? Were his disciples wiretapped?

Idioms and Figurative Language

The word idiom in Greek is idios, meaning personal. An
idiom is any specialized vocabulary or expression, with an
unobvious meaning, belonging to a specific people group or
country. Every single dialect coins its collection of idioms
and figurative phrases. The Bible has its collection of idioms
and figurative phrases.

The Greek and Hebrew languages are bursting with many

types of idioms, figures of speech and unique sayings; many
have not been accurately transported into the Bible. The Bible
is littered with unrecognized idioms. The Greek New
Testament alone has more than 200 individual types of
figures of speech which are frequently interpreted literally,
but in Bible times, they were understood figuratively.

A modern example would be, “I hope you break a leg”

which means, “good luck.” If that phrase was translated into
another language and the reader was unaware of its meaning,
115
it would seem like a harsh remark. Another example is “hot
potato” which is simply a reference to something that is
popular as in, “They are selling like hot potatoes!” Slang
must be understood symbolically. Let us examine a few
examples. You may kick yourself when you realize you have
taken figurative imagery and language literally.

Fire and Brimstone

Pulpits across the globe scream the phrase, ‘fire and
brimstone.’ It is used numerous times in the Bible, and
significantly six times in the Book of Revelation. The Book
of Revelation is jam-packed with symbolic language so to
interpret this phrase literally is the blunder of a novice.

The word ‘fire’ is used numerous times in the scriptures to

refer symbolically to purification. The Greek word for ‘fire’
is ‘pur’ from which we derive the word ‘pure’. In 1
Corinthians 3:13 it states the believer’s works will be tested
by fire. Clearly this is not literal fire.

Brimstone was a stone used for purification. It is an old word

for Sulphur. The word theion is translated ‘brimstone.’
Theion also means ‘divine.’ It is amply clear that fire and
brimstone are symbolic languages meaning divine
purification.

Lake of Fire
Only the Book of Revelation speaks of a ‘lake of fire.’ The
untrained reader concludes a literal lake of fire exists. Stop
and think. Fire and water do not mix; this is a clue that it’s
figurative language, not to mention it is taken from the book
of Revelation, a book crammed with symbolism. Further
clues exist. We are told, “…the devil…was cast into the lake
116
of fire and brimstone…” Revelation 20:10. Literal fire does not burn
spirits. Death and the grave are “thrown into the lake of fire.”
Revelations 20:14
. Death is not something physical that can be
thrown into a literal fire.

Finally, a lake is a reference to water, and water in the Bible

is often a symbol of purification Numbers 8:7 and is mentioned
700 times in the Bible; the lake of fire is a clear reference to
purification - the lake of purification or a ‘time of
purification.’ It is a reference to correction and purification,
not punishment.

Rod of Correction

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of

correction shall drive it far from him.” Proverbs 22:15

Before spanking their child, the deluded parent who

advocates the corporal punishment of children is forced to
justify their blind loyalty to scripture by saying, “It hurts me
more than it hurts you!” It may not have dawned on these
dim-witted abusive parents that the book of Proverbs is full of
proverbs. Proverbs is a book of poetry and figurative
language.

At first, it may appear this verse advocates spanking children.

The Hebrew word for ‘rod’ is shebet. It has several
connotations – a stick for walking, writing, fighting, ruling,
and reprimanding. However, the most common reference is
to shepherds tending their flock. The ‘rod’ was for protection
against prey and to guide gently wandering sheep, not to beat
them – “…your rod and your staff, they comfort me” Psalms 23:4.
117
In clear English, this proverb reveals what the rod of
correction is. The ‘rod’ is a metaphor for CORRECTION.
The ‘rod OF correction’ means the rod is a correction. In
other words, correction is being described figuratively as
a rod. It is like when we speak of ‘the long arm of the law.’ It
would be stupid to claim it meant the law is a physical long
arm.

The rod is a shepherd’s instrument for comforting sheep. Psalms

23:4.
It can symbolize force and power Revelations 19:15; Isaiah 9:4; Psalms
125:3
. It is figurative language, but if interpreted literally then
you could equally quote verses that support the whipping
adults Deuteronomy 25:2, 3. Proverbs advocates beating fools with a
rod Proverbs 26:3, not only children. Advocates of child corporate-
punishment conveniently avoid quoting the verse about
beating a fool with a rod, perhaps because if it was enforced
they qualify for a beating. If you want to adopt the Bible as
your guide for disciplining children, then be consistent and
practice verses like, “Anyone who attacks his father or his
mother must be put to death” Exodus 21:15 or “If anyone curses
his father or mother, he must be put to death.” Leviticus 20:9.

The Bible also states, “Fathers do not anger your children;

instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the
Lord.” Ephesians 6:4 and “Fathers, do not aggravate your
children, or they will become discouraged.” Colossians 3:21. Paul
asks a pertinent question, “Which do you prefer? Shall I come
to you with a rod, or in love and with a gentle spirit?” 1
Corinthians 4:21.
I am confident he was not asking if he would bring
a physical rod to beat Christians.

118
When reading the Bible, you must contextualize the passage
and recognize when verses are literal, rational or relevant.

Plucking Eyes, Unquenched Fire and Salted with Fire

“Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched46 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out; it
is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye,
than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell,47 Where their
worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched 48 For
everyone will be salted with fire 49” Mark 9

This whole passage contains figurative language. [Some

Bible translations, including the NIV, completely omit verse
46.]

In verse 47 we are told that if our eye offends us, we must

pluck it out. If taken literally, there would be many Churches
filled with people wearing eye patches. To ‘pluck out one
eye’ figuratively speaks of pruning. We then must conclude
that the rest of the passage is figurative too.

Again in verse 47, the word translated hell is the Greek word
Gehenna. As a real name for a well-known location, it should
have been mentioned as Gehenna, as it is in certain French
Bibles and some English Bibles. When you see the word hell
in the gospels, the translators have taken the liberty to betray
the text and insert their intrusions.

Verse 48 speaks of being “salted with fire.” This strange

term has puzzled Greek scholars for many years. Experts
claimed it was “one of the most difficult to interpret in the
New Testament.” Ezra P. Gould with some experts suggesting up to
119
15 possible meanings. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida Bible experts
have concluded that this term is a reference to purification
since the Jews used fire and salt in their Temple sacrifices. A.
B.Bruce; F. F. Bruce.
: “Everyone will be purified by fire as a sacrifice
is purified by salt.” Mark 9:49 TEV: “For everyone will be tested
with fire” Mark 9:49 NLT.

This figure of speech must have made sense to the hearers

and readers at the time in a way that is not obvious now. It
has been suggested this was a Hebrew idiom that was
translated exactly into Greek, instead of dynamically, and
over time, the original meaning has been lost. This type of
ambiguity exists throughout the Christian Scriptures.

Adding the fact that the Greek word for ‘fire is ‘pur,' from
which we get the word pure, this passage seems to speak
about purification.

Abolish and Fulfil the Law

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the

Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” Matthew 5:17

Contemporary Jewish teachers still use the term ‘fulfill the

law.’ To ‘fulfill the law’ does not mean Jesus fulfilled Old
Testament prophecies. The Law had been interpreted
incorrectly, supplementary rules and regulations were being
enforced alongside the Torah and Jesus simply correctly
explained them in their fullness.

These were official idioms used by teachers of the law, and

‘to destroy the law’ meant to misinterpret [or incomplete
interpretation of] the law, while ‘to fulfilling the law’ meant
120
to interpret the law correctly. In the passage in Matthew
Jesus is accused of ‘destroying’ [misinterpreting] the Law. He
responds with a counterargument that he is in fact ‘fulfilling’
[correctly interpreting] it. Jesus then proceeded to interpret
the Law correctly by declaring five times, “You have
heard…, but I say....” Matthew 5:22-44.

David Bivin confirms this when he states that the term ‘fulfill
the Law’ meant ‘to properly interpret the Torah so that
people can obey it as God really intends.’ The word ‘abolish’
meant to undermine the law by misinterpreting it. David Bivin, New
Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context, (2005) p.93-94
.

Paul used the idiom ‘fulfilled the law’ Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; NASB

contextually to refer to a fuller interpretation of the law.

The Satan
The Jews do not believe in a literal Satan figure in the same
way as Christians: “If you look at the use of Satan in the
Hebrew Bible, you find that as a concept, it is much more
about an experience than a person” jewishanswers.org.

They believe an equal rival to God would contradict their

strict monotheism. Hence, you do not find a literal devil
figure in the Old Testament scriptures. In contrast pagan
religions believed in a duality: Greek: Zeus-Hades; Roman:
Jupiter-Pluto; Norse: Odin-Loki; Mesopotamia: Marduk-
Tiamat; Zoroastrian: Ahura Mazda-Angra Mainyu. Is it not
strange that those who believe in a literal devil struggle to
find OT verses to prove their view?

Mainstream Christianity believes the Bible references an

elusive personality known as ‘Satan.’ The term means
121
‘accuser’; it is not a name or a literal personality. The
figurative language in the Bible has been fused with pagan
themes to create an opponent of God.

In-between the Old Testament and New Testament texts there

is a heavy influence in Judaism from paganism.

“When we come to the New Testament, there is a definite

change…This is all due to the influence of apocalyptic
watcher myth of I Enoch. In this literature, the Satan
goes by many names including Beelzebub, Samma’el
or the ‘diabolos.’ It is at the head of a hierarchy
complete with generals, lieutenants, colonels,
sergeants and minions.” Michael Hardin, The Satan, p.2

The concept of a devil has a historical paper trail.

“The idea of an agent of evil was first introduced into the

history of ideas around 800 B.C.E, in Persia by Zoroaster.
Zoroaster was a reformer of religion and taught that there
were two competing principles, one of light, the other
darkness; one was a good god, the other a bad god.” Hardin, p.4
The notion of a ‘fallen angel’ is a concept rooted in
paganism.

When Christians literalise the devil, their mind becomes

preoccupied with the devil until they visualize a devil
personally engaging with them daily. Can this personality
literally be present in multiple millions of locations
simultaneously? If not, what do people across the globe mean
by, “Satan attacked me…” People experience what they
expect; their floor boards will be creaking at night.

122
In Judaism, HaSatan [The Satan] is a reference to our
inclinations to break rules. In the Jewish Bible the word
‘Satan’ is mentioned numerous times, but it means ‘an
adversary, obstacle or stumbling block,' not a literal
personality. The Jewish Talmud equates ‘the Satan’ with
‘evil inclinations’. It is similar to the fictitious illustration of
two angels sitting on either shoulder whispering in our ears,
one urging us to be good, the other to do evil. All literal
depictions are fictitious, whether the Hollywood horned, tail
and a pitchfork version or a fallen spirit.

The word translated as ‘devil’ is ‘diabolos’ and means ‘liar’

‘slanderer’ or ‘false accuser.’ It’s rooted in the word
‘diabolo’ meaning ‘to cross a line’. It simply refers to our
innate ability to break rules.

The Bible contains instances of original words left

untranslated, for example, mammon Matt. 6:24 and ‘baptize.’
‘Satan’ is an untranslated Hebrew and a translation of the
Greek word ‘diabolos.’

The satan and the devil can be used to refer to evil humans or
humans functioning by evil inclinations. John 6:70; Matthew 16:23. In 1
Timothy 3:11 spouses of church leaders are instructed not to
be “slanderers” [in Greek ‘diabolos,' elsewhere translated
‘devil’]. See also Titus 2:3 Paul also states that “In the last days…
men will be…false accusers [diabolos ‘devils’)”. 2 Timothy 3:1, 3;
obviously he does not mean they will turn into evil spirits, but
that they will be false accusers.

The meaning of the words translated ‘devil’ and ‘satan’ do

not mean a supernatural villain but instead refer to human
sinful tendencies. References to serpents, dragons and beasts
123
are all symbolic. Surely, you did not mistake figurative
language of talking serpents as literal? Read the Bible
through the lens of its Jewish authors.

Biblical Patterns
Biblical Numerological
The Bible uses numbers in patterns with such frequency that
it becomes obvious it is intentional and figurative. For
example, the number 40 is referred to 146 times, and, in
general, symbolizes trial or time of testing. When you see the
numbers 3, 7, 12 or 40 in a passage or a story you should
recognize the passage or story as figurative.

Anthropomorphic Language
The Bible uses anthropomorphic language frequently. Any
references to hands, eyes, feet, etc. in references to deities is
figurative. For example, the ‘right hand of God’ is a reference
to power and authority. It does not mean God has a literal
right hand. Exod. 3:19-20; 4:2; 12:11; 13:9; 14:16; Judges 5:26; Psalm 74:11. There are
too many references to list. When Jesus is said to cast out
devils by the ‘finger of God’ it did not mean a finger
appeared from heaven Luke 11:20. Jesus position on the ‘right
hand of God’ does not mean he is literally sitting on the right
hand; it means he is in a position of power. The mark of the
beast on the ‘right hand or forehead’ is not literal.

To interpret anthropomorphic language literally is a gross

error.

The Book of the Revelation and End-time

Teaching
The book of The Revelation, not Revelations, is essentially
about worship – either God or something else. There are only
124
two masters – God or mammon [riches with negative
influence or devotion to false objects/systems] Matthew 6:24. It is a
revelation of Jesus Christ, not a revelation of events in the
21st century. Read it as if you lived when it was written.

The average reader’s oversight that this is a book of symbols

and figurative language is a blunder that leads them to
interpret a myriad of symbolic texts literally. On the flip side,
others competitively battle to accurately apply symbols to
modern events. Each symbol can be traced to internal biblical
references. It has been estimated there are approximately 348
parallels to Old Testament themes in Revelation; the book of
Ezekiel is a prime example:

EZEKIEL AND REVELATION PARALLEL― Mike F. Blume

1. THRONE VISION Rev 4 – Ezek.1

2. THE BOOK Rev 5 – Ezek.2-3
3. THE PLAGUES Rev 6:1-8 – Ezek. 5
4. Slain Beneath the Altar Rev. 6:9-11 - Ezek. 6
5. WRATH OF GOD Rev 6:12-17 – Ezek. 7
6. SEAL ON SAINTS' FOREHEADS Rev 7 – Ezek. 9
7. COALS FROM ALTAR Rev. 8 – Ezek. 10
8. NO MORE DELAY Rev. 10:1-7 – Ezek. 12
9. EATING THE BOOK Rev 10:8-11 - Ezek. 2
11. MEASURING THE TEMPLE Rev. 11:1-2 - Ezek. 40-43
11. JERUSALEM AND SODOM Rev. 11:8 – Ezek. 16
12. CUP OF WRATH Rev. 14 - Ezek. 23
13. VINE OF THE LAND Rev. 14:18-20 – Ezek. 15
14. GREAT HARLOT Rev 17-18 - Ezek. 16, 23
15. LAMENT OVER THE CITY Rev. 18 – Ezek. 27
16. SCAVENGER'S FEAST Rev. 19 – Ezek. 39
17. FIRST RESURRECTION Rev 20:4-6 – Ezek. 37
18 BATTLE WITH GOG AND MAGOG Rev. 20:7-9 – Ezek. 38-39
19. NEW JERUSALEM Rev 21 – Ezek. 40-48
125
20. RIVER OF LIFE Rev 22 – Ezek. 47

Specifically, the book was written to seven churches that are

in Asia Revelations 1:4,10,11, not to you.

Twice in the first chapter and twice in the last chapter we are
told the writing is for that time. In the first verse, we are told
these things “must shortly take place” Revelations 1:1 after
Revelation was written in 96 AD. The text goes on to say,
“…heed the things which are written in it; for the time is
near” Revelations 1:3. In the last chapter, we are told, “…things
which must shortly take place.” Revelations 22:6 “…for the time is
near” Revelations 22:10. If the writer of Revelation wanted to
indicate he was writing to 1st & 2nd century Christians, could
he have made it any clearer?

End-time teaching is fear mongering by paranoid imbalanced

minds. The Revelation was written for the benefit of 1st
century Christians who interpreted it in a way relevant to
their generation, not predictions of future events. The Bible is
not ahead of tomorrow’s newspapers.

The Rapture
The Rapture doctrine was unheard of before John Darby 1800–
1882
introduced it as recent as 1830. No church or
denomination mention it in their statement of faith before
1830. Recent teachers include John Hagee, Jack Van Impe,
Perry Stone, Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and Grant Jefferies.

There are few records of what the early church believed about
the end-times, but what is clear is that they believed the end
was near in their generation and that the signs had been or
were being fulfilled in their generation. The references to
126
being ‘caught up’ 1 Thess. 4:17 [the rapture] are vague and not
described as believed today. It’s important to ask, “What was
the meaning of the phrase, term or name to the original
writer and audience?” It is also notable that each generation
seemed convinced they were the last.

Mark of beast
Current reports of microchips in hand and forehead are self-
fulling prophecies where the Bible is sarcastically mirrored.
The early church did not understand this term as some
modern Christians do. In the Bible a mark on the forehead or
hand was symbolic, “…like a sign on your hand and a
reminder on your forehead…” Exodus 13:9. See also: Gen 4:15; Ex. 13:16; 28:36-
38; Deut. 6:6,8; 11:18; Is. 49:16; Ez.9:4

In Revelation, the mark of the beast is contrasted with the

mark of God. Rev. 3:12; 7:3; 9:4; 14:1, 9-11; 16:2; 19:20, 13; 20:4; 15:2; 22:4 . The mark
of God was not a literal mark, certainly not a microchip, and
neither is the mark of the beast a physical mark.

The Beast
The beast is a symbol of kings Dan.7:17, Rev.17:10-12, earthly
kingdoms Dan.7:18, 23; Rev. 16:10, rulers and their armies who oppose
those who serve God.

The Dragon
The dragon is a symbol of The Satan. Rev. 13:2, 4; 12:9.

666
Gematria is an “Assyro-Babylonian-Greek system of code
and numerology later adopted into Jewish culture” Wikipedia,
where each letter has a numeric value. Using this system the
numbers represent Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better
known as Nero Caesar, who according to the historian
127
Tacitus AD. 56-117 initiated cruel torture of Christians. “Nero
was first of the emperors who showed himself an enemy of
the divine religion” Eusebius, Early Church Father.

The beast is said to make war with the saints Revelations 13:5,7 for a
specific period of 42 months. Neronic oppression was
instigated in AD 64 until his suicide in June 6 AD, three and
a half years or 42 months.

The beast is wounded or killed by a sword Revelations 13:10, 14, and

Nero died by a sword/dagger Suetonius, ch.49. History records Nero
killed with the sword Tertullian; the beast slays with the sword
Revelations 13:10
.

Other similarities exist, so could it be the writer of the

Revelation was referring to Nero?
--------------

I knew a prominent preacher who asked a very prominent

end-time teacher and pastor if he genuinely believed the
rubbish he taught about the end-times and why he taught it.
He told me the well-known teacher rubbed his index finger
and thumbs together to indicate it was for financial gain.

Beware of end-time teaching. It becomes hilarious when

Christians think a newspaper reporting that Germany has
Leopard tanks is confirmation of Daniel’s mention of a
leopard kingdom. Passages used by doomsday teachers have
a more sensible interpretation – they use recognizable
symbols imported from the biblical database of symbolism.

128
You don’t need to live fearing missing the second coming
after repeated attempts to get in touch with fellow
churchgoers. Neither do you need to stack up toilet rolls and
soup tins in preparation for the end times.

Conclusion
Old Testament texts inspired the writers of New Testament
stories. To put a supernatural spin would be baseless and
intellectual dishonesty. It cannot be demonstrated that the
intention of the authors of Biblical stories intended the stories
to be interpreted literally. The story is not necessarily all
myth and metaphor, but clearly the writers of New Testament
stories gleaned over Old Testament texts in search of content
to utilize and develop their narrative. Non-Jewish readers
were oblivious to the Jewish method of writing adopted by
Biblical authors, and future generations have continued to
interpret the stories literally by faith due to a lack of
knowledge. Perhaps it’s more honest to treat the Bible as
literary rather than literally.

To conclude the Gospels are historical would be like a

teacher examining two essays submitted by two students and
attributing the 70% word-for-word paragraphs and theme
similarities to coincidence, or worse still divine intervention.
If the guilty student denied copying and claimed divine
assistance, what would your response be? Raised eyebrows
would be the reaction by any credible educator.

If I told you a story was literally true, and it starts, “Once

upon a time…,” ends “They lived happily ever after” and in

129
between contained tales of flying men, walking dead, talking
horses and flying pigs, would you believe me?

If the authors of the Bible did not intend their writings to be

taken literally then what would be wrong to honor their
intentions? It is expected that they would write in a classic
Jewish style of writing. All the evidence points to this
conclusion. If they were indeed writing non-literally using
Midrash what could they have done to make their intention
clearer?

Archeological discoveries of historical locations mentioned in

the Bible are not evidence the miracles occurred. Midrash
writing invented stories to illustrate theological truths, and
they included actual names and locations. Keep in mind Israel
promotes biblical locations for economic purposes since these
sites increase tourism.

If you still believe in a complete literalist interpretation of the

Bible, you must believe in a literal hell. Ask yourself,
“Where are you unsaved deceased family members?” Is it
me, or do you find it strange when people who believe
someone might be roasting in hell write ‘Rest in Peace’? Do
they mean, ‘Roast in Peace’?

130
 Chapter Three
Morality – Right, wrong and real - Part
One
“Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior
does.”
― Sukhraj S. Dhillon

There are religionists who claim “sin-is-sin” and religionists

who have a sliding scale from small transgressions to
irredeemable sins. Religionists are partially or wholly
blindfolded to their faults while eager to point out the faults
of others. The psychology that shapes their moral compass is
complex. Understanding their so called ‘sacred values’ is a
vast study outside the constraints of this book, yet I am
positive the reader will grasp the basic issues related to the
artificial morality of dogmatic religionists. They may struggle
with issues I will point out, but they have mastered the art of
brushing matters under the carpet, but if they appeal to the
Bible for moral guidance, then they will have to confront
serious questions. Do their moral convictions make them
more righteous or more piously religious? Let’s say, for
example, that the Bible stated, “Dark skinned people are evil
and should be avoided.” Would you believe and practice that
or would you use your intellect and denounce that as
primitive, racist thinking?

Dear Moral Police, “Isn’t it time to put down the binoculars

and pick up a mirror?”

What is Truth?
131
In a desperate ploy to win an argument, the religionists may
resort to playing word games by redefining and
differentiating between ‘truth’ and ‘fact.’ When you give
yourself the license to create your own rules, the game
becomes void, regardless of how much one harps on about
‘biblical values’, ‘biblical principles’ and a ‘biblical
worldview.’

No one man or group is 100% accurate in all they believe.

The religionist will act like they are, yet deny it, “I stand on
the Word and nothing else”; “I preach the truth undiluted!”
These are all statements of people who think they know it all.
Preachers often claim to preach the ‘full gospel’ or “the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Led astray by
pride, I have smirked at them within the first few minutes of
their rants since they make statements that contradict the very
Bible they claim loyalty to. More than often I simply shake
my head and raise my eyebrows at their shocking statements
that amount to slapping accuracy in the face and then
expecting it to turn the other cheek. Realities will return the
slap.

Deceived people are not aware they are deceived. You and I
are deceived and misinformed in one area or the other. At this
precise moment, there are views we firmly hold to that are
not in line with the truth. What are they? How will we
discover them? You can only discover them when you are
willing to venture outside your comfort zone and become
comfortable with being mistaken. It will lead you to inquiry
and discovery. Consider reading and listening to those who
have different views to you. Be warned it may lead you astray
into truth. Abandoning pet doctrines are false is like
divorcing a violent spouse you love.
132
No truth in other religions?
Other religious traditions should be natural allies since almost
all teach virtues. The fundamentalist religionist’s attitude
towards other faiths is prejudiced. The very people they
desire to win, they attack, ridicule and have contempt for by
labeling their teachings as ‘doctrines of demons’ 1 Timothy 4:1.

I often get harassed for quoting non-Christian religious

leaders, atheists and anyone that makes a statement that I
deem as truthful. How egotistic and ridiculous! Are we to be
lovers of truth or egomaniacs on a trip to Never Land? If
someone states a fact, then it is factual, regardless of who said
it. Acknowledging this is not a complete endorsement of all
they say and believe, only a fool would accuse you of that.
Ironically I also get questioned as to why I quote the Bible,
the accuser seems to think I should not quote it since I do not
hold the same views they do regarding the Bible.

When the Apostle Paul spoke at Areopagus, at the location

the philosophers of Athens would gather to discuss new
ideas, he uses the philosopher’s own debating style and
quotes their poets to build a bridge: “…As some of your own
poets have said, ‘We are his offspring” Acts 17:28. He also
writes: “I try to find common ground with everyone…” I
Corinthians 9:22 NLT
.

A genuine dialogue begins when we find common ground. A

purely hostile attitude will eventually backfire.

Did God Create Evil?

The Bible states that God creates evil, calamities and
disabilities. Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Exodus 4:11. If I were to push an elderly
133
lady into a stormy sea to teach her or her family a lesson,
would you consider me to be morally deficient? Special
pleading is when we do not apply the same rules to God that
we apply to humans – “God can do anything he wants.”
Either God practices evil, or the Bible contains serious
misleading information and mistranslations.

Could God not have created the world with no evil where
everyone was good, in the same way, it will be in heaven? Do
people in heaven have a choice to rebel against God? Does
‘good’ have to have an opposite? Does God [good] have an
opposite? Has evil always existed? [Is it eternal?].

Darkness does not exist

Language permits words that describe concepts that don’t
physically exist – ‘cold’ is just the absence of heat; a ‘hole’ is
the absence of soil. In the same way, darkness does not exist
as a material object. Light is energy in the form of particles
that we call photons. Darkness is not made of anything; it is
simply the partial or complete absence of light. ‘Darkness’ is
a word created to describe the absence of light. In religious
terminology darkness often refers to that which is not good.
The word ‘evil’ is created to represent the degrees of the
absence of good; it does not exist of itself. It is ‘twisted good’
or ‘good in minus/below zero.’

There is an ancient concept that everything is spiritual, and

there is only good. In this philosophy evil is twisted good, or
reduced measure of good. Evil is nothing more than good in
smaller measures whereby inherent abilities are used
harmfully.

134
In the Jewish version of the creation story, there were two
trees in the Garden of Eden – The Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. So according to this
philosophy, the obsession with good and evil [God and devil]
by the major religions of the world, is misguided. The
emphasis should be on life and light, where light is a symbol
of truth, evidence, rationality, and logic.

The religionists focus is on identifying and highlighting what

is good and what is evil. If this is your focus, I would ask
you, “Are you infallible?” Obviously, the answer is no.
“Could you be wrong about being right?”

Morality
Morality is not as black and white as religionists would like it
to be. Biblical holiness codes are not as clear cut as depicted.
They are flawed, broad and grey, like the deformed
overweight elephant in the room. Morality varies according to
history, culture, perception and circumstance.

The source of morality is reason. Humans create moral

guidelines to survive and progress as communities. Certain
actions are considered beneficial, and others are deemed
destructive to the well-being of a community. We all don't
want to be hurt, suffer or be killed. Morality is whatever is in
our best interest.

“Morality is doing right regardless of what you are told.

Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is
right.”
― Unknown

135
If your understanding is that your moral compass is absolute,
then you have not sufficiently thought through your
dangerous assumptions.

Moral Perceptions Evolve

Moral perceptions evolve and change, ultimately leading to
justice and progress in civilized societies.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward

justice.”
― Original Author Unknown, quoted by Martin Luther King

Slavery was abolished in the USA in 1865. It was not until

the mid-20th century that racism came to be acknowledged as
socially unacceptable and morally distasteful. In the US
racism was still rampant well into the 1960’s. Apartheid did
not end in South Africa until recently as 1994. These facts are
evident that even in recent times people groups can still
express primitive, barbaric views. Bible believers advocated
slavery and racism during these periods.

Secular Morality
Secular morality is not a loose leash. Rationality, reason, and
logic are the leashes that will eventually lead to safe societies
were human rights and the wellbeing of all is a priority.

Secular morality is superior to religious morality. Religious

morality is stagnant. Secular morality is a progressive system.
Neither is perfect, nor do they have all the answers, but
favoring barbaric, primitive ideas over rational concepts of
morality is lunacy. Using fear to modify behavior is inferior
to mind transformation through education.

136
Consider two men sitting near to a police officer and an old
lady. One of the men whispers to the other, “If the policeman
were not here I would beat up and rob that old woman!” The
other replied, “Whether the policeman is here or not I would
not rob her because doing so is irresponsible and selfish.”
Which of the two have higher morals? In the same way, those
who need a God always to watch them for them to behave
decently are morally inferior. Misbehaviour is due to an
untrained mind, psychological dysfunction or a lack of
awareness of alternative options, not the absence of God.
Even those who believe in God misbehave.

Origins of Biblical Morality

The entire morality of the Bible is summoned up in one
command: “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one
command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Galatians 5:14. This
is not some revolutionary concept invented during the New
Testament period by Jesus; it is from the Old Testament
between 1440 and 1400 B.C “…love your neighbor as
yourself…” Leviticus 19:18. Even then “your neighbor” referred
only to the Jewish clan, that's why they massacred multitude
thousands from pagan societies.

The teaching predates Jesus, and even the Old Testament

quotes it. Here is a quote from an ancient Babylonian
civilization that existed centuries before the New Testament
period.

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness

the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your
enemy, be friendly to your enemy.”
― Akkadian Councils of Wisdom 1500-1200 B.C.

137
Buddha made similar statements before Jesus: “Shame on
him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let
us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us,
therefore, overcome anger by kindness, evil by good,
falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be
hurtful to yourself.” ― Buddhist wisdom, 6th Century B.C..

Even wise sayings in the Book of Proverbs are borrowed

from extra-biblical sources:

“The comparison made in 1 Kings 4:29-34 between

Solomon's wisdom and that of the ancient Near Eastern sages
strongly implies that his proverbs were a part of an
international, pan-oriental, wisdom literature. During the
past century, archeologists have been uncovering texts from
Solomon's pagan peers, and scholars have been using them
to further the understanding of the Book of
Proverbs.”

― Bruce K. Waltke, Dallas Theological Seminary

[Jesus seems to disagree with Paul: “All the Law and the
Prophets hang on these two commandments” Matthew 22:40.]

Pointing fingers
When an accuser points a finger, three fingers point back at
them. This elitist ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude is self-exalting
and demeaning towards others. The foundation of the
accusations is typically sacred writ, but as we will see the
Bible is not on a moral high ground to justify it being the
ultimate guide for morality.

138
Christians are justly horrified at atrocities that abuse human
rights while simultaneously ignoring the atrocities condoned
by the Bible. This blatant hypocrisy is the result of a
blinkered approach and not knowing how to take an argument
to its logical end. They cunningly construct an opposing
argument in a desperate attempt to paint a different picture.

The ultra-religionist is blindfolded to their own faults while

eager to point out the mistakes of others. Indirectly they are
claiming an elitist view of themselves while denigrating
others. This is veiled self-righteousness.

Unnatural Expectations
When reading the Bible, it is critical to recognize that the
writer’s moral guidelines are based on their primitive
personal understanding of social issues and science.

For example, instructions like this are destructive and

misleading:

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully

has already committed adultery with her in his heart” Matthew
5:28

1. If this is taken literally, it does not refer to singles

since adultery is specific to married couples. So
could single people look at a woman with lust?

2. Before a love marriage, EVERY man lusts after the

girl he is to marry.

3. When a man marries, he does not automatically

lose the lustful desire for other women (This can
139
 vary due to various biological factors).

4. Why is it that a man looking at a woman lustfully

is sinful and not a woman looking at a man? This
smacks of male chauvinism in line with the Bibles
consistent portrayal of a woman as the property of
a man.

These unnatural expectations have consequences opposite to

the desired results. A person’s sexual desires become
heightened since their attention is predominately focused on
achieving unnatural sexual objectives which they struggle to
attain. This leads them to create strict lifestyle rules that
eventually lead to a mental disorder. If you are turned on by a
woman’s armpit you need psychological treatment.

Simply aiming for behavior modification as an alternative to

mind transformation is futile. Legislation can not alter natural
behavior, either it will be managed to a degree or forced
underground. To simply create laws will not change the
mindset of those inclined to break those rules. Either the laws
have to change, or the mindset needs to be reformed. The
dictatorship model just does not work to produce a society
that respects human rights.

Higher Moral Failures amongst Religionists

George Barna is an evangelical Christian and the founder of
The Barna Group, a firm that specializes in the market
research of the religious beliefs and behavior of Americans,
specifically the Christian community. Their surveys show
that Christians do not have higher levels of practical morality.
Research indicates that over 1000 pastors in the US quit each
month owing to moral failure. An enormous chunk of clergy
140
marriages ends in divorce. Over a third surveyed admitted an
extra-marital affair while in ministry.

In nations with strict laws and severe punishments for

supposed sexual failures the appetite for breaking those rules
is high, as if religious guidelines can healthily control sexual
appetites. Around 2006, Google Trend figures exposed the
tremendous hunger for sexual imageries in Islamic nations.

Pakistan is one of the least tolerant countries when it comes

to homosexuality where 98% believe homosexuality is
unacceptable and gay sex is criminal, carrying a prison
stretch ranging from two to ten years. According to analyzes
of Google trends Pakistan has the highest volume of Internet
searches for homosexual pornography Google trends by Mother Jones.

“The real love they can have that most of us find with a
partner, they find with men. An increase in religious
extremism could explain the popularity of gay porn. Highly
observant Muslim men are known to have physical
relationships with other men - but do not consider themselves
gay.”

― Farahnaz Ispahani, former Pakistani politician,

Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars

 The nations with the greatest volume of the search

word ‘sex’, after Pakistan, were Egypt, Iran, India,
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Some attribute
this trend to pre-marital sex with women being a huge
taboo resulting in males turning to other men to release
their sexual frustrations. This type of behavior is found

141
 amongst Christian communities that adopt a hard-line
approach to morality.

 One survey on US internet porn searches revealed that

the highest concentration was in Republican-ruled
states that were more vocal about morality based on
Biblical values.

 At a Christian conference in Austria, 75% of the men

disclosed being active in watching porn March 2007.
According to a report by CNN, 70% of Christians
struggled with porn Poll by XXXChurch, April 6, 2007.

“50% of all Christian men and 20% of all Christian

women are addicted to pornography. 60% of the
women who answered the survey admitted to having
significant struggles with lust; 40% admitted to being
involved in sexual sin in the past year; and 20% of
the church-going female participants struggle with
looking at pornography on an ongoing basis.”
― ChristiaNet poll reported by Marketwire.com

 During 1996 a Promise Keepers survey, following one

of their massive stadium events, showed that more
than 50% of the men in attendance viewed
pornography less than one week after the event.

 A female employee who worked at the front desk of a

large Californian hotel claimed the hotel recorded its
highest porn movie rental figures after Christian
conferences. A 2015 article by Jared C. Wilson

142
 published by The Gospel Coalition contained the
following quote:

“A number of years ago a national conference for

church youth directors was held at a major hotel in a
city in the mid-west. Youth pastors by the hundreds
flooded into that hotel and took nearly every room. At
the conclusion of the conference, the hotel manager
told the conference administrator that the number of
guests who tuned into the adult movie channel broke
the previous record, far and away outdoing any other
convention in the history of the hotel.”
― Steve Farrar, Finishing Strong

Jared wondered if “this was not a bit of an urban legend of

sorts”, and so enlisted the help of a friend Justin Holcomb.
Justin had conducted his revealing research.

“I interviewed hotel managers about this when I was

teaching in the sociology department at the University of
Virginia. All managers said that porn rates increase during
conferences in general. That’s normal because they have
more guests. A few admitted that it seems to be the same or a
bit more when Christian conferences come to town. One
manager was a Christian, and he said a line I’ll never forget:
“Unfortunately, ‘they know you are Christians by your…
porn consumption’ is more truthful than ‘love’ when it comes
to this.”

Endless surveys and statistics consistently confirm the above

data.

143
 “…thanks to Canadian psychologists Cara MacInnis and
Gordon Hodson, we have a scientifically sound look at the
link between lustful interest in sexual imagery on the one
hand (pardon the pun), and conservatism and religiosity on
the other. The researchers published their paper in the peer-
reviewed journal Archives of Sexual Behavior and titled it,
straightforwardly, ‘Do American States with More Religious
or Conservative Populations Search More for Sexual Content
on Google?’

MacInnis and Hodson scrutinized Google porn search data

and found that, controlled for factors like population,
income, and other variables, states where religiosity and
conservative ideas are more prevalent also stand out in the
volume of porn searches.”

― Terry Firma, October 22, 2014

It appears the pent up sexual desires of hard-core Christians

becomes unleashed behind the privacy of closed doors. The
oppressed pastor’s children turn out to be the party kids, not
that I blame them. That church leader or Christian apologist
you believe is squeaky clean and honest is not all you make
them out to be. Rest assured skeletons reside in their closet.

A report in the UK national newspaper, The Independent, Dec.

2013
reported on a long-term study of 7,870 women and girls
aged 15 to 28 British Medical Journal 1995 - 2009. It revealed 1 in 200 US
women claimed to have had a virgin birth “unrelated to the
use of assisted reproductive technology.” Thirty-one percent
had signed a ‘chastity pledge’ - a religious vow not to engage
in sex until marriage. Are we supposed to believe these
outlandish claims by religionists?
144
The one without sin let him cast the first stone. As holy as
you try to be, I know you're not as holy as you try to appear.

Higher Moral Ground

The religionist will point to the Good Book as the standard
for the highest moral ground. Is the Bible consistent in its
moral teaching? This list of Biblical holy horrors reads like a
chilling list of Islamic State atrocities. Second Samuel
describes Gods willingness to slowly kill a baby born out of
adultery to penalize the parents. 2 Samuel 11.2-5, 14-17, 27; 12:13-18. The
children of three fathers were buried alive with them Numbers
16:25–34
. Daniel’s false accusers and their children were fed
alive to lions Daniel 6:24.

Biblical practices can be compared to the Sharia law of the

Islamic State. Crafty Christian apologists dismiss the
following examples as irrelevant, yet they will unwaveringly
condemn homosexuality and other practices they consider
condemned by the Bible. This approach is classic selective
reading and willful disrespect of the Biblical text.

Paedophilia
Would you consider a man who engages in sex with girls
aged 8-13 a pedophile? Keep that thought as you read.
Christians adamantly condemn pedophilia, yet the Good
Book accepts sex with children as standard.

When the subject of same-sex marriages crops up

fundamentalist extremists, bizarrely claim that this would
open the way for those who campaign for the legalizing of
sex with minors. This argument is like ‘shooting yourself in
the foot.' During Biblical times, it was the consensus that
145
marriage was consummated at puberty for a female
[convenient in a male-dominated society]. Commonly this
age is approximately 8-13. Personally, I disagree with the
Bible on this issue.

Some verses including Ezekiel 16:4-14 make it clear that

when a girl is physically ready to procreate she can marry.
Here is God speaking to Israel:

“I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and
developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed,
and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked. Later I
passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were
old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over
you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath
and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign
LORD, and you became mine.” 7-8 NIV

Puberty was the mark. God is speaking acceptingly about sex

with a girl who has reached puberty; this illustration would
not make sense if read any other way. I am astonished when
Christians claim this verse is not relevant because it is a
poetic description of God’s love for Israel. That does not
divert from the explicit fact that sex with a pubescent girl is
condoned, not condemned. Would language like this have
been used if it was considered wrong?

Apparently it is acceptable to have sex with “women

children” obtained as spoils of war, something the Islamic
State are also know for, especially in their brutal kidnapping
of Yazidi women.

146
“And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, Avenge the children
of Israel of the Midianites…And they warred against the
Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew
all the males…And the children of Israel took all the women
of Midian captives and their little ones. And Moses was
wroth with the officers. And Moses said to them, Have ye
saved all the women alive?... Now, therefore, kill every male
among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a
man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have
not known a man by lying with him keep alive for
yourselves.” Numbers 31:1-18

“Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may
keep
them for yourselves.” Number 31:18 NLT

“…and all the infants among the women, who have not
known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves.”
Numbers 31:18 Young’s Literal Translation

“But if any man thinks he is acting improperly toward his

virgin, if she is past marriageable age, and so it must be, he
can do what he wants. He is not sinning; they can get
married.” 1 Corinthians 7:36 Holman Christian Standard Bible

(See also Deuteronomy 20:10-14; Judges 21:7-11; Judges 21:20-

23; Exodus 21:7-10)

Some Rabbis conclude that Isaac married Rebecca at age

three though this is debatable and unverifiable either way.
Regardless it is crystal clear that the Bible is comfortable
with child sex.

147
When I challenge Christians by asking if it was morally right
to condone sex with pubescent girls, they usually answer by
stating that it was a “cultural choice.” I never asked if it was
culturally acceptable, I asked if it was MORALLY right.
They see the dilemma and reply like a politician. If it is
morally wrong, then the Bible is condoning something that is
morally wrong. If it is morally right, then it is morally right
today, something religionists would be enthusiastic not to
conclude. The question is then, “Is it morally right to have
sex with a pubescent girl?” Consider this issue too, “Can
morality change?” At this point, the religionist waffles and
avoids answering the question directly. Then I ask the
question that throws them off their feet, “Out of curiosity
what is the ‘right’ [moral] age for sexual intercourse?” The
verbal, mental and scriptural gymnastics then begins.

The fact remains, according to the practice of the time, which

every scholar and historian accept, the typical age was
approximately 8-13, with ample evidence that age 3+ was
acceptable to Jews and other societies at the time. Here are a
few quotes from experts in the field:

“A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by

intercourse.”
― Jacob Neusner, American academic scholar of Judaism of the
Jewish oral Torah

“A girl three years old and one day may be betrothed by

intercourse; her deceased childless husband’s brother can
acquire her by intercourse...” ― Herbert Danby, Anglican Priest,
‘The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief
Explanatory Notes

148
 “Orthodox Judaism has a very permissive attitude towards
sexual deviance. For example Sanhedrin 55b: It is permitted
to have sexual intercourse with a girl three years and one
day old.”― Edward Hendrie

“…we must remember that in the Inter-Testamental and

early rabbinic age, pre-puberty marriage was generally
permitted…” ― Professor Geza Vermes, renowned and esteemed
scholar

“In the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, marriage is

considered the natural state for men and women, and
although there are certainly instances where Jewish men
(and rarely, Jewish women) are not married, this is the
exception rather than the norm. Most women marry quite
young, usually soon after the onset of menstruation, which of
course, heralds fertility. Men typically marry later (in their
twenties, or even thirties) and most men are older than their
wives.”― T. J. Wray

“Girls could in fact already be given marriage long before

actual physical maturity, perhaps even as young as five years
old (cf. Lev. 27:5), and it did happen that marriages were
already consummated with prepubescent girls. [12]”
― Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, by G. Johannes
Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry

“Minor girls were betrothed by their fathers even before they

came of age, and usually began living with their husbands,
occasionally much older than them - at the age of puberty.”
― Professor Mark Avrum Ehrlich, Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora:
Origins, Experiences, and Culture

149
“Child marriages were very common in ancient days. Since
marriages were arranged by parents and the consent of
parties was not necessary, AGE WAS NOT THE FACTOR in
coming to an agreement.” ― Isaac Klein, a respected Rabbi, ‘A
Guide to Jewish Religious Practice.'

Do you agree with this statement?

“The Bible states plainly that marriage with a pubescent girl

is acceptable, the age of puberty is approximately 8-13, and
sex with a girl who is pubescent is morally right. What is
morally right never changes. Even today it is morally right.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude the Bible was immoral
on this issue.”

Take a moment and decide if you agree with the above

statement. You may conclude that the verses quoted were the
opinions of men, but this suggests all Biblical commands and
accounts could be categorized as personal opinions of the
author.

Before the 20th century, a girl at the age of puberty was

considered an adult in most cultures and societies. Before
1889, the legal age of consent in California and other states in
the Union was only ten, except in Delaware where it was only
seven. Europe had similar ages. Nowadays the age of consent
varies jurisdiction to jurisdiction, predominantly it is 14-18
years, but in many societies a younger age is still acceptable.

Rape
Rape is a brutal crime. The Bible fully endorses rape within
its warped boundaries. When the Bible speaks of ‘taking a
150
wife,' it is not always consensual. How would you feel if your
daughters were taken by force?

“So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-Gilead

with orders to kill everyone there, including women and
children. "This is what you are to do,” they said.
“Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is
not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-Gilead, they
found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with
a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the
land of Canaan.” Judges 21:10-12

These 400 virgins were taken against their will and forced
into sexual relations with the men who slaughtered their
mothers, brothers, sisters and other loved ones.

“The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little

remnant of Benjamin, who were living at the rock of Rimmon.
Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the
four hundred women of Jabesh-Gilead, who were spared,
were given to them as wives. But there were not enough
women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin
because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So
the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the
few who remain since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin
are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an
entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot
give them our own daughters in marriage because we have
sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall
under God's curse. … They told the men of Benjamin who
still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the
women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from
the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home
151
 to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come
to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding.
Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough
wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-Gilead. And you
are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your
daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin
did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took
part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of
their inheritance. ” Judges 21:13-24

How can anyone read this without grasping the extent of the
atrocities described? Had this been done by militant Islamists
the religious right would be up in arms protesting, but when
the Bible promotes identical crimes, they gloss over it
without skipping a heartbeat. If you justify or explain away
these verses then calmly eavesdrop on the voice of your
reasoning and re-evaluate your twisted logic.

After attacking Median “just as the LORD had commanded

Moses”, Moses was a touch disappointed. Let’s read Moses’
barbaric instructions:

“But Moses was furious with all the military commanders

who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the
women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who
followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to
rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones
who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill
all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.
Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may
keep them for yourselves” Numbers 31:14-18

152
I hope you did not blink as you read this casual description of
a bloodbath and mass rape. It puts to shame the kidnapping of
234 girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

“As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people
terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates
to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced
labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight,
you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands
it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep
for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other
plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the
LORD your God has given you.” Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Dear reader, I hope you are not ignoring or explaining away

these passages and selectively erasing willy-nilly what you
find distasteful while holding firmly to other obnoxious
concepts. Think for yourself, and don’t just stutter, “B-b-but,
but, the Bible says…”

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who

is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
Then he must marry the young woman because he violated
her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

She has to marry the rapist? Militant Islamists have a similar

law. Can she divorce him? If not, then her future is a life of
marital rape, regardless of how you try to slice the cake.

All these verses penned by men in a male-dominated society

conveniently favor men’s sexual desires, similar again to
militant Islamists. Please do not permit religiosity to
153
blindfold you into condoning these atrocious acts against
women. Don’t deliberately ignore the existence of these
passages.

See also: Deuteronomy 22:23-24; 2 Samuel 12:11-14;

Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges 5:30; Exodus 21:7-11;
Zechariah 14:1-2)

Slavery
In the not so distant past of the USA, lynch mobs hung black
people a dozen at a time on a single tree, while quoting
biblical passages to justify racism and slavery. Just imagine
the scene.

Slavery was a virtually unchallenged cultural practice during

the biblical era. The Bible never condemns slavery but
promotes its cruel version which includes how to acquire
slaves, the degree to which owners can beat them, and even
details rules for engaging in sex with the female slaves.
Crafty Christian apologist attempt to justify Biblical slavery,
but remember: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” 1
Corinthians 5:6
. Good intentions do not justify the means.

Note in the following verse that both males and females are
purchasable as slaves and that they become the property of
their owners, possibly for life and can be passed on to the
slave owners children. The last verse is interesting as it states
the Israelites should not be treated ruthlessly, which implies
that enslaved foreigners could be.

“’Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations
around you; from them, you may buy slaves. You may also
buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
154
 members of their clans born in your country, and they will
become your property. You can bequeath them to your
children as inherited property and can make them slaves for
life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites
ruthlessly.” Leviticus 25:44-46

Slavery is inhumane, a breach of the dignity and human rights

all deserve. In the above verse, a Hebrew was not to be
treated ruthlessly. Note in the following verses how
differently Hebrew slaves were treated:

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.
Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing
for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave
and then married afterward, only he will go free in the
seventh year. But if he was married before he became a
slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave
him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or
daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but
his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the
slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my
children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his
master must present him before God. Then his master must
take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.
After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.” Exodus
21:2-6

It is shocking to think that selling one’s daughter as a [sex]

slave is justified by religionists who try to explain away the
following verses:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go

out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master,
155
 who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be
redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign
people since he has broken faith with her. If he designates
her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If
he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her
food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not
do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing,
without payment of money.” Exodus 21:7-11

Let’s break this down. You can sell you daughter as a slave.
If she does not please her master he can sell her off, but not to
foreigners [Is she supposed to be grateful?]. He also has the
option to give her to his son. There is no mention of her
feelings or wishes; she is handled like property or cattle. Can
you imagine these instructions listed in the bylaws of your
church constitution?

The cruelty does not end there. You are apparently permitted
to beat the slave close to death.

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod

must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they
are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two
since the slave is their property.” Exodus 21:20-21

These two verses demonstrate pure cruelty. How a religionist

even attempts to justify Biblical slavery is beyond me. When
people have an ax to grind, they will speak utter nonsense.

The New Testament endorses slavery. Jesus apparently

agreed with beating slaves, even if they were unaware what
they were doing wrong.

156
 “And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get
ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy
of a flogging, will receive but few…” Luke 12:47-48

The New Testament epistles sanction slavery.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and
with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Ephesians
6:5

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full

respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be
shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for
being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because
you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these
truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” 1
Timothy 6:1-2

Crafty defensive tactics are used to justify these verses. As

usual, the failed attempts are based on highly selective
reading. No matter how apologists try to slice the cake, the
conclusion remains – this is inhumane treatment. Any person
who even tries to justify this behavior suffers a form of
insanity. They are forced to validate it, trapped in a false
belief that their holy writ is without error.

The above verses cause me to stop and shake my head with

incredulity at how anyone can be so naïve to defend biblical
slavery with arguments claiming biblical slavery was only a
form of debt repayment and such what. If on the other hand,
you are going to argue that these are the cultural opinions of

157
ancient primitive peoples then you will also be forced to
apply the same reasoning to other texts.

Based on your moral compass, is the slavery described in the

Bible morally right? Would you accept biblical slavery if it
was implemented today, including beating them near to death
and raping them?

Even if one verse condemned slavery, it does not wipe away

the verses quoted.

Women's Inferior Status

“The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling
blocks in the way of woman's emancipation.” ― Elizabeth Cady
Stanton

The subjection of women is frequently associated with

religious narrow-mindedness. In nations where religious law
rules women are subject to laws that limit their freedom and
progress, yet they deny quashing women’s human rights.
Christian fundamentalists would agree that in most Arab
nations women are not treated equally to men, but they would
then turn around and deny that the Bible is guilty of the same
crime. Denial is not a river in Egypt; it is a common tactic
that fails to convince those with no ax to grind.

The following two verses unmistakably associate women

with property, slaves and animals.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not
covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his

158
 ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor”
Exodus 20:17

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set
your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or
female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to
your neighbor” Deuteronomy 5:21

The ancients considered it reasonable that women could be

burnt, raped and have their hands cut off for bizarre reasons.

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by

whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire”
Leviticus 21:9

“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to
rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out
and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her
hand. Show her no pity.” Deuteronomy 25:11-12

In Judges a father offers his virgin daughter to a drunken

crowd. Verse 25 describes the all night gang rape this poor
girl endured.

“Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will

bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to
them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don't do such
an outrageous thing. But the men would not listen to him. So
the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and
they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at
dawn, they let her go.” Judges 19:24-25

159
There is not a single hint of sympathy or concern for the
violently abused girl. The so-called Islamic State would
sanction these verses. How can religious fundamentalists
even attempt to justify such atrocities? I can just hear the
deluded fundamentalist say, “That’s nice, they eventually let
he go.”

Regardless of how many verses you want to quote in an

attempt to prove the Bible teaches gender equality, it will not
eradicate the verses quoted here. A fundamentalist who
accepts the Bible as infallible and without error must take
these verses as virtuous. Your only solution is to disregard
these belittling verses, but this would create a hard nut to
crack since umpteen others verses can then be ignored.

Stoning
One of the most barbaric practices in the Bible is stoning.
I’ve heard numerous versions of spin justifying this hideous
practice. The spin is only convincing to those who want or
need to believe it.

In the Old Testament a person could be stoned for simply

possessing “accursed things”, cursing or blaspheming,
adultery, worshipping false gods, disobeying parents, being a
witch or wizard, failing to keep the Sabbath and not being a
virgin your wedding night if you were female.

“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young

woman's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the
door of her father's house, and there the men of her town
shall stone her to death.” Deuteronomy 22:20-21

160
Even animals were stoned Exodus 21:28. A rebellious son could be
stoned for disobeying parents:

“If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not
obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when
they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of
him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They
shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and
rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a
drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to
death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel
will hear of it and be afraid.” Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Some have argued that this applied only to a son who is

extremely rebellious, a drunkard and glutton who had to be
forcefully dragged before the elders. So?

Adultery was punishable by stoning, and a female who had

been raped was stoned because she did not scream loud
enough.

“If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be

married, and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them
to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the young
woman because she was in a town and did not scream for
help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.
You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Note how the purpose of stoning was to purge evil amongst

the people and instill fear in others. This practice and the
motive behind it are identical to militant Islamists.

161
If you were stoning a family member for idol worship, then
you must throw the first stone.

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the

wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you,
saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" … do not yield to
them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them
or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your
hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the
hands of all the people.”
Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-9

Could you obey this? In 2016 Islamic State fighter, Ali Saqr
Al-Qasem publicly executed his mother in Raqqa for trying to
convince him to leave the jihadi group.

Even an Ox could be stoned to death: “If an ox gores a man

or a woman that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned.”
Exodus 21:28
. An ox that gored a person was stoned for what
purpose? A deterrent to other bulls? Eating its meat was even
forbidden.

(See also Leviticus 24:16; Joshua 7:1-26; Deuteronomy 17:2-

5; Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 20:2; Numbers 15:32-56; 1
Kings 21:10)

It is argued that stoning was the most humane capital

punishment available at the time, supposedly more humane
than modern methods like electric chairs, hanging, firing
squad, or lethal injections. Any sane person can see the error
of this argument. It echoes the justification by Islamists that
beheading with a knife is painless and quick.

162
The Jewish Mishnah [the first written collection of multiple
oral Jewish traditions combined into a single work] describes
brutal stoning practiced by Jews. In Sanhedrin 1:4 it explains
that the capital punishment could only be used, after trial, by
a Sanhedrin composed of twenty-three judges. It describes
four types of the capital punishment: stoning, burning,
slaying (by the sword), and strangling Sanhedrin 7:1. The reference
to ‘burning’ here is the act of pouring melted metal down
someone’s throat.

Stoning was not only the act of throwing stones but of

dropping a large stone from the height of the victim onto their
chest, hopefully resulting in instant death. Jewish historical
records show that Jewish religious leaders debated this issue
since the victim did not always die instantly. The
recommended height was argued and ranged from twice to
ten times a man’s height.

One account provided in the Jewish Mishnah describes how a

person was to be stoned: Sanhedrin, ch. 6, Mishnah 4

1. Thе рlасе оf stoning was twісе a mаn'ѕ height (with

rocks bеlоw).
2. Onе оf thе witnesses pushed hіm by the hірѕ, [so that]
hе was оvеrturnеd on hіѕ heart (fеll face first on the
rocks).
3. Hе wаѕ thеn turnеd оn his back.
4. If thаt саuѕеd his death, he hаd fulfіllеd [hіѕ dutу]; but
if nоt, thе second wіtnеѕѕ took a (lаrgе) stone and
thrеw іt оn hіѕ сhеѕt.
5. If he died thеrеbу, he hаd dоnе [his dutу]; but іf nоt,
hе [the criminal] was ѕtоnеd bу all Iѕrаеl.

163
Fundamentalists argue that the Talmud explains the capital
punishment was applied less than once every 70 years, so
apparently stoning is not a big issue. That’s like arguing that
a criminal raped once every 70 years, so that makes it
tolerable. Would stoning be administered more often if
‘deserving’ crimes were regularly committed? Of course,
they would. Furthermore, two witnesses were required for
murder. Who would murder in front of two witnesses? Lastly,
twenty-three judges had to agree unanimously on a guilty
verdict. Combine the criteria and we can see why the capital
punishment was rare. So what was the point of it? It seems
jungle justice could easily be evaded.

Stoning cannot be vindicated as humane. Those who attempt

to defend it claim that the New Covenant prohibits stoning
and that mercy and other forms of discipline are appropriate
for a rebellious son. Why could these alternative methods not
be gracefully applied in the past? Any dispensational answer
overlooks the elephant in the room; it’s blatantly inconsistent.

I have a much more humane suggestion – why did God not

put them to sleep like the eldest sons in Egypt, accomplishing
all the aims with no pain or suffering? Could you explain
why this was not an option?

Ask yourself, if stoning was permitted in modern times would

you accept it? Would you participate in stoning? Would it be
morally right? Does morality change?

Did God Command Strict Punishments and Laws?

When we read the penalties associated with the rules and
regulations in Leviticus, it is problematic to ally them with a
forgiving, loving and compassionate God.
164
The book of Exodus narrates how Moses led the Israelites out
from slavery in Egypt. Following the Exodus Exodus 19:1,
Leviticus then outlines instructions how they were to conduct
themselves. The Bible itself states that the instructions given
in Leviticus are considered evil by God and not inspired by
him.

“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke

to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt
offerings and sacrifices… they did not listen..; instead, they
followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They
went backward and not forward…they did not listen to me or
pay attention. They were stiff-necked and did more evil than
their ancestors.” Jeremiah 7:22, 24, 26

Anyone with an inkling of intelligence would conclude

similarly; Leviticus is full of evil punishments and
instructions.

Conclusion
Many of the moral responses religion offers were constructed
during historical periods when humans were profoundly
scientifically illiterate compared to modern scientific
knowledge. An intelligent reading is not about shifting
positions based on the prevailing social practices; it is about
examining past conclusions in the light of current knowledge
to produce more rational answers. If you can’t determine
‘right’ from ‘wrong’ without guidance from primitive people,
you lack empathy, not religion.

If you take the Bible literally, then you've made your bed,
now lie in it. Those who do uncomfortably wriggle as they try
165
to ignore the convicting voice of their rational mind. A few
fanatics have almost mastered the art of turning a blind eye.
Ignoring the atrocities in the Bible is like a mother turning a
blind eye to the fact her daughter is being sexually abused by
her husband, the father of the girl.

Do you believe the Bible is your source of morality? Do you

pick and choose which verses you accept as your moral
standard? If you do, you terminate your right to denounce
someone who cherry-picks a verse to reject what you
approve. Cherry picking is cherry picking; your cherry
picking is not unique. Isolating verses and accepting them as
the ceiling of morality will often conflict with a conscience
not easily bribed. It goes without saying then that religionists
do not have a monopoly on what is virtuous, right, or just.
Traveling further than where the Bible is stuck is part and
parcel of learning to discern morally the good, the bad and
the ugly.

The Jewish law was not always practiced as a dogmatic set of

divine rules. Although I have described gruesome practices in
the Old Testament, I would suggest that when reading the
laws mentioned in the Bible there is flexibility to adapt and
even disregard laws when you understand that these were
laws invented by primitive male chauvinists. Rather than
interpret the Old Testament as concrete laws and moral
standards, their moral system can be viewed as human
constructs.

Laws can be adjusted or eliminated for the advancement of

society when current knowledge and understanding
supersedes past knowledge. It is when you attribute man-
made laws to a divine source that you end up on the slippery
166
slope of hypocrisy. Unquestionably the Bible is morally
fallible. Discovering this can initially be disturbing, but the
human mind can be resilient and propel humanity into a new
way of thinking that is rational and reasonable. When you
never give a thought to who is listening to your thoughts, you
are truly free from thought crimes.

Being religious does not curb your ability to behave in ways

you denounce. People who live in glass houses should not
throw stones. The person who never breaks their rules is
qualified to throw stones of condemnation. Empty glasses
usually make the loudest noise. Those who insistently voice
their moral opposition are guilty of the very thing they
denounce. Their public outrage is a veil to hide their private
hypocrisy.

For my part, I live and do whatever I want. What do I want? I

want to live a life where, as much as possible, I do not hurt
others; I help those in need and so that I vacate this planet
leaving it in a better condition than I found it. I don’t need
primitive goat herders to define my morality. I am
sufficiently intelligent to formulate holistic principles to live
by and ignore Biblical barbarism.

167
 Chapter Four
Morality: The truth about Sexuality and
the Bible. Part Two
I was once a staunch opponent of homosexuality, believing
with conviction and passion it was evil and that they were
either morally depraved or mentally unwell. I had zeal,
sincerity, and a biased lens, but little knowledge Prov. 19:2; Rom 10:2.
Decades later I launched an investigation into the subject,
intensifying the research when I recognized the extent of my
lack of knowledge. I approach the subject as a happily
married heterosexual, and so I don’t claim to understand the
suffering those with same gender attractions have suffered
since I have no way to relate to their experience. Even with
no score to settle, the evidence was overwhelming. In this
chapter, clarity is my goal, not biased condemning or
condoning of homosexuality based on speculation, emotions,
and politics.

As we will see, homophobes manipulate Christian opinion by

employing an arsenal of cunning tactics based on dishonesties
and half-truths to successfully market hate towards
homosexuals. They spectacularly ignore current biological,
medical, and social science discoveries in this field and
instead rely on primitive writers. The Bible is not clear on
this subject, hence the variety of views amongst scholars in
the field. If an anti-homosexual view is clearly presented in
the Bible, there would be no need for Christian apologists to
make detailed and long-drawn-out presentations.

What People Fear They Smear

168
What people fail to understand they tend to fear and respond
to aggressively; it’s a self-protective mechanism and instinct
in all animals. Nations constrained by poverty, religion, and
limited education tend to be more hostile towards same-sex
relationships. Typically that misunderstanding is based on
misinformation or lack of information. As societies become
more advanced in knowledge, superstition and myths become
less socially acceptable and necessary.

An Intellectual Approach to Sexuality

Homosexuality has become a political, social, religious and a
scientific question that should be discussed and viewed
through a 21st-century lens. There are two approaches; the
first is simple and the second is simplistic. The simplistic
approach ignores reality, facts, and science, and instead, it
grips on to myths, superstition, misinformation and bigotry.
The simple approach is to be fiercely honest with factual
realities. Religionists typically fail to investigate a matter
thoroughly. Instead, they recklessly make sweeping
statements based on propaganda, often confusing propaganda
with education.

The infamous founder of right-wing anti-LGBT group, Focus

on the Family, James Dobson stated on a radio station
interview in 2015, “I would like them to think, just for a
moment, about ‘LGBT.’ The ‘B’ stands for bisexual. That’s
orgies! Are you really going to support this?” The fact he
does not know the definition of a bisexual is a blunder of epic
proportions and a full-on exposure to the level of ignorance
by some of the chief opponents of homosexuality. What else
is he misinformed about? I think maybe he is a tri-sexual –
trying to have sex but can’t.

169
Fundamental religionists can be naïve in regards to sex. There
are many virgin Christians in their 30’s and 40’s still waiting
for that ‘special one.’ Fundamentalist Christians have an
obsession with sex, largely due to pent-up sexual frustration.

I heard of a married female Christian, who completed a

registration form for a Christian conference. One section
asked, ‘Sex?’ Instead of writing ‘female’ she wrote, “Twice a
week.” Either she was a comedian or very naïve.

A 65-year-old church mother received a call: “I have some

news for you Mrs. Smith, your son is heterosexual.” After a
five-second silence, she replies, “What? Heterosexual! Oh
Lord, that can’t be true! I refuse to believe that he likes
men!”

Human Sexuality
Humans are typically sexual beings. In religious circles,
sexuality is still a taboo subject, infrequently discussed in any
serious depth. Any honest religious reader will readily admit
this. In this chapter, we will discuss homosexuality truthfully
and candidly. For some readers, this rings alarm bells since
they reject homosexual civil rights because of an unwavering
literal interpretation of ancient texts. Sexual identity is
defined for them since they have been raped of the freedom to
think for themselves. The result is private struggles with pent
up sexual frustrations while publicly maintaining a
hypocritical, pious image.

Answering the Right Questions

This issue revolves around the question of whether a person
is born homosexual and how we deal with that. Science,
sociology and directly engaging with homosexuals dissolves
170
the simplistic stereotype caricature of gays, a feminine male,
and a masculine female. The religionist ignores evidence in
science and Biblical studies that contradict their view on
homosexuality, purely based on personal faith. However,
they are meticulous in seeking the support of science and
biblical scholarship when it comes to anti-homosexual
propaganda, even when left with intellectual and scriptural
crumbs.

Terminology: Not all born the same

People often confuse the sexual roles in procreation with
sexual orientation and sexual gender identity. Humans are
born with a variety of natural sexual orientations and
identities. In reality, it is not as black and white as religionists
would have us believe, one version of male and one version
of the female. Gender is a spectrum, not a simplistic two
options range. Those who think it is binary cite writings by
early religious authors with the inadequate scientific
knowledge to understand sexuality and biological diversities.

A genetic alteration during our development in the womb

elects our birth genitalia and sexual orientation. It is
undisputable that occasionally female minds are born into
male bodies and vice versa. A number of sexual variations
exist, below are just seven:

Heterosexual: An individual sexually attracted to others

of the opposite sex
Homosexual: An individual sexually attracted to those
of the same sex.

[Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are

monosexual.]
171
Bisexual: An individual sexually attracted to males and
females.
Asexual An individual who has little or no sexual
desires.
(Also known as nonsexuality)
Intersex: A child born with indeterminate sex, with a
gender identity that doctors cannot, from birth,
categorize in typical notions of male or female
bodies. “Research in the late 20th century
indicates a growing medical consensus that
diverse intersex bodies are normal forms of
human biology.” Zderic, Stephen (2002). Pediatric gender. It
occurs in one in every 1,500 births. Accord Alliance

A variety of factors decides a baby's sexual category. When

any of these factors become disrupted in the development
stages, it causes ambiguity in sexual identity, ranging from
girls with male characteristics and vice versa, to babies born
with an unknown sexual identity. For example, an intersex
person could be born with a womb, ovaries, and female
genes, but their genitals and hormones are male.

“Intersex people are usually raised with shame and secrecy.”

― Dr. Tiger Devore

“It can be very confusing and isolating for families.

Everyone is dying to find out what the baby is and how do
you say we don't really know yet?”
― Aileen Schast, Clinical Psychologist, Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia

172
Some babies born with Disorders of Sex Development (DSD)
that is not so apparent and it goes undetected for years since it
is their internal organs that are affected.

Intersex infants and children, for instance, those with

ambiguous external genitalia, are sometimes controversially
surgically or hormonally changed to produce a more socially
normal sexual identity; there is no reliable evidence of
satisfactory outcomes.

The majority identify as either a female or male while others

select to identify as neither exclusively a woman nor purely a
man. Sometimes intersex individuals are raised as female or
male but then switch gender identity later in life.

Transsexual: A person with a gender identity that is opposite

to their biological sex.
Some males are extremely masculine and females that are
super feminine. There are also males who are feminine, and
females who are masculine.

Omnisexual: Interchangeable with pansexual. An individual

with romantic, emotional, or sexual attractions towards any
sex and gender expression.

Ostracizing and Antagonizing Gays

Undeniably religionists have directly or indirectly caused a
great deal of pain and anguish to gay people, ranging from
gays hanged, bludgeoned by lynch mobs or the son/daughter
who commits suicide after being rejected by religious parents.
Religionists can barely quote or explain, if at all, the apparent
anti-homosexual texts to which they claim loyalty. This
173
behavior is the height of human depravity. Hatred is a learned
behavior.

Bishop Ambrosios, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of

Kalavryta and Aigialeia, is known for his venomous blog
posts that denounce homosexuals as the “scum of society”
and encourages haters to “spit” and “blacken” homosexuals
with violent action. The hate is similar to that of racists and
male chauvinists, who likewise appeal to the Bible. The
misery suffered by non-heterosexuals is a terrible indictment
on society. If you are not part of the solution, then you are
part of the problem. Your mantra, “Love the sinner, and hate
the sin” does not wash clean your bloodstained hands. You
may not have physically participated in raping, beating,
torturing, murdering or throwing them off buildings, but your
views and comments have contributed as if you were
physically present, thus making you guilty of crimes against
humanity. Dress it how you like to soothe your conscience,
you still espouse inhumane views that contribute to the
antagonism towards homosexuals.

Racism, homophobia, politics and other pretexts have been

used to justify inflicting pain and suffering. Humans are
capable of hurting others with little or no thought. This
psychopathic behavior is a ‘personality disorder
characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, diminished
empathy, and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.’ It
leads to jungle and mob justice, giving sadistic pleasure from
beating, humiliating and causing mental suffering for
homosexuals. Ignorant religious fundamentalism has created
a climate where gays feel unaccepted, resulting in high rates
of suicide. Bigoted views have serious consequences and
denying it fails to remove the blame.
174
Uganda is a case in hand where harsh anti-homosexual laws
exist as a direct influence by Christian fundamentalism
imported from the west. The plain truth is Uganda had the
highest levels of Aids as a result of lack of education and
sexual frustrations that lead to promiscuity. The pendant has
swung to the opposite extreme. To avoid one ditch, they have
oversteered into the opposite ditch on the road to progress. If
anything, it exposes the ignorance they are oblivious to, while
they simultaneously believe they are on the moral high
ground. As you will see, it will only make them a laughing
stock since criminalizing gay sex is a reflection of the
society's archaic views rooted in prejudice that violates the
fundamental human rights of tens of millions of their citizens.

There is no instruction in the Bible to sideline and cold-

shoulder gay people. As will become evident, to think so is a
mammoth misinterpretation of Biblical texts and a monstrous
crime against human rights. How can anyone who claims
loyalty to the Bible resort to and defend hostility towards the
gay community? It is the fruit of ignorance. Are you offended
when others discriminate against Christians? If so, you should
understand how homosexuals feel when you discriminate
against them.

Over Emphasis and Cover-ups

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
― Hamlet by William Shakespeare

Why is it that religionists single out homosexuality?

175
Homophobic propaganda and rhetoric in Christianity,
founded on greasy, self-interested scholarship and unsound
reasoning, obstructs the impartial search for truth; dare I say
it is nothing more than a cover-up by the sexually frustrated,
camouflaged as a defense of righteousness.

A study was conducting with 35 homophobic heterosexual

men and 29 non-homophobic heterosexual men to determine
if a connection existed between homophobia and homosexual
arousal W.W. Hudson & W.A. Ricketts, 1980. The men were shown sexually
explicit videos of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian
sex. Both groups demonstrated increased arousal to
heterosexual and lesbian videos. Astonishingly only the
homophobic men exhibited arousal to male homosexual
videos. The researchers conclude that homophobes were
either oblivious or in denial concerning their sexual
inclinations. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Adams, Henry E.; Wright,
Lester W.; Lohr, Bethany A. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 105(3), 1996, 440-445
.

There are numerous cases of church leaders privately

expressing their homosexuality while publicly denouncing it.
Even the former leader of the largest church network in the
USA openly and fanatically opposed homosexuality, yet he
secretly engaged in a homosexual ‘relationship’ which he
denied at first then later admitted. You can be sure that
Christian leaders are willing to lie and deceive the masses to
cover up their sexual issues.

“For that which I do, I do not allow others to do: for what I
would allow them to do, that I do not; but what I hate, that I
do.” Romans 7:15

176
The next time you hear a preacher ranting about ‘fags’ and
‘queers’ you may be witnessing a closet homosexual in
action. Their condemnation is the fruit of their guilt, maybe
not for homosexuality but other sexual misbehavior, hence
their obsession with sexual issues. It is a classic cover-up
distraction to conceal their shortfallings. Those ministers you
reason are so highly righteous because of the repetitive public
condemnation of homosexuality, and sexual sins are very
likely sneaking off to view pornography or to have a secret
fling. They do the things they just finished screaming you
should not do, perhaps unaware of the psychological damage
they do to their congregation. Their chief goal is maintaining
their public image and their position of authority over you.

Whited sepulchers tend to over-emphasis what they are

personally struggling with and obsessively thinking. The
ultimate strategy to cover up is to speak vehemently against a
practice you struggle with privately. Empty vessels make the
loudest noise; history has proven this time and time again.
Major anti-homosexual activists have been exposed engaging
in homosexual relationships and encounters. Scapegoating
and pointing fingers shifts the attention from them and onto
others. Hurt people hurt others by preaching from their hurts.
The next time you repeatedly hear someone preach from a
single page you can be sure to have identified their private
struggles and poorly patched up wounds. Nothing is more
taboo and embarrassing and hurtful than sexual struggles and
wounds. Confront these anti-homosexual activists and they
will vigorously deny struggling sexually, laughing it off as
false accusations. Too late, the fruit does not fall far from the
tree. Their hard-line approach is an exact mirror of radical
Islamists and other fundamental religions – ‘Do as I say, not
as I do.’
177
Rarely is same gender sex mentioned in the Bible. It is briefly
mentioned six or seven times out of 31,000 verses in the
Bible, and even then it does not refer to the modern definition
of homosexuality. This silence is a clear sign that the authors
of the Bible did not consider this a major issue. If the Bible is
important to you, consider emphasizing what the Bible
emphasizes and remain silent where the Bible is silent. The
Bible nowhere deals with committed same-sex relationships
amongst adults.

Over emphasized distracting Christian media propaganda

dominates minds, whirling into a vicious circle like a
destructive tornado. Fact checking reveals misinformation
and that people are sold magnifying glasses instead of
mirrors. Remove the log out of your eye before you object to
the splinter in someone else's eye.

Homosexuality in the Biblical Text

The Bible offers minimal ammunition to opponents of
homosexuality. To accept the views of primitives on same
gender sex as absolute truth is senseless and irrational.
Shockingly, religious individuals and communities uphold
and defend outdated views that fly in the face of the current
scientific understanding, first-hand testimonies and what a
clear conscience dictates to us. To trust a biblical
interpretation on this issue as a stand on a higher moral
ground is an optimum act of self-delusion. An identical
approach to Biblical interpretation was taken to defend
slavery and other atrocities. A superior more sensible
approach is available.

178
The ammunition of anti-homosexuals consists of merely six
passages that deal with same gender sex, three in each
testament. An examination reveals that they more than likely
address temple prostitution and other exploitations.
Mainstream Old and New Testament Greek scholars agree
these passages are probably unrelated to homosexuality as
defined today since they were penned during the dark days of
scientific illiteracy when fundamental human rights existed in
few communities. Dogmatic anti-homosexual arguments fall
apart with accurate insight. Let’s revisit traditional texts
quoted by anti-homosexuals. Don’t let anyone fool you that
their interpretation is the correct one. The texts are not
absolutely clear, but we can be reasonably sure that it is not
exactly the way fundamentalists portray.

[Note: Not a single verse in the entire Old Testament

condemns lesbianism. Also, the Bible condemns adultery 52
times; murder 57 times; self-righteousness 79 times, greed
and covetousness 40 times, and idolatry 169 times; lying and
false testimony 30 times; theft 42 times: the attention
homosexuality receives is telling. Why are these other sins
not attacked as much? Don’t fabricate answers].

1. Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

The story of Sodom of Gomorrah is regularly mentioned to
illustrate Gods hatred for same-sex relationships. In the story,
two angels [messengers] arrive in Sodom one evening. Lot
hospitably invites them to his home. Then a mob from every
part of the city of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the
house and demanded to meet the two visitors to ‘know’ them
or ‘have intercourse them’ (different bibles read differently
here).
179
Elephant in Room
I must first point out the elephant in the room. In response,
Lot declines their request to present his guests to the
inhabitants of Sodom and instead offers the mob his two
virgin daughters to be gang-raped: “Behold, I have two
daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them
out to you, and do to them as you please.” Genesis 19:8

The New Testament even labels Lot ‘righteous’ 2 Peter 2:6-8. The
irony is beyond belief. Later Lot and his daughters flee
Sodom to live in a cave on a mountain. Lot’s daughter's plot
to make their father drunk, so they could sleep with him; they
became pregnant by him and bore his children. So let’s get
this straight: Lot offers his daughters to be gang raped, they
in turn later intoxicate their dad, have sex with him and
become pregnant. It is astonishing that anti-gay conservative
Christians skim over these deplorable accounts and focus on
falsifying another narrative that suits their twisted agenda.
Genesis 19:30-39

Sodom and Gomorrah in History

The anti-homosexual case against Sodom is exceptionally
weak. The majority who cite the incident either have not read
it, are guilty of lazy research or are purposely seeking to
mislead.

Most people recall only the names of these two cities and
mistakenly assume the story is only about them, but God was
about to destroy five cities of the plain. Gen. 14:2; Deut. 29:23. This
story is about Sodom; Gomorrah was a sister city.

180
Archeologists dispute the historical existence of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Interestingly, it seems the Bible does not mention
the actual names of these two famous cities. The Hebrew
word for Sodom means ‘burnt.’ The Hebrew word for
Gomorrah means ‘a ruined heap.’ Understandably, these
cities were not named Sodom and Gomorrah before their
destruction; rather this is a clear indication the story is
parabolic fiction.

Remarkably in true hyperbolic style the narrative in Genesis

19 with Lot mirrors the story in Genesis 18 with Abraham:

“The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of

Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the
heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men
standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the
entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the
ground. He said, ‘If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,
do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought,
and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree.
Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and
then go on your way--now that you have come to your
servant.’’” Genesis 18:1-5

“The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot

was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he
got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the
ground. ‘My lords,’ he said, ‘please turn aside to your
servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night
and then go on your way early in the morning.’ ‘No,’ they
answered, ‘we will spend the night in the square.’ But he
insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his

181
house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without
yeast, and they ate.” Genesis 19:1-3

These two stories are almost identical, a common occurrence

in parabolic writings. The meaning of the names is also a
clue. Pauls also tells us the Old Testament stories, at least,
some if not all, are just examples, allegory or parables. 1
Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 4:24
. Did God robotically control and
manipulate humans to achieve these similarities or are they
the result of creative writing?

There is no mention of Sodom and Gomorrah outside the

Bible, except in Jewish and Muslim texts, and no reliable
evidence of their existence. Claims of their discovery, usually
by fanatical Bible believers with an ax to grind, are rejected
by all reputable archeologists. Other clues exist that indicate
the story is parabolic, including Lot’s wife turning into a
pillar of salt Genesis 19:26.

Reason for Destruction

It is false to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed
because God detests homosexuality. There is not a shred of
evidence to prove this, but the evidence is not important for
the religionists. Unbiased biblical scholars and teachers
conclude that there is inadequate biblical support for this
position.

The Bible clearly states the sin of Sodom, and homosexuality

is not listed.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her
daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did
not help the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49
182
Clearly the sin of Sodom was their propensity to be
inhospitable and self-centred. Isaiah chapter one further
clarifies this.

“The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah.

They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in
their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the
Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God,
lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging
in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive
to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and
orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is
no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual
activities at all.”
― B.A. Robinson, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

In 2 Peter 2:6-8 Peter references Gods destruction of the

population of Sodom for their wicked, corrupt and lawless
behavior; homosexuality is not cited.

In Matthew 10:11-15 Jesus has an ideal opportunity to link

Sodom and Gomorrah to homosexuality and bash gays, he
does neither. He begins by instructing his disciples to travel
house to house and town to town and then states:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words,

leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.
Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and
Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment than for that town.” Matthew
10:14-15

183
Jesus explicitly links Sodom and Gomorrah to inhospitality.
The level of judgment for inhospitality may seem extreme to
our modern minds. Perhaps this is why Lot was prepared to
offer his daughters to protect his guests. Hospitality was a big
issue. Understanding this backdrop is key.

Ancient Jewish and Eastern culture believed inhospitable

towards strangers. It was a practice later incorporated into the
Law of Moses. Ex 23:9; Lev. 19:33-34. Other cultures were more
skeptical as visitors might be thieves or spies.

The Mishnah describes Sodom as incredibly cruel towards

outsiders and those in poverty. Apparently guests were
offered a bed, however, if the length of the bed did not fit the
visitor, it was the visitor who was adjusted to fit the bed.
With excessive cruelty short visitors would be stretched, and
the feet of tall visitors would be cut off.

The citizens of Sodom would happily donate a ‘marked’ coin

to a beggar, one that no trader in Sodom would receive as
legal tender. The poor beggar would eventually die of
starvation, and they would retrieve the coin to give it to the
next poor beggar.

Anti-homosexuals have put two and two together and made

five, entirely missing the point of the story and inserting into
the narrative the conclusion they desire. Bible authors seem
to be reading and writing with a different lens to that of
conservative Christians. Had the writers of the Old Testament
wanted to make it clear that the sin of Sodom was gays and
lesbians running rampant they could have done so. Anti-gay
critics must ‘read into the text’ to make it say what they
wished it had.
184
[See also Genesis 10:19, 13:10, 12, 13, 14:2, 8, 10-11, 12, 17,
21-22, 18:16, 20, 22, 26, 19:1, 4, 24, 28; Deuteronomy 23:17,
29:23, 32:32; Ezekiel 16:46, 48-49, 53, 55-56]

It wasn’t until 1700 years later, between 163 BC-AD 93, well
after the alleged events described in Genesis 19 that non-
biblical Jewish writers linked Sodom with sexual sins like
pederasty and prostitution.

Ancient Jewish commentaries on Sodom, in the Mishnah for

example, are all unified in stating that Sodom’s judgment was
due to their inhospitality towards strangers and lack of
support to those in poverty; homosexual activity goes
unmentioned. The earliest religious text to mention
homosexuality in connection with Sodom was the Quran in
AD 600.

Some have referred to Jeremiah 49:18 and Ezekiel 16:50 as

possible references to their links to sexual sins, but it is only
weak speculation.

The Motive of the Mob

The Biblically illiterate envisage the citizens of Sodom as
wild homosexuals. In any culture, roughly 2-7%, a relatively
small minority, of the population will be homosexual. That
would suggest that 93-98% of the crowd were heterosexual.
Lot's suggestion they rape his daughters indicates his
awareness they were heterosexuals, or bisexual.

At first glance, the mob appears to be a purely male crowd.

The phrase translated ‘the men of the city’, even the men of
Sodom,’ could also be translated as ‘the people of the city, the
185
people of Sodom.’ The Hebrew word used is ‘enows,’
meaning ‘mortals’ – both male and female. Often when the
Bible speaks of ‘man’ or ‘men’ it is referring to ‘mankind.’
The passage clarifies this further, “...both old and young, all
the people from every quarter” Genesis 19:4. This passage is not a
narrative about male-male gang rape. Clarity seems to have
been lost in translation resulting in misleading conclusions. I
can assure you that if they were planning a homosexual orgy,
they would not have invited the wives and kids.

Significantly, Lot was sitting in the gate, making him the

gatekeeper of the city: “The two angels arrived at Sodom in
the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city….”
Genesis 19:1

This respected position and responsibility was assigned by

the chief rulers of the city to screen all travelers entering or
exiting the city to prevent entry to any who posed a danger to
the inhabitants. Sodom had just emerged from war Genesis. 14:1-2,
and here was Lot, trusted as the city gatekeeper, hospitably
welcoming two total strangers to the city and to lodge at his
home. The citizens of Sodom were understandably
suspicious; perhaps they were spies? It is likely they were
aware of the law of hospitability, but the safe keeping of the
city was more vital than loose hospitality.

The word translated ‘know’ [Hebrew: yada] in the KJV could

be translated non-sexually. The mob wanted to ‘know’ them
(different bibles read differently). The Hebrew word for
‘know’ [yadha] is used 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures
and only roughly 1.5% (13-14) times it is contextually about
sexual activity, case in point, “Adam knew his wife, and she
conceived.” Genesis 4:1. To force this phrase to mean sex in every
186
instance would be problematic; the scripture uses a form of
this word when it states, “God knew David.” Admittedly, this
does not imply God had sex with David. The word ‘yadha’
can mean ‘to know a fact’ or ‘to know a person well.’

It could be that the demand to ‘know’ the two visitors was

simply a request to know who they were for the purpose of
friendly cross-examines to determine the purpose of their
visit and to eliminate the danger. Some experts have noted
that the expression ‘to know’ is worded as an invitation using
a polite form of the verb ‘to know,’ and not with an
aggressive undertone. It was only later they became hostile.
Had their original intention been to gang rape the visiting
men it seems far-fetched to think they would courteously
request permission. The Hebrew language has other more
vulgar words they could have used.

Archeological records chronicle the common Near East

method used by victorious soldiers to humiliate and crush the
spirit of their defeated enemies by “treating them like
women” and homosexually raping them. The driving force
was not sexual cravings between two consenting adults;
rather it was cruelty and animosity directed at the enemy.
This same practice could have been the motive in the Genesis
19 incident. If the motivation of the crowd were to force
themselves onto the two visitors, they would have been guilty
of rape, not homosexuality.

The case for this version of the narrative is not air-tight

because of Genesis 19:8, but extremely plausible. The story is
vague and unclear, and so no one can honorably claim with
absolute certainty their version is correct. What is certain is

187
that the crime was inhospitality and possibly, if we stretch the
text, the desire to disrespect the visitors by raping them.

Interestingly, why would Lot offer them his virgin daughters

if it were clear the men of Sodom were homosexuals? Would
it not have been more appropriate to offer his sons-in-law, or
more nobly to offer himself?

Sex with Angels

Another verse that cited as proof that the sin of Sodom and
Gomorrah was homosexuality is Jude, Verse 7.

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in

like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going
after strange flesh…” Jude 7

Differing Bible versions translate the keyword contrarily, a

clear indication that there are issues with this vague word.
Translations include ‘fornication’, ‘going after strange flesh’,
‘sexual immorality’, ‘perverted sensuality’, ‘homosexuality’,
‘lust of every kind’, ‘immoral acts’ and ‘unnatural lust.’
What does ‘strange flesh’ mean? In all honesty, even experts
confess they do not know with certainty. Some translators
biasedly selected to insert the word ‘homosexuality’, or a
close enough inference.

“The original Greek is transliterated as: ‘sarkos heteras.’

This phrase can be translated as “other flesh”. Ironically,
our English word ‘heterosexual’ comes from ‘heteras.’ A
likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 4 criticized the
men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual activities with
angels.”

188
 ― B.A. Robinson, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

When examining the words in question, this interpretation is

bolstered.

“Strange” is heteros. (Strongs 2087) and means something

like ‘other’ or ‘unknown’ (like heteroglossos ‘other tongued’
meaning unknown tongues).

“Flesh” is sarx. (Strongs 4561) Commonly translated “flesh”

“body.”

A better translation would be ‘other flesh’ or “other body.”

The reference seems to be heterosexual [or super-natural] sex

with angels, but could be stretched to mean both heterosexual
and homosexual sex with angels. Any translation that
confidently asserts it’s a reference to homosexuality is
blatantly dishonest.

The particular choice of wording by the writer demonstrates

that the concern was not homosexuality. Jude denounces
humans having sex with or attempting to have sex with
angels, again no mention of homosexuals.

It seems Jude is referring to a first-century Jewish legend that

the women of Sodom sought to engage in sex with male
angels to conceive supernatural offspring, likely a theory
originating from the reference in Genesis six to angels having
sex with humans Genesis 6:1-2. The previous verse, Jude 6,
mentions angels [And the angels who did not keep their
positions…”].

189
A good number anti-gay fundamentalist Christian teachers
and scholars agree that Jude 7 is a reference to sex with
angels, not humans. I will cite three; the first citation is from
the leading anti-homosexual scholar in the world.

“…the men of Sodom inadvertently put themselves in the

sacrilegious position of pursuing sexual intercourse with
angels…Jude sees the actions of the Sodomites as sharing
similarities with the actions of the rebellious angels,…(note
the expression “in a manner similar to these [angels]” in v.
7).”
― Dr. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburg Theological Seminary

“They entered into a terrible perversion of sex. The “strange

(Gk. heteras = 'different') flesh” was of a different nature
than theirs. Just as the men of Sodom lusted after the angels,
so the angels (in Genesis 6) lusted after human flesh and
committed fornication with human women…”
― Dr. John MacArthur, Respected Bible Teacher and Pastor

“The phrase ‘went after other flesh’ (apelQousai opisw

sarkos heteras) refers to their pursuit of non-human (i.e.,
angelic!) ‘flesh.’ The expression ‘sarkos heteras’ means
‘flesh of another kind’; thus, it is impossible to construe this
passage as a condemnation of homosexual desire, which
entails precisely the pursuit of the same kind.”

― Richard Hays, Duke Divinity School, New Testament Scholar, The

Moral Vision of the New Testament, Harper: San Francisco, 1996, p.
404

190
What makes their comments interesting is that all three
scholars and teachers firmly believe gay relationships are
sinful, yet they cannot deny that Jude 7 is not a reference to
homosexuality.

[See also Expositor's Bible Commentary, The NET Bible commentary,

JND. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Harper
and Row, New York, 1969), pages 258-259; Fred Craddock, First and
Second Peter and Jude (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 1995),
page 139; Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Books, Waco, 1983),
page 54; Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the
General Epistle of Jude (Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 1987), page 180;
CEB. Cranfield, I and II Peter and Jude (SCM Press, London, 1960),
page 159; and Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament
(Harper, San Francisco, 1996), page 404.]

The citing of Jude 7 as evidence that the sin of Sodom and

Gomorrah is homosexuality is a feeble argument that
collapses under scrutiny.

Sodomy
The Genesis 19 story resulted in several languages coining
new words and phrases, including the English word
‘sodomy.’

The label ‘Sodomite’ was originally a reference to the citizens

of Sodom, in the same way, the Moabites were the
inhabitants of Moab. The modern definition of ‘sodomite’ has
no linguistic connection to the population of Sodom. Current
definitions are rooted in a misguided belief that Sodom was
destroyed for homosexuality.

The two Hebrew words translated ‘Sodom’ and ‘shrine

prostitute’ are linguistically unconnected, yet the KJV uses
191
the word ‘sodomite’ about sexual sin. When we examine the
Bible in its original languages, the word Sodomite is absent in
instances where modern Bibles have used it. Translators are
guilty of blatant dishonesty and bias. They have taken a
modern definition based on a misinterpretation of the story of
Sodom in Genesis 19 and inserted it in the Old Testament to
give the false impression the text is dealing with all forms of
homosexuality.

“There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a

sodomite of the sons of Israel.” Deuteronomy 23:17 KJV

The New International Version corrects this error:

“No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine

prostitute” Deuteronomy 23:17 NIV

These texts deal specifically with temple prostitution, a

practice connected with the worship of false god. The issue is
with false gods, not with same gender sex.

[See also 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7]

It is dishonest and incorrect to refer to gays using the archaic

term sodomites.

2. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 – Rejected?

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an

abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

192
 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to
death...” Leviticus 20:13

What is the unquestionably accurate translation of Leviticus

18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 from Hebrew to English? Until
you can categorically answer this question, you are
prematurely dogmatic in quoting it as a proof text for your
homophobic views.

Commands Not Given By God

The method of interpretation you utilize will critically affect
your reading of the Bible; the lens you wear is critical when
reading Leviticus, “the dullest book in the Bible” Isaac Asimov.
Leviticus contains the majority of the 636 laws and guidelines
aimed at distinguishing the Jewish nation from their
Canaanite neighbors. It may surprise you to learn that the
commands in this books seem to be rejected by God
elsewhere in the Bible.

The book of Exodus narrates how Moses led the Israelites out
from slavery in Egypt. Following the Exodus Exodus 19:1,
Leviticus then outlines instructions how they were to conduct
themselves. The Bible itself states that the instructions given
in Leviticus are considered evil by God and not inspired by
him.

“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke

to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt
offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey
me, and I will be your God, and you will be my people…. But
they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the
stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went
193
backward and not forward… But they did not listen to me or
pay attention. They were stiff-necked and did more evil than
their ancestors…. they burn their sons and daughters in the
fire. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never
even crossed my mind to command such a thing!” Jeremiah 7:22-24,
26, 31

Notice that the period relates to the time of Leviticus. Note

also how God states such commands and deeds were horrible
and would never cross his mind. Take a read of Leviticus and
ask yourself, “Do these sound like the commands of a loving,
merciful God or the dictates of a legalistic, evil and stubborn
nomadic tribe?”

The NIV alters Jeremiah 7:22 so as to avoid making it look

like Jeremiah disagree with the Law of Moses. Can tampering
with the passage constitute a means of defending its
inerrancy?

Even if the above arguments were not valid Leviticus 18:22 is

not as black and white as some Bible teachers and
translations have portrayed.

Obey Leviticus Completely

If Leviticus 20:13 can be cited as a valid verse to be obeyed,
then why not go the whole nine yards and execute
homosexuals? [“They are to be put to death”].

Leviticus also condemns the practices of eating pork Lev. 11:7 or

shellfish Lev.11:12, and forbids a whole myriad of other
practices. Conservative anti-homosexual Christians cherry-
pick through Leviticus and then perform scriptural

194
gymnastics to justify their bigoted views from a scanty salad
of ‘supporting’ verses.

The bigot considers these verses as part of God’s unchanging

moral law. The religionist creates an argument that
distinguishes between ceremonial laws and moral laws, a
distinction the Bible does not make. For example, were the
commands in Exodus to beat a slave near to death morally
right? Can moral laws change?

Lesbianism in the Old Testament

It is telling, and extremely significant, that not a single verse
in the Old Testament condemns lesbianism. Does this mean
lesbianism was acceptable in the Old Testament? If not, what
was the scriptural justification for condemning it? If there is
none, then on what non-hypocritical basis is homosexuality
condemned?

Leviticus only speaks about male to male sex explicitly

linked to temple prostitution, which was predominantly male
prostitution within the context of religious worship rituals.
The Old Testament doesn’t seem to have a genuine interest in
women.

Temple Prostitution
The previous chapters (remember, chapter divisions are later
additions) show the context is idol worship and all the rituals
and practices that accompany it: “They must no longer offer
any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they
prostitute themselves…”Leviticus 17:7 NIV [See also Leviticus
16:29-34].

195
When we examine chapter 16, 17 and 18 collectively a fuller
picture emerges. Chapter 16 ends with Israel being reminded
to remember the Day of Atonement annually when they were
to offer blood sacrifices to God. The theme continues in
chapter 17. The theme was not a same-sex relationship, but
idol worship and the pagan practices that accompany it.
Chapter 18 must be read with this in mind. Furthermore, the
previous verse to the critical text reads:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,

for you must not profane the name of your God…” Leviticus 18:21

The following verse [divided by later editors] is not randomly

changing the subject but elaborating on it.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an

abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

Visualize the full picture; the pagans were offering their

children as sacrifices to Molech and then engaging in sex
with the male temple prostitutes. So the writer writes:

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,

for you must not profane the name of your God. You shall not
lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

God is forbidding pagan sexual worship rituals offered to

goat demons and Ashtoreth, the Canaanite fertility goddess
associated with Molech. These rituals included human
sacrifice, cannibalism, and temple prostitution. Sexual
relations with temple prostitutes was an act of worship in
fertility cults, a common practice at the time. They believed

196
having sex with the temple priests would guarantee abundant
crops, fertile livestock and fertile families.

The use of the word abomination is significant. In the KJV

Bible, the worship of other gods is called an abomination 59
times. Evidently these two verses refer to the abomination of
idol worship by engaging in male temple prostitution.

The Hebrew qadesh is translated correctly ‘a temple

prostitute’ in most Bibles; the King James Version
misleadingly translates it as ‘sodomite.’ Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24;
1 Kings 22:46
. The word means ’holy one.’ Modern scholarship
rejects the KJV translation as an error since at best it shows a
lack of knowledge and at worst blatant biased translating.

Evidently God is not wanting Israel to worship him and

simultaneously take part in idol venerating pagan practices.
Idol worship was a huge no-no in the eyes of Jehovah. The
very first commandment of the famous Ten Commandments
prohibits having other gods Exodus 20:1-3. Naively isolating a
verse from the wider context is a chaotic system of
interpreting the Bible. This verse is specific but mistakenly
interpreted generally. It would be like the specific
prohibition, “Don’t enter that building” interpreted as
“Don’t enter any buildings.”

Even extreme anti-gay Christians, teachers, and scholars,

including John MacArthur and Dr. Robert Gagnon, admit that
Leviticus is referring to temple prostitution.

“I do not doubt that the circles out of which Lev 18:22 was
produced had in view homosexual cult prostitution, at least
partly. Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been
197
 the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was
practiced in Israel.”
― Dr. Robert Gagnon, Leading Anti-Homosexual scholar,
The Bible and Homosexual Practice, p. 130.

Anti-homosexuals supply no evidence that the verses are not

a reference to temple prostitution. Many scholars conclude it
is a reference to temple prostitution, but the Biblically
uneducated bigots claim to know better. They can supply no
verse in the Old Testament that exclusively condemns
homosexuality.

No One Convicted of this Crime

In Jewish law, it was mandatory that there be at least two or
three male witnesses before condemning any deeds. Deuteronomy
19:1.
What are the chances of there being this number of
witnesses if two men were privately engaging in sex?
Undoubtedly crime described here had to occur publicly for
two or more males to observe it. A public gay orgy in the
temple of pagan gods was that public event.

[For this reason there is not a single example in the Jewish

Talmud of an individual standing before the Sanhedrin
charged with homosexual temple sex, nor in the entire Old
Testament.]

Change in Language: Uncover Naked and Lie With

Scholars have noted an interesting shift in language in
Leviticus 18. God is prohibiting certain sexual practices
practiced by other nations Leviticus 18:24. From verse 5-23 it uses
two words in the KJV ‘uncover nakedness’ and ‘lie with’’ It
forbids the following practices by using the words
“uncovering the nakedness [have sexual relations with] with
198
your father, mother, sisters, granddaughters, aunts, sister-in-
law, daughter-in-law or women on her period. Then abruptly
verse 21 appears to changes topic to sacrificing to idols and
verse 22 stops using the phrase ‘uncover nakedness’ and uses
“You shall not lie with…” This shift in language seems
purposeful and indicates a different activity.

English words sometimes have double meanings, and even

triple, and so do words in Hebrew and Greek. In Hebrew, the
word shakab in this verse, translated “to lie with,” does not
only mean sex. Every single verse that uses the word shakab
refers to sex by rape, pressure or trickery Strong’s 07901, implying
Leviticus 18:22 is speaking of engaging in sex with temple
prostitutes due to social or other pressure.

Translation Issues
There some verses and words in the Bible, that either no
translation expert is aware how to translate, or the exact
meaning is uncertain. These texts in Leviticus are two such
texts. There are around six plus options of translations for this
verses and depending on which bible you read you will read
different versions. Two or three of those translations have no
justification for their translation when you interpret them in
context.

Hebrew scholars admit that Leviticus 18:22 is extremely

unclear in the original Hebrew. A word for word translation
may roughly read: “And with mankind you shall not lie beds
a woman/wife.” There are some ways this verse could be
legitimately translated, including:

Translation One:
‘And with a male, you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman.’
199
 Translation Two:
‘And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman's bed;
it is an abomination.’

The meaning is that two men having sex cannot do so in a

bed belonging to a woman (reserved exclusively for
heterosexual sex). [See Leviticus 15 to see the importance of beds].

The vagueness of this verse unlocks the doors for various

translation options. Beware of basing doctrines on vague texts
with disputable translations.

HOMOSEXUAL: Bible translations that use the word

‘homosexual’ here are intentionally misleading the reader.
The Hebrew language had no equivalent word at the time.
The verse speaks only about male/male sex, but the word
homosexual refers to both gay and lesbian sex. This is an
unwarranted attempt to include the condemnation of
lesbianism when the entire Old Testament does not.

ABOMINATION: The term ‘abomination’ has been used to

justify hostility towards gays. Since this word is associated
with certain practices, the religionist concludes that God hates
that practice. Abominations are presumed to be the ‘worst’
sins. In the Law of Moses, many practices are termed an
abomination, including eating pork and shellfish and
engaging in sex with a woman on her period. God detests
humans eating shellfish? Do you think shell-food restaurants
are an abomination? Before the Law, the word abomination,
in nearly every instance, refers to practices connected with
the worship of pagan idols.

200
Experts believe the word ‘abomination’ is a bad translation of
the Hebrew word ‘toevah.’ Though its precise meaning is
unknown, some experts are convinced the traditional images
it conjures up of something God detests are unsupported. A
more accurate definition would be ‘something permissible to
one group and prohibited to another’. In modern terms, the
word ‘taboo’ comes close, though there is no official
connection between the phrases.

The taboo addressed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is the

partaking in sexual rituals in temples dedicated to idols, it is a
cultural ban on what one culture practices and another culture
forbids to differentiate identities. Even in some cultures
today, a bow is preferred to the unhygienic handshake. Some
Middle Eastern cultures prohibit non-essential touching
between opposite genders. A simple handshake between a
male and female is a serious taboo irrespective if they are
Muslim or non-Muslim. This cultural practice contradicts
western social norms, so would it be acceptable or ridiculous
if Muslims condemned the west to hell for permitting males
and females to shake hands?

Leviticus also calls other practices an abomination, but you

would not think today they were detestable acts because it
was for that time and for that particular nation. The word
abomination was used to describe a ritual wronging, never a
moral wronging. For example, eating shrimp Leviticus 11:9 was an
abomination, obviously it’s not intrinsically immoral to eat
shrimp, but it was an abomination and forbidden at that time,
for those people in that particular nation.

These two verses are undeniably prohibiting temple

prostitution connected to fertility goddess worship. They are
201
not a universal ban on homosexuality, which is completely
unconnected to fertility goddess worship. To forbid the
Israelites to visit pagan temples and take part in male on male
homosexual acts is not the same prohibiting homosexually
outright, if it were, lesbianism would be mentioned. The issue
the ancient Jews had was gender specific, not sexual
orientation. Philo, first-century Jew explains that the issue
was men taking the role of a woman [softness] Special Laws 3:37-42.
In a patriarchal society father’s ruled over family, males
dominated women; adults ruled over children and masters
ruled over slaves. The issue with same gender sex was about
two equals engaging in sex, with one surrendering their
masculinity; this was a forbidden practice since the
subordinate role belonged to females. Slave masters could
engage in sex with male slaves, but the slave could not be on
the giving end. Adult males could also have pubescent or
adolescent males as sex partners [Pederasty]. We do not have
to agree with the opinions of a male-chauvinist society
regarding male dominance and sexuality.

3. Romans One

Verses 18:32 - Not Pauls Words

This passage is commonly thought to state Paul’s apparent
opposition to homosexuality. Some scholars now believe
Romans 18-32 is Paul paraphrasing or quoting the teaching of
certain Jewish teachers in Roman. The quotation marks are
missing in the passage, giving the impression these are Pauls
words.

Modern Bibles correct some of the missing quotation marks

in Paul’s writings. However, they fail to in Romans 1.
Throughout Romans 1-4 Paul is going back and forth quoting
202
the teachings of the false teacher then refuting it. These
passages are dealt with in detail in ‘The Deliverance of God’
by Douglas Campbell.

The content of Romans 1:18-32 is unquestionably similar to

beliefs of certain Jewish teachers at the time. Paul then
refutes their teaching in Chapter 2:1. Romans 2 is a
continuation of Romans 1.

“You may think you can condemn such people, but you are
just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are
wicked and should be punished, you are condemning
yourself, for you who judge others do these very same
things.” Rom. 2:1

This response is the real voice of Paul. Throughout his

writings it is critical to distinguish the two voices, his voice
and the voice of his antagonists, unseparated by quotation
marks; to accurately separate the two voice by inserting
quotation marks is exceptionally problematic. Translating the
Bible is not always straightforward.

Temple Prostitution
More commonly this passage has been explained in another
light though it still merges with the above interpretation. This
epistle was dealing with a particular situation around A.D. 58
relevant to the first century Rome, not twenty-first-century
societies Romans 1:7. Lift it from its first century historical context
of temple prostitution and your position is easily dismissed as
a joke.

Paul is writing from Corinth, a city known as the ‘sin city’ of

the pagan world, where temple prostitution was common
203
practice. The subject matter is sexual practices within the
context of idol worship: “exchanged the glory of the
incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible
man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling
creatures.” Romans 1:23. Verse 25 for starts, “for this reason…”
which indicates what is to follow is a form of idolatry. To
comprehend this passage, we must peel back the curtain of
time to realize the sexual culture of the day and how the first
century Christians were aware of temple prostitution.

“The existence of male (same sex) cult prostitutes was well

known to Jews of the period, [first century AD] as Philo’s
comments testify...” p. 105. “There is good evidence that
homosexual cult prostitution existed in Israel” p. 100
― Dr. Robert Gagnon, Leading Anti-Homosexual scholar, The Bible,
and Homosexual Practice.

The vast majority of the ancient pagan world were accepting

of homosexuality. The Greeks and Romans had no concept of
homosexuality or heterosexuality, and both empires had
expectations for all to be bisexual, and to have a fondness for
just one gender was considered unusual. Explicit guidelines
accompanied this social norm. A woman was expected to
have one husband and prohibited from having sexual contact
with another male. However, sex with other women was
acceptable and expected. Men were permitted wives, and
even concubines if he could afford it. Adult men could also
be in a meaningful relationship with a young male, not only
as a mentor but as a lover. Sex amongst two full-grown men
was taboo and distasteful, though not illegal, as it was
perceived to make the submissive companion equivalent to a

204
woman. The word ‘pathetic’ originates from the Latin for an
older man who sexually submits to a younger man.

Not all were bisexual and so to blend in meant violating their

natural sexual orientation. In Romans 1 it speaks of the
Roman men and women “exchanged the natural for that
which is unnatural” Romans 1:26-27. By ‘nature’ is not referring to
Biblical creation since even the animal kingdom has
widespread homosexuality. The unnatural being discussed
was Roman’s practice of forcing bisexuality. The Romans
were imposing a bisexual life on non-bisexuals, thus
attempting to go against the inherent orientation of the
individual. If that is the case then this chapter is not about
homosexuality, but clearly about the Romans snubbing the
instinctive sexual orientation of its citizens and socially
pressuring them to live bisexually. Each human is born with a
sexual orientation that is automatic to them; we cannot ignore
that fact.

Don’t doubt for one second that during that era heterosexuals
and homosexuals would try to live a bisexual life under social
pressure to avoid ostracization. All over the world, today,
homosexuals do the same thing by pretending to be
heterosexual just to fit in.

It also refers to those “consumed with passion” Romans 1:26 who

willingly practiced this form of idolatry against their natural
sexual orientation; this is about conduct, not sexual
orientation.

Early Christians understood this passage to refer to temple

prostitution, including Aristides AD 126 and Justin Martyr AD 150.

205
“And there are some who prostitute even their own children
and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of
sodomy, and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the
gods” [Cybele]

[In first century Rome, the fertility goddess Cybele was Mater Deum,
mother of the gods.]

― Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27.

There are plentiful quotes that show historically that

Christians Bible teachers recognized that Romans one is
dealing with temple prostitution.

4. I Corinthians 6:9

“You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of
God, don't you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral
people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals.”
I Corinthians 6:9 ISV

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals” I Corinthians 6:9 NASB

Here Paul states the unrighteous shall not inherit the

Kingdom of God. He then lists who the unrighteous were. In
Greek, he mentions that ‘malakos’ and ‘arsenokoites’ would
not inherit the Kingdom. These two words are translated
contrarily in different Bibles; it depends on which Bible you
happen to pick up. In the worst cases, translators are guilty of
blatant bias and mistranslation, and so caution is advised.
206
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the words ‘sodomite’ or ‘homosexual’
are sometimes used, but their use is unjustified. In 1946 a
translation of the Bible was published that inserted the word
‘homosexual’, it reads “homosexuals…will not inherit the
kingdom of God.” The word ‘homosexual’ was coined in the
1860’s, its insertion in the Bible was an attempt to rig a text
to make it appear that Paul was condemning homosexuality in
all forms. The religionist then shrugs their shoulders and says,
“I’m not condemning homosexuality, the Bible is!”

The nail in the coffin for the use of the word ‘homosexual’ to
translate the word ‘arsenokoites’ is underlined when we note
‘arsenokoites’ is gender specific. The words mean ‘male bed’
or ‘man bed’ [‘arsen’ meaning ‘male,’ and ‘koites’ meaning
‘bed.’]. It is plainly a reference to men, whereas the word
‘homosexual’ refers to both gays and lesbians and is a
blatantly biased and inaccurate translation of arsenokoites.

The evidence that same-sex attraction is natural to

homosexuals was so overwhelming that a new view arose
amongst Christians; that being homosexual and practicing
homosexuality were not the same. In other words,
homosexuality was an inclination a person had no control
over, but they were forbidden to act on those inclinations –
thus the “sin was detached from the sinner.” Accordingly,
Bible translators made an addition to suit their bias views,
resulting in a new word creeping into the Bible.

“…practicing homosexuals.” I Cor 6:9 NET Bible

“…nor men who practice homosexuality.” I Cor 6:9 ESV

207
Some Bibles merged the words ‘malakos’ and ‘arsenokoites’
– “homosexual perverts” TEV 1966 and “homosexual
perversion” NEB 1970. These modifications are a clear indication
that translators have biasedly tampered with the Bible.

Particular words are used here in Greek with distinct

meanings. Greek dictionaries clarify the meanings of these
two terms. Interfering with the text, then lifting it out of its
historical context and imposing a modern twist to make it say
what you want it to say is intellectual dishonesty.

Malakós

“malakós, fem. malak, neut. malakón, adj. Soft to the touch,

spoken of clothing made of soft materials, fine texture (Matt.
11:8, Luke 7:25). Figuratively it means effeminate or a
person who allows himself to be sexually abused…”

― The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG

Publishers, 2000

“malakós, soft, (1) of clothes soft (to the touch), delicate (LU
7.25), neuter plural malakoί as a substantive, luxurious
clothes (MT 11.8), (2) figuratively, in a bad sense of men
effeminate, unmanly, substantively - especially of a man or
boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness
catamite…”

― Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Vol. 4,

Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New
Testament Library. 2000.

208
The word means ‘soft.’ W. Arndt, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p489, and
was used for describing soft fabric, and here it is used
figuratively for a ‘soft person.’ The King James Bible
translates the word as ‘effeminate,’ but the ancient definition
differed from the modern meaning of a ‘handbag swinging
male.’

Greek experts state it was a common Greek word with

varying contextual undertones. Ethically it referred to
idleness, self-indulgence, or lack of valor. Dale B. Martin, Biblical Ethics
and Homosexuality: p124
. To these ancients effeminacy was more than
sexual mannerism, it included men who preferred pleasure to
responsibility. Men who were slothful and indulged in fine
dining, luxurious, elegant attire and appearing attractive were
thought to be “soft like a female,” since, in their male-
controlled culture, women were viewed as frail, timid,
helpless, and vain. Men who made themselves eye-catching
to either males or females were considered effeminate D. Martin,
p126
. The closest modern term is ‘metrosexual,’ a word coined
in 1994, it predominantly refers to an urban heterosexual male
who is conscientious about personal image and is
meticulously well-groomed.

In first-century Greek culture malakós chiefly displayed the

bad qualities related to women, this conceivably pointed to
male prostitutes. Dale Martin states, “It seems to have
referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of
sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex.” D. Martin, p120

According to Greek dictionaries, this word could contextually

mean either an effeminate person or someone who engages in
what was a very common practice at the time – the Greek
practice of pederasty, where an older male is in a non-
209
consensual sexual bond with young boys. Merging these two
meanings, it may have referred to young male prostitutes.

The term malakoi is not a general prohibition of

homosexuality or same-sex couples in committed
relationships. It’s a weak word upon which to base anti-
homosexual views.

Arsenokoites
1 Corinthians 6:9 uses the Greek word arsenokoites. It is a
compound Greek word made up of ‘arsen’ meaning ‘male,’
and ‘koites’ meaning ‘bed.’ This word is never used
anywhere else in the Bible, except in I Timothy 1:10, or in
any Greek writings about sexuality before its use by Paul.
The word is murky and problematic to translate since it is a
word Paul seems to have coined. Scholars have endeavored
to make an educated guess since evidence for the precise
meaning may have vanished forever. It would be like the
word ‘lady-killer’ being discovered 2000 years in the future,
would it mean ‘a man who killed ladies,’ or ‘a lady who
killed people’ or slang with another meaning completely?
One New Testament professor investigated the word and
concluded, “I should be clear about my claims here. I am not
claiming to know what arsenokoites meant; I am claiming
that no one knows what it meant.” Dale Martin, Yale University. For this
reason, extreme caution must be advised since the lives of
real individuals are at stake.

Scholars reason that Paul may have coined this word from
Leviticus 18:22, where men were visiting temple prostitutes.
Contextually it suggests Paul was either prohibiting
pederasty, orgies, or heterosexuals who participate in
homosexuality.
210
Philo of Alexandria 20 B.C.E.-40 C.E, a Jewish philosopher and an
early contemporary of Paul, believed that the use of arsenos
koiten in Leviticus was a reference to ‘shrine prostitution’
Philo, The Special Laws, III, VII, 40-42
, as well as pederasty and incest.

A possible meaning of I Corinthians 6:9 is that Paul may have

been condemning young male prostitutes [Malakós] and
those who engaged in sex with them [Arsenokoites]. Again no
one can say with absolute certainty what the actual meanings
are.

5. 1 Timothy 1:10

“For whoremongers, for them, that defile themselves with

mankind…” KJV

“For the sexually immoral, for those practicing

homosexuality…” NIV

Depending on the translation you use this verse will read

differently. The word translated ‘practicing homosexuality’
here is arsenokoites. We have previously discussed this word.

This verse also uses the word pórnos, which King James
translates as ‘whoremonger’ - “a person who has dealings
with prostitutes, especially a sexually promiscuous man.”
Strongs 4205 defines it as ‘man who prostitutes himself.’

Again it is conceivable in I Timothy 1:10 Paul is merely

condemning young male prostitutes and those who engaged

211
in sex with them. The word homosexual is not at home in this
verse.

Jesus and Homosexuality

In the gospels Jesus provides a fresh interpretation of the Old
Testament laws: “You have heard it say…but I say to you…”
Matthew 5:21
. In the story of the woman caught in the act of
adultery he appears to rebel against the law by not stoning
her.

It is frequently claimed that in the Jesus story he never

comments or mentions same gender attraction. This claim is
entirely untrue. It is correct; he never condemns it, but a
deeper study beneath the surface divulges it was not a topic
worthy of lengthy comment. For this reason, his comment on
same gender attraction goes undetected since the word, and
even the idea of homosexuality was linguistically non-
existent during biblical times, in the same way, it is today.
They had precise words for specific acts and behaviors, but
no word specifically for monogamous or romantic
homosexuality.

Born that Way

Are you aware that Jesus stated that those with same-sex
attraction were born that way?

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there
are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and
there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake
of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this
should accept it.” Matthew 19:12

Here Jesus defines three types of eunuchs:

212
 1. Those born that way
2. Those made eunuchs by others
3. Those who choose to be eunuchs for religious reasons

It is obvious he is referencing people who do not sexually

engage with women. The first group is those who do have sex
with women because they are “born that way”, with no
sexual attraction to women.

Modern Christian fundamentalists attempt to force another

convenient meaning to this phrase. Christian apologist, Matt
Slick claims Matthew 19:12, “…cannot refer to "homosexual
orientation.” On the other hand, Dr. Robert Gagnon, the
leading anti-homosexual scholar agrees that Matthew 19:12
probably refers to eunuchs naturally born with no sexual
desires or with same-sex desires.

“Probably ‘born eunuchs’ in the ancient world did include

people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the
lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not
even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced
toward exclusive same-sex attractions.”
― Dr. Robert Gagnon, Leading Anti-Homosexual scholar,
The Bible and Homosexual Practice

Astonishingly he believes they should abstain from sexual

relationships outside a male-female marital union. He states
“So if “born eunuchs” included for Jesus not only asexual
men but also men who had a sexual desire only for other
males then Jesus rejected for them all sexual relations
outside the covenant bond of marriage between a man and a

213
woman.” It’s easy and unfair for him to state this, but, at
least, a man with his scholarly credentials admits Jesus was
referring to those naturally born with same sex attractions.

“The first category - those eunuchs who have been so from

birth - is the closest description we have in the Bible of what
we understand today as a homosexual.”

― John McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, p.65

To understand ambiguous Biblical terms we often have to dig

into the original languages and sources outside the Bible.
Fortunately, ancient scholars discussed eunuchs and debated
over the meaning of ‘born eunuch,' so we are left with a
wealth of resources from which to glean.

Historical Meaning of ‘Born That Way.'

Clement of Alexandria c. 150 – c. 215 quotes the views of the
supporters of Basilides, a Gnostic leader, in regards to
Matthew 19:12: “Some men, from their birth, have a nature
to turn away from women; and those who are naturally
constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say,
are the eunuchs from birth.” Clement also stated that a
eunuch is reluctant to engage in sexual intercourse with
females. He explains that the followers of Basilides believed
[three types of eunuchs]: (1) born eunuchs had a natural
dislike for females; (2) eunuchs by compulsion refrained
from sex so others would esteem their holiness; (3)
emasculated eunuchs of necessity who were eunuchs for the
kingdom that abstained from marriage to escape the
diversions of having to earn a living. Clement, Stromata, III 1.1.

214
Domitius Ulpianc170–228, a Roman jurist and prominent
official, listed three categories of eunuchs virtually identical
to Jesus: born eunuchs, man-made eunuchs, and other
eunuchs, stating that born eunuch was able to procreate. Digest,
Book L 16.28; p450 - 452.; Digest, Book XLVIII 8.5
.

Where Eunuchs Only Castrated Men?

The typical blunder is to assume a eunuch was exclusively a
castrated man. Virtually all modern dictionaries inaccurately
define a eunuch as a man lacking reproductive anatomy, due
to castration or birth defect. This incomplete definition is
unsupported historically and biblically. To be intellectually
honest we have to define the word ‘eunuch’ as it was in the
ancient cultures.

Since earliest times eunuchs were considered fully capable of

procreating. Castrating a heterosexual man will prevent him
from impregnating a woman, but it will never change his
desires for women.

The Greek word for eunuch ‘eunouchos’ appears twice in the

New Testament Matthew 19:12; Acts 8:26-39, and the Hebrew word
‘saris’ over forty-five times in the Old Testament. Not a
single Bible verse specifies that eunuchs were all castrated. A
verse specifically about castration Deuteronomy 23:1 fails to mention
eunuchs. In the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, it states that numerous men were called eunuchs
[saris] in the Old Testament, yet they were clearly not
castrated, eunuchs. Johannes Schneider, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol.
II, 1985, p.766.
Eunuchs took part in religious ceremonies Jeremiah 34:19,
impossible if they were castrated, men. Castrated men were
prohibited from entering the congregation of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23:1
.
215
Strangely, the King James Version translates ‘saris’ [eunuch]
in a variety of ways: as eunuch (17) chamberlain (13), officer
(12), or as a proper name Rabsaris (3) meaning ‘chief
eunuch.’ The inconsistency suggests a conspiracy to conceal
something. Some argue that the word had more than one
meaning, but what would be the particular use for castrated or
homosexual men as palace officials? Experts confirm there
were other more suitable words for ‘palace officials.’ The
reason others argue for a biased dual meaning is so they can
argue that all celibate eunuchs were castrated; this is so they
can avoid the dilemma of Jesus claiming that eunuch were
homosexuals who were ‘born that way.’

Documented Roman law provides evidence that eunuchs

were able to procreate and did not lack essential bodily parts.
This evidence is accessible on any law school library's
reference shelf. Digest, Book XXI 1.6.2 & 1.7. Religiously celibate
eunuchs were not covered by the Roman law; there is no
mention of them. Two types of eunuch are mentioned:

“Eunuch is a general designation: the term includes those

who are eunuchs by nature, as well as those who are
mutilated.” Lex Julia et Papia, Book 1; Digest 50.16.128.

Also, under Roman law, natural eunuchs were ranked higher

than the mutilated eunuchs, and those castrated were
distinguished as such, so clearly a eunuch was not necessarily
castrated. Natural eunuchs were permitted to marry and adopt
children: “Anatomically whole eunuchs had all the rights and
duties of ordinary men” Digest 23.3.39.1, 28.2.6. ‘Anatomically whole’
means they were not castrated.

216
The Jewish Talmud states that natural eunuchs (saris chmeh)
could be cured, but man-made eunuchs (saris adam) could
not. Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth, VIII 79b. This statement eliminates the
possibility of a birth defect and contradicts Christian
apologists who argue that ‘born that way’ refers to a birth
defect and not to those born with same sex attractions. Every
shred of data harvested from literary and historical writings
confirm that ‘born that way’ often denoted eunuchs with
same-sex attractions. Gay men were termed, ‘eunuchs’ by our
pre-Christian ancestors, but not all eunuchs were gay, and not
all gay people were called eunuchs.

Who were eunuchs?

In Greek the word ‘eunuch’ is from the word eunouchos: eun,
meaning ‘bed’, and echein, meaning ‘to keep’. A eunuch is
essentially ‘a keeper of the bed.’ In the ancient world eunuchs
were servants responsible for supervising and guarding the
living quarters of the women in a palace or wealthy
households. If you desired employment as a domestic servant
or guard for women at the imperial court, being identified as
a eunuch provided advantages. The masters were usually
concerned that the male guards would be tempted to have
affairs with or rape his concubines and by impregnating them
polluting the bloodline of inheritance. Naturally it made sense
to hire a male with no sexual desire for women, what we refer
to today as ‘gays’ and in ancient times identified as eunuchs.

Who would know what a eunuch was than ancients

themselves? Quotations from ancient writers plainly prove
that eunuchs were sexually not attracted to women:

“…a eunuch who embraces a young woman and groans” Sirach

30:20 Common English Bible

217
 “A man who exerts justice by force is like a eunuch
who take a girl's virginity.” Sirach 20:4

This last quote speaks of an internal contradiction or paradox.

“A eunuch would have as little use for a female concubine as

a deaf man for a flutist, or a bald man for a comb, a blind
man for a mirror, a farmer for an oar, or a sailor for a
plow.”

― Lucian of Samosata, a Roman Poet, AD 125 – AD180, Adversus

Indoctum, 19, in Lucian, Vol. III, tr. by A.M. Harmon, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1969, p.196-97.

To be recognized as a eunuch they had to either personally

state it, act feminine or appear as a female. Lucian specified
the test to identify a genuine eunuch would be to gather
female prostitutes and observe if a eunuch can sexually
engage with them. Eunuchs, 12, Vol. V, tr. by A.M. Harmon, Cambridge: HUP, 1936, pp. 342-345

The Jewish historian Josephus writes that King Herod was

“very fond on account of their beauty” of his closest eunuch
companions and that the eunuchs confessed his son,
Alexander, had had sexual relations with them. Josephus, Antiquities of
the Jews

The Kama Sutra400BCE/200CE, an ancient Indian Hindu text, is

considered the standard work on sexual conduct and it
contains an entire chapter on eunuchs seducing men. A
category of person is mentioned considered a “member of the
third sex” and sub-categorised in two groups: effeminate,
those mimicking women including attire and speech, and

218
masculine, those who kept their homosexuality top-secret .
Kamasutra, II 9.

They were known to have sexual dealings with female

prostitutes if they wanted to pass for heterosexual males.
Kamasutra, VI 1

Quintus Curtius, a biographer, reports that “365

concubines…filled [Alexander the Great's] palace, attended
by herds of eunuchs, also accustomed to being used like
women.” Quintus Curtius VI 6.8

Alexander the Great may well have been a natural eunuch

(homosexual) according to records that reveal he was scorned
for undisclosed sexual reasons. He did have two passionate
love affairs, both with men, first with a childhood friend
general, Hephaiston and second with a Persian king's lover
Bagoas “a eunuch of remarkable beauty.” Quintus Curtius.
Additionally, using eunuchs as casual sexual partners was a
prevalent practice throughout the Mediterranean region.

Aelian, a third-century Greek rhetorician, narrates the story of

the Persian king’s sorrow over the death of his beloved
eunuch: “He had been the most handsome and attractive man
in Asia.” We are told the king was deeply in love with him,
mourning bitterly; as a kind gesture to the king the citizens of
his kingdom organized a public mourning across Asia. Aelian,
Various Histories, XII 1.

Christians gradually defined the ‘born a eunuch’ category as

castrated or sterile men, the category vanished in Europe due
to the Christian church. This shift was an attempt suppress
natural born eunuchs who were claiming to be born that way.
In the expanding Islamic world, eunuchs were still considered
casual sexual partners for men. Stephen O. Murray, Islamic Homosexualities:
219
 In the East, homosexuality was accepted
Culture, History, Literature, 1997.

as natural, but forbidden as a sexual expression. A Hadith

(collection of stories about Muhammad) by Ibn Mas'ud states:
“There were no women with us. We said: O Messenger, may
we treat some as eunuchs?” Sahih al-Bukhari LXII 6:9 and 8:13. The Koran
does not forbid using natural eunuchs as casual sexual
companions. It distinguishes between males, females and
those who are born neither. Qur'an 42:49-50

Eunuchs were highly esteemed in Biblical times; many were

elevated to prominent positions in ancient societal structures.

What Did Jesus Mean by ‘Born that Way.'

As we have seen historically, some eunuchs lacked sexual
drive for women, and a eunuch was not necessarily a
castrated man. If you cannot accept this, that’s fine - Jesus
mentions you:

“Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only
those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who
were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been
made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to
live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The
one who can accept this should accept it.”” Matthew 19:11-
12

Was Jesus not aware of the meaning of the word eunuch in

ancient times? I think he would have been. Let’s look at his
definition again:

Jesus defines three types of eunuchs:

1. Those born that way (homosexuals)

220
2. Those made eunuchs by others (castrated)
3. Those who choose to be eunuchs for religious reasons
(celibacy)

In the last category, we could include the mandate for

celibacy amongst clergy in the Roman Catholic Church;
similar to ancient practices priests are expected to be childless
since childless homosexuals were the original chaste, holy
priests of God. Homosexuals were considered to be a
reflection of the godlike union of male and female, the mirror
image of the God. Genesis 1:28

Likewise, in this category would be the Apostle Paul. It may

not have dawned on you that Jesus is also in this last
category, ‘Those who chose to live like eunuchs [unmarried]
for the Kingdom of God.’ Jesus was a eunuch by his
definition. This definition does not mean he was homosexual,
but it demonstrates his willingness to associate himself with
the word eunuch knowing full well what it meant to his
audience. Homophobia, or even a hint of it, was never on his
lips, instead, he associated himself with homosexuals of the
day, unlike the modern day Pharisees. Could you imagine a
modern day fundamentalist preacher saying, “My son is
rather gay though he can be a little queer?” In English, this
can mean, “My son is rather light-hearted and carefree
though he can be a little strange.” No! They are too pious.

If you believe that people can be born physically deformed,

could it not be that babies can be born with genes, hormones
or psychology that differ from the majority? This admission
in no way means homosexuality is unnatural; it just means it
is not a choice.

221
What was the Topic of Discussion?
Jesus was essentially saying that if you marry and divorce
then you are committing adultery by engaging in sex with
someone else while your previous wife is alive, and she
commits adultery if she does the same. The disciples respond,
“Why marry at all?” The conversation then diverts to the
reasons why some men do not marry, and he focuses on
eunuchs.

Some Christians will disagree, claiming that Jesus was

emphasizing that marriage, or sexual relations for that matter,
could only be between a man and a woman. This is blatantly
untrue and not his point. Those who use that line of reasoning
cunningly switch tracks. He was directly answering a loaded
question the Pharisees had brought up about motives for a
man divorcing his wife. Matthew 19:3. It was not a question about
sexual orientation; it was a specific [entrapment] question
regarding divorce in a heterosexual marriage and Jesus
answered accordingly concisely and precisely. He merely
objected to the practice of men divorcing troublesome wives
by hastily obtaining a certificate of divorce. Matthew 19:4-9. People
read into the passage with a tinted lens. Religionists attempt
to twist and turn this verse every which way to wring out
every drop of forced homophobic interpretation from this
passage.

Unmistakably the laser specific context is initially marriage

and divorce within a heterosexual context as dictated by the
question. Now notice the clincher: Jesus replied, “Not
everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has
been given.” In other words, “The model I have just outlined
is not for all, it’s only for certain people who fit that model.
Heterosexual marriage is not for all.” Since gay men
222
frequently married women, he then lists meticulously three
types of eunuchs unsuitable and exempt from [heterosexual]
marriage.

In the Jewish culture marriage was a social expectation. It is

not a good idea to force homosexuals to marry those of the
opposite sex, just as it would be wrong to force women to
marry a castrated man or one that had taken a vow of
celibacy; it would be unfair to all parties, especially the
woman. Jesus was challenging a marriage and divorce system
that unreasonably punished women, often bringing about
financial ruin, loss of children and numerous other unfair
consequences. The question was, “Can a man…?” Jesus’
response was in defense of women. If he meant to say
homosexuality was not natural he would have, but instead, he
addressed the topic of discussion, reasons for divorce
amongst heterosexual unions, and he does not blink an eye
when he refers to eunuchs being ‘born that way.’

Jesus on no occasion spoke against homosexuality, but he did

speak against divorce. Nevertheless the bulk of modern day
churches, not excluding those with anti-homosexual views,
wholeheartedly accept and permit divorcees in membership
and church leadership positions. If you are going to follow
this passage strictly then go all the way and condemn all who
divorce and remarry as this passage does . Matthew 19:9. Why
cherry-pick and read it conveniently to support your biased
views then condemn others you claim are cherry-picking?

The definition of marriage has evolved and revolved

countless times throughout history. No one holds a monopoly
on the definition of the word itself or the structure. Jesus did
not state eunuchs should avoid their sexual expression. If you
223
are going to use the Bible as the guideline for what
constitutes a marriage and how to govern it, then have the
decency to use the whole Bible and not cherry-picked verses.

King with a Boy

Sexual relationships amongst mature males and young boys
were normal in ancient times. In Matthew chapter eight we
have a hint of this. The Authorised Version mentions the
centurion's ‘servant’ [pais] inaccurately. ‘Matthew 8:6 The Greek
pais was “used to describe the junior partner in a
homosexual relationship.” John Byron, Professor of NT. Luke refers to
the sick person as “slave” (doulos) when the centurion uses
the word pais. “It was a common practice for Roman soldiers
to have servants/lovers based on the Greek model.” J.B. NT Prof.
This incident occurred in Capernaum said to be the
hometown of Jesus Mark 2:1, and since Jesus was raised under
Roman occupation, he unmistakably would have understood
the nature of their relationship. Without a word of
condemnation he simply praised the centurion's faith and
healed the boy.

History, Homosexuality, and Christianity

Historiography is the study of the methods used by historians
to understand history. We often read history through a tinted
lens. When considering history and homosexuality, the
following factors must logically be considered.

 A repeated occurrence in history is that the majority or

the group that holds the chief influential power has
their view promoted as the only valid one. The writers
of history shape the future perception of history.

224
  The societies frequently discussed to illustrate
historical prohibition of homosexuality are almost
always cultures where women were subdued and even
treated as property. The Bible was written by men in a
male chauvinist society. Hence, lesbianism is never
mentioned in the entire Old Testament and rarely
spoken of in the early church. This should be a huge
clue.

 Previous societies were primitive and lacked the

scientific studies and knowledge we have today.

 Justifying practices in primitive societies based on

religious laws necessitates justifying all their practices
not just cherry-picked ones.

 History leaves clues and like a detective who arrives at

a crime scene, we have to examine clues to uncover
facts.

To ignore cruel historical, societal settings, put them on par

with modern societies and then base one's anti-homosexual
argument on them is to expose one's naivety in interpreting
history. Your bias implies you have a hidden agenda.

During the first 300 years of Christianity, homosexuals were

accepted in some Christian communities who permitted
same-sex unions. Respected historian and professor at Yale
University, John Boswell published his strongest defense
regarding the ancient Christian church's stance on gay
marriage in his controversial book ‘Same-Sex Unions in
Premodern Europe.’ His writing is based on the unearthing

225
of more than 60 8th century manuscripts that describe what he
claims were, in essence, same-sex union ceremonies.

“There is no question that Professor Boswell has found

records of ceremonies consecrating a pairing of men,
ceremonies often marked by similar prayers and, over time,
by standardized symbolic gestures: the clasping of right
hands, the binding of hands with a stole, kisses, receiving
Holy Communion, a feast following the ceremony. Some of
these ritual actions also marked heterosexual marriages…”

― Peter Steinfels, Review, New York Times 1994

Boswell also explained that some early same-sex marriages

were centered on economic arrangements while others were
more than that.

Same-sex marriages were legal until institutionalized

Christianity became the official religion of the Roman
Empire. On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors
Constantius II and Constants, instructed by their bishops,
issued a law explicitly criminalizing male to male marriages,
which obviously was previously legal and permitted. Why
would anyone outlaw what was not being practiced in
significant numbers to warrant a whole new law? It reads as
follows:

“When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman

about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost
its significance; when the crime is one which it is not
profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another
form; when love is sought and not found? We order the
statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging
226
 sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who
hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite
punishment.”
― Theodosia Code 9.7.3

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390,

again under the advice of their bishops, issued the following
law:

“All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a

man’s body, acting the part of a woman’s to the sufferance of
alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women),
shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in
the public sight of the people.”

― Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

Note the hostility and violence in this edict. Why would

anyone want to defend or support anti-homosexual views
held by violent homophobic individuals and societies? The
Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius initiated a
vicious oppression of gay people that continued over 1,500
years. These are the type of sources people like Robert
Gagnon appeal to [homophobic and sexist societies] when he
states no one in early church history interpreted the Bible in
favor of homosexuality. Firstly, the vast majority could not
read or write (less than 4%). Secondly, the writings of the
victors were more likely to survive. Thirdly, in homophobic
societies, it would not be easy to promote homosexuality for
fear of retaliation, as it is in modern societies that are hostile
towards homosexuals and criminalize them.

227
Christian Arguments against Homosexuality
Believing something just because the Bible states it is an icy
slope. The Bible authors you quote accepted and practiced
things you would consider horrendous by modern standards.
When homosexual sexual relationships are brought up, every
Christian who lies, gossips, lusts, smokes or engages in
premarital sex is suddenly concerned with what the Bible
permits or forbids.

The Bible is not one voice, but a collection of voices over

1600 years. One topic can have several perspectives within
the Bible. Views differ and evolve over that time, and so we
must view the Bible from the right end of the telescope.
Appeals to Scripture have to be made with a theologically
comprehensive trajectory.

It is challenging to make a biblical argument for the abolition

of slavery without venturing outside the parameters of the
Bible. That is what the abolitionists had to do when they
confronted the advocates of slavery who preached from the
Bible. The Bible does not always fit our modern
understanding and with a dose of common sense, we realize
that slavery in any form is unacceptable. Common sense also
exposes that biblical penalties for infringements were harsh
and barbaric. An objective reading of Bible is the best
approach.

Where in the Bible does God state that slavery should be

abolished? Where in the Old Testament does God prohibit
lesbianism? The claim that no one in history promoted
homosexuality with Biblical support is dead in the water. It's
also true that no one taught against lesbianism in the entire
Old Testament. What does that prove? Christian apologist’s
228
structure questions and answers in a way to make prejudiced
inferences. Answers are not as black and white as some
would wish. When we look at the Bible from a broad
perspective, we see a message of acceptance and
inclusiveness.

“The Bible Speaks Against ‘Homosexuality’”

Bible translations have tampered with more than some would
like to admit or make public. Bible publishing is big business
and facts that could hurt profits are kept under wraps.

The word and even the modern concept of homosexuality did

not exist when the Bible was penned. The word ‘homosexual’
was coined in the 1860’s. There is no Greek or Hebrew word
equivalent to the English, yet in 1946, the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to include
the word homosexual. It had no legitimate basis to do so,
except a hidden agenda influenced by contemporary political
and religious viewpoint.

The Bible used specific words with specific meanings, but

these have been mistranslated to give the impression that
homosexuality is expressly prohibited. For example, the
Hebrew word kedah means ‘temple prostitute’ and is
incorrectly translated at sodomite or homosexual in some
Bibles.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 the word

homosexual appears in some Bibles from the Greek words,
pornoi, arsenokoitai, and andrapodistai, instead of the more
accurate definitions ‘male prostitutes’, ‘males who hire male
prostitutes’ or the ‘slave dealers’ who procure them. The
Bible does not teach against monogamous homosexual
229
relationships. It teaches against practices along the lines of
temple prostitution, male prostitutes, hiring male prostitutes.

Using the word homosexual is like a health freak changing a

command that said, 'Thou shalt not eat veggie burgers' to
'thou shalt not eat burgers.' Or if a statement read, “Eye
surgery is wrong,” it does not mean all surgery is wrong. This
type misrepresentation is misleading and deceptive.

The word ‘homosexual’ encompasses both gays and lesbians,

whereas the Greek and Hebrews words translated as
homosexual were gender specific, referring specifically to
male-male sex in a variety of possible contexts. It seems the
religionists are prepared to tolerate deception. Is it acceptable
to add to and change the Bible?

“Homosexuality Destroys Nations”

The fictitious concern that God will burn to ash cities and
towns who tolerate homosexuality is built on a
misunderstanding of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
discussed previously. Whether it is divine destruction or
societal moral meltdown, the idea that homosexuality
destroys society is propaganda fuelled by fear-based
ignorance. In extreme cases, it results in homophobia and
unjust laws that penalize gays and lesbians, including
committed same-sex couples. This prejudice is the actual
injury to society.

Homosexuality thrived and was accepted for over 1,300 years

in Greek culture and for nearly 900 years in Roman culture
without of triggering a collapse of civilizations. Current
research confirms the same:

230
 “The results of more than a century of anthropological
research on households, kinship relationships, and families,
across cultures and through time, provide no support
whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable
social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively
heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research
supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types,
including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can
contribute to stable and humane societies.”

― The American Anthropological Association, 2004

Accepting Homosexuality Will Lead to Other Abominations

Apparently tolerating homosexuality is a slippery slope that
will result in marriage to animals, siblings, children, or
groups. These fear mongering scenarios predict a disastrous
future with humanity disintegrating as a result of uninhabited
wickedness – as if a cat has legal standing and can sign a
marriage contract.

Denmark legalized same-sex marriages October 1st, 1989.

Since then they have not even considered legalizing marriage
involving animals, children, siblings, or groups and nor has
any other country.

This argument is an insult to intellect. It’s like arguing that

legalizing alcohol will lead to the legalizing of heroine. The
law in most countries is sufficiently robust and sophisticated
to consider a matter and reach a rational resolution.

Progressive Societies
Everybody has a right to express their opinions, but ask
yourself, “Is a society promoting anti-homosexuality one that
231
is loving, caring, compassionate and supportive?” It is
telling that anti-homosexuals are often disproportionately
hostile to homosexuality than other ‘sins.’ Many a religious
homophobic person has piously claimed they “love the
sinner but hate the sin.” Christians said the same thing when
they burnt witches, innocent women, in medieval times. That
type of language sounds a tad patronizing, reeking of
superficial kind-heartedness that masks a smug sense of
superiority. It is this mindset that has resulted in
unmeasurable hurt, pain, suffering, and even death. How
would you feel if I said to you, “Love the bigot, and hate the
bigotry.”

Stop thinking like the brainless Islamic State, stinking

thinking that puts a-bomb-in-a-nation by outlawing same-sex
relationships - that's social suicide. Civilized progressives
societies with strong principles promote freedom of speech,
freedom to practice any religion or leave one without fear of
punishment, equality for women and equality for minorities
including homosexuals – a society where there is no
discrimination, no sexism, no homophobia, no racism, where
all are respected and protected. Simple.

“The Bible Only Teaches Male-Female Relationships”

Those who quote primitive Biblical texts simplistically
believe homosexuality is unnatural because God created
males and females. The first error is to think the Bible is
providing a complete scientific definition. The religionist
fails to recognize that within those two categories are a wide
spectrum of sexual orientations; a simple observation and
examination of data indisputably confirms this. Males and
females have a broad range of natural sexual orientations.

232
Did God just create male and female?
When we examine the animal kingdom, it rapidly becomes
evident that God has not just created male and female. Some
animals are hermaphrodite [intersex], they have reproductive
organs typically with both male and female genders,
including some snails and fishes. Approximately 65,000
species are hermaphroditic. Jarne P, Auld JR, Sept 2006. Some animals
can appear male or female at will, for example, Cuttlefish.
Other animals can switch sexes. Clown anemonefish are
born as males; the dominant male can become female if the
female dies and another male becomes the dominant male.
Parrotfish start out life as either male or female with both sex
organs; they can alter from female to male. Wild hawk-fish
change from female to male and vice-versa. Clearly, gender is
not just male and female, in fact, science recognizes a ‘third
gender’ and even 4th, 5th genders. McGee, R. Jon and Richard L. Warms,
Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 2011

We’ve all been quoted the worn out cliché “God made Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” and cited as if stating
something profound. Biblically the reference to Adam and
Eve was specifically about reproduction, not sexual
orientation.

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of

God he created them; male and female he created them. God
blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth…” Genesis 1:27-28

Note that Adam was made in the image of God and from
Adam came Eve, so Adam initially contained both male and
female Genesis 2:22. When Adam contained both male and female
the Bible states that he was in the image of God. Ancient
233
Jewish writers were comfortable writing this. Remember,
Adam and Eve were not names, as in ‘John’ or ‘Lucy.’

Definition of Marriage
Marriage is a societal institution created by humans, not
nature. If you accept a narrow definition of a normal
marriage, you get a monogamous, heterosexual marriage as
the standard. If you look at it broadly, historically and
globally, it's not such a clear-cut picture. In ancient cultures
bloodlines and inheritance were central issues, so the focus
was on the male and female relationships for the purpose of
procreation. Historically marriage definitions and laws have
been periodically modified in pace with evolving cultural
norms and improved understanding.

Radicals speak of “traditional marriage,” but which cultural

tradition? If they mean the Biblical culture, then our sole
source for what God purportedly said is the Bible since God
doesn’t grant interviews. Here are some rules for traditional
Biblical marriage:

1. A female who is found not to be a virgin on her

wedding night is to be stoned in a type of honor killing
Deut. 22:13-21
.
2. Female consent in the Bible is not a prerequisite for
marriage or sex. The father of a single daughter has
ultimate authority over legal contracts she may enter
Numbers 30:1-16
. He can sell her Exodus 21:7 since she is owned
as property, slaves, livestock and children Exodus 20:17.
3. The Old Testament permits Polygamy, except for
church leaders in the New Testament.
4. A man is responsible for having children by his
deceased brother’s wife. God killed Onan for not
234
 obeying this Genesis 38:8-10.
5. Marrying a non-believer is not endorsed 2 Corinthians 6:14;
7:39
. Is it a sin?
6. A wife may offer her servant to her husband for sex
and procreation, irrespective if her maidservant
consents Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9.
7. A man can murder the family of a virgin and take her
as a wife [legal rape] as war booty people Judges 21:10-14.
8. A rape victim is obligated to marry her rapist Deuteronomy
22:28-29
.
9. If you divorced and re-wed while your former partner
is living you commit adultery Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Taking marriage and sexual guidance from primitive societies

and then justifying importing them into the 21st Century is a
huge gaffe. If these practices are not immoral, would it be
moral to practice them today? The religionists are forced to
pick and choose verses, and ignore others, to define marriage
in a way that suits them.

In Jewish culture having more than one wife was not

considered immoral; multiple wives are taught in the Bible Exo
21:10; Deut 21:15-17; 2 Chron 24:1-3; Isa 4:1 2 Sam 12:8; Matt 25:1-46
. At least 40
individuals are mentioned as polygamists, including David,
Solomon, Abraham, Esau, and Moses. Solomon had 700
wives and 300 concubines. 1 Kings 11:3 His father, King David,
had many wives, only eight are mentioned in the Bible by
name. 1 & 2 Samuel. Was it morally wrong for the Bible to
promote polygamy? If it was not, is it morally right today? If
not, can moral laws change?

You cannot appeal to Scriptural references to support a male-

female only marriage and turn a blind eye to the fact that
235
polygamy is openly supported and never condemned by the
Bible. There is no point appealing to 1 Timothy 3:2 since it
only reverses polygamy for church elders.

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to
teach” 1 Timothy 3:2

Here Paul is specifically writing to a young church leader, not

to the general public. He would not be instructing a bishop to
the husband of one wife if polygamy was not commonly
practiced. He does not condemn polygamy, but merely
instructs church leaders to limit themselves to one wife. Can
people love more than one person?

Polygamy was once the norm in many societies, and a man

could marry as many wives as he could afford. In these male
dominant society’s marriage was not about love, but wealth,
property, and ownership, whereby the man had a wife and
children for the purpose of ensuring that inheritance would
transfer to the rightful male children; a system notably
devised by the wealthy. In the Old Testament, a wife was a
man’s property, categorized with property and livestock Exodus
20:17
.

In Africa and other continents, the definition of marriage is

fluid.

“While the model of marriage is arguably heterosexual, the

practice of marriage is not. In a broad spectrum of societies
in Africa, for example, when a woman's husband dies, she
may take on his legal role in the family, and acquire a legal
“wife” to help manage the domestic establishment. This role
236
 of wife is above all social, and not contingent on her sexual
relations.”

― Psychology Today “Ask an Anthropologist about Marriage” Mar

2013

In the USA, for example, laws once existed that made women
their husband’s legal property, and laws once existed
forbidding interracial marriages. Historically in the UK,
marriage to a girl of twelve was legal.

Marriage differs historically and globally, reflecting the

intellectual and evolutionary stage of each society.
Religionists are threatened by this evolution, claiming
marriage is sacred and with a fixed definition. If it is so,
sacred divorce should be outlawed. It’s easy to follow half the
Bible while critiquing others for disobeying the parts you
happen to obey.

Do the references in the Bible to male-female relationship

eradicate the validity of same-sex unions? At a far stretch,
they may do if we fail to recognize the sexist, homophobic
and barbaric societies that penned the particular texts very
often appealed. A casual reading will reveal the slant towards
male dominance, and all biblical views on sex and marriage
branch from this.

Advocates of heterosexual marriages reason that two

individuals of the same gender cannot procreate and so
should not be permitted to be in a relationship. The Biblical
male-female partner references were about procreation; a
relationship is not only about procreation. A relationship is
multi-dimensional and can include babies, but it is not purely
237
about that. Some heterosexual relationships never include
childbearing and rearing, either by choice or due to biological
limitations, but they still feature attraction, love and sex.
Does the absence of children mean they cannot be a couple in
a loving relationship?

The confusion arises when procreation is confused with

attraction, love and sex. Relationships and sex are not purely
about procreation. The relationship is entered into for
numerous motives, including love, friendship, and
companionship. You can have attraction, love and sex
without babies. It's not just about how babies are made. The
capacity to procreate within a relationship does not determine
the validity of the relationship. In any case, the vast majority
of heterosexual relationships only have 1-3 children, so the
biological mechanics of producing children is a small piece of
a relationship.

The religionists argue that children cannot flourish without

both a ‘mom and dad.’ If it were true, it would mean children
raised by single parents cannot flourish. The religionist
appeals to flawed and biased studies to back their claims.
Numerous studies in the field of social sciences consistently
verify that no dissimilarity existed in psychosocial results
between those raised by male-female couples and those raised
by same-gender couples. The American Psychological
Association (APA), the American Sociological Association
(ASA), and the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) all
approve same-sex relationships, agreeing that children are not
psychologically damaged by two parents of the same sex.

Anti-homosexuals argue that gay parents will raise a gay

child. This argument is just as ridiculous as claiming
238
heterosexual couples only raise heterosexual children. It can
safely be said that gay parents are more likely to allow a child
to be their authentic selves.

Can homosexuals have children?

Not everyone can or wants to have children. No one denies
that a male and a female are necessary to produce a baby, but
the view that homosexuals cannot have children is based on
misinformation. Many homosexuals marry the opposite sex
for various reasons including social pressure and have
children. It may surprise you to learn that those in a
homosexual relationship can have children. It’s possible to
have children without having sex, or even meeting the other
party. Assisted reproductive technology [In Vitro Fertilization
-IVF] means a couple can have a child without normal sexual
intercourse. Artificial Insemination involves directly
implanting sperm into a woman’s womb. This treatment is
offered in all major medical centers. Surrogacy and adoption
are also two legitimate options for same-sex couples.

Much of what is taught about relationships in fundamentalist

religious circles is often based on primitive thinking. While
modern advanced societies progress, not fooled by
superstitious mumbo jumbo, other societies remain in the
dark ages. The religionists argument is as ridiculous as
saying, “Infertile couples and old people should not marry
because they cannot have children, and the world needs lots
more children.”

As societal evolution demands the definition of marriage

evolves, society is more than capable of adapting to new
social norms in a safe environment. This approach is far

239
superior to remaining loyal to the definitions of primitive
societies.

“Our Bodies are Not Designed for Homosexuality.”

Crude comments about ‘peg in the hole’, ‘the plug in the
socket,’ ‘the part A into slot B’ supposedly illustrate certain
body parts are designed for sexual intercourse, so we should
only use them in that way. It is true in reproduction, but not
true of sex. I will have to be crude to address this. The lips,
tongue, and hands can be used for sexual expression and
pleasure. Were they designed for that purpose? Some people
feel oral sex is pleasurable while others view it as disgusting.
Religionists regularly state that the anus is designed only for
excretion. That is like claiming the penis is only designed for
urination.

A common assumption is that men have one external means

of stimulation and women have one internal means of
stimulation. This misinformation forces the conclusion that
heterosexual sex is the only natural option for sexual pleasure
and expression of love. Traditional heterosexual intercourse
is not the only way to reach satisfying climax, excluding
manual or oral stimulation. Males naturally have a prostate
gland, only accessed through the anus. This gland is
connected directly to the nerves that arouse the male genitals,
similar to a women’s G-spot. Women don’t have this
prostate gland, hence, anal sex between a man and woman
may stimulate a man, but the woman may require some
additional assistance to be satisfied.

Women can climax from the inside of their bodies (via G-

spot) and from the outside via the clitoris. This fact makes it

240
more than natural for two women to experience mutual
pleasure without the need to insert a male organ.

Evidently the body functions with heterosexual and the

homosexual sex in mind, otherwise, why do the prostate
gland and female g-spot even exist? The Christian God could
have just designed two pleasure receptors, external one for
the male and internal one for the female. Sensitivity levels in
these pleasure receptors vary person to person, so not
everyone finds pleasure from them.

Reproduction is not the only function of the body; it’s

simultaneously equipped for sexual pleasure. We all have
diverse instinctive preferences that arouse us and to impose
your personal likes, dislikes and fantasies are a violation of
human rights. Some humans find your sexual preferences
repugnant and not for them, just as you may find theirs
repulsive. The golden rules are: each to their own and never
hurt or abuse others.

Intelligence demands we should be more rational. Religion

curbs intelligence in a desperate attempt to protect its
irrational ideas. Religion offers weak smoke screen defenses
instead of genuinely sensible responses.

“Homosexuality is not found in animals.”

Animals regularly exhibit same-sex behavior. Anti-
homosexuals will unwittingly appeal to the animal kingdom
to support their belief that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
When presented with evidence that contradicts their views
they flip their argument and state we must not behave like
animals.

241
They then argue that certain animals kill their own young and
ask, “Does that mean we can kill our young?” This simplistic
argument circumnavigates a number of facts. The brains of
animals differ from humans. Sexual orientation is not on the
same platform as murder, to think so is purely a religious
opinion. Imprisoning, beating, discriminating and murdering
homosexuals is ‘animal’ behavior. Contradictory flip
flopping reasoning keeps the religionist trapped in religiosity.

The timeworn argument that the animal kingdom is evidence

that homosexuality unnatural has been royally debunked. To
determine if homosexuality is natural we must investigate if
it is present in nature.

Research in Animal Homosexuality

Research about homosexuality among animals was virtually
non-existent before the 1990’s. Initially, documented cases
were mainly considered irregularities or inquisitiveness. The
erosion of this view began in 1999 with the writing of
‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural
Diversity’ by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. It was the first extensive
work published on the subject, ‘bringing together accurate,
accessible, and non-sensationalized information; Drawing
upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than
two centuries… meticulously researched, filled with
fascinating facts…a landmark book that will change forever
how we look at nature.’

In his book, he documented 450 species of animals that

engaged in homosexual activity. Scientists have since then
carried out extensive systematic studies on homosexual
behavior amongst animals. The Norwegian Natural History
Museum of the University of Oslo hosted the first exhibition
242
in 2007 that focused on non-reproductive sexual and
homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, and they
updated the list by naming 1,500 animals that were observed
practicing same-gender sex/relationships. The actual number
of homosexual and bisexual animals is of course much
higher.

Homosexually is Common in the Animal Kingdom

Homosexuality is somewhat common in the animal kingdom,
ranging from mammals to crabs and worms; including apes,
dolphins, lions, elephants, lizards, dragonflies and even
bedbugs (Yep, gay sex may be going on in your bed). Some
species engage in more than just sex and pair for life.

“Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the

lives of a number of species. To turn the approach on its
head: No species has been found in which homosexual
behavior has not been shown to exist, with the exception of
species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and
aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is
hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is
not an issue.”
― Petter Boeckman, Academic Advisor, Against Nature's Order
Exhibition

The entire species of the dwarf chimpanzee is bisexual, one of

the closest relatives of humans. “Sex among dwarf
chimpanzees is, in fact, the business of the whole family, and
the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they
engage in oral sex with each other.” Petter Boeckman

243
Bonobos chimpanzees are one of the most intelligent animals
on earth. When skirmishes happen between males or
females, homosexual affection commonly occurs among
these passionate apes. In a 1995 issue of Scientific American,
Frans de Waal of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US
writes, “They seem to enjoy it.” He goes on to describe
female bonobos rubbing their genitals together, and “emitting
grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic
experiences.”

In some populations of female Japanese macaques,

lesbianism is the norm. Paul Vasey of the University of
Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, studied these monkeys for
over 20 years, “One female will mount another, then
stimulate her genitals by rubbing them against the other
female. Some hold onto each other with their limbs using a
‘double foot clasp mount,' while others sit on top of their
mates in a sort of jockey-style position. The females stare into
each other's eyes while mating.” A week long pairing can
include hundreds of mounting. “So many females of the
group are engaging in this behavior, and there are males
sitting around twiddling their thumbs.”

Lions are known to be homosexual. Male lions unite with

other males to lead a pride and to guarantee loyalty and
reinforce strong bonding they engage in male to male sex,
often discarding accessible females to create same-sex
groups. Researchers have observed males mounting other
males and participating in activities typical of opposite-sex
pairs.

Dolphins and killer whales are known to engage in same-sex

relationships. Male and female pairs can have fleeting
244
relationships, but male pairs are known to remain together for
years. Dolphins are on the high end of the scale of animal
intelligence, similar to chimpanzees and humans in cognitive
and social skills. In one case, a pair of male dolphins had a
seventeen-year relationship. Investigators have known a
whole pod of dolphins to be made up exclusively of males;
they demonstrated intimate interactions.

Approximately 130 species of birds have been observed

engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners;
penguins, geese, ducks, and swans are known to remain as
life-long homosexual couples. Approximately five percent of
the pairs are homosexual. Single females have been observed
laying eggs in the nest of a homosexual pair. Observation has
shown that homosexual pairs are commonly superior at
nurturing the young than heterosexual pairs. Next time you
spot a colony of black-headed gulls, remember, every tenth
pair is more than likely lesbian.

Among giraffes, nine out of ten pairings occur between

males. In the past, “Every male that sniffed a female was
reported as sex while anal intercourse with orgasm between
males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition
or greetings” Petter Boeckman.

Domestic Rams are notoriously one of the gayest mammals.

Scientific studies reveal an astounding eight percent of male
sheep practice exclusive male-to-male partnerships,
completely abandoning interaction with female ewes.
Understandably this makes them unpopular amongst farmers
seeking to breed sheep.

245
A 2007 scientific study of Laysan Albatrosses, which nest in
Hawaii, US, noted that thirty-one percent of all the pairs were
lesbian, displaying all the activities bonding, nesting, bill
kissing and other albatross breeding behaviors. Female
albatrosses are not intrinsically exclusively homosexual, and
their behavior is related to the rearing of chicks.

In sheep as many as 8% of males favor male to male

partnerships, purposely ignoring available fertile females.
This practice occurs with domesticated sheep, and it is not
known if the same thing occurs in wild sheep. A 1994 study
by neuroscientists discovered that homosexual male sheep
had different brains to heterosexual male sheep; the section of
the brain that governs the discharge of sex hormones was
smaller in homosexual sheep. The reasons could be the
carefully breeding of domestic sheep by farmers to produce
females that breed more often, increasing the likelihood of
homosexual males. This fact proves homosexuality can be
biological from birth.

“Homosexuality Can Be Cured”

The idea that homosexuality can be cured is a myth. Pathetic
treatments for homosexuality have included being forced to
watch football, drinking potions, prayers, being raped by the
opposite sex, violence and counseling.

Claims of success in Reorientation Therapy is nothing more

than suppression in most cases. Statistically, owing to
intricacies in explanations for sexual distinctiveness and
orientation, one would expect varying outcomes including
rare 'success' stories and a huge majority of failed cases. This
expectation is precisely the result. These apparent minuscule

246
success stories suggest that while outward behavior can
change, there is a failure to change their natural same-sex
attraction genuinely. Even religious attempts to change sexual
orientation have an exceptionally high failure rate.

Certainly, there are some who are not ‘homosexuals’ but

practiced it, and they may experience freedom from an
addiction they had, but the vast majority of cases are a
complete failure. Short term guilt can suppress homosexual
sexual urges, but it’s unnatural like demanding adults to
remain celibate.

Founded in 1976, Exodus International was the world’s

largest ex-gay Christian ministry which grew to over 250
local ministries in the United States and Canada and over 150
ministries in 17 other countries. It aimed to assist those who
desired to control their homosexual cravings. They offered
conversion therapy, believing people are not born gay, and
treated homosexuality as a ‘disorder’ that could be ‘cured.’

In June 2013, after 37 years, it ceased its activities following

a statement and an apology from its President Alan Chambers
to those “hurt” by its treatment. The Board members of
Exodus said their decision to shut down the organization was
unanimous.

“I profoundly regret my support for and promotion of

reparative therapy…[based on] unsubstantiated claims that
sexual orientation can be changed…efforts to change
someone’s primary sexual orientation are dangerous and
always unsuccessful.”
― Alan Chambers, Former President of Exodus International

247
The previous year the psychiatrist who piloted a 2003 study
claiming to authenticate the treatment offered by Exodus and
other groups retracted his study and apologized.

Exodus International, by their admission, helped virtually no

one to convert completely from homosexuality to
heterosexuality.

“The majority of [GLBT] people that I have met, and I would

say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not
experienced a change in their orientation…”
― Alan Chambers, January 6, 2012

Conversion therapy is a farce and has zero respect in science

or medicine. Even within religious circles, it rarely ‘works’.
Be wary when you hear of success cases of conversions,
usually, they were not homosexuals by nature or were
homosexuals that suppressed desires but who frequently
relapsed when willpower declined. Many of those who
personally claim change and publicly become poster boys and
girls for Christian orientation reverse therapy revert and end
up in same-sex relationships. Almost all ‘success stories’ still
experience same-sex attraction. In some cases, they were
bisexual and merely chose to commit to opposite-sex
relationships. Denial is not change, no matter how much you
want it.

“Increase in Homosexuality Will Extinct Humanity”

This pathetic argument is bewildering to the rational mind. It
assumes that accepting homosexuality will lead to the end of
the human race because homosexuals cannot procreate.
Firstly, it predicts that if homosexuality is accepted, then
heterosexuals will stop having children. Secondly, it assumes
248
the global population will all become homosexual or only
practice homosexuality. Thirdly, it fails to recognize that
homosexuals can have children. Only those who are infertile
cannot procreate. Do you think the global population is stupid
enough to allow itself to become extinct?

The number of LGBTI in all known societies has consistently

remained far less than 10% of the population; it does not
spread or increase, even in communities that accept
homosexuals. Claiming homosexuality is contagious is as
ridiculous as claiming that hanging out with tall people will
result in you growing taller.

When a society becomes more acceptable, those who are

already homosexual will be more open. This freedom is not
an increase in homosexuality, but an exposure of it. When
you shine light into a dark room you don’t create what you
see; you reveal it.

Homosexuals are not predatory with a mission to convert the

world to homosexuality. Baseless concerns are fabricated by
desperate liars to maintain fear and hate. The goal of
heterosexuals and homosexuals activists is simply to promote
the human rights of homosexuals. Homosexuals are not
spreading homosexuality and abusing children; this is a myth
believed by the gullible. Scientific research finds no validity
in the claim “homosexuals are more inclined to exploit
sexually children than heterosexuals.”

“Homosexuality is a Choice.”
Those who believe homosexuality is a choice are naïve and
simplistic. The traditional hypothesis blames having a scary
or absent father for causing male children to cling more to
249
female family members. On the flip side females apparently
experience trauma, causing them to become clingy with
females. This hypothesis should have died out with the
dinosaurs.

There are many ‘experimenters,’ but sexual experimentation,

in general, is natural and universal. Then there are those who
are ‘fashionably’ gay or bisexual. We will not include this in
our discussion.

If being homosexual is simply a choice, then obviously those

who try to change their sexual orientation should be able to
with ease. This effortlessness is not the case. Those with
same-sex attractions consistently describe it as a deeply
natural attraction that they cannot simply shut off or even
redirect; numerous research has confirmed this. The
overwhelming data confirms that millions who try to switch
consistently experience mental torment. Who would anyone
choose to endure such suffering? If harshly persecuted
homosexuals could be free from the persecution by a choice,
they would promptly elect to be heterosexual. Wouldn’t you?

Did you choose to be heterosexual? In the same way, you did

not choose, homosexuals did not choose their sexual
orientation; this is the confession of multiple millions. Could
you choose not to be the orientation you are? If not, then how
do you expect others to make that choice? How many
heterosexuals do you know who admit to choosing to be
exclusively homosexual with no opposite sex attractions? The
cruel reality is that homosexuals frequently choose secrecy or
even suicide.

250
Even countries like Iran with a penal code which criminalizes
homosexuality recognizes that humans can be born that way
and so transsexuality has been legal in Iran since 1987. Iran
performs the second highest numbers sex-change operations
and even funds these surgeries though I feel this is a bad
response to homosexuality.

Humans and animals are inherently born with involuntary

instincts. You can't decide who you instinctively find
attractive, nor with whom you fall in love. The chemistry is
out of your control.

The religious legalist may admit Christian homosexuals have

same-sex attractions, but then they present homosexuals with
a lethal ‘choice’ - remain celebrate or marry someone of the
opposite sex. That's so easy for them to say. It would be like
you being a heterosexual male and being pressured to have
sex with men for the rest of your life. Encouragement to
pursue celibacy and heterosexual marriage is not a sensible or
reasonable option, and entirely unfair on all involved.
Heterosexual wives and husbands have experienced misery
and had their lives ruined by a homosexual misled to marry
them. Imagine if you as a heterosexual did not choose to be
heterosexual and were being pressured to stop being
heterosexual; it would be devastating.

Fluid: Sexual orientation can be fluid and change; this is a

medical fact. It is not by choice but just occurs either way
naturally.

Personal Choice: It is true a person can choose to engage in

same gender sex and revert. This choice is not a change in

251
sexual orientation; it’s usually nothing more than rare
experimentation.

Sexual Abuse: It is a fact that same-gender sexual abuse can

result in homosexual tendencies, but this is in a tiny minority
of cases compared to the number of natural homosexuals.

Bisexuality: Bisexuals naturally find both sexes attractive.

Theoretically, they could choose to be exclusively
heterosexual or homosexual in practice, but not change
orientation. According to a 2012 study in the journal
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, women who switched from a
gay to straight lifestyles do not ever stop being attracted to
women. The same is true for males.

The vast majority of cases indicate that same-sex attraction is

a natural occurrence, in the same way, heterosexual
attractions are. Choice is not a factor. Complex sexuality
issues forced into a neat row of small boxes causes hurt.

When homosexuals deny ever making a choice to be

homosexual, they are sometimes accused of lying. Based on
the lower end of estimates there are 150-300 million
homosexuals globally. Are 300 million people lying? How
about those born asexual, that is, with no desire for sex, are
they lying too? Did they choose to have no desire for sex?
How did they do that?

Homosexual is what someone ‘is’ not merely something they

“do.” Homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle,’ it is a sexual
orientation. It would be immoral to discriminate against
people who are left handed, have a certain skin pigmentation

252
or a particular eye color. What if you were mistaken and
homosexuals are born that way?

“No ‘Gay Gene’ has been discovered.”

“There are few issues as hotly contested — and as poorly

understood — as the question of what makes a person gay or
straight.” ― Daniel Schorn, CBS News

Psychologists once assumed nurture initiated homosexuality

from domineering mothers and distant fathers. This theory is
now invalid. In 1975, The American Psychiatric Association
removed homosexuality from its list of Mental Disorders in
its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

According to medical science, all babies begin as females in

the womb. While the determination of the sex of a baby
occurs at conception, the fetus does not form reproductive
organs for the first 60 days. It is only then the male fetus
begins to produce testosterone and development of the sex
characteristics commence. At this stage, it could be possible
that development affects the child’s sexual orientation. Male
and female genitals develop from the same tissue, but
testosterone changes its appearance, and it develops
differently.

Religionist appeal to the fact that there is “no scientific

evidence that some people were born homosexual,” a half-
truth they hope will never be proved, and one they spin in
their favor. The truth is the study of the science of sexual
orientation has been under-funded and carried out by only a
handful of scientists. This situation has improved more
recently.
253
 “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for
biological etiologies for homosexuality.” ― The American
Psychiatric Association

It’s too early to call in the jury, yet initial results are yielding
tantalizing clues. The day may come when a child's future
sexual orientation could be [reasonably] identified within the
first few years of its life. The ethics of this is a separate
debate.

Today, scientists are exploring genes, environment, brain

structure and hormones in the quest to discover what
determine sexual orientation. Increasingly there is one area of
consensus: that homosexuality comprises of more than just
preferential sexual behavior; the best evidence suggests
sexuality is established in the womb by various factors.

“While there is strong evidence in general for a biological

basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always
been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life
experiences.”

― Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics, University of Kent, UK

A study in 1991 by Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist, showed a

variance in brain construction between homosexual men and
straight men. Since then scientists have discovered
indications that sexual orientation determination occurs by
genetics and other factors, not a personal choice. A ground-
breaking research study of over 800 gay participants, reported
in the Psychological Medicine journal, indicated striking
patterns in two regions of the human genome. This study is
254
the first of this subject with a healthy sample size published
in a scientific peer-reviewed paper. Andrea Camperio Ciani,
of the University of Padua in Italy, commented, “…the
confirmation comes from a team that was in the past
somewhat skeptical and critical of the earlier findings.”

“A 2012 study proposed that epigenetic changes, or

alterations in marks on DNA that turn certain genes on and
off, may play a role in homosexuality. This type of gene
regulation isn't as stable as DNA, and can be switched on
and off by environmental factors or conditions in the womb
during prenatal development.”

― Tia Ghose, Senior Writer, Live Science

There are some that believe the search for a ‘gay gene’ should
be for a gene that blocks opposite-sex attraction, not one that
causes same-sex attraction. It is argued, not proven, that most
humans are neurologically wired bisexually with two
independent male and female attraction mechanisms, and that
one of these mechanisms becomes blocked. Hypothetically
then, the cause of lust for males is blocked in lesbians and
similarly, in gay men desire for females becomes blocked. In
theory, both functions are blocked by separate genes. Without
a doubt, gay people are unable to feel lust for the opposite
sex, and it is feasible this inability relates to the absence of
sexual pheromone [chemical] receptors for the opposite sex.

Dr. Marc Breedlove, Michigan State University, claims he

can make a male rat behave life-long like a female rat, and
vice versa simply by modifying exposure to hormones at
birth. Another researcher was successful in making straight

255
rats ‘gay like’ by injecting testosterone at birth. Evidently, the
answer may not be just in genes, but hormones too.

Hormone imbalances can occur in males and females.

Usually, males have more testosterone than estrogen while
females have more estrogen than testosterone. In naturally
gay or bisexual individuals research indicates these hormones
can switch around. It is a variance of nature, but unlike other
species, humans cannot procreate in this manner.

While biologists explore hormones and genes for answers

about human sexuality, other scientists are giving attention to
patterns in behavior and statistics. Studies of children before
they are aware of sexuality have uncovered remarkable
patterns. Some children show behavior and interests typical
of the opposite sex, referred to as ‘childhood gender
nonconformity,’ Small children with extreme gender
nonconformity often grow up to be homosexual.

Research has found that being homosexual can run in

families. A fascinating discovery, referred to as ‘the older
brother effect,’ where the last boy in a line of boys maybe be
gay. As bizarre as it sounds it is one of the most concrete
results in this field, repeatedly confirmed in independent
studies. “The more older brothers a man has, the greater that
man's chance of being gay,” says Michael Bailey, a
psychology professor at North-Western University.

According to independent studies, the more older brothers a

male child has the increased likelihood future male children
will be homosexual. A first-born son has a two percent
chance of being homosexual, and this percentage increases by
a third as each brother is born increasing the potential for a
256
gay son, but surprisingly only if the child is right handed. One
theory is that a male fetus has male components rejected as a
foreign body in the womb by the mother’s natural defenses,
and her body consequently produces antibodies.

“Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many

boys she's carried before. The favorite hypothesis is that the
mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the
first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries
them in utero. And if you think about it, a woman who's
carrying a son for the first time, she is carrying a foreign
substance. There are some proteins encoded on his Y
chromosome that her body has never seen before and that
her immune system would be expected to regard as
'invaders.” ― Dr. Marc Breedlove

The theory is not proven yet and according to researchers,

there are more questions at this point than answers. The date
gets even stranger.

“One of the things we've only found out lately is that older
brothers affect a boy only if the boy is right-handed. If the
boy is left-handed, if his brain is organized in a left-handed
fashion, it doesn't matter how many older brothers he has, his
probability of being gay is just like the rest of the
population.” ― Dr. Marc Breedlove

Interestingly there is no equivalent effect with older sisters in

producing lesbians.

A surprising number of identical twins have identical sexual

orientation and scientists think this may indicate a genetic
component to being homosexual.
257
“It has always been a mystery why identical twins who share
all their genes can vary in homosexuality.”

― Professor Tim Spector, King's College London, Leading Expert on

Twin Studies and Genetics

In one study the DNA of 47 pairs of adult male identical

twins were examined; 37 pairs where one was homosexual
and the other heterosexual, and ten pairs where both were
homosexual.

“To our knowledge, this is the first example of a predictive

model for sexual orientation based on molecular markers.”

― Dr. Tuck Ngun, University of California, Los Angeles

The researchers presented their findings at the American

Society of Human Genetics Annual Meeting in Baltimore, in
the USA in 2015. At the time of this writing, the findings
were still being peer reviewed.

“Gay Men Spread Disease”

It is all too common to hear homosexuals blamed for the
spread of disease. According to Dr. Michael Bailey,
stereotypes indicate there is a feminizing of the brain taking
place in some gay men, and masculinizing in some lesbians.
Paradoxically, though, the sex lives of gay and straight men
have much in common.

“Straight men tend to be shallow in terms of focusing on

looks. Gay men are shallow, too. Straight men are more
interested than straight women in having casual,

258
 uncommitted sex. Gay men are like that, too." ― Dr. Michael
Bailey.

According to Dr. Baily, gay men can have stereotypical high

sex drives as heterosexual men.

“They're just more successful at it because the people they're

trying to have sex with are also interested in it. It suggests
that whatever causes a man to be gay doesn't make him
feminine in every respect. There must be different parts of the
brain that can be feminized independently from each other.”
― Dr. Michael Bailey

The spread of viruses is rooted in promiscuous unprotected

sex; it is not directly linked to sexual orientation. The
marginalized homosexual community often live in countries
here same-sex marriages are illegal. This situation does not
lend well to promoting committed relationships based on
mutual respect. Marriage will thwart promiscuity, yet laws
ban homosexuals from marrying.

If Sexually Transmitted Diseases were common amongst

heterosexuals, what would be the solution? The same solution
is true with homosexuals.

[Further Research: Google ‘man-made AIDS’ and ‘AIDS + Gay

experiment’ for dozens of articles, as well as books, on the subject.]

“It’s Disgusting!”
We each have sexual preferences that others do not. Even
amongst heterosexuals, one might have a preference that
another finds unpleasant. To then consider that person or that
practice as unacceptable while claiming your personal likes
and dislikes as ‘normal’ or ‘right’ is unfair. The only rule that
259
is morally acceptable is that no one should not be
manipulated or forced to do anything against their will.

Understandably some heterosexuals find homosexual sex

repulsive, but on the flip side, many homosexuals find
heterosexual sex repugnant. In a similar manner, some men
prefer larger women and are repulsed by slim women, and
vice versa. A young person might be repulsed by the thought
of sex with someone triple their age while another may find it
appealing. Many youths find the idea of senior citizens
engaging in sex repugnant. We all have personal preferences
that turn us on or off. Your personal fantasy or fetish may not
appeal at all to another. It is cryptic how sexual preferences
are inherent in us, often their origins are unknown, and we
make no conscious choice to house these predispositions nor
can we choose to dispose of them.

Your instinctive emotional horror against homosexuality is

not evidence that a universal moral code has been infringed, it
is the result of social molding by religious belief and
environment, resulting in sexual narrow-mindedness and
becoming unjustifiably prejudiced.

“It’s Against Our Culture”

This argument is a smokescreen frequently used in Africa. If
a culture conflicts with human rights, then the culture must
change. In the US, South Africa, and other places, racism was
once part of the culture and even the law, yet societies
evolved when they realized they had been force fed
misinformation from misinterpreted Bible passages and
flawed scientific studies that seemed to prove people of color
were an inferior race. In the same way, homosexuals have
been persecuted and misunderstood. Nations are realigning
260
their laws with current research while others are choosing to
remain in ignorance.

Homosexuality was in Africa before Europeans and Arabs

arrived. This indisputable fact is outlined in a book by
Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, ‘Boy-Wives and Female
Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities.’ New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1998.
Africans have been lied to when told that
Westerners introduced homosexuality to them. It was western
Christianity that forcefully taught Africans discrimination
against homosexuals.

The Navajo People

The Native American Navajo tribe are the second largest
federally recognized tribe in the United States. A film about
them, ‘Two Spirits’, explores the Navajo belief of ‘nadleehi’,
the merger between masculine and feminine within one
person. Wesley Thomas, a Navajo scholar, says, “In Navajo
teaching, in the old traditional world, there were four basic
genders. Women are the first gender because Navajo is a
matrilineal society. Men are the second gender; and the third
gender is the nádleehí, who is born as a male person but
functions in the role of a girl in early childhood and in the
role of a woman in adulthood.

And it’s just the opposite for the fourth gender, where they
were born biologically female but functioned in the role of a
boy in early childhood and matured into a man, and conducts
their life in that gender identity.”

In most societies they divide all as either male or female, and

the sexuality of transgender, gay and bisexual people is
considered anti-social. They forget the ‘neither’ category.
261
“In Western culture…they never pause to think that boy may
be female.”
― Wesley Thomas, Navajo scholar

The Navajo tribe view variance in sexuality as natural

expressions. In their healthy society marriage between the
same sexes was perfectly acceptable.

“The masculine and feminine are oftentimes reflected so

completely in the body of one person.” ― Richard LaFortune,
Two-Spirits

The natural response to variance in human sexuality was

demonstrated so beautifully by this tribe. Hate is taught; love
is natural. Hate masquerading as positive activism is a circus.

The Changing Tide

Challenged by indisputable evidence major organizations not
bound by religion or politics are altering their previous
assessments regarding homosexuals, now viewing them as a
sexual minority, not persons with an illness. There is a
progressive amending of primitive views. In 1975, The
American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality
from its list of Mental Disorders. In the 1990’s The World
Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of
mental illnesses.

Even in Iran hardliners are nervous as the public are

increasingly using the term hamjensgara (homosexual) rather
than the more offensive and previously more widespread
word hamjensbaz. Iranian’s new penal code and some Iranian
officials use the word hamjensgara, even when critical of
262
homosexual relationships. In March 2015, Iran announced
plans to consider criminalizing forced sex-change operations
and ban reorientation therapies.

Christian denominations with vast numbers of church

affiliations and worldwide memberships numbering in the
millions now realize that the Koine Greek and Hebrew words
in the Bible, commonly associated with homosexuality since
the 4th Century, have been deceptively mistranslated. A fresh
and candid consideration of the subject have yielded massive
shift and progress.

Prominent church leaders are shifting ‘sides’, often at great

personal expense. Steve Chalke and Tony Campolo are two
such examples. There exist numerous closet believers, though
not gay themselves, who are unable to admit their support
publicly since it would cost them their ministry and
paycheck.

Conclusion
Accuracy, empathy and the progress of human civilization
should be motivations at the forefront of this debate. I opt to
position myself between the stone-wielding Pharisees and the
accused. It is a ferocious conflict between primitive mindsets
hell bent on preventing society from progressing, and just as
they lost the race battle, these fanatics are losing this fight.

Science against homosexuality is typically Christian bias and

weak. The evidence is overwhelming; homosexuality is not a
‘lifestyle’ choice, but an inbuilt orientation. Injured pride
forces the religionists into a tailspin when presented with
factual information that contradicts their position, launching

263
them into knee-jerk denials and accusations. Those who
defend homosexuals get accused of being homosexual. This
desperate charge is like accusing a happily married man with
children who campaigns for justice for single parents of being
a single parent. A common accusation against homosexuals
is, “The devil made you do it!”

Had you not been indoctrinated by fundamentalists you may

have held different views. The fact some Christians are not
truly at liberty to change their views without hostility and
rejection is evidence of the biased environment anti-
homosexual propaganda is disseminated.

Forcing homosexuals into a marriage of convenience is a

recipe for disaster. These are the types of solutions
fundamentalists are forced to resort to in the face of crushing
intellectual opposition. Their philosophy simply does not fit
the mold of reality.

Hatred
Multi-genderism and variance in sexuality are present
throughout nature, but hatred and bigotry are found only in
humans. Hostility towards homosexuals is a learned behavior.
Bad doctrine is intrinsically linked to bad behavior. Christian
gay bashers predominately have limited education and
knowledge of the subject from a 21st-century theological
perspective. Their argument flows like this:

“I am against homosexuality since I think the Bible teaches

against it, even though the case against it is not as strong as
many assume and I have not done sufficient research to give
264
 a qualified answer. I will not take into consideration my
personal conscience, the witness of millions of homosexuals
and the majority of the scientific community.”

Following indoctrination, you are either oblivious to it, in

denial or forced to defend information that crumbles under
scrutiny. Does not the fact that your beliefs are based on zero
to flimsy evidence not concern you? Faith is not real
evidence; it is an excuse to believe nonsense at the expense of
your intelligence. Basing your rules on sexual conduct in
primitive societies is like adopting surgery regulations from
ancient cavemen. Chinese eunuchs desperately endeavored to
regain their male parts by murdering virgin boys and dining
on their brains. Taisuke Mitamura, Japanese author. Jewish leaders thought
you could identify a eunuch by the arch when they urinated.
Are primitives with this level of understanding the ones you
want as the source of your views?

It may offend you to be labeled a bigot, but the truth hurts,

especially because it's hard to bribe your conscience. That
voice that demands loyalty to ancient texts is not your
conscience, it’s your ego. You’ve made your bed, and the
prickly information you have now been exposed to
contradicts the information you were force fed and making
you uncomfortable in your bed of hypocrisy. Swallow your
pride and do the best thing: wake up and smell the coffee.

Heterosexual Christians hypocritically use the clobber

passages to justify their anti-homosexual views, a ‘sin’ they
aren’t tempted to commit, yet with clobber passages that
challenge the sins they routinely engage they switch to a
standard of relative morality.

265
Rarely do you see anti-homosexuals campaign against
hostility towards gays and lesbians? Their blinkered approach
stains their hands with blood. It seems they have not read all
those pesky Commandments about loving your neighbor as
yourself, [what if our neighbor is LGBTQ?] and doing to
others as you desire others to do to you Luke 6:31. You can't fully
understand it until you go through it. What Would Jesus Do?
(WWJD). Would Jesus support your protest marches? Would
he call them faggots and homos?

Natural Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation is not an entirely understood science.
Genetics, chemistry, and psychological influences, as well as
evidence it is involuntarily fluid and changeable, have all
been submitted as conceivable explanations for the variety
found in humans.

Gender identity is unrelated to your genitalia. It is not binary;

rather it is multiple natural ranges. Humans are born
individuals. Just as you are not required to justify your sexual
orientation, nor does anyone else. Gender identity is not a
personal choice. It is simple, you were born, and you express
your natural sexual orientation.

Progressive Societies
It is shocking how there still exists simpletons who
discriminate others based on gender, race, sexuality and
economics. The human race has come a long way, but it still
has a long way to go.

Depending on the era or culture you are born into you will be
either encouraged to be your authentic self or suppress it and
blend with the status quo, fearing persecution or even death.
266
Choice is a human right that permits freedom to decide
whatever it is we desire to do with our life, including our
bodies as long as we do not harm others. Empathy and
compassion are the human traits that result in a better-off
world. Necessity and reason demand empathy and
compassion extend to all, irrespective of the difficulties we
have in understanding everyone. We possess no license that
permits us to execute judgment on the harmless life choices
others make, especially if they harm no one except bogus
moral egos. You do have the choice to extend kind-
heartedness and empathy towards those misjudged.

Until you experience it, you can never conceive the difficulty
in genuinely feeling you’re one gender, internally but another
externally or that you have same-sex attractions in a society
that forbid it. Any truly healthy, positive and progressive
society permits the right to make personal choices, and it
supports them in their choice. A progressive society promotes
freedom of speech, freedom to practice any religion or leave
one without fear of punishment, equality for women, equality
for minorities including homosexuals.

Christians divide over the issue of accepting gay members

into the church. The dispute usually centers around defending
the Bible, and extending compassion and social justice. There
are no indisputable Biblical directives to marginalize and
ostracize gay people, and so it is ethically indefensible for
Christians to do so. Responses like death penalties, flogging,
social exclusion, jeering and other forms of rejection are not
acceptable in an advanced society. The step to take is not a
choice between compassion and faith in the Bible. It is about
empathy, rationality, reasonableness, and logic.

267
The boat on homosexuality as already sailed and
fundamentalist extremists once again get left behind since
they hold on to views that are pre-enlightenment, pre-civil
rights, prescientific, medieval, and barbaric thinking based on
beliefs from primitive texts. Hopefully, mainstream
Institutional Christianity will catch up and treat homosexuals
with dignity, in the same way, they previously mistreated
Jews, blacks, and women, then caught up with the civilized
world. Christianity eventually follows the culture, and rarely
leads it or shapes it, though they tend to take credit.

Again I ask, are millions of people lying when they say they
have NEVER had an attraction to the opposite sex? If your
answer is yes, then what is your evidence they are lying?
Humans are multi-faceted and so cannot be judged alike.
Some have an uncontrollably high sex drive while others
have no desire for sex (asexual). Sexual prohibitions are easy
to obey for the asexual, but not so for the one with a high sex
drive. Similarly, those with differing sexual orientations
cannot be painted with the same brush as others. Just as you
cannot force a heterosexual not to be heterosexual, you
cannot force a homosexual not to be homosexual.

268
 Chapter Five
John 14:6 Explained
Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
can come to the Father except through me” John 14:6

The fundamentalist may be open to correction in minor

matters, but they refuse to believe they are in error on any
major doctrines. Their flat reading of the Bible locks them in
dogmatism. If you enjoy a flat reading of the Bible then this
chapter may go over your head and be difficult to swallow;
the voice of this chapter will be like a dog whistle for the
dogged ear, who tenaciously and with grim persistence refuse
ever to be wrong. John 14:6 is a like a theological pacifier in
the mouth of hard-line zealots, lulling them into a state of
pseudo-comfort. Any alternative explanation is perceived as a
threat to Christianity. Even fundamentalist Christians who
don’t want to believe these peculiar elitist doctrines, have to
at least verbally assent to it.

The gospel of John is more mystical, symbolic, and

metaphorically layered in comparison to the other gospels it
presents a unique, insightful portrait of Jesus. To explain John
14:6 we do not have to dig too deep, but indeed a surface
reading is misleading to the untrained eye. Every so often the
dumbest things are alleged in churches. Passages in the Bible
have as many opinions about their meaning as uncertainties
about their meaning. Tragically this single verse becomes a
weapon of mass destruction in the hands of the Christian
Taliban. This verse is one of the most famous controversial
statements attributed to Jesus and one that divides Christians.
269
The majority of non-fundamentalist Bible scholars read this
verse inclusively. It does not mean there is no truth in other
religions, neither does it suggest that Jesus would high five
your particular set of doctrines.

Why is this single verse worth discussing?

People don’t trip over mountains; they trip over pebbles. John
14:6 is a pet-proof-text used by fundamentalist militants to
validate an elitist salvation message and the exclusivity of
Christ, namely that Christianity or Jesus Christ is the solitary
way to God. This teaching damns billions who reject Jesus to
never-ending torment. It fuels the egos of millions of
fanatical imperialistic missionaries and evangelists who seek
to colonize nations, but instead they cultivate religious
friction, the outcome of which is division, persecution, and
even death. The misinterpretation of this single verse is one
of the greatest blunders of Christianity, resulting in untold
casualties. Its strategic value means evangelicals are willing
to risk casualties to further their agenda.

There are multiple ways this verse could be understood.

Deciphering the complete meaning is perhaps lost forever.

Proof texting
When cults seek to prove their pet doctrines they search for a
Biblical verse to validate it. This methodology, known as
‘proof texting,’involves lifting the text out of context. When
religionists quote this verse, it is meant to be a quote bomb
and conversation-stopper, case closed. This trump card
typically means, “Repeat a sincere sinner’s prayer, and
attend a Bible believing church [whatever that means] to
become part of the God ‘in-crowd.’”

270
Beware of those who preach from a single page or verse.
Theologically it’s dangerous to base whole doctrines on a
single verse. This single verse colors the reading of other
verses used to support an exclusive message. Looking at a
verse from the reverse end of a telescope provides a distorted,
narrow, exclusive interpretation rather than a broadly
inclusive one [the ‘narrow way’ Matthew 7:14 is a reference to the
Old Testament law as can be seen in verse 12]. The verse has been
spun to teach exclusiveness. An analysis of the passage is
very enlightening.

Understanding John
The authorship of John is not certain, for convenience we will
assume it was John. It is critical to understand the target
audience, motive for writing, writing style, translation issues,
and authorship. Without at least a basic knowledge, shoddy
interpretations are concluded.

The writing of John occurred during a period of conflict

between the followers of Jesus and the Jews. This conflict is
hinted at in the Gospel of John: “…anyone who
acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out
of the synagogue.” John 9:22; “They will put you out of the
synagogue…” John 16:2. Scholars agree that this social
ostracization occurred 10-20 years after the destruction of the
Temple in AD 70, a period when John was most likely
written.

“In that world, to be "put out" from the synagogue was far
more serious than being expelled from a Christian
congregation or denomination is in our world. To be expelled
from the synagogue meant no longer to be considered a Jew
(or at least not an acceptable Jew). In a traditional society
271
where most people lived their entire lives in the same village
or town, it was a powerful social sanction. Those expelled
faced social ostracism. Among other things, it disrupted
relationships within families and with neighbors, and made
marriage to "proper" Jews difficult or impossible.”

― Dr. Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and

Culture

Perhaps John was connecting Jesus to the Old Testament

using unambiguous language the Jews would have
understood. Approximately 90 percent of the Gospel of John
is unique to John and cannot be found in the other gospels.
The gospel contains no transfiguration, popular parables, or
exorcisms and makes no references to repentance, the virgin
birth or the Lord’s Supper.

“Jesus did not speak of himself with the exalted titles of

John's Gospel, nor did he speak the great `one-way' verse of
John 14:6.”
― Dr. Marcus Borg, Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and
Culture
Emeritus at Oregon State University

The declaration that ‘no one comes to God but by Jesus’ is a

saying only found in the Gospel of John, a book which did
not appear in Christian history until 90-100AD, some 65 -70
years after the crucifixion. Christianity evolved over that
period to what it was by then, and there is no record of such a
declaration before John. It has further evolved to modern
interpretations. The way this verse is understood by modern
Christians is not necessarily how it was originally understood.

272
Meanings are occasionally lost in translation; this seems to be
the case with John 14:6.

Jesus would have spoken Aramaic. The writer of John is

writing in Greek. John was eventually translated into English,
and it is at this junction meanings are lost in translation. A
version of the Bible could take a translation route that
includes more than one language - Greek translated into Latin
then German and finally English. In between all these
translations and copying, words are adapted, and meanings
change.

There are three things to consider when reading John 14:6

a. The ‘I Am’ statements

b. Who was Jesus speaking to?
c. The meaning of the phrase ‘Way, Truth, and Life.'

When reading John, there are a number of factors that need to

be considered.

“I have been speaking figuratively; a time is coming when I

will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you
plainly about my Father.” John 16:25

Here Jesus clarifies that he spoke figuratively about the

Father. Failing to recognize this will mean the reader will
misunderstand the message being communicated by the
writer. Pulling John 14:6 out of this overall setting twists it to
make it infer what it was never intended to mean.

A. “I am” Statements in John

273
The term, ‘I am’ occurs 86 times in the New Testament, 24
are emphatic. Jesus says “I Am” (Greek eimi) forty–five
times in John's Gospel (including when other characters quote
Jesus’ words). Jesus himself says “I Am”24 times in John's
Gospel 
Figures sourced from Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D
. These are known as the ‘I AM’
sayings.

The term ‘I Am’ has a particular meaning. It does not mean

what it does in English. In English ‘I am…’ refer to an
individual as in, “I am going out.” To confuse the Biblical
meaning of ‘I Am’ with the modern English meaning of ‘I
am’ is a mistake of epic magnitude.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the meaning of God's name

(YHWH) is interconnected to ‘I am’ and ‘I Am’ is a reference
to God. ‘Elohim’ is the word translated God in the Old
Testament, meaning the ‘self-existing one’ - the one who is
the ‘I Am’. The Self-Existing One ‘just is’ – He is, or in the
first person – I Am.

“God [Elohim] said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is

what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to
you.”” Exodus 3:14

When Jesus used the term ‘I Am’ the Jews understood he was
referring to God. Hence, they were ready to stone him for it.
Here he was associating himself with a term from their
scriptures that was a directly addresses their God.

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth before Abraham was

even born, I Am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone
him…” John 8:58-59
274
In John 14 it seems Jesus is not referring to himself per se. In
the gospels, Jesus points to God, not to himself John 5:31; John 5:43,
John 14.28.
It is in this light we interpret the ‘I AM’ statements.
Jesus is pointing to God, not to himself.

Here are some examples of Jesus using the ‘I Am’ statements:

I am the bread of life John 6:35

I am the light of the world John 8:12
I am the gate John 10:9
I am the good shepherd John 10:11
I am the resurrection and the life John 11:25
I am the vine John 15:1; John 15:5
Before Abraham was born, I am John 8:58
I am the way, the truth, and the life. John 14:6

When Jesus said “I AM,” he was referring to God, the ‘I Am’

of the Old Testament. The writer of John exports the name
and neatly ties the gospels to the Old Testament God.

In Aramaic the language Jesus spoke, it is even clearer. In the

original Aramaic, the word rendered into Greek meaning ‘I’
in John 14:6 is ‘ena-ena’. It does not mean ‘I’ in the same
way it does in English. In English ‘I’ is a reference to the
‘individual I.’ Ena-Ena means ‘I-I’ or the ‘I inside the I,’ like
the Hebrew ‘I Am that I Am.’ [Note the double mention of ‘I
Am’ like the I-I].

John 14:16 starts with ‘I AM’ and ends with 'me.' The ‘me’ is
the same word as ‘I’ Strong's Concordance 1473. The ‘I’ ‘me’ or ‘I am’
are hints to ‘Spirit [of God]’ or, in essence, the ‘Cosmic I’.

275
Jesus would have spoken to them using standard language
and expressions that they were familiar with. The nuances are
lost in translation and require investigation to identify and
clarify the authors intended meaning.

In essence, it reads, “I AM is the way, truth, and life and no

one comes to God but by I AM [or the Spirit of I AM].” It
could read, “God is the way, the truth and the life, no one
comes to the Father but by Spirit.”

In other words, “No one can come to ME unless the Father

who sent ME draws him...” John 6:44. The 'me' is the same word
as 'me' in John 14:6 and throughout John. It does not
independently refer to Jesus. It is the ocean speaking, not the
wave. He points to the Father, not to himself. Without the
Father, he could do nothing. John 5:19: “Why do you call me
good?” Jesus answered. "No one is good except God alone.
Luke 18:19

In the Gospel of John, the voice of Jesus is the logos

speaking: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.” John1:1

The Greek word translated ‘Word’ is ‘Logos.’ John is saying

that ‘The Logos is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and if you
desire to know the Father, the God of Israel, then also get to
know ‘Logos,’ the essence of truth.’

The Jewish people comprehend the Word of God as the

teaching of God, the Torah, not the script but the essence or
truth of the teaching was God. Exodus 18:20; Psalm 119:142; Deut 32:47. In St
John 1 replace the ‘word’ with ‘teaching.’

276
 “In the beginning was the teaching, and the teaching was
with God, and the teaching was God.” John1:1

That teaching was made flesh. Jesus embodied and

demonstrated the teaching of God – who God was. Jesus
manifested the teaching. When it says, “I am the way…” The
‘I’ is the teaching of God, God himself, embodied in Jesus,
you and I.

It is the Word that speaks as ’I' in the pages of this gospel.

The Word incarnate in Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life,
and, no one comes to God except through that Word. It does
not mean that the Word is present and active only in Jesus. If
someone wants to come to God, God embodies humans and
draws that seeker. How can they hear without a God
manifesting preacher? Romans 10:14. The message is the way, not
the messenger.

B. Who was Jesus speaking to?

There is a different perspective from which to view this verse.
Put yourself in the sandals of the disciples and listen through
their ears. The verse is not addressed to everyone. An
extremely common mistake is to personalize statements not
addressed to the reader. This is a classic beginner’s error
when reading the Bible, taking it out of context as if it was
written to you personally in the 21st Century. So the question
is, who does it address?

It is imperative we understand the backdrop of this verse.

There are two points here. Firstly, Jesus is speaking about the
way to suffering and life on earth, not the way to heaven.
Secondly, he is specifically addressing his disciples.

277
A Way To Suffering, Not Heaven
At the end of the previous chapter Jesus says, “Where I am
going, you cannot come…” John 13:32, 36 [Remember the end of
chapter 13 and the beginning of chapter 14 are one event. The
chapter divisions were added later]. Jesus was speaking of
going to the cross; the disciples were not aware of this. Peter
interrupts, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay
down my life for your sake.” John 13:37 Jesus then questions
Peters willingness to suffer by predicting he will deny Jesus
three times before the rooster crows. Jesus was going to a
place of suffering; the disciples were wondering where he
was going.

Neither Jesus nor his disciples were speaking about salvation

or heaven as presumed by modern Christians. The ‘Fathers
house’ is not a reference to a building but to a Kingdom 1 Peter
2:5
. The word ‘mansions’ is an old English word used in the
KJV that at the time meant ‘dwelling place’ of any size.
Today it means a large home. The NIV corrects this. “In my
Father's house are many rooms”John 14:1 (NIV). When Jesus
said, “I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am there,
you may also be” he was not referring to going to do painting
and decorating in their future extravagant living
accommodation. He is speaking of his followers taking his
place on earth; he has shown them the way to live. He was
saying, “I will die and rise again so that you can do as I am
doing here on earth. I am operating in the Kingdom; you will
be in this place and position soon. I go to suffer now so that
where I am now you will be too soon. For now, you are not
ready to suffer, but you will be one day. For now, I must go
suffer alone.”

278
In this story Jesus was clearly speaking to his disciples, trying
to comfort them after telling them he would soon die.
“Follow the example of my life, and you’ll be following the
way.” Jesus was a trailblazer revealing the way to follow
God. He followed the inner light and his message was we
should all do the same. According to him, the way to live is to
first die John 12:24.

Only Addressing the Disciples

The passage is clearly a private conversation with his
disciples. When John 14:6 is quoted it is virtually always
misquoted. Two crucial words overlooked are ‘to him.’ It
reads, “Jesus said to him,” not just, “Jesus said.” Who is the
'him’? Jesus is specifically addressing Thomas and the other
disciples and not you, or a future audience.

The verse continues to read, “Jesus said to him, No one

comes to the Father…” In Greek the word for ‘comes’ is
‘erchetai.’ The experts explain that it is present tense
detonating it is not applicable to all people for all time. This
verse applied only applied to his immediate audience.
Whoever translated this from Aramaic to Greek [if it was]
recognized the word ‘comes’ was present tense and reference
to a specific group. Clearly “no one” refers to his own
disciples. In other words, the only way the disciples could
come to the Father was through God in Jesus, the Word of
God or the very teaching of God. That’s all they had. In
essence, he was saying, “None of you twelve can come to the
Father but by me” or “I am the one showing you God.” John
14:6 is a declaration to the disciples that Jesus, the Word of
God, is the way for them to God. At that time Jesus was their
only way, the very voice [Word] of God for them.

279
It would be like someone saying to a mother, “You are the
world’s best mother.” Does that mean she is a better mother
than other mothers or does it mean she is the best personally
to the child who made the declaration?

If a lecturer announces to class, “everyone must listen to

me” does it mean everyone who ever lives or everyone in
that class? To lift that statement out of the context and make
it mean ‘everyone who exists,’ present and future would be
ludicrous. Thus John 14:6 is not an absolute statement but a
personal and private statement. To twist it to mean what you
want it to, an absolute statement or an absolute truth is
dishonest.

Not an Attack on Other Religions

Today this verse is quoted in answer to a question the author
never intended it to answer. We can be certain what Thomas
isn’t asking. John 14:6 is Jesus’ precise response to
Thomas’ specific question. Thomas’ question was not “Are
all non-Christians on a one-way ticket to hell?” or “How will
people get to heaven? Nor ‘What about my unbelieving
family, friends, and neighbors?” This was a private
statement to an individual in the company of other disciples
and not an inter-religious dialogue. Jesus in no way stated
this about other religions or intended it as an insult to other
faiths.

Not a single time in the Jesus story does Jesus ever warn us
about other religions; rather we are told, “And Jesus said to
him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”
Luke 9:49-50
. He invited all who are weary and heavily laden to
come to him Matthew 11:28. The only standard described had no
relation to accurate believing, but only to the ability to see the
280
presence of God in every person including those he called
“the least of those who are our brothers and sisters…” Matthew
25:40

He is not making any reference to other religions or implying

only one religion is the right religion. He is not:

 In a discussion with an individual from another

religion
 Responding to a question about other faiths
 Lecturing on which is the true religion

The gospel of John, and particularly 14:6, was not written to

target Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians or any other religions
to enlighten them that Christianity, or Jesus, was the only
path to God. In its wider context, it seems the author of this
gospel primarily sought to address Greek and Jewish
discussions on divinity. It target audience appears to be Jews
and Greeks.

This theme continues in the New Testament. In Acts chapter

17 Paul enters the Areopagus (Mars Hill in Athens, Greece)
and utters three remarkable statements:

1. He respectfully recognizes their religious culture “I see

that you are very religious” Acts 17:22
2. He quotes their poets and philosophers Acts 17:28
3. He includes them in the ‘We’ Acts 17: 28, 29. “…we are [all]
God's offspring.”

Throughout the writings of Paul, he preaches a very inclusive

message. I’ll leave that to you to research. Acts 4:12 is
another discussion for another time.
281
C. Meaning of Way, Truth, and Life.
Each word in John 14:6 has a meaning in historical Judaism,
Hebrew, and Greek. The average western reader would not
recognize the root meanings as would a trained Jew
(remember Jesus was speaking to trained Jews, the author of
the gospel was written for educated Jews and Greeks). The
precise wording was not picked out of thin air.

What are the origins of the phrase ‘way, truth, and life’?
Israel received the Torah – To them, it was the revelation of
the way [derekh Strong's 01870] truth [emeth Strong's 571] and life
[chayyim Strong’s 2425b].

“Jewish tradition is filled with the sages’ reflections on the

way (derekh) and the truth (emeth) and the life (chayyim) of
the pious Jew. Each of these special words represents a
universe of meaning to one who studies and reveres the
Torah of the God of Israel.”― Hebrew for Christians

Each of these words has a primary meaning, without

understanding them it’s possible you will misunderstand John
14:6. To simply take the English and think you have the
meaning is naïve. The full meanings are perhaps lost in
translation and perhaps in history. However, the verse makes
more sense in a Jewish context. The life of Jesus
demonstrates living the Torah in an improved way. It is a
declaration to follow a way of life, unlike the Law that came
by Moses John 1:17.

In Judaism, the term ‘way’ is a metaphor to represent a ‘mode

of behavior’ 2 Kings 21:21-22; Psalms 119:9; the phrase ‘the truth’ is
282
associated with Torah Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 23:23; In some Old
Testament passages the ‘word’ and ‘law’ are essentially
synonyms Psalms 119:113-114; Isa. 1:10; 2:3; 5:24; Jer. 8:7-9; Micah 4:2 . Some Old
Testament passages connect ‘way’ and ‘life’ to suggest that to
walk the way [path] of the Torah leads to life Proverbs 6:23; 10:17; 12:28;
15:24
.

“The Hebrew Word derekh can refer to a physical road or

pathway, but metaphorically it often refers to the journey,
manner, or course of one's life.”
― Hebrew for Christians

A recurring subject throughout the Old Testament is “the

way of God” but it is often buried in the various language
translations of the Bible. When readers are not familiar with
these themes, they invent their own distorted interpretations.
Before the first followers of Jesus were ever generally known
as Christians, Christianity was referred to as the ‘Nazarene
sect’ or ‘the Way’ Acts 19:9, 23.

To understand this verse we need to look at it in Aramaic and

reveal the deeper layers. Aramaic is a more inclusive and less
detailed language than Greek. One Aramaic translation
reads:

“The I AM is the path, the sense of right direction and the life
force to travel it … No one comes into the rhythm with the
breathing life of all, the sound and the atmosphere that
created the cosmos, except through the breathing, sound, and
atmosphere, of another embodied “I” connected to the
ultimate I AM.”
― Dr Neil Dougles-Klotz, an Aramaic scholar

283
This translation has Jesus emphasizing his way of being, not
his person exclusively, as the way one experiences and enters
the Kingdom of God: “I AM is the path, the trustworthy one,
and the living breath.” Or “I AM is the way to truth to
receive life.”

Mainstream Orthodoxy is fundamentally flawed since it

focuses on dogma and not principles. Perhaps John is
suggesting a ‘principle’ [way] of living and not a set of
legalistic teachings; a pattern rather than an institution.
According to Matthew, the Jesus way of life is loving God
and neighbour, and the whole Law hung on these two
commandments, Matt. 22:37-40: The Johannine epistle declares
that, “...God is love.” 1 John 4:8. The new way of the I AM is the
path of love; this is the truth that leads to the God-kind of life
[Greek: zoe]. The sum total of Christianity is the principle of
love, not a set of biased dogmas. John 14:6 is about how you
live on earth, not how to get to heaven. It is a paradigm,
rather than a dogma-centric organisation. The Jesus way is to
love God and respect others.

In the fundamentalist mind, the reason for following Jesus is

to escape hell, and not to live a life of love. To them, the ‘life
of love’ is a means to an end.

Conclusion
This verse, and indeed the Gospel of John, is mystical and
symbolic. Misinformation about it can travel halfway round
the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on. The
fundamentalist reading of John is one of the greatest slip ups
in Christianity. We may never know the precise meaning, but
can know what it does not mean.

284
Could it be that this verse is stating that the God in Christ is
the way to the truth to find life for the disciples and that the
God in them would be the way for others to find truth and life
in the future since they would one day take the place of Jesus
as co-equals and co-heirs? John 14:1-6; I John 4:17. In some ways, this
verse is both generic [universal] and historically specific. It
must be read panoramically to capture its nuances.

Scholars conclude the ‘I AM’ sayings are likely the invention

of John since there exist no historical records that the “I AM”
sayings were spoken by Jesus, except in John’s gospel. I
would think the author of John would be surprised to learn
this verse is used to teach exclusiveness and exclusion when
in fact it is a very inclusive verse.

Interpretations hinge on which end of the telescope you

choose to read from. The fundamentalist weave verses
together to form arguments that suit their ideological
perspective and then declare it, “Gods perspective!”
Politically incorrect theology is not permitted from pulpits in
anti-choice churches. To teach a non-fundamentalist
interpretation would be considered an ultimate betrayal.

The focus shouldn’t be on the finger that points but on who it

points to. Jesus never preached ‘Jesus’ and Christians ought
to teach the essence of what Jesus taught. Almost all of the
speeches attributed to Jesus in John are not found in the other
gospels. The gospel of John actually contains a number of
hidden clues that its content is not to be taken literal. In fact,
some prominent Bible scholars do not attribute the words of
John 14:6 to Jesus.

285
It is always disturbing when any religious tradition believes it
has ‘cornered the market’ of religious truth. The extent of
exclusiveness you adopt is determined by your denomination
or personal convictions. Indeed, most fundamentalists doubt
the salvation of their Catholic friends. This mentality is force
fed by misapplication of John 14:6.

This explanation is not exhaustive, so it may not be clear to

you. I would advise further study. I have invested time
clarifying a few points in the hope that the reader who has
viewed this verse as teaching Christ exclusiveness will be
more enlightened and less dogmatic.

In John 14:6 Jesus is essentially describing a ‘gatekeeper’,

and it only states that God, not you or I, permits who he will
at his discretion. Many Christians claim he permits all in and
for them Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life - for all. 1
Corinthians 15:22
. It all depends on which particular atonement
theory you pick to believe.

Perhaps John 14:6 means, “None can comes to the Father

unless I say so.” I’ll close this chapter with this humorous
story:

A good, Christian woman (GCW) is standing in lines waiting

to enter through the gates of heaven and is thrilled about her
eventual entrance into her eternal mansion. Unable to contain
her excitement, she starts talking to the woman in front of
her.

“I just cannot WAIT to get in there! I've been waiting for this
my whole life. Countless hours of prayer and Bible reading! I
sang in the choir every week, taught Sunday school, served
286
as the church secretary! I taught many children over the
years during Vacation Bible School -- all the stories about
Noah, Daniel, and the lion’s den, and Jesus!”

She leaned over and smiled at the woman in front of her.

“You know what I'm talking about, right?”

The woman smiled back. “Actually, I don't. You see, I'm

Jewish.”

GCW is taken aback as they step up to the podium. Peter

consults the books and then calls out the Jewish woman's
name, upon which GCW loses it.

“Hold it!” she exclaims. “What's SHE doing going through

there?” Peter calmly looked at her and said, “Look, I just call
out the names. I can't do anything about it.”

“But...but...she JEWISH!” said GCW.

“Well, so am I,” Peter replied.

“Yeah, but that's different. You actually FOLLOWED Jesus.”

GCW then said the most American thing she could think of:
“I want to talk to a manager.”

Peter rolled his eyes. “Every time,” he muttered.

Peter leaves the two women in an awkward silence, enters the

gates, and the returns with Jesus. "NOW we're getting
somewhere," said GCW. She shared with Jesus the testimony
she shared with the Jewish woman and expressed her absolute
287
horror that this non-Christian would be allowed to spend
eternity with God.

“Well, what is it that you object to?” Jesus asked.

“She's not a Christian!” said GCW. “She's Jewish!”

“Well, so am I,” said Jesus.

“Yeah, but that's different. Look, you said yourself that you
are the way, the truth, and the life and that NO ONE can
come to the Father but by you. Didn't you say that?” “Well,”
said Jesus, “not exactly. I spoke Aramaic, but that's the gist
of it, so yeah.”

“Good,” said GCW with a look of holy satisfaction. “If

you're the way, the truth, and the life, then she has no
business being here.”

“Well, that's where you're wrong,” said Jesus. “Because ‘I’

am the way, the truth, and the life. And no one comes to the
Father but by ME. It's MY call, not yours.”

And with that, he turned around, put his arm around the
shoulder of the Jewish woman, and escorted her into heaven.
– Source Unknown

-----------------

If you are adamant you want to follow the teachings of the

Bible then at least when it comes to what happens to people
in the afterlife realize you don't get to decide, nor does your
288
controlling theology, denomination, doctrines. Biblically God
is the one who decides. If you still argue your narrow view, I
can only pity you.

289
 Chapter Six
Science and Religion
Science examines the natural world, whereas religion centers
predominately in a supernatural world. You do not have to be
an atheist to be a scientist, but this does not mean that science
and religion do not have conflicting approaches and
conclusions. Religion tends to make absolute statements that
are neither provable nor disprovable. It is content with far-
fetched and semi-plausible speculations. Science relies on
testable truths and statements and is prepared to make
modifications to replace theories entirely or partially.

The ultra-religionists have a negative view of science as if it

is the problem and not the solution. This phobia seems to
stem from a fear of being examined, criticized and
challenged. Unfortunately, or rather, fortunately, science is
primarily about studies, analysis and scrutiny of evidence. To
dismiss science is to sign of primitive thinking. Science
centers on facts. The wind will always blow forwards, and
religious opinions will never change the laws of physics,
chemistry and biology. To ridicule science with half-baked
knowledge is the sport of the ill-informed.

There exists a tremendous body of knowledge and absolute

dependence on texts written by primitive people is
unnecessary.

Faith versus Evidence

Science relies on evidence derived from experiment and
observation based on scientific methods. Religion is satisfied
290
with speculation and superstition. Faith is frequently an
excuse to believe nonsense. Outlandish claims are made with
zero evidence. The religionist is so eager to validate their
evidence-lacking beliefs that they cling to any hint of proof.
In most instances no evidence is necessary.

There are reasons why the vast majority of scientists rely on

evidence and not faith. According to the law, in a trial we
have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that an
accusation is factual, else the presumption is that they are
fabricated charges. The scientific standard is considerably
higher than the level for law; a higher standard is an absolute
necessity. We wouldn’t want engineers who build space
shuttles to ‘wing it’ when calculating the structural reliability
of the hull. No sane person would accept a manufacturer’s
proposal with no evidence that it works. Every rational
person would insist their proposal be scrutinized, tested,
retested, and assured of reliability before strapping astronauts
to it.

Religion manipulates the human psyche through subtle

techniques. The victim becomes convinced even when
lacking any real testable evidence. Loch Ness monster
supporters see any movement or object in water and conclude
it is Nessie. UFO fanatics see strange objects in the sky and
presume it must be alien activity. In the vast majority of
cases, there is an entirely plausible explanation. If there is no
explanation, it is what it is – an unidentified flying object.
Religionists also adopt similar models of evaluation. In their
desperate attempts to corroborate their faith they appeal to
sloppy evidence. They see what they want to see.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

291
Humanity has progressed because of Science. Without
science societies would still exist in primitive states. In the
last 150 years, science has propelled humanity further than all
previous generations combined. Religion has the knack of
stealing the thunder that belongs to the hard work of scientists
and crediting it to their god.

There are many things unknown in the past but today science
has a clear understanding of them. Science is not arrogant,
unlike religion, to think it has all the answers. Science gladly
acknowledges when it does not know while striving to
acquire the knowledge. Religion takes the unknown and
unexplainable and fabricates answers. Just because something
lacks an explanation, presently or forever, the answer is not
automatically supernatural.

Before the discovery of germs, millions have died of

infections. It was not until the discovery of bacteria and
scientific ability to prove it in the 19 th century that deaths by
contamination reduced considerably. Was this discovery the
result of science or the revelation of a being who withheld
that information until the 19th century? Can you imagine the
number of fatal primitive medical operations conducted with
contaminated hands? Withholding lifesaving information is a
crime against humanity.

When you have no evidence, yet believe, that's faith. When

you have proof and believe, that's knowledge. If you have
evidence, what's the need for religious faith?

Science and the Bible

The texts of major religions were written during a time in
history when science was at its base level. The ancients were
292
unaware of cures for illnesses, so they sought miraculous
intervention. They had no explanations for atmospheric
phenomena, so they attributed weather storms to angry gods.
These primeval explanations have been carried over to
modern times through primitive religious texts. Modern
science has demystified natural phenomena making
supernatural explanations unnecessary.

Pre-modern literature is untrustworthy as a source of

understanding the world. The writers were primitive in their
understanding of the world, and faith in mystical creatures,
superstitions and myths were widespread. They were
oblivious to the existence of germs and clueless as to where
the sun was at night. To build on that foundation is reckless.

Both Christianity and Islam claim that their religious texts

miraculously contain scientific facts discovered recently by
modern Science. This claim seeks to validate the divine
origins of their holy book [or holey book, a book of holes]
and it is based on faulty evidence. Numerous examples can be
provided to show that the claims are misinformation and
wishful thinking. A handful will be sufficient to make my
point.

[They also contain information that contradicts indisputable

scientific knowledge. In a few cases ancient texts do state
information that was unproven at the time, but if you throw
spaghetti on the wall, some will stick].

Circular Earth
The Bible states the world is circular in a time when it is
claimed people thought the world was flat. This ‘proof’ has
been publicized in countless books and lectures. Their proof
293
text is Isaiah 40:42 780–c.695 B.C.: “He sits enthroned above the
circle of the earth…”

Firstly, the idea that the word was thought to be flat is a myth.

“The myth that medieval people believed in a flat Earth was

invented by John Draper (1811–1882) and Andrew Dickson
White (1832–1918). They wrote fake history books claiming
that Christianity taught the Earth was flat, but Christopher
Columbus bravely stood up to the ignorant churchmen.
Draper and White did not produce any evidence for this
strange version of history. Modern historians do not take
them seriously.”

Secondly, the earth is not a circle; it is a sphere. But how did

the writer come so close to the truth? Was it a divine
revelation? No, there are ancient references that state the
earth was a disc shape or a sphere. To conclude this, the
ancients simply had to observe the sun and moon. When they
observed the moon, they could see a circular object blocking
light. Evidently the light originated from the sun and so the
curved darkness had to be originating from a ‘circular’ earth
blocking the sunlight reaching the moon.

“Carahunge Observatory, 5,500 B.C, near Sisian in

Armenia, is a 7,500-year-old stone circle. Astronomers used
it to mark the movements of the sun, moon and stars. The
Ancient Armenians understood that the earth was round and
that it rotated on its own axis.”

“But the Ancient Babylonians perceived “Heaven and

Earth” as a revolving circular arrangement. They had

294
probably worked out that the Earth was a sphere by 1,000
B.C.”

“Thales of Miletus, 585 B.C. The Greeks knew the Earth was
round in the sixth century B.C. The mathematician Thales of
Miletus (624–546 B.C.) must have had a rough idea of the
Earth’s shape because he was able to predict an eclipse of
the sun in 585 B.C.”

“Pythagoras of Samos, 500 B.C. We do not know the name of

the person who first had the idea of a round Earth. However,
it was during this period that Greek astronomers concluded
that all the planets, including Earth, were really spheres. The
students of Pythagoras (572–495 B.C.) certainly believed the
world was round.”

“Eratosthenes of Cyrene, 230 B.C. Three hundred years

later, the librarian Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276–194 B.C.)
was the first person to calculate the circumference of the
Earth. Obviously, only a circle can have a circumference.
Eratosthenes had the idea of measuring the circumference
because everyone already knew that the Earth was round.”

“Early Christians, 200–300 A.D. The Christian scholars

read the Greek writings, and so they knew the Earth was a
sphere. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150–215 A.D.)
calls the world “this ordered sphere.” Eusebius of Caesarea
(263–339 A.D.) refers to “this terrestrial globe.”
― Diana Summers, documents.mx

Clearly Isaiah was echoing a commonly held belief.

Interestingly, he duplicates the error that it was a disk shape
295
when in fact it was a sphere.

Two Lights

The Bible states there are two great lights in the sky:

“God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the

day and the lesser light to govern the night.” Genesis 1:16

The ancients did not know what the sun and moon were.
They could only observe two disc-shaped objects in the sky
and conclude they were two light sources, one lesser, and the
other greater. Apparently, they did not know the moon was
not a light and that moonlight was only light reflecting from
the sun. If they thought the moon was a light, in the same way
as the sun, what would we expect them to claim? We would
expect them to claim erroneously there are two light sources,
precisely the claim in the Bible.

Transcendental Experiences
Virtually every religion believes in a supernaturalism where
the laws that govern the physical world are suspended, and
humanity is controlled by external forces from another
dimension. A large number of religions offer mystical and
transcendental experiences. Millions report fantastic stories,
encounters, and experiences from alien abductions to near
death experiences.

If you are seeking mystical experiences, you can induce them

and interpret them as supernatural. I don’t deny the
experiences people claim; rather I challenge their
explanation. As chemical beings, our mind and experiences
are influenced by chemicals released in our body. These
296
chemicals cause sensations, mind altering reactions and
subjective experiences open to interpretation.

Sam Harris, an American author, and neuroscientist describes

taking the drug 3, 4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine
(MDMA), commonly known as Ecstasy.

“One evening, a few months before my twentieth birthday, a

close friend and I decided to take the drug…We were alone
in a house, seated across from each other on opposite ends of
a couch, and engaged in quiet conversation as the chemical
worked its way into our heads. Unlike other drugs with which
we were by then familiar (marijuana and alcohol), MDMA
produced no feeling of distortion in our senses. Our minds
seemed completely clear.

In the midst of this ordinariness, however, I was suddenly

struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend. This shouldn’t
have surprised me—he was, after all, one of my best friends.
However, at that age, I was not in the habit of dwelling on
how much I loved the men in my life. Now I could feel that I
loved him, and this feeling had ethical implications that
suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian
on the page: I wanted him to be happy.

That conviction came crashing down with such force that

something seemed to give way inside me. In fact, the insight
appeared to restructure my mind. My capacity for envy, for
instance—the sense of being diminished by the happiness or
success of another person—seemed like a symptom of mental
illness that had vanished without a trace. I could no more
have felt envy at that moment than I could have wanted to
poke out my own eyes. What did I care if my friend was better
297
looking or a better athlete than I was? If I could have
bestowed those gifts on him, I would have. Truly wanting him
to be happy made his happiness my own.

A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections,

perhaps, but the general feeling remained one of absolute
sobriety—and of moral and emotional clarity unlike any I
had ever known. It would not be too strong to say that I felt
sane for the first time in my life. And yet the change in my
consciousness seemed entirely straightforward. I was simply
talking to my friend—about what, I don’t recall—and
realized that I had ceased to be concerned about myself. I
was no longer anxious, self-critical, guarded by irony, in
competition, avoiding embarrassment, ruminating about the
past and future, or making any other gesture of thought or
attention that separated me from him. I was no longer
watching myself through another person’s eyes.

And then came the insight that irrevocably transformed my

sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling
boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly
realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at
that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this
love. Love was at bottom impersonal—and deeper than any
personal history could justify. Indeed, a transactional form of
love—I love you because…—now made no sense at all.

The interesting thing about this final shift in perspective was

that it was not driven by any change in the way I felt. I was
not overwhelmed by a new feeling of love. The insight had
more the character of a geometric proof: It was as if, having
glimpsed the properties of one set of parallel lines, I suddenly
understood what must be common to them all.
298
The moment I could find a voice with which to speak, I
discovered that this epiphany about the universality of love
could be readily communicated. My friend got the point at
once: All I had to do was ask him how he would feel in the
presence of a total stranger at that moment, and the same
door opened in his mind. It was simply obvious that love,
compassion, and joy in the joy of others extended without
limit. The experience was not of love growing but of its being
no longer obscured. Love was—as advertised by mystics and
crackpots through the ages—a state of being. How had we
not seen this before? And how could we overlook it ever
again?

It would take me many years to put this experience into

context. Until that moment, I had viewed organized religion
as merely a monument to the ignorance and superstition of
our ancestors. But I now knew that Jesus, the Buddha, Lao
Tzu, and the other saints and sages of history had not all
been epileptics, schizophrenics, or frauds. I still considered
the world’s religions to be mere intellectual ruins,
maintained at enormous economic and social cost, but I now
understood that important psychological truths could be
found in the rubble.”

― Sam Harris, ‘Waking Up’ Chapter One (Released as Free Sample

Chapter)

Without a doubt, the experiences he had were the direct

consequence of taking the drug. He goes on to say:

“Given recent advances in neuroimaging technology, we no

longer face a practical impediment to investigating spiritual

299
 insights in the context of science.”

In other words, science is now able to study and observe the

brain while it functions, and this includes during spiritual
experiences.

Religious junkies have hijacked the word spiritual, as Sam

Harris explains:

“Spirituality must be distinguished from religion - because

people of every faith, and of none, have had the same sorts of
spiritual experiences.”

Sam Harris goes on to explain that spiritual experiences

cannot be used to validate one's religious beliefs:

“While these states of mind are usually interpreted through

the lens of one or another religious doctrine, we know that
this is a mistake. Nothing that a Christian, a Muslim, and a
Hindu can experience - self-transcending love, ecstasy, bliss,
inner light - constitutes evidence in support of their
traditional beliefs because their beliefs are logically
incompatible with one another. A deeper principle must be at
work.”

Some scientific studies have been conducted showing how

the brain can be stimulated to create hallucinations.

Since 1971, Dr. Michael Persinger has devoted research

showing the link between paranormal experiences and brain
activity. According to his research minuscule variations in
chemistry and small alterations in electrical activity can
produce very convincing hallucinations. Through computer
300
simulation, using a purpose designed helmet placed on their
head, volunteers have a very sensitive part of their brain
called the temporal lobes bombarded with a series of
electromagnetic signals that replicate complex human
experiences. After some time the brain begins to play tricks
and volunteers report experiences including floating,
petrifying feelings, intense love, encounters with God, angels,
devils, being seized by aliens, being in hell and other out of
body experiences. These experiences under closely monitored
scientific environment have occurred to skeptics and those
prone to fantasies. This does not mean every experience is an
illusion, but it is a leap towards demystifying many
paranormal experiences. It simultaneously indicates that
mystical experience can be triggered at the flip of a switch.
Commenting on the experiment, Dr. Persinger says: “…it
took little to trigger the mystical state of mind.”

Religionists habitually make claims of experiencing visions,

supernatural encounters and sensing a presence. Dr. Persinger
conducted his experiment on hundreds of individuals.

“Typically, people report a presence in the chamber - that's

very frequent…And as for the visions, well, they're context-
dependent, of course. I mean, a Catholic, for instance, is
more likely to see Mary, a Protestant will see Christ, an
Islamic, of course, Allah. Although more typically it’s less a
‘vision’ exactly, more a sense of ‘presence’ - presence,
nevertheless, usually understood by subjects as supernatural.
A small percentage see demons, ghosts, and, yes, there was
one who said the chamber should be exorcised, we'd got the
Devil in there. And, yes, we've had subjects, too, who've
clamored to be let out…”

301
These experiences were highly subjective and dictated by
several factors.

“One crucial quality is the expectancy created by the setting.

In one study we played, in the background, the theme song
from Close Encounters of the Third Kind; in another, we had
a cross hanging, slightly elevated, fifteen degrees to the left.
Not surprisingly, the content reflected the setting.”

“One time we were using a strobe and this individual saw

Christ actually in the strobe. Then there was this
transcendental meditation teacher…she experienced God in
the laboratory, visiting her…we looked at her EEG, and
there was this classic spike and slow-wave seizure over the
temporal lobe at the time of the experience - the other parts
of the brain were normal. We never told her, actually. The
reason being, of course, that not everyone can cope with that
kind of knowledge.”

Centuries of experiential techniques - including bells, scents,

meditation, praying, speaking in tongues, chanting, fasting,
dancing, potions, lotions, and drugs, hell-fire preaching and
music - that caused transcendental experiences could now be
explained scientifically and demonstrated by inducing the
brain.

His finding was not welcome by many religionists for

obvious reasons. A horde of born-again Christian terrorists
protested outside his administrative center at Laurentian
University, in Ontario, claiming that not only was he
demonic, but so too was his equipment.

302
Our brains can be tricked and stimulated to create specific
reactions.

“During the 1890s Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov was

looking at salivation in dogs in response to being fed when he
noticed that his dogs would begin to salivate whenever he
entered the room, even when he was not bringing them
food…Pavlov discovered that any object or event which the
dogs learned to associate with food (such as the lab
assistant) would trigger the same response, he realized that
he had made an important scientific discovery. Accordingly,
he devoted the rest of his career to studying this type of
learning.

In his [famous] experiment, Pavlov used a bell as his neutral

stimulus. Whenever he gave food to his dogs, he also rang a
bell. After some repeats of this procedure, he tried the bell on
its own. As you might expect, the bell on its own now caused
an increase in salivation.” ― Saul McLeod, 2007, Simple
Psychology

When you exercise your mind or body chemicals called

endorphins are released into your body that triggers positive
feelings. They reduce your perception of pain in the same
way as morphine. For example, when you go for a run or
workout you experience a ‘runners high’ which causes an
optimistic and energized stance on life.

Oxytocin is known as the ‘love hormone’ because of its role

associated with the feeling of love. It is produced in the brain
and when released into the body causes intense feelings of
love and bonding. It is commonly active during sex,
childbirth, and breastfeeding. This would explain the strong
303
bonding between couples during lovemaking and also the
bonding between mother and child at birth. During the first
six months of a romantic relationship, high levels of oxytocin
have been measured that increase romantic attachment and
empathy. It also results in a sense of relaxation and trust.
How does this apply to spiritual experiences?

Religionists will frequently speak of having a relationship

with an invisible friend – a deceased guru, religious figure or
deity. This attachment is caused by chemicals in the body that
bind you to that ‘friend’ giving you a sense of peace, and
relationship with that figure. Thoughts of your friend release
chemicals in your body replicating the initial experience, and
this is replicated by repetitive mental stimulation through
incantations, mantras, singing, chanting and other experiential
techniques. It is similar to fans of a celebrity feeling like they
know their idol. God experiences are frequently nothing more
than subjective delusions. Worst still, religionists think their
experiences automatically validate all their interpretations of
Bible passages.

Prayers, Miracles, and Coincidences

Miracles and healings are considered an evangelistic tool to
convert the heathen. Evangel-astic accounts are more than
often far-stretched tales by elitists who claim their prayers
travel from their lips to Gods' ears.

Prayer
Prayer can be beneficial. It can be relaxing and generates a
the sense of ‘doing something’ in difficult circumstances.
Being prayed for offers the feeling of being loved and cared
for and your body responds positively by releasing feel-good
chemicals.
304
In 2006 The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory
Prayer (STEP), a multi-million-dollar controlled, double-
blind investigation was conducted on the success of
intercessory prayer. It found that prayers had no results, and
the recipients of intercessory prayer fared worse. Prayer is a
huge subject and one that exposes contradictory beliefs and
practices. Claiming “prayer works” and then praying, “God's
will be done” is one such dilemma; so is knowing if you’re
supposed to pray for those about to have plastic surgery.
[humor alert].

Prayer is a gamble. Apparently you can have faith, but God

can decide it’s in your [or his] best interest not to answer.
You can lack faith, but God decides to meet your need. It’s
like through a dice with or without faith and hoping for the
best. In any case, before you pray God already knows what
you need Matthew 6:8 and I am sure God already knows if you
have faith or not.

Miracles
A miracle has been defined as, ‘an extraordinary event not
explainable by natural or scientific laws and attributed to a
divine agency.’ Stories of a miraculous nature are a dime a
dozen. What is concerning is the easy with which they are
believed by the religious. I do not deny miracles occur; rather
I am keen to take a rational and sensible approach.

Coincidence cannot simply be dismissed as an explanation

for unusual events. Coincidences occur all the time. If an
incident has a one in a million chance of taking place and, for
example, the US has a population of 300 million then there
would be 300 examples of the incident taking place. Hearing
305
about them all, or even a handful would create the impression
that a bona fide miracle had occurred.

Numerous stories circulate about prayer stopping tornados,

reported incidents have even been captured on video. Let us
examine this rationally. When a tornado appears, religionists
pray to their god for protection. Should the tornado vanish or
turn direction, each devotee will credit their god. If the prayer
goes unanswered the video footage will not be uploaded for
all to see, so we only get to hear of the rare times it appears to
work. If an experiment were filmed where twenty separate
tornados were prayed against, without fail one or more
incidents will be captured on video where the tornado
disappears or moves away. It’s what tornados naturally do.
What about the incidents when tornados supposedly relocate
after prayer and kill people in the next town? Was that God
too? Perhaps they prayed too?

When ‘miraculous’ events are reported, it’s not that the

witness is necessarily deceitful, but their recollection of the
incident is likely to be filled in and polished by previously
held beliefs. Human memory is unreliable, even more so
during traumatic or exhilarating experiences and so the mind
fills in gaps and discrepancies with familiar concepts to make
the story more fluent. A skeptic looks for evidence and rejects
anecdotal evidence since eyewitnesses can be dishonest,
mistaken and biased. Independent evidence that can be
replicated is desirable but in the case of ‘miracles’ repeatable
results are impossible. In most cases it is virtually impossible
to prove if the event was factual or not.

A Christian may hear a voice that reminds them to wear their

seatbelt and then is involved in a car accident. The incident is
306
reported as a miracle, and conveniently left out is the fact that
they had had numerous thoughts over the years reminding
them to tighten the seatbelt and no accidents occurred. This
type of selective memory and recounting of events is
common. They had a thought and claim, “The Lord said.” It
seems God speaks a lot behind closed church doors, about
trivial issues and to those not as needy as others. How about
solving global problems with a few sentences? Oh yeah, I
forgot, he works in mysterious ways.

Random natural biological extraordinary recoveries occur in

the medical world with no rhyme or reason. Cancer is a good
example, with multifaceted links between “external influence
and internal systemic dysfunction.” The universe is
excessively intricate for science to be concerned with
absolutes when dealing with systems. The probabilities of
surviving cancer maybe are thin, but survivors do beat those
slim odds. Science does not claim to have all the answers and
reasons, but that does not mean the cause was divine. The
absence of scientific explanation does not automatically lead
to supernatural justifications. The simplest explanation is
usually the correct one.

Supernaturalism
A supernaturalist possesses an insatiable thirst for the
paranormal and interprets common happenings as
supernatural occurrences. The ghost hunters interpret orbs as
ghosts [In photography, an orb is created when flash
photography illuminates a mote of dust or another particle].
Natural cloud formations are interpreted as signs from the
gods. The late Sia Baba in India had millions of devotees and
would ‘magically’ create costly jewelry by waving his hand

307
circularly – but only for affluent admirers. For the poor he
created ash.

In Christian circles spectacular reports of gold dust, gold

fillings, oil, falling gemstones and angel feathers are
common. These events are never genuinely captured on
camera, and gold is never miraculously generated for the
desperately poor. The colossal failure to materialize
ambitions for a supernatural ministry equal, if not greater,
than Jesus leads fanatics to fabricate testimonies by
exaggerating natural events and twisting tales of a miraculous
nature.

Healing
Divine healing is at times complex to confront. The
evangelist who points to an overweight individual, claiming
to know by divine revelation they suffer knee pains [of course
an overweight person has issues with their knees] is a classic
trick. There are rare complicated cases when a ‘healing’ is
unexplainable; each case is unsubstantiated since the
comprehensive investigation needed is rarely carried out. If
you are going to believe in miracles and healing, integrity and
honesty is expected.

Spurred on by the Bible, religious devotees strive to receive

healing and to heal. The Biblical text must be understood in
the light of cultural and generational differences. In ancient
times, mental illness and epilepsy were diagnosed as demon
possession. Today we know epilepsy is caused by a lack of
oxygen to the brain causing a surge of unusual electrical brain
activity, and mental illness has natural causes.

308
Oral Roberts was a leading US healing televangelist, the first
to use television as an evangelistic tool. His ministry reported
countless miraculous healings; it is interesting what he
confesses in regards to healing.

“He told me one time when he was dying that he had a

10,000 seater tent and another invalid tent where the really
terminally ill people with goiters and oxygen tanks were
brought there on stretchers, usually against their doctor's
advice. Between the end of his sermon and the altar call he
would go over to that tent and lay hands. They were smelly,
vomiting, urinating and emitting body emission. He hated it.
What bothered him the most, and this was a revelation to me,
was that no one was healed in that invalid tent.” ― Carlton
Pearson on The Robcast with Rob Bell, 2015

Derren Brown is an English illusionist, mentalist, trickster,

hypnotist, painter, writer, and skeptic. In the documentary
‘Miracles for Sale,’ he trained a volunteer over six months
how to impersonate a Christian healing evangelist. When this
fake preacher prayed for strangers on the street, they claimed
to be healed of various ailments. A fictitious service was even
conducted, and unsuspecting audience members claimed they
experienced the supernatural. The whole event was staged to
illustrate the psychological nature of supernatural claims.

Psychosomatic Healing
Numerous illnesses are considered to be psychosomatic, in
others words they are caused mentally due to stress and
anxiety. It is accepted that the body and mind are connected,
both influence each other. This correlation is observable in
tears where what you feel causes a liquid to be released.

309
Blushing is also another example where a physical change
occurs due to embarrassment or happiness [emotions].

Guilt, fear, conflict, worry, and other negative energies

trigger chemical imbalances in the body that lead to health
issues. Peace, joy, happiness, compassion, empathy and other
positive energies trigger chemical releases that heighten your
sense of well-being by activating protective mechanisms in
the body. Thoughts can affect the body. The mind can cause
illness and restore the body to health.

Placebo Effect
The placebo effect, also recognized as the placebo response,
is when the mind affects the body by tricking it; a patient is
prescribed bogus medication without their knowledge, yet
reports improvements in health.

“A remarkable phenomenon in which a placebo -- a fake

treatment, an inactive substance like sugar, distilled water,
or saline solution - can sometimes improve a patient's
condition simply because the person has the expectation that
it will be helpful.” ― medicinenet.com

The UK National Health Service website explains the validity

of the placebo effect.

“For hundreds of years, doctors have known that when a

patient with a health condition expects their symptoms to
improve, they often do improve… The placebo effect is an
example of how our expectations and beliefs can cause real
change in our physical bodies. It’s a phenomenon that we
don’t completely understand. But we can see it working in all
kinds of ways, and all kinds of circumstances.” ― Nhs.uk
310
The site then details an experiment:

“In 1996, scientists assembled a group of students and told

them that they were going to take part in a study of a new
painkiller, called ‘trivaricaine.' Trivaricaine was a brown
lotion to be painted on the skin and smelled like a medicine.
But the students were not told that, in fact, trivaricaine
contained only water, iodine, and thyme oil – none of which
are painkilling medicines. It was a fake – or placebo –
painkiller…With each student, the trivaricaine was painted
on one index finger, and the other left untreated. In turn,
each index finger was squeezed in a vice. The students
reported significantly less pain in the treated finger, even
though trivaricaine was a fake…In this example, expectation
and belief produced real results. The students expected the
"medicine" to kill pain: and, sure enough, they experienced
less pain. This is the placebo effect…Experiencing the
placebo effect is not the same as being "tricked", or being
foolish. The effect can happen to everyone, however
intelligent, and whether they know about the placebo effect or
not.” ― www.nhs.uk, Placebo Effect

The placebo effect can take place in highly charged

atmospheres where healings and miracles are expected. The
mind and body respond to feelings by secreting remedial
chemicals that cause positive outcomes. Frequently after the
event, the pain returns. It’s like a thief being pursued by a
Rottweiler dog; adrenalin is secreted into the bloodstream
increasing muscle strength and the thief leaps over a 10ft wall
they would not be able to under normal circumstances.

Healing or Medication?
311
It is not uncommon to hear healing reports where an
individual has received prayer and antibiotics, surgery,
chemotherapy, radiation or other medical attention. The
obvious conclusion is that the recovery was due to medical
intervention, but religionists will credit prayer. Even with
some terminal illnesses, remission can be achieved in a high
percentage of cases if diagnosed and treated early enough.
Healing reports usually withhold or conveniently overlook
key points of the story to favor a miraculous healing
interpretation.

Imagine if you could only select one of two options: If your

child was terminally ill with hours to live and surgery would
save their life, would you confidently choose surgery based
on the latest scientific knowledge [and no prayer] or prayer
alone? Or if you were drowning and dragged from the sea,
would you want the mouth to mouth resuscitation or prayer
alone?

We naturally turn to a medical specialist when unwell. The

prayer you whisper before you visit them is purely to soothe
your conscience. Religionists opt for the scientific method
and cover up the nakedness of religion with the bankrupt
verbal claim, ‘man does his part, but God orchestrates.’ As I
said, if you had to select one, which one would you
confidently pick?

Why does God hate amputees?

It is remarkable that there are ample reports of healings from
numerous ailments, yet stories of amputees regaining missing
limbs are lacking. Stories of tumors being ‘healed’ are a dime
a dozen, but tumors naturally go into reverse. I’m sure you
would agree that veteran amputees deserve a free miracle.
312
Can not the God who created Salamanders, amphibians that
can grow back missing body parts, heal amputees with the
ease he heals other conditions?

(By the way, governments are spending millions on human

limb regeneration research. No doubt in the future they will
crack the code by studying Salamanders and awakening the
genes in humans that contain the potential to regenerate
limbs. In 2005 a man in Cincinnati, Ohio re-grew a fingertip
he accidently sliced off.)

A humorous story is told of an evangelist thunderously

proclaiming Gods ability to heal. Standing before a huge
crowd, he confidently points to a wheelchair-bound man in
the front row with a blanket neatly spread over his legs, “God
is going to heal you, and you will walk today!” The preacher
assertively marches towards the excited man, reaching for the
blanket he declares, “Rise and walk!” as he strips the blanket
off, only to reveal that that man was a double amputee!
Stunned in disbelief, he gently replaced the blanket, walking
away subdued, leaving the amputee confused.

The ‘leg growing’ miracle is a common trick. It is

suspiciously noteworthy that a good number of faith healers
promote this particular ‘healing,’ one that is easily performed
by stage magicians. In Christian healing, it is performed in
various ways, including slightly pulling out one shoe from the
heel, and another is stretching one leg further than the other
and through the power of suggestion encourage the
participant to draw their leg in by adjusting the position of the
hip. It is possible that the faith healer is unaware of the
mechanics of this ‘miracle.’ In most cases a random
individual is informed [through divine knowledge] they have
313
a short leg when in fact their legs are of equal length; this
later helps to confirm the miracle.

Astonishingly, the gullible are still duped by this trick in this

day and age. Faith healers claim results when praying with
the boldness of a lion for short legs to ‘physically grow’ yet
healing missing limbs, or short finger is conveniently
overlooked. If a leg can easily grow, why not a leg with a
stump? Believers are reluctant to ask these questions. Excuses
abound, video footage of amputee healings do not. The few
accounts or videos that exist are vague and pathetic.

Isn’t 100% Faith sufficient?

Listening to Christian teaching, the impression I’m left with
is that the level at which God uses you is determined by the
‘cleaner your vessel,’ is, coupled with the degree of faith you
have. So if your ‘relationship with God’ is so genuine, why
not dedicate yourself to God completely and demonstrate
what you believe instead presenting endless topical lectures?
If your belief system is so wonderful, why don’t you believe
it 100% and produce outstanding miracles to dazzle the
world? Is your inability a selfish choice you are making not to
have 100% faith?

Brutal honesty would force admission by the religionist that

they have not witnessed the kind of physical healings and
miracles they passionately yearn to, and what they have
witnessed is typically debatable and explainable – unverified
miracle reports from distant lands are not evidence. They
continue to chase the carrot dangled before them in hot
pursuit of the miraculous.

314
When questioned regarding a healing that did not transpire
the religionists either becomes elusive or blames themselves
or the healing candidate for a lack of faith. Did they believe
in Jesus Christ 100%? If so, is 100% faith in Jesus not
sufficient to guarantee a healing? If not, what is the
requirement? It is telling that major healing evangelists like
T.L. Osborn and Oral Roberts admit they do not understand
why some people are not healed.

Would you accept the challenge to pray for fifty [certified]

blind individuals on Live television? Would you take up the
challenge or invent convenient excuses why it is not
‘biblical’ to consent to the challenge? A few brave, but brash,
Christians would hastily agree to the challenge, but I think we
know the outcome. I am reminded of the two church leaders
who marched self-confidently to a home to raise a deceased
man from the dead. Up the stairs they went, barging into the
bedroom and straight to the bed where the dead man was
covered with a white sheet. They ripped off the white sheet
with firm belief, but at the sight of a pale, lifeless body with
cotton wool stuffed up his nostril and ears their expressions
switched to a nervous countenance as their faith drained from
them. After a quick glance at each other, the sheet was
replaced, and they turned and hastily exited the home.

Near Death Experiences

Sincere individuals have made abundant claims of Near-
Death Experiences (NDE's) throughout history and across the
world, not just by the religious but by a diverse range of
cultures, age groups, genders, socio-economic groups and
religious or philosophical traditions.

315
[This website www.ndevideos.com lists many videos from various
faiths and those of no faith who have experienced Near Death
Experiences. Many of these experiences contradict Christian
versions].

As we will see, near death experiences are more likely the

result of brain activity than genuine paranormal experiences.
Interestingly, when people fall from high buildings they
experience, on the way down, identical experiences as those
who have ‘died’, yet they have not died yet. It seems the
brain goes into autopilot mode before they hit the ground.

Surprisingly, Christians are the chief promoters for NDE’s,

yet the Bible fails to provide even a single example of such
an experience. The story of Lazarus and the rich man
illustrates that NDE’s are a method rejected by God. The one
time a request is made to send someone from the dead to the
living to warn them of the after-life the request is rejected by
God. Luke 16:31. The resurrection stories in the Bible contain no
testimonials of details from the afterlife similar to modern
and historical NDE’s. The resurrection of Jesus does not
qualify as an NDE.

Many of the accounts are subjective and intensely emotional.

NDEs often lead to profound, long-term changes in lives of
those that live to tell the tale similar to the way a vivid dream
can impact our decisions when we awaken. Fundamental
changes occur including becoming less materialistic, and
noticeably more unselfish, compassionate and affectionate. In
some cases, they lose the fear of death.

Scientific Research

316
Scientific studies in the study of the NDE phenomenon is still
in its infancy, but attracting increased scientific attention. A
scientific study is difficult because the self-reporting of
subjective experiences does not provide entirely reliable data.
With technological advances and higher rates of
resuscitations, reports of near-death experiences are
increasingly more frequent. It is not unusual for people to be
hesitant to make public their experience for fear being
misunderstood or taunted.

In 2010 psychologist Dr. Natasha Tassell-Matamua and

sociologist Dr. Mary Murray carried out New Zealand's first
major study into NDEs. Over 600 came forward with stories
of NDEs. In 2015, they published their findings.

A common feature was travel down a tunnel with a white

light at the end. Fascinatingly, many of experiences occurred
following a major trauma, on the operating table or during a
heart attack.

NDEs occur irrespective of religious beliefs, or lack of them.

According to their findings, a substantial number with prior
religious faith reformed their beliefs following an NDE, some
agnostics and atheists also reported the same.

“People who were agnostic or atheist were very surprised by

the nature of their experience,’ says Mary Murray. ‘It seems
that having a religious background does not necessarily
color the nature of your experience. So you might have been
brought up an Anglican or a Muslim, but the beings or
entities that you see might bear no resemblance to what your
religious tradition might have taught you.”

317
 ― Mary Murray, The Massey University

The question of NDE’s is complex and emotionally charged.

To some, it is proof of an afterlife and to others is just another
neurological study. Explanations for NDEs include oxygen
deficiency, neurochemical or psychological causes, and
religious beliefs.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if near-death experiences actually

provide some sense of, or pointer to, consciousness existing
beyond the body, or the possibility of it. But I don’t think that
cancels out the medical questions or arguments or the
psychological ones.” ― Mary Murray, The Massey University

Scientists don’t claim to understand fully the brain and

consciousness, but scientific explanations are plausible.
When NDEs are viewed through a scientific lens, it offers a
more rational explanation. Studies on the link between the
mind and brain during clinical death using technology to
measure brain activity are revealing interesting results. At
death, the brain is more active.

One important study on NDEs comes from the University of

Kentucky. They concluded that NDEs may be REM
intrusion. REM intrusion occurs when the mind awakens
before the body, and this can trigger hallucinations.

“Because REM intrusion happens in the brainstem, it's

possible for this to occur even when higher-functioning parts
of the brain have gone dead. Building on this research,
trauma to the brain can result in a sensory mix-up. As your
brain struggles to stay alive, all of that chaos results in an
information overload in the visual cortex. This is known to
318
produce visions of a bright light or a dark tunnel. The brain
also releases a flood of happy endorphins which put you in a
profound state of peace and calm. And because your brain is
responsible for orienting your body relative to everything
around you, trauma and oxygen deprivation can cause a sort
of out of body experience.” ― DNews

Humans are wired the same way, and so similarities in

experiences are not unusual – tunnels, lights and feelings of
peace and tranquillity are expected as common experiences.
NDEs are most likely just that, near death, not actual death.
Our brains go through the same basic process as we near
death, but that process can be colored by our preconceived
personal beliefs.

A study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences on

rats discovered that cardiac arrest was followed by a massive
rise in brain activity. The lead author of the study states, “If
anything, the brain is much more active during the dying
process than even the waking state.” The brain goes into
overdrive, possibly malfunctioning, causing intense
sensations and hallucinations similar to vivid dreams, but
vastly more intense, that leave us confused when we awaken
as to whether what we dreamt was real or not. Dreams can
appear to be very real, and NDE’s are even more intense and
appear realer.

Ketamine is a drug that generates all the features of an NDE,

simply by injecting it into the living. It would seem then that
NDEs are a chemically induced side effect experience the
brain enters triggered by a lack of oxygen to the brain. For
this reason, NDEs are not indisputable evidence for an
afterlife or the existence of God.
319
Contradictions
Supporters of NDEs as proof of the afterlife provide
explanations that ignore contradictions between accounts.
What is extremely telling is that NDE’s accounts invariably
agree with the person’s particular religious views or their
memory of information related to religion. Muslims will see
Islamic characters and symbols; a Hindu will see religious
deities and personalities they are familiar with and those from
other faiths will see imagery that is consistent with their
religious views. People will even have experiences that
contradict their faith. In a desperate attempt to validate
personal religious views accounts are biased and interpreted
to fit personal beliefs.

There are numerous accounts of people being taken into

heaven and hell and then being granted a return ticket to this
life with an assignment to warn the living of the afterlife and
the need to accept Jesus Christ. Interestingly, those with no
faith in Jesus Christ are reported as inhabitants of paradise.
How could this be? Accounts contradict each other in
numerous other ways making them extremely unreliable. The
famous ’23 Minutes in Hell’ account is self-contradictory and
contradicts the Bible itself.

Outside of western culture, NDEs are given comparatively

little if any publicity. Studies have been carried out to
examine NDEs in non-Western cultures to discover the
influence of socio-cultural factors in NDEs.

“In one study carried out in 1985, the experiences of 16

Asian Indians had been compared with those of Americans
and it had been found that the Indians had often encountered
320
Yamraj, the Hindu king of the dead, while the Americans had
not.

The largest cross-cultural study had been carried out in 1977

by Osis and Haraldsson and had focused more on deathbed
visions. These are the experiences that people have before
death, usually in the 24 hours prior to death, and they are
different from the classic NDE phenomenon… In this study,
the researchers had examined the visions of approximately
440 terminally ill American and Indian patients as described
to their doctors and nurses. The most common feature, which
occurred in 91 percent of cases, was seeing deceased
relatives. In 140 cases there were reports of seeing religious
figures, usually described as an angel or God. Where these
were specifically identified, they were always described
according to the person’s religious beliefs: no Hindu
reported seeing Jesus, and no Christian a Hindu deity.”
― Horizon Research, UK

Though culture and religious beliefs play a huge role in many

NDEs other studies, have shown that this is not the case in
every NDEs. Another study concluded that there are
similarities and differences in NDEs. The differences were
attributed to, “…people’s interpretation and verbalizing of
such events through the filters of language, cultural
experiences, religion, education and their influence on their
belief systems.” (Belanti J, et al., Transcult Psychiatry. 2008 Mar; 45(1):121-33.)

Research has also been carried on the influence of

personality on NDEs. Studies indicate those who experienced
an NDE were more likely to have had prior mystical

321
experiences, but this may have been due to the fact they were
more likely to admit to an experience of this nature.

In his book ‘Proof of Heaven’ Dr. Eben Alexander, a

renowned academic neurosurgeon documents his Near Death
Experience after spending a week in a coma. The book sold
over 2 million copies. Science has discredited his story. The
book contains various discrepancies and seems to support
teachings that contradict mainstream Christianity. One
discrepancy is his account of how he ended up in a coma. He
claims he was in a coma caused by “E. coli bacterial
meningitis.” There is an incriminating testimony by the
emergency physician who was on duty in the ER at
Lynchburg General Hospital, when Dr. Alexander arrived in
hospital on the morning of November 10, 2008. It calls into
question his account. Dr. Laura Potter, who had known and
worked with Dr. Alexander in the past, clarifies that she “had
to make the decision just to place him in a chemically
induced coma.” The book fails to mention this, instead
claiming the coma was due to bacterial meningitis. It fails to
mention the coma was maintained by physicians in the ICU
using anesthetics.

Dr. Alexander claims he was present “in body alone,” and

that the bacteria had left him with an “all-but-destroyed
brain.” He states that the general scientific understanding is
that, “if you don't have a working brain, you can't be
conscious.” He claims his recollections were not
hallucinations since his brain was not capable of generating a
hallucinatory conscious experience.

Dr. Potter was asked if the state Dr. Alexander was in when
they weaned him off his anesthetics during the first few days
322
of coma would meet her classification of conscious. She
replies, “Yes, conscious but delirious.”

Luke Dittrich, Esquires, investigated the account:

“In interviews in the piece, Alexander asks Esquire's Dittrich

not to bring up the discrepancies in his story.”
― Esther Zuckerman, The Wire

Dr. Potter did not have time to read the book before being
questioned. At the time of her account to Dittrich, she did not
realize her account contradicted Dr. Alexander's.

“Potter hasn't read Proof of Heaven, although she did get an

advance look at a few passages. About a year after his
recovery, Alexander approached Potter at a track meet that
both of their sons were competing in and told her that he'd
started writing a book and that he wanted her to take a look
at some parts in which he described her thought processes in
the emergency room. He wanted, he said, to ‘make sure that
you're okay with what I've done.’ He later e-mailed the
passages to her, and when she read them, she found that they
were ‘sort of what a doctor would think, but not exactly what
was going through my head.’ She told him so, and according
to Potter, he responded that it was a matter of ‘artistic
license,’ and that aspects of his book were ‘dramatized, so it
may not be exactly how it went, but it's supposed to be
interesting for readers.’”
― Luke Dittrich, Esquires

In Dr. Alexander’s book, he claims that he shouted three

words before leaving the emergency room – “God help me!”

323
He claims the words ‘were crystal clear, and heard by all the
doctors and nurses.’ Dr. Potter has no memory of hearing the
plea. According to Dittrich, “What she does remember is that
she had intubated Alexander more than an hour before his
departure from the emergency room, snaking a plastic tube
down his throat, through his vocal cords, and into his
trachea.” When asked if she could ‘imagine her intubated
patient being able to speak at all, let alone in a crystal-clear
way?’ she replied, “No.”

(Summarized from an Esquire investigation and The Wire)

How did he scream “crystal clear” words with a tube down

his throat? Upon examination stories like these are found
wanting. Another such example is that of Alex Malarkey aged
six who after a car crash in 2004 had claimed he visited
heaven and met Jesus while in a coma for two months. His
extraordinary story was first published in 2010 in a best-
selling book ‘The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven.’ The
book made the New York Times Bestsellers List.

Before Alex confessing, Beth Malarkey earlier proposed that

the story had been concocted. Alex eventually wrote an open
letter to publishers admitting he had invented the story: “I
said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me
attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read
the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to.”

Beth Malarkey insists the family receive no royalties from the

sale of the book. Alex is severely physically challenged and
cared for by his mother at their home in Columbus, Ohio. She
explains that Alex admitted to a pastor that the book was
make-believe and that his response was that the publication
324
was “blessing' people and to stay quiet.” Even though Alex
has retracted his testimony, the publisher continues to profit
from sales of the book.

Fundamentalists may claim other NDE stories are true, but

had they heard the testimonies of Dr. Eben Alexander and
Alex Malarkey at the time they would have been adamant
they were factual, perhaps even claiming, ‘God confirmed to
them they were true.’

The purpose of examining these two accounts is not merely to

be cynical but to demonstrate we must listen to these stories
with a pinch of salt. NDEs cannot be used as conclusive
evidence of the afterlife. The focus on the afterlife devalues
life now. This life is very precious, value it.

Conclusion
Those who are hostile towards science bite the hand the feeds
them. Science is not the enemy; it’s the best friend you have.
A sensible approach to spirituality will bridge the gap
between religion and science and hopefully result in healthier
versions of a religion founded on beneficial life principles
and not superstition.

Cynicism is not the intention of this writing; rather I

encourage skepticism to avoid gullibility. All would agree
there is an abundance of charlatans preying on the gullibility
of the naïve. What is seldom acknowledged is that gullibility
is all too common in religious communities. There are plenty
of skeptics who are theists, but they do not apply their
skepticism to their personal beliefs. Intellectual honesty
demands we be willing to go where the evidence
uncomfortably leads.
325
Stimulants can induce transcendental experiences, and
religion tends to overstimulate. Religion has too many
inherent uncertainties that influence perceptions, making it
highly suspect.

Religion is inherently dishonest since unverified beliefs are

more important than verifiable evidence and truth is less
important that what people believe or experience, however,
bizarre those ideas or experiences are. When a community
shares similar views and experiences, they have a pressing
need to structure all these experiences and beliefs into a
system of moral codes and explanations to better understand
and explain the world. These societal and community beliefs
become solidified and more elaborate over time making it
harder to break free from them. I strict rational approach is
the only way to break free. The best mind-altering drug is
truth.

326
 Chapter Seven
The Fuzzy History of Christianity
"Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called
into being are first called useful; then they become necessary.
At last, they are too often made idols, and all must bow down
to them or be punished.”
― J. C. Ryle

Virtually all Christians have poor knowledge of Church

history. I am not a historian or expert in Church history, so at
best I want to offer a brief outline to show that Christianity is
a sectarian human construct and not an unchanging
institution. Christian apologist’s present biased revisionist
history when explaining church history to validate their
interpretations. Historical amnesia, or rather ignorance and
arrogance, creates the fallacy of absolute certainty regarding
the myth of historic orthodox Christianity. History reveals
that ‘orthodox Christianity’ is an oxymoron.

The story of Christianity is not one of a static religion but a

movement that has evolved over time. Its early history is
blurred in historical ambiguity. History is such, the further
back you travel the increasingly challenging it becomes to
validate the records, and you don’t have to venture too far
before it becomes misty. What is known is that a variety of
Christian factions existed in the early years of Christianity.

Every generation considers its conclusions as accurate, views

shaped by the worldview of that era. The distance between
the early church and modern Christianity creates frustrating
uncertainty. Modern Christianity is not automatically
327
identical to the past. Today, certain doctrines have become
the certification of authenticity, in the past believing other
doctrines where the litmus test of authenticity. The generation
you lived in or the denomination you are influenced by
determines the doctrines you must believe to certify the
legitimacy of your Christian faith.

Origin of Christianity
The transition of what we know as Christianity from groups
that gathered in homes to the massive sectarian, exclusive and
elite club it is today is a route filled with twists and turns. To
research, it is a thrilling investigation, especially when we
examine the pagan roots of many of the practices that have
become norms. In antiquity religious beliefs evolved in an
environment of easy-to -maintain ignorance within primitive
societies.

There were several different religious groups in Palestine at

the time of Jesus with each holding to their brand of Judaism.
The Pharisees were the most prominent group within first-
century Judaism. By the time Jesus came on the scene these
groups had their set of rules in addition to the Torah; a list of
finer detailed rules of what Jews should and should not do,
rules that covered every area of life. Their goal was to protect
the Torah and make sure it was properly adhered to. The
problem was they considered the Jewish Holy Scriptures to
be equal to their traditions. Requirements for strict adherence
reached a point where following the law was more
burdensome that it previously was. It was at this stage Jesus
is introduced into the story, as a rule, breaker and the creator
of religious tension. Until he came, they were the dominant
religious force. This version is the Biblical version of the

328
story. Historically there were different types of the Pharisees;
not all were evil hypocrites they are portrayed as in the Bible.

The first adherents were mainly Jewish converts. By the end

of the first century, primitive Christianity was increasingly
gentile. As early as 200 BC, there were Pagan worshippers of
Serapis that referred to themselves ‘Christians.’ When the
pagan Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in AD
312, he established Christianity as a recognized religion. The
majority of converts following this legislation were pagans.
The bulk of the geographical Empire he reigned considered
themselves Christians by around AD 500. During this period,
Christianity adopted many pagan practices and concepts
which were gradually Christianized – pagan practices and
concepts wrapped in Christian wrapping paper. Today these
traditions have become so normalized and entrenched that to
question them has grim consequences. Pagan influences on
Christianity abound – for example, Sun-day was the day the
sun was venerated; Mon-day is the day the moon was
worshiped.

The origins of the title ‘Christian.'

One of the names for the followers of Jesus in the Book of
Acts is “the disciples.” The literal meaning of the Greek word
for disciple is ‘a learner.’ Another term for Christians in Acts
is “the brethren.” Since Christians believed they had the
same heavenly Father it was natural, they considered
themselves a family, something many cults did at the time
and still do.

It is interesting to note how critics referred to the followers of

Jesus. Frequently such names were meant to be derogatory.
The title “Christian” originally may have meant to have been
329
insulting. According to the Bible, it was at Antioch that the
disciples were for the first referred to as Christians Acts 11:26.
The title Christian seems to have been a sarcastic name the
followers of Christ were branded with by the mocking
Antiochians. Perhaps they mistook the Greek word Christos,
[meaning “the anointed one” a phrase which they would not
have been so acquainted with] with the more familiar Greek
word Chréstos, which at that time was pronounced exactly as
Christos. Chréstos meant ‘mild, kindly, good.’ It was
typically used to ridicule, with the undertone of being
‘simple’ or ‘silly,’ somewhat like the expression, “He is
goody-two-shoes.” It is more likely that it carried this
insulting, sarcastic sense in the minds of the citizens of
Antioch. Appendix 1

In due course ‘Christian’ was accepted as the official label.

The title has been branded in the minds of modern followers
of Jesus and if anyone opts not to be identified by the label
they are spiritually criminalized.

What did the early church look like?

The study of church history can be eye opening. The early
church was not identical to modern Christianity. Firstly, they
did not all carry Bibles and refer to themselves as Christians.
If the reader were to travel in a time machine, they would be
alarmed by the make-up of the early church.

Hell
It might come as a surprise to learn that the early Christians,
or, at least, the majority, did not believe in a never ending
place of punishment for unbelievers but instead taught a
temporary place of correction. This is not according to my
opinion, but church historians and according to the early
330
church father St Augustine (354-430 CE). His mother, a
staunch Christian, evicted him from her home. It was not
because he refused to marry the women he impregnated, but
because of his conversion to a Manichean Gnostic, which he
later renounced. He first championed the teaching of eternal
torment. In his popular writing, ‘The City of God’ he makes
an interesting point:

"There are very many [imo quam plurimi, can be translated

majority] who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not
believe in endless torments."
― Enchiria, ad Laurent. c.29

The chief proponent of eternal hell admits that many, and

possibly the majority, of believers in his time did not teach as
he did that hell was never ending place of torment, nor did
they deny the Scriptures by a believing hell was a temporary
place of correction and remedy. This admission is
astonishing.

Numerous others also confirm that the majority did not

believe in never ending punishment.

“I know that most persons understand by the story of

Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil
and all rational creatures.”
― St. Jerome (342-420), author of the Vulgate Latin Bible from which
the King James Bible was translated

Augustine’s error seems to have arisen from his lack of

knowledge of the Greek language. He attempted to study it
but admitted he hated it. It is his misunderstanding of the
331
Greek words translated as ‘hell’ and ‘eternal’ that paved the
way for never ending torment to become the majority belief.

Initially, he considered even unbaptized babies doomed for

never ending punishment. He later altered his view and stated
they would be taken to the ‘upper levels’ of hell. Augustine is
the inventor of the concept of purgatory.

Augustine recognized those who believed ‘all will be saved,'

commonly known today as Universalist, and referred to them
as “tender-hearted,” going even as far as to speak of them as
orthodox. Only one out of the six early Church theology
schools believed in never-ending torment.

“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six
theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch,
Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one
(Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage
or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other
theological schools are mentioned as founded by
Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not
known.”

― The Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) Schaff-

Herzog, volume 12, page 96

According to experts, John Calvin and Martin Luther (an

Augustinian monk), the two leading reformers in
Protestantism, well-regarded St Augustine. John Calvin was
the most influential in restoring Augustine’s teaching on
predestination. This teaching advocated the idea that God
foreordained the vast majority of humankind to be damned to
never ending torment with no option to choose otherwise.
332
The teaching on hell went to extremes with some exponents
teaching that believers will rejoice and laugh when they see
unbelievers tortured in flames since the will of God was
accomplished in that suffering.

Augustine said, “They who shall enter into [the] joy [of the
Lord] shall know what is going on outside in the outer
darkness...The Saints’...knowledge, which shall be great,
shall keep them acquainted...with the eternal sufferings of the
lost.”

[The City of God, Book 20, Chapter 22, “What is Meant by the
Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked” & Book
22, Chapter 30, “Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of
the Perpetual Sabbath”]

When Martin Luther was questioned regarding whether

believers would be distressed at the sight of their loved ones
being tortured in hell his response is alarming. He replied,
“Not in the least.” Other respected church leaders held
similar views.

“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardor
of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.” ― Jonathan
Edwards

“What bliss will fill the ransomed souls, When they in glory
dwell, To see the sinner as he rolls, In quenchless flames of
hell.”
― Isaac Watts - 1674-1748, popular hymn writer,
Including ‘At the Cross’ and ‘When I Survey the Wondrous Cross.'
333
 "...love and pity for hell's occupants will not enter our
hearts."
― J.I. Packer, ‘Hell's Final Enigma’ Christianity Today Magazine, April
22, 2002

It is evident in church history that there were various views

about hell, ranging from a temporary place of correction to
never ending torture. In modern day, Christianity, the
majority of those who accept the concept of never ending
punishment will cast-off anyone who disagrees.

Note: The Old Testament never mentions the concept of

never ending punishment of hell, though they were aware of
such beliefs held by pagans.

“The Jews have a book, written during the Babylonian

Captivity, entitled Gemara Babylonicum, containing
doctrines entertained by Pagans concerning the future state
not recognized by the followers of Moses.”

― J.W. Hanson, D.D. The Bible Hell, 4th Edition

The Jews did not accept these pagan concepts until after the
Babylonian captivity.
Following that time, some Jews wrote the ‘Apocrypha,’ a
non-biblical text, which borrowed notions of hell from
Persian religion, Zoroastrianism. This text is not found in the
Hebrew Scriptures though it was later incorporated into the
Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) which the early church
used. This then became one of the gateways the modern
concept of hell initially infiltrated Christianity from pagans
334
who believed hell was a location under our feet. The
fingerprints of paganism are all over the fundamentalist
religious concept of hell.

The Trinity
Today in most Christian circles, belief in the Trinity has
become the deciding factor in determining who is or is not a
heretic. The church Father Tertullian155-240AD, known as ‘the
father of the Trinity,' was the first to use the word ‘trinity.’ In
his writing against a believer in modalism, the belief that God
is not a Trinity and that Jesus was the one, God, Tertullian
refers to those believers in his writing ‘Against Praxeas’ AD 200
as, “The simple, (indeed, I will not call them unwise and
unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers”;
and states the doctrine was “everywhere.” Here we have a
Trinitarian admitting that the majority of believers in his time
were not Trinitarian. He was not the only one who admitted
this or something similar.

The following quotes are from, Oneness and Trinity AD 100

- 300, By D. K. Bernard:

Hippolytus170- 225 penned an equivalent statement: “no one is

ignorant” of the doctrine; it ‘prevailed’ for a time.

Novatian200- 258 a scholar, priest and theologian spoke of non-

Trinitarians and referred to them as “many heretics”; and
“very many heretics.”

Origen, who died 254 AD, was a scholar and early Christian
Theologian mentioned non-Trinitarian believers as, “the
general run of Christian”; “many who are sincerely

335
concerned about religion”; “scholars”; “the great multitude
of those who are counted believers”; “some individuals.”

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria 296-373 AD referring to non-

Trinitarians states they were “So successful”; and that the
Trinitarian doctrine of the Son “was scarcely any longer
preached in the churches.”

Apparently not all Christians have believed in the Trinity and

at one time no one did. Later the majority did not and this has
evolved to the current status with the majority believing in
the, at least, five versions of the Trinity.

Let’s ‘go’ to church

It may surprise you to know there is no such thing as a holy
building in the New Testament. The idea of a holy building,
labeled a ‘church’ in modern vocabulary, is widely accepted
today. These structures are treated with reverence. The
concept that the building is akin to “standing on holy
ground” is a later development and not a concept the early
Christians would have been familiar. The term ‘Church’
gradually came to refer to a building. Today’s obsession with
grand buildings side tracks from the superior purpose of the
serving humanity. The standard definition of ‘church’ has
been so engrafted into our vocabulary that it is a struggle re-
educating the mind to think otherwise.

Biblically, the church is individuals that form the entity

known as the church. In the Greek New Testament, the word
commonly used for ‘church’ is ekklesia, which occurs one
hundred fourteen times in seventeen of the twenty-seven
books.

336
During the first century Christians would gather together for
worship in the homes of local members see Rom. 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col.
4:15; Philem.2
. The early followers met in homes and archeology
has unearthed homes from that period that had been
remodeled to accommodate a large group. Eventually,
separate buildings were set up for the specific purpose of
Christian worship. It was Clement of Alexandra 150-215 is said
to have first used the word ‘ekklesia’ to refer to a gathering
venue. The origins of the phrase ‘going to church’ is also
attributed to him.

Emperor Constantine became the leader of the Roman

Empire in AD 324. His conversion to Christianity is
considered by many to have been a political decision to side
with the ever growing Christian population. He commanded
the building of Christian worship centers throughout the
Roman Empire to validate this growing religious group.
Around AD 321 he established Sunday as a rest day and this
day became an official holiday. Sunday was described as the
“day of the Sun.” Could it be that his purpose was to honor
the god Mithras, the Unconquered Sun?

Hundreds of millions ritualistically hike each Sunday to

‘church’ fearfully fulfilling a duty imposed on them by the
hierarchy who are oblivious to the origins of this drill. Their
practice is rooted in the false concept that church is an event
and building. The religious mindset will not permit them to
treat the building like any other building.

The obsessive pursuit of church buildings has led numerous

churches into debt. Billions have been spent on buildings
rather than humanitarian projects. Visualize the revolution if
buildings and weekly spiritual orgies were not the focus but
337
rather humanitarian outreaches that touched the lives of those
in need. Instead inviting them to a building, go out to them.

This redefinition does not mean that community is

unnecessary or not beneficial. My point is that Christianity
has shifted its focus from serving to gathering in buildings;
this is the focal point in most church communities, where
many buildings are virtually empty and costly. Numerous
other traditions have stemmed from obsessions with church
buildings.

The Art of Sermons

The majority of sermons I hear today are tedious and dull.
Religious mumbo jumbo is paraded as divine utterance. One
person speaks the rest endure. Instead of lively dialogue with
the audience, where they are permitted to ask questions, the
typical prim and proper or hyped sermon is predictable,
unchallenging and is habitually preceded by spiritual foreplay
referred to as praise and worship. The instructor is not
permitted to travel outside the blurred boundaries of
orthodoxy. This oratory ritual has become the orgasmic
climax of the gathering.

The modern day concept of ‘sermons’ does not originate in

Christian scripture. During the early years of sermonizing,
Clement of Alexandria 150-215 grumbled that the sermons of his
day were unproductive. By the fourth century, sermons
became customary in gatherings amongst followers of Christ.

Modern sermons are propaganda. They are allergic to

anything new and steer clear of relevant controversial topics.
Traditional preachers play safe and regurgitate the official
statement of faith clothed in rearranged repeats of earlier
338
happy-clappy sermons – “Keep ‘em happy to keep ’em
coming.”

Fanatical preachers who relish hearing their voice and force

others to endure it should be stoned with paper balls made
from torn Bible pages; only the choir wants to hear them.
These expert rhetoricians deliver sermons that are mentally
taxing, instead of intellectually stimulating.

The idea of having special seating for clergy and speakers has
its origins in paganism. So too does the practice of clergy
wearing special clothing. Pulpits are also pagan in origin and
have now become part of the church furniture. In my mind,
there is nothing wrong with this. Selling these concepts as
divine is the crime.

Is Christianity a Religion?
Modern Christianity is pretty much a modern variant of what
it was centuries ago. Though Christianity is a religion, a tiny
minority attempt to reclassify it as a relationship. I once used
to employ this elitist play on words when in fact what I was
promoting was a religious relationship. Religion is a very
slippery word with a spectrum of definitions.

Christianity consists of creeds, holy books, set moral codes,

origin myths, prayers, prophecies, rituals and many other
things that make up religion. The Bible confirms that it is a
religion.

“RELIGION that God our Father accepts as pure and

faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their
distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the
world” James 1:27
339
Misunderstanding of the word ‘religion’ is so warped that
atheism is frequently accused of being of being a religion.
When a Christian labels atheism a religion, then claim not to
be religious, it is known as ‘projection’ in psychology.

“Projection is the psychological phenomenon where

someone denies some aspect of their behavior or attitudes
and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so.”

If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hairstyle. If atheism

is a religion, then OFF is a TV channel. Atheism does not
have a singular definition; one thing it is not is a religion.
Religion requires faith and faith is ‘belief without evidence.’
Atheists demand evidence.

What has Christianity become?

Modern Christianity is a unique structure on the religious
landscape. It is a humungous monster fragmented into
multiple expressions; each convinced beyond a shadow of a
doubt that they are preaching ‘the full gospel’ – the majority
petrified to change, enhance or evolve their beliefs. Primarily
what we have today is a gulf between two predominate
approaches - conservative and liberal Christianity. One
possesses a fundamentalist mentality, the other a progressive
one.

David Barrett, a statistical editor for World Christian

Encyclopaedia Barrett, Kurian, Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2001 ,
counts 33,820 denominations within Christendom. The
Centre for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-
Conwell Theological Seminary estimated that the numbers
would rise to 43,000 by 2012. The numbers have swelled
340
considerably since 1900 when the count was 1600. Today, the
figure is over 40,000. Modern Christianity is fragmented
sects who can’t agree on the Bible and separated by Chinese
walls; there is a chasm of daylight between some flavors of
Christianity.

Have you hopped onto any of these bandwagons? Israel fun

club, end-time fanatics, hate the faggot bunch,
supernaturalism junkies, the deliverance weirdos, the spiritual
warfare freaks, the hellfire crowd or the only true church
sect?

Back to Acts?
The community of believers in the book of Acts was in its
infancy. Many scholars do not consider the Book of Acts as a
historical account. Its style must be appreciated.

The fanatical Christian religionist seeks to maintain or return

to the primitive model of Christianity which they assume they
have comprehended by their reading of the Bible. The vast
majority of Christians I come across have a rudimentary
understanding of church history and how to read the Bible.
They assume the version they follow has always been and is
the version presented in the Book of Acts. Is your personal
Christian life demonstrated in the Book of Acts or are you
still unsuccessfully striving, decades later, to mimic what you
read in that writing?

Follow your nose, travel forwards not backward. Back to

facts, not acts.

Conclusion

341
The landscape of modern Christianity is a diverse theological
battlefield; it’s a high maintenance competitive field of sharp
elbows. Institutional Christianity is irretrievable fading into
insignificance. Current church systems will not fit with
emerging faith, rendering it invalid in the face of undeniable
new information. The former architects of Christianity have
had their day. A new Christianity must emerge that is not in
denial, pretending inconsistencies and discrepancies do not
exist.

Conservative Christianity has historically been predominantly

slow to evolve. Conservatism seeks to conserve the past to
which it is married. It is not uncommon for societies to be
slow to adapt and change, by the time they do another
generation has already risen. Christianity today is the
culmination of 2000 years of evolving. Its fate hangs on how
it answers the critical question and deal with old age issues in
the light of their modern context. There is an urgent need for
religionists to be the people of today and not yesteryears. If
history has taught us anything, then it has taught us that the
majority prefer to remain in the safety of their comfort zone.
A growing number are stepping out, breaking traditions and
walking on water.

Christianity is indeed moving towards a post-denominational

age. In this post-denominational age more and more
Christians are less interested in doctrinal differences.
Unfortunately, some of these progressives still cling on to one
doctrine or the other that smacks of elitism, since the prospect
of radical change frightens them.

There never has been just one version of Christianity. To

claim there is an original version is not to comprehend the
342
facts and issues related to church history. If there is just one
authentic version, permit me to end with this question. Who
decides which version of Christianity is the authentic one?
Before you prematurely answer, “God!” realize that those
who disagree profoundly with your version claim to also be
hearing from God. Before you state the Bible is the final
authority, appreciate that folk who differ from you read the
Bible as sincerely as you do.

343
 Chapter Eight
What is God?
The Doctrine of God

The word ‘theology’ originates from two Greek words that

combined mean ‘the study of God’ or the ‘God logic.’
Christian theology is an endeavor to understand the plans and
character of God as presented in the Bible.

The doctrine of God has been the subject of much debate over
millennia’s. The variations and disparities in definitions are
striking. Gods are fashioned in the image of humans, not vice
versa. The fool claims to personally and completely fathom
the unknown[able] god.

God is viewed in a multiplicity of traditions and perspectives.

To some God is not cruel, wicked, petty and constantly in a
bad mood. For others, God is all those attributes and still
loving, essentially he is schizophrenic. The Bible describes a
God that laughs Psalm 2:4, sings Zephaniah 3:17, dances and rejoices
Isaiah 62:5
and also a God that becomes angry, takes revenge,
curses, and murders. He tells us to forgive our enemies, even
if they are not penitent for what they have done to us Matthew 5:44;
6:14-15
but he won’t forgive his enemies unless they repent Luke
13:3
.

Amongst fundamentalists Christians, there is a consensus

they know God personally, yet each interprets God according
to their nuances. Some accept as true that God would kill
babies today, others claim God would do no such thing. Both
claim divine revelation and both claim the Bible validates
their assertions.
344
Does God Exist?
The question of God’s existence is hotly debated. There are
various views, and no specific view can be proven
indisputably. If the existence of God could be verified, no
faith would be required.

Let me briefly define a few of the terms used to label the

various views about God.

Theist:
A theist accepts as true the existence of a God that created the
universe, governs it and interacts with creation. There are
variations of theism and terms like infinite, immortal,
omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and used to describe
deities.

Deist:
A deist accepts as true the existence of a God that created the
universe, and but that this God does not govern it. Deists
believe in the existence of God solely on rationality without
the need for divine revelation, religious authority, or sacred
texts.

Pantheist: Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal

God. In pantheism the Universe is divinity. God is all and in
all.

Atheist:
Dictionary definitions of ‘atheism’ are usually incorrect or
incomplete. Atheism is a spectrum of views. Not all atheists’
state there is no God. The majority of atheists claim there
probably is no god. An atheist is someone who lives as if
345
there is no God. Atheists can be divided into a variety of
categories including strong atheists, soft atheist (not
agnostic), anti-theists and agnostic atheists.

The fundamentalist has a particular dislike for atheists. We

are all atheists. Christians are non-believers [atheists] in
regards to Zeus, Krishna, Thor, Kali Matha or any other
deity, except the Judaeo-Christian God. Christians live as if
these other gods do not exist. A non-religious atheist is an
atheist with one additional deity, the Judaeo-Christian God.

Buddhism is nontheistic [atheistic] religion. Buddha taught

belief in gods was unnecessary for seekers of enlightenment.

Agnostic:
An agnostic belief is one that states it is impossible to know
with certainty if there is a God. The vast majority of agnostics
make no commitment to religious doctrines or institutions.

Humanist: A philosophical and ethical viewpoint with a

strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and
dignity. Typically, preferring critical thinking and evidence
over the acceptance of dogma or superstition.

Is God ‘God’?
The word ‘God’ originates from paganism. The word ‘God’
is generically adopted by the majority of religions to refer to
their particular deity. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
states that the origin of the word ‘god’ comes from a
Germanic word ‘gad,’ pronounced ‘gohdt.’ “Our English
word ‘God’ is the Anglo-Saxon term for ‘good,’ and
therefore, it is thought that the word God denotes divine
goodness.” New Unger's Bible Dictionary
346
The first Divine name given in the Bible is ‘Elohim’, usually
translated “God. Genesis 1:1. Elohim is the most commonly used
name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent ‘theos’ is in the
New Testament. Elohim is found in Genesis around 200
times. In Greek and Hebrew, the basic definition for Elohim
and Theos is virtually identical in use and meaning. Elohim
means, ‘self-existing one.’ These words have been translated
as God – which means different things to different people.
The imageries of God differ person to person, yet each trusts
their version is the accurate one.

When the King James Bible was translated, the translators

replaced the accurate meaning of the ‘original’ wording with
words used in the version of English spoken in England at the
time. They could have translated the Hebrew word ‘El’ as
‘one with strength’ or ‘the Strong one.’ Strangely they chose
not to use the authentic Hebrew meaning. Instead, the King
James and subsequent translators have chosen to use the
Anglo-Saxon word ‘God.’

Gods in Our Image

“If horses had Gods, they would look like horses!”
― Xenophanes, 3rd Century BCE, Greek philosopher

Anthropopathism is a figure of speech whereby human

emotions are ascribed to God Rom. 11:33-36. The variety of
opinions about God is innumerable. Each fashions God
according to their perception. Sacred texts are just that,
presentations of one or more views about God according to
the writer’s perception. The Bible presents man-made
347
portraits of God; writers had different perceptions of God.
Perceptions of God ranges from those who claim a personal
relationship to those who say God is a mystery.

Today, Jesus is portrayed as black, white, brown – each

ethnicity perceives him in their image. Those who have
visions and dreams visualize Jesus and God according to their
perception of him. Some Christians create an image of Jesus
based on his place of birth and upbringing. The Bible
provides your physical description, so all descriptions are
speculation. Some Christian visualize the traditional image of
Jesus with long hair and blue eyes or the Hollywood version
[an actor].

To Which Religion is God Loyal?

Religions confine God within their particular framework.
Seldom do fundamental religionists believe in a God who is
inclusive. Conveniently, God is the approver and creator of
their religion. Christians subconsciously view God as a
Christian. There is not a singular version of God in
Christianity.

Is God male or female?

This question has minimal value. However let’s examine it
Biblically to show how a religionist’s masculine view of God
contradicts their holy text.

 Adam was created in the image of God. Are women

made in God’s image? If they are, then God’s image
must encompass a female aspect. “And God created
man in His image, in the image of God He created
him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27. The

348
 image of God is both male and female. If God has no
female attributes, then where did the concept of female
and feminine traits originate? According to the Bible,
it originated from God.

 From within Adam, Eve was formed. A woman is a

man with a womb - wo-man. A female is a male with
a feminine side - fe-male. Note that when God made
Adam there was a female side in him that was
removed when God took a rib from Adam and created
Eve from Adam. If this were not true, then why put
Adam to sleep and take a rib? Why not just create a
female from the dust of the earth? God separated the
female part out and made ‘wo-man’ or, ‘the man with
the womb.’

 A masculine theistic vocabulary dominates the Bible

since all the writers of the Bible were males living in
societies where females were suppressed.

 Religionists envisage God as male because God is

referred to as ‘Father’ in the Bible. In Old Testament
scriptures God is referred to as Father only four times.
In the New Testament God is called Father numerous
times since God became the ‘Father’ of Jesus.

 In the Biblical narrative, God is, in essence, spirit. A

spirit usually has no gender. The only use gender has,
in the mind of the religionist, is it to distinguish the
agents of procreation, and since spirits are not going
around having sex or babies, they have no gender,
right?

349
 The word ‘mankind’ refers to both male and female.
The Bible says, “All men are liars,” it would be stupid
to conclude that it does not apply to women! The
correct application of language is important. It is in the
same vein of when an owner speaks of their vehicle as
‘She’s a beauty!” Obviously, they are not claiming
their vehicle is female. In some languages, gender is
totally meaningless, as in French a chair may be
feminine, but may just as easily be masculine. The
Biblical God is not exclusively a ‘he.’

 According to experts the Hebrew term for ‘spirit’ is

‘ruach,’ in Genesis 1:2 the word is feminine. In
Hebrew ‘spirit’ is both feminine and masculine. In the
New Testament the Holy Spirit is referred to in the
masculine, although the Greek word for ‘spirit’ –
‘pneuma’ - is gender neutral. The gender of a word in
Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender
identity. In Hebrew dialectal every word has a gender -
either male or female. The Hebrew word ‘Jehovah’ is
both masculine and feminine.

 New Testament references to the Holy Spirit will be

“He” or “It.” When God is referred to as an ‘it’ in
Hebrew, it does not carry the same negative
connotation as God being addressed as ‘it’ in English.

 For the purpose of redemption, God reveals a

masculine side (father), while the church, the body of
Christ, is referenced in feminine terminology.
Remember, in the church body, there are neither male
nor female Galatians 3:28. Also, if the church is the bride

350
 and a male is part of the church which makes male
Christians a bride. In what sense are they a bride?

 The God of the Bible is beyond male and female. If

the Bible God wanted to create a third gender other
than male and female, biblically God is more than
capable.

When you refer to and envisage God as exclusively a

‘He’ you have no justification to do so. In what sense
is God masculine? Can you stop yourself from
visualizing a male God?

An Angry God - Does God throw stones?

Jesus saw a crowd chasing a woman to stone her and
approached them. “What's going on here?” he asked.

“This woman was found committing theft, and the law says
we should stone her!” one of the crowd responded.

“Wait,” yelled Jesus. “Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.”

Suddenly, a stone was thrown from out of the sky and

knocked the woman on the side of her head.

“Aw, c'mon, Dad...” Jesus cried, “I'm trying to make a point

here!”

-----------------

351
Within Christendom, there exist factions that emphasize the
goodness of God. These Bible believers are forced to juggle
the passages that project a duality in God. Does a connection
exist between how angry, hateful, or fearful a person is and
the version of god they worship? Do Christians exhibit anger
to imitate an angry God or do they create and believe in an
angry God to validate their anger?

Religionists mimic their bloodthirsty God, who has anger

management issues. Just try terminating your membership at
a fundamentalist church or change your beliefs, even with no
animosity, and you will be ostracized, snubbed and verbally
abused in a feeding frenzy by the very community that once
considered you a friend. This mimicking of the image of God
has led to gross human rights violations in the name of God.
The religionist becomes pompously immoral. Pascal superbly
said, “Men never commit evil quite so gleefully and without
restraint as when they do it in the name of religion.” At
times, non-religious individuals are more Christ-like than
religious individuals.

The Bible illustrates that serving a master you consider strict

and authoritarian results in unproductive behavior.

“The servant who had been given one thousand coins then
came in and said, “Sir, I know that you are HARD to get
along with. You harvest what you don't plant and gather
crops where you haven't scattered seed. I was FRIGHTENED
and went out and hid your money in the ground. Here is
every single coin!” Matthew 25:24-25

It is critical to understand why the Bible often speaks of an

angry God. Writers and translators of the Bible have
352
artistically painted an image of a terrifying God to serve their
purposes. The variations in translations can be incredibly
significant. 2The Hebrew word for anger ‘ka' as’ can mean
both anger and sorrow.” jewishvirtuallibrary.org Try reading passages
in the Old Testament that relate to God and replace the word
‘anger’ for ‘sorrow.’

Even in modern times, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural

disasters are attributed to acts of divine judgment for the sins
of a particular community. Primitive societies have
predominantly believed this. It is astounding when those in
modern societies adopt such a view. Clearly they have a
faulty interpretation method they apply to the Bible. The
interpretive lens with which we read the Bible is critical.

Causative and Permissive will

Dr. Robert Young, a world renowned Greek and Hebrew
scholar, and author of Young’s Hebrew and Greek
Concordance, states in his book, ‘Hints to Bible
Interpretation,’ that a Hebrew verb could be translated into a
‘causative’ form (‘God did it’) or in a ‘permissive’ form (God
allowed it), subject to the discretion of the translators and the
context.

All diseases are mentioned in chapter 28 of the Book of

Deuteronomy as curses for breaking the Law. “Also every
sickness, and every plague…will the LORD bring upon
you…” Dr. Young states that, in the Hebrew language the
verb is in the permissive tense, rather than in the causative
sense and that it should have been translated something like
this, “The Lord will allow these plagues to be brought upon
you.”

353
The English language does not have an equivalent verb form
to the Hebrew, and so possible discrepancies in translation
have caused confusion. This point is an interesting
observation, and if accurate it completely reworks the entire
perception of God portrayed in modern Bibles.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and

create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

“Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be

afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD has not
done it?” Amos 3:6

Does God create and commit evil or does God just permit
evil? If God commits evil, does this destroy Gods right to
judge others for imitating him? If not, why not? Simply,
because God is God? Is that not tyranny and dictatorship?

Others blame the devil for evil. Interestingly the devil is not
mentioned in the Bible as a personality, except possibly in
Job, but even then it fits the Jewish definition of ‘The Satan.’
One explanation provided why God did not reveal the devil to
civilizations in the Old Testament period is that “they were
unprepared to deal with such a powerful spiritual being.
They were not spiritually equipped to contest an invisible
enemy with extraordinary supernatural ability - committed to
their destruction. Given that the vast majority of them had no
spiritual weapons, the loving thing for God to do was to hide
the devil’s existence from them. To God's credit, throughout
the Old Testament God just “took the rap,” as it were, for
evil by saying that if people obeyed, God would bless them,
and if they did not obey, God would permit affliction.”
truthortradition.com
This is hypotheses is a far stretch.
354
The concept of God and the devil have both evolved from
primitive times to modern times. The concept of God in the
New Testament is vastly different from the Old Testament. If
Jesus is the face of God, then we are presented with an
entirely different God.

The Wrath of God

Marcion in the 2nd century AD omitted ‘of God’ from the
phrase ‘the wrath of God’ in Romans 1:18. The debate on
using wrath as a scary word is an ancient discussion.

The Greek word orgē is the biblical word translated wrath in

the New Testament. Words can have more than one
definition, and translators can be biased to select the
definition that leans in their direction. One meaning of wrath
is an ‘expression of anger’. Another definition is ‘any intense
emotion; passion; impulse.’

One of the four Greek words for love is storgē. The Greek for
wrath is orgē. The similarity is evident.

Storgē: A natural affection, like that felt by parents for

offspring. It describes the relationships within the family. It
has also been used to express acceptance, tolerance or
putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

Orgē: One definition of this word is, ‘any intense desire or

display of emotion.’ while another’s include ‘passionate
outbreaks’ and ‘natural impulse.’

The English words ‘orgy’ and ‘orgasm’ have their roots in

the Greek word orgē. These two words relate to intense
355
positive emotional expressions. In this sense orgē is not just
an allusion to intense anger but intense passion and violent
love.

The river of fire flowing from the throne of God Daniel 7:10 could
mean intense fiery love. Pouring out fiery wrath can
legitimately mean ‘pouring out intense love,' like turning up
the heat of compassion to make it irresistible.

“Therefore, if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give

him drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his
head.” Romans 12:20

This verse is a quote from Proverbs 25:21-22. The origins of

this idiom may originate back to an ancient Oriental custom:
In the center of a village, a fire was kept continually burning
day and night. This was the source of fire for every residence.
Each morning a village youth would place a container on his
head, and hot coals would be heaped into it. He would then
travel house to house distributing the hot coals so that
everyone could have a fire for the day. On cold days, this was
a desirable occupation since the heat from the coals of fire
kept the head and hands of the youth warmed. So, ‘to heap
coals of fire on someone's head’ then, means to warm them,
and, by extension, to do good to them.

Some early church fathers viewed God’s wrath as corrective

rather than punishment. According to this theory those who
snub God would find this expression of love agonizingly
curative.

“Paradise is the love of God wherein is the enjoyment of all

blessedness. I also maintain that those who are punished in
356
Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is as
bitter and vehement as the torment of love?”

― Saint Isaac of Syria/Nineveh, Early Church Father, 7th Century

God’s wrath can be viewed as redemptive or vindictive. You

do not have to agree with those who believe in an angry God.
If you opt to view the wrath of God as an expression of love,
and not as hatred for sinners, then you are in the respectable
company. The lens you choose to wear will color your
interpretation; it depends on if you start with the conviction
that God is love, or God is vindictive – they are incompatible.
You have to agree to one or the other to avoid an
unexplainable conflict in God. Can sweet and bitter water
flow from the same fountain? James 3:11. If white is mixed with a
drop of black, can it be pure white?

Was Jesus Judged Violently For Sin?

Penal substitution is beginning to lose support under critical
examination. Below I will outline the doctrine.

Penal substitution teaches that before Jesus God regularly

unleashed catastrophic judgment on humanity and that now
God’s greatest act of judgment occurred when his anger for
sin was taken out on Jesus, a substitute for our sins. That one
single act is claimed to have forever satisfied God’s anger for
every sin, past, present or future. Thus, Jesus forever changed
the way God relates to humanity. This hypothesis would
mean that God has NO MORE ANGER for sin since he took
it ALL out on Jesus. The Creator has dealt with sin once and
for all and has quit the ‘sin judging business,’ so he does not
hold sins against people.

357
An explanatory illustration maneuvers in this manner:

Visualize a father discovering his vehicle completely wrecked

and he savagely beats his innocent son. The guilty child goes
free while the innocent pays the price. This is what the
Christian Bible states God did to Jesus for our sins. The
Christian (or the world, depending on your particular
version) is now free. Sins are never paid for twice. It would
be unjust for God to require double payment for sin. The
guilty never have to pay for their sins and God will never
judge Christians for their sins nor hold them accountable.
God has already judged Jesus and paid off everyone’s
account. All the anger God had for sin has been taken out on
Jesus. The only conclusion then is that God has no anger for
sin left.

“…not imputing their trespasses to them…” 2 Corinthians 5:19

“For in that He died, He died to sin once for all….” Romans 6:10

When penal substitution is taken to its logical end it the

conclusion should be that God is not angry anymore. Rarely
is it taken to its logical end and so Christians have an issue
with sin, constantly prepared to cast the first stone and blame
God for ‘natural disasters’ as acts of judgment for the sins of
men. The vast majority of modern Christians still have an Old
Testament mindset: “But if the ministry of death having been
engraved in letters in stone…” 2 Cor.3:7

Penal substitution weaves an explanation that attempts to

unite Old and New Covenant into one narrative where Jesus
is the bridge that forever changed the way God deals with
man: “For this is my blood of the New Covenant which
358
concerning many is being poured out for the remission of
sins” Matthew 26:28; “…He is a Mediator of a better covenant,
which has been enacted on better promises” Hebrews 8:6

In the redemption plot of Penal Substitution Isaiah 53 outlines

the suffering of Jesus. Isaiah 54 prophesies the result of this
suffering – the goodness of God that was to be revealed under
the New Covenant.

“To me, this is like the days of Noah when I swore that the
waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I
have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you
again. Though the mountains are shaken and the hills be
removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken,
nor my covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD, who
has compassion on you.” Isaiah 54:9-10

God said to Noah the earth would never be flooded again.

Under the new covenant of peace, God also swore he would
not be angry again.

The following verses are usually recited during Christmas

and used to emphasize the festive and social goodwill we
have towards one another. However, we should read it
carefully and note what it declares.

“And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the

heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the
highest, and peace on earth, goodwill toward men.” Luke 2:13-14

Some translations read, ‘goodwill among men’ or ‘peace to

men of good will.’ In essence, this verse has been interpreted
to mean that Jesus came to bring peace among men. If this is
359
true then how about Matthew 10:34-36 where Jesus implies
that belief in him would cause friction?

According to the Penial Substitution theory, these verses are

not referring to good will between humans but a restoration of
good will between God and humanity. This is the peace for
which the angels were praising God. The Jesus story was an
announcement of Gods goodwill towards humanity, by God
punishing Jesus for the sin(s) of the world.

Penal Substitution teachers stress that the words ‘reconcile’

and ‘reconciliation’ denote the making of peace: “…God was
reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting
people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the
message of reconciliation...” 2 Corinthians 5:19; “…we have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” Romans 5:1

According to Penial Substitution, if humans now have peace

with God, it infers humans did not have peace previously.
The problem with penal substitution is that it teaches a two-
faced God. The Bible can be understood in a way that
eliminates the need to believe in the violent two-faced God of
Penial Substitution.

Rereading the Scriptures

In the Jesus story, he is unmistakably non-violent. When
presented with a woman caught in the very act of adultery,
the baying lynch-mob wanted to witness a stoning. Instead,
Jesus responds, “He that is without sin, let him cast the first
stone.” John 8:7

When a Samaritan village rejected Jesus, the disciples James

and John wanted to call down fire to destroy them in Old
360
Testament fashion. Jesus turns and admonishes them that this
is not the way to respond. Luke 9:52-55

On another occasion, Jesus enters a synagogue and stands to

quote from Isaiah 61:1-2.

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed

me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to
proclaim liberty to the
captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty
those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s
favor and the day of vengeance of our God…” Luke 4:18-19

Interestingly he partially quotes it and excludes the phrase

“and the day of vengeance of our God.” I can visualize the
listeners waiting with baited breath for him to complete the
quotation, but he does not. It is significant that he does not [or
rather the writer of Luke 4 excludes the phrase.]

Paul rejected a violent God. He was converted from a version

of Judaism that was clearly fanatical and bursting with violent
hostility 1 Corinthians 15:9. Following his conversion, he did not
reject the holy texts of Israel, but rather rejected his previous
violent understanding of them. He did not consider himself a
convert from Judaism but a convert from an interpretation of
scripture that accepted acts of aggression inspired by
religious passion. His re-examination led to a drastically
different view that favored nonviolent love.

You may be surprised to learn that Paul did not believe that
Jesus’ death was a payment for sins or that God was angry
with sin and procured justice by violently punishing Jesus on
our behalf.
361
On some occasions when quoting Old Testament passages
Paul intentionally and defiantly quotes them incompletely,
excluding parts that refer to vengeance and violence on the
part of God. Both he and his readers were aware of the
original context of these verses.

“and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his
mercy. As it is written: I destroyed my foes. They cried for
help, but there was no one to save them-- to the LORD, but
he did not answer. I beat them as fine as windblown dust; I
trampled them like mud in the streets. “Therefore, I will
praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing the praises of your
name.” Romans 15:9 [quoting Psalm 18:39–49]

“Again, it says, "Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people, for

he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take
vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land
and people.” Romans 15:10 [quoting Deuteronomy 32:43]

Paul detaches references to violence towards Gentiles,

reframing the context to announce God’s compassion for
Gentiles. Salvation is redefined to mean the restoration of all
through Christ, including Gentiles formerly considered
adversaries, and not the deliverance of the ancient Israelites
from of their adversaries by military success.

Romans 12:19-21 contradicts Duet 32:35, 42, the divine

declaration that advocated vengeance, “I will take revenge; I
will pay them back… I will make my arrows drunk with blood
while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the
captives, the heads of the enemy leaders” Deut. 32:35,42 to contend

362
that revenge should be side-stepped in favor of “overcoming
evil with good.” Romans 12:19-21

In Romans 3:10-18 Paul interlaces passages from the psalms

and prophets quoting Psalm 14:1–3, Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3,
Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7–8 and Psalm 36:1. He lists sins
related to hate, violence, deception, venomous words,
cursing, bitterness, murder, despair, and other conduct
associated with those unfamiliar with “the way of peace.”
The original context of the passages cited makes a distinction
between ‘evil’ people and the ‘righteous’ and proclaims the
judgment deserved by evildoers. One passage is direct, “O
God, declare them guilty. Let them be caught in their traps.”
Psalm 5:10
Paul ultimately turns this on its head, suggesting that
we should not call for judgment as we all have need of mercy.
The deviation from the original context is deliberate and
blatant.

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those

who are under the law so that every mouth may be stopped,
and the whole world may be held accountable to God.” Romans
3:19

To paraphrase this verse: ‘These passages were originally a

reference to Gentiles, but they are also inclusive of those
under the law, so basically they are relevant to the whole
world as we are all in need of mercy.’

I hope you can see that the lens we read with colors our
interpretation. Religionists portray the God of the Bible as an
angry God, who is out to penalize you for trivial faults rather
than facilitate your development. I hope you agree that this
destructive concept needs to be abolished, and the Bible read
363
through a different lens. I suggest you scrap self-righteous
‘holy anger’ and ‘righteous indignation’ and reshape your
approach by embracing a compassionate, sympathetic and
empathetic approach. Consider adopting Paul’s approach to
interpreting scripture, instead of cherry-picking verses.

An Angry God in Church History

The name ‘Israel’ means ‘wrestles with God.’ So a reading of
scripture that wrestles and challenges violence in the name of
God is an acceptable Jewish method of reading the scriptures.

Some Church Fathers in the early Church acknowledged that

the violence described in the Old Testament undeniably
clashed with the Jesus of the New Testament. Origen, for
example, states it, “would be worse than the cruelest of
men.” In the second century, Marcion viewed the Old
Testament God as a separate God from the God described in
the New Testament. He omitted ‘of God’ from the phrase ‘the
wrath of God.’ It is undeniable that the Old Testament God
acts savage and evil [so does the NT God if you interpret hell
as a never-ending torture chamber].

The church fathers, including Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and

later Augustine viewed the Old Testament as a spiritual
analogy; the stories where depictions ‘conflicts’ in our
personal lives with egotism, unforgiveness, lust and other
sins.

Don’t think for a second you have to be locked into the

interpretation sold to you. As you can see, historically
Christians have viewed these violent texts in a variety of
ways.

364
Conclusion
In most English Bibles the Old Testament explicitly describes
violence in the name of God. It also promotes mercy for
outsiders, and Old Testament champions do question divine-
sanctioned atrocities. The Bible has multiple voices
presenting diverse and differing opinions. You cannot
embrace all of them as they are contradictory; this demands
we make an educated moral choice as to which to accept.
You do not have to define God by all the attributes ascribed
to God in the Bible by writers and translators who had their
own perception of God.

It's an interesting read to see how apologists try to explain

away the behavior of Old Testament God by pointing us to
Jesus taking the payment for our sins. Wait. Who punished
him? God? Darn, he's still killing the innocent. Oh, that was
the last time? Oh, ok. Has his nature changed now?

If you take the Bible as the word of God, you will struggle to
present a seamless presentation of Gods character. You’ll end
up sending mixed messages. Remember, you won't fool
everyone, we have the same Bible as you.

Though the traditional God is a failed hypothesis, a

reasonable version of God can be constructed, perhaps using
non-theistic terms. It seems the majority of Christians
primarily hear the harsh voice of primitive writers who held
to primeval views on social, scientific and ethical matters,
attributing their opinions and actions to an angry god they
have fashioned. The lens you choose to read the Bible will
influence how you view God. You are free to believe in a
God with limitless love and no anger management issues. The

365
Bible gives you that flexibility since translations are partially
misleading and untrustworthy.

366
 Chapter Nine
Defending Christianity
“Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs
from your own.
You may both be wrong.” ― Unknown Source

In this chapter, I am more concerned about the attitudes,

approaches and methods of Christian apologists, lay or
professional. Unlike the apostle Paul, modern Christians are
so void of the power of God they claim resides in them that
they are forced to resort to empty words to persuade others of
their view. Paul, on the other hand, states, “My message and
my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but
with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith
might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power.” 1
Corinthians 2:4-5
. He gives instruction what to do with such people:
“Having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have
nothing to do with such people.” 2 Timothy 3:5

Not all Christians are bigots. Within Christendom, you will

bump into a variety of Christians, ranging from the overly-
credulous to the overly-cynical. They react oversensitive
when their religion is ridiculed or challenged, instantly jolting
into a hyper-apologetics mode. The immature religionists,
consciously or unconsciously, hunts for verbal fights,
confronting anybody who treads on their sanctified toes.

A key object lesson in traditional martial arts is ‘avoid

fighting and only as a last resort should fighting skills be
utilized.’ Immature students suffer from ‘white belt
syndrome’ eagerly searching for fights. True Masters of
367
martial arts avoid teaching certain skills to undisciplined
students. These specialized attack maneuvers could result in
an extended prison stretch. Overzealous Christians read a few
verses and consider themselves as black belts in Christian
apologetics.

Often to win a fight, you have to walk away and if walking

away is not practical then it’s best to respond rather than
emotionally react in self-righteousness. Many knee-jerk
reactions toward ‘ungodly behavior’ are acts of self-
righteousness masquerading as acts of righteousness.

Some contend debates are unproductive because of their

experience with them. They are not aware that opponents can
clash and still be friends and associates on good terms.
Sensible debating is not merely defensively arguing tit-for-
tat, it is a conversation method to scrutinize a matter from
varying angles for the purpose of establishing the best way to
understand it.

“If your ‘God’ and his/her sacred writings are truly divine,
no one needs to defend or protect them because no assault
against them will stand. Defending your God, his words or
writings suggest your God needs you more than you need
him, it or them.” ― Carlton Pearson

Just as you expect others to consider honestly the evidence

you present, you too should be willing to honestly and
genuinely consider the evidence submitted by others. Let’s
take a step back and examine the art of religious apologetics,
which is often nothing more than damage control.

Christian Apologists
368
“All rise!” the court’s bailiff shouts. Everyone in the
courtroom stands up simultaneously as they wait for Judge
Vincent to get settled.

“Please be seated,” Judge Vincent says and bangs his gavel.

“Today in the case of Mister Callahan versus the state of
California, Mister Callahan is being charged with first-
degree murder of Lucy Jones aged seven.”

I listen to the prosecution give their opening statement and sit

patiently twiddling my thumbs. I’m the kind of lawyer that
will do anything to succeed, even if my client is guilty. This
one I know for sure is guilty. He confessed to me that he
murdered that “innocent sweet young girl.” Due to attorney-
client privilege, I am bound by the law to keep him away
from prison; a guilty verdict would get him a life sentence;
I’ll lie if I have to, just ‘twist the truth a little’ or withhold
incriminating information here and there. She was the
daughter of a couple who had been trying to conceive for
years, initially, they had three miscarriages. They’re sitting in
the courtroom right now, crying their eyes out. I wink at
them.

My ego won’t allow me to lose, so I’m going to bend the

truth to win. Everyone thinks I am a ‘good’ Christian family
man, if only, they knew. My client isn’t going anywhere
except for home. “Call your first witness!” the judge shouts
at me.

“Certainly, your honor,” I say and stand up while

straightening my blue tie. “I call Mister Callahan to the
stand.”
369
After the murderer is sworn in, I start asking him my
carefully crafted questions that will make him appear as a
victim. “Do you remember entering the home of Vanessa
Pierce?”

“No, sir,” Mister Callahan stutters. His long, black and

greasy hair is pulled back into a loose ponytail, similar to
mine. His shiny suit barely fitted him.

“Do you believe that you were coaxed to provide a

confession by the police?”

“Coaxed? They threatened me with violence!”

“Objection!” the prosecutor stood up and scowled, “Leading

the witness!”

“Overruled!” the judge shouted. I worked hard to word my

questions to make Callahan look like the police force had
tricked him. The gullible jury was eating up his testimony
like it was candy. The prosecution threw as much evidence at
me as they could, but I had a cunning explanation for
everything. I know my explanations stretch the law, beyond
boundaries at times, but the jury are not qualified lawyers, so
they wouldn’t know.

When it came down to it, Callahan was ruled innocent by the

jury. The parents tried to hold back their bitter tears. Callahan
grinned at me as we strolled out of the courtroom past them.
It’s just another paycheck as far as I am concerned, just doing
my job, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help me God” and all that.
370
 -------------

Listening to religious apologists, I can’t help but compare

them to a slimy lawyer knowingly defending a guilty
criminal. A lawyer can construct a convincing argument to
‘prove’ the innocence of a guilty criminal. The game
becomes the art of creating a persuasive argument and finding
loopholes, instead of facing the facts. Religious apologists are
often vigorous defenders of traditions rather than seekers of
truth. Their robotic and staged responses muddy the waters
with irrationally biased propaganda cloaked as logical
responses. Their spin and responses are taken from standard
PR manuals. With honesty flung out of the window, the
religious apologist must feel like a fraud.

Since its inception, Christianity has been confronted and

challenged resulting in counter arguments being formulated
and tweaked over centuries, and new ones invented along the
way. Pagans accused Christians in the early 2 nd Century of
borrowing themes from their religions. Christian apologists of
the time like Justin Martyr did not deny this accusation.
Instead, he and others claimed the devil foreknew details of
the coming Messiahs life and revealed it to pagan centuries
before. This response was a far-stretched comeback,
especially since the Christians do not consider the devil is
omniscient [all-knowing].

Modern arguments boil down to reasoning similar to this:

‘The Lochness Monster unquestionably exists because
similar creatures once existed and contemporary witnesses
have claimed to have seen one.’ This argument cleverly
mixes fact with possibilities and fiction, yet no genuine
evidence is provided. The Nessie enthusiasts miss the obvious
371
– real evidence would be a clear fully body unedited photo,
video or specimen, dead or alive. In the same way, Christian
apologists merely offer rhetoric and no real evidence. I’ve
heard them ask, “So what is sufficient evidence?” This
question is an attempt to justify rhetorical evidence.

The experts in defending religion, religious apologists, take

the defense of faith to new depths of depravity to buttress
their arguments. With their theological nun chucker’s, they
construct defensive and offensive arguments in a futile effort
to defend the often indefensible.

The current level of professional Christian apologetics is pet

food for the intellectual non-believing opponent. I cringe
when I hear religious apologists with outdated superstitious
beliefs. It’s tough in this modern age to try and defend beliefs
in talking snakes and an eventual spontaneous disappearance
of believers. Religious fundamentalist apologists are
frequently an embarrassment to their cause. I wish they
would be more honest in their approach and willing to admit
weaknesses. They seem to enjoy hearing the sound of their
pious elitist voice as it revels in their divine [or self-]
selection as the authentic representative voice of God.
Shielding income, ego and reputation are masked as
‘defending the faith.’ Some Christian apologists have much
to lose if they were to present an honest presentation. This
predicament makes their credibility and arguments dubious.
Examine every argument beneath the surface tickling of ears.

We couldn’t get rid of fundamentalist religious apologist

speedier even if we strapped them to the nose of a Cape
Canaveral rocket and slapped a ‘toxic waste’ sticker on their
forehead that read ‘Return to Sender’.
372
Defending the Indefensible
The divine orders to commit genocide in the Bible are
problematic and distressing portions of scripture. Well-
meaning and overly enthusiastic bodyguards of the Bible
become careless advocates for these barbaric massacres.
Their presupposition’s, namely that the Bible is the inerrant,
infallible Word of God, traps them as advocates of these
atrocities. Religionists have admitted to me that their beliefs
sound preposterous even to them, but that they have no
choice but to believe it. Do they believe it, or merely claim
they believe? They are forced to defend stupidity.

The stark reality becomes vivid when attempts are made to

justify the concept of a customized never-ending torture
chamber, commonly known as hell. When the religionist is
told that a loving God would not send me to hell, they are met
with the robotic response, “God does not send people to hell,
they choose to go to hell.” At this point, their chest swells as
they feel they have made a profound statement. To expose
this fallacy I came up with a helpful illustration:

A husband instructs his wife to cook him a nice meal or he

will beat her. She refuses. He severely beats her with an iron
bar. The husband is asked by the judge, “Why did you resolve
to beat her?” He replies, “I had no choice, she chose to be
beaten. She could have chosen not to be beaten.”

In the traditional concept of hell, the punishment does not line

up with the alleged crime. Would you push your unsaved
family members into hell if God instructed you to? [or would
you leave the dirty work to the angels or even God?]. If hell
is real, why have children? If given a choice, that if you
373
entered a building, there is a 50/50 chance all the occupants
would die. If you don’t enter, no one will die. Would you
gamble and enter? The traditional doctrine of hell is
nonsensical dogma that has infiltrated the Christian world.

Intellectual Dishonesty
Fundamentalist scholars are at best biased and at worst
academically dishonest. Being hell bent on winning an
argument blinds them to truth. Instead of winning minds they
seek to win arguments.

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of

defending it deliberately with faulty arguments” ― Friedrich
Nietzsche

I can assure you that debaters who are dishonest will

withhold information or present it in an ambiguous manner:
“Lies are necessary when the truth is too difficult to believe”
Pablo Escobar
.

Mingling lies with truth to progress an agenda is more

common that you may expect amongst religionists: “The best
lies were always mixed with truth.” Sarah J. Maas, Crown of Midnight.
Don’t for one minute think the religious apologists are not
capable of calculated intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual
pride and deception should be a mutual enemy.

[Humor alert]: A lay Christian apologist believed that one of

the two thieves who crucified with Jesus was Paul’s father.
His proof text was Romans 6:6: “…my old man was crucified
with Christ.”

Uncomfortable with being mistaken

374
Take a deep breathe. It’s ok to be mistaken. I find myself
occasionally mistaken and just swallow the chill pill. I would
rather be real than right. The fear of being mistaken haunts
the religionist who is unwilling to admit when mistaken.
Subconsciously thinking they have to be right and can’t be
mistaken is a symptom of a delusional mind.

“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not
fearing to be wrong.”
― P.T. Mcintyre

Being comfortable with being mistaken and quick to admit it

when someone has a better explanation than you is the fuel of
intellectual growth. It is rare that you will ever hear a debater
admit their opponent has made a significant point or has
given a superior explanation?

Emotionalism, rhetoric, and moving lips are mistaken for

intelligence, truth, and evidence by the Christian, who only
want to hear what they want to hear. Unless you are trained,
you will overlook how often Christian apologists are
steamrolled in debates. Invest time in fine tuning your ears by
exposing yourself to material by those that constructively
criticize your views.

The ONLY Way

The religionist considers their viewpoint as the only valid
perspective. They refuse to accept the existence of other
legitimate perspectives of viewing a text, electing rather to
accept their partiality as THE Truth. Not everyone views a
subject as you do. We have to take into consideration various
factors that decide the way people believe and behave. Your
way is not always the only or best way. There can be more
375
than one legitimate way of explaining a fact. Two plus seven
equals nine, so does three plus six.

Even within Christendom, every single Christian disagrees

amongst themselves. There exists as many versions of
Christianity as there are Christians.

Answering Questions
Questions should be responded to directly, precisely and
concisely. If I asked you, “How does your car work?” and
you answered “My car just works,” that's not a substantive
response. If I ask you, “Why is the Bible true?” and you
reply, “Because I have sincere faith in it and have examined
it,” that’s not an answer with substance. If I asked Bob,
“What's your name?” and his comeback is, “Ask my mother”
“Check my birth certificate” “Why do you want to know my
name?” “What's your name?” He is evading a simple
question. The correct response is, “My name is Bob.”

Evading questions happen for one reason – to answer

truthfully, the one quizzed would be caught between two
stools. Rather than humbly admit not knowing the answer to a
question they conceal their lack of knowledge by skillfully
changing the subject or countering with slippery responses.
This dodge also occurs with simple yes/no questions, instead
of a simple responding “yes” or “no” they resort to long-
winded defensive ranting.

Their simplistic politician-style one-dimensional responses to

tough questions are intentionally slippery. Politicians are
experts at avoiding difficult questions while speaking
voluminously and rapidly. The gullible is misled, but the

376
trained ear is skilled at detecting the racket of empty
ramblings.

Rational versus Irrational Responses

Paralogism is ‘the inability to take a logical conclusion from
the beginning to the end in an argument.’ It is irrational or
fallacious reasoning that appears superficially logical or, at
least, the reasoner believes it to be rational.

The deceitful apologist suffers from chronic paralogism.

Their reasoning is faulty and in an all-out determination to
prove their ‘rightness’ they resort to pathetic arguments. Stop
and think about what the Christian apologists has said and
then take it to its logical conclusion. Avoid just being
defensive. Entertain niggling doubts. You will then witness
paralogism in action when listening to dishonest apologists.

The Greek word for ‘Word’ is logos. It is where we get the

word logic. Astonishingly a religionist will readily admit to
not using logic and instead appeal to revelation. They
blatantly and confidently admit their arguments are not
logical.

The following memes have gone viral. They sufficiently

illustrate bad reasoning:

Jesus knocks on a door and asks to be let in. The man inside
asks, “Why?” Jesus replies, “So I can save you.” “From
what?” the man asks. Jesus replies, “From what I’m going to
do to you if you don’t let me in.”

An Eskimo asks, “If I didn’t know about Jesus, God and sin
would I go to hell?” The evangelist says, “No, not if you
377
didn’t know.” The Eskimos response surprised the evangelist,
“Then why did you tell me?”

Circular arguments
Circular reasoning is a logical blunder where the reasoner
starts with what they are trying to end. Here is an example:

1. The Bible affirms that it is without error.

2. The Bible only contains truth.
Thus:
3. The Bible is without error.

In discussions with religionists, it is not uncommon to hear

circular reasoning in various forms.

Starting points
The starting point of one’s argument will determine the
approach you will take in reaching a conclusion. That
preliminary starting point is a choice from a selection of
options. It is self-deceiving to set the parameters of a
discussion based on the methods that fit one’s argument and
then conclude your argument makes sense. Narrowing the
goal posts creates an un-level playing field where perfectly
valid arguments are unjustly rejected.

It’s all in the lens you wear. If you wore yellow-tinted shades,
everything would appear yellow. As much as others
endeavored to persuade you a white wall was white, you
would sincerely insist it is yellow. The lens you wear when
evaluating determines your conclusions. Everyone is right in
their own eyes. Presuppositions color our lens. Be aware that
erroneous preconceived opinions may color your view.

378
Denying it does not change the fact, you may just be unaware
of it.

No matter how much you endeavor to persuade the person

with a tinted lens, they will see only the tint of their lens. It is
possible from the corner of their eye they can see a glimpse
of white but their doubt busting instinct kicks in and fortified
pride locks them in a grid that forbids entertaining questions
long enough to detect obvious answers.

Standard Reactions to Being Challenged

Having personal views challenged and exposed is humbling.
When personal views are challenged, instinctively defensive
walls are raised. At first, attempts are made to defend their
faith. When this fails the arguments become even more
illogical. When someone stubbornly refuses to acknowledge
being mistaken, they will go to great lengths to appear
correct, to the extent of using mind-boggling arguments. You
can only stare at them and wonder. I mean how would you
feel if someone argued with you that a thesaurus was a clever
dinosaur?

When this fails the cornered believer become hostile,

resorting to verbal abuse and unconstructive ad hominem
attacks – personal attacks directed at opponents rather than
the position they hold. Constructive ad hominem attacks are
fine since character influences arguments and can uncover
and discredit dishonest people.

Finally, when all else fails, they resort to sarcasm. Smarmy

smirks with disrespectful laughter, trying to make you appear
unintelligent for not believing that donkeys and serpents can
speak like humans. Their bubble busting arguments end up
379
bursting their bubble when they are forced to take their
responses to its logical conclusions.

Get Out of Jail Trump Cards

Some people seem to have an answer for everything; the only
thing is few their responses make any sense. It’s as if they
make it up as the go along, quick on their feet. Skilled in the
art of dodging bullets the religious fundamentalist evades
tough questions with classic ammunition – ‘get out of jail
trump cards’. Armed with these greasy responses they play
these cards when all else fails.

Here are a few:

“God told me.”

When Christians flippantly say, “God told me” they leave the
hearer few options but to grin. They claim, “I don’t interpret
the Bible, God reveals the meaning to me.” In this outlandish
declaration, the religionist claims special revelatory
knowledge. Frequently they admit it cannot be understood
logically. Conveniently, it can only be known by divine
revelation, and you and I are not genuine enough, as they are,
to receive these divine revelations. I have had this experience
many times. It is nothing more than the brain activity of
realization, coupled with religious instincts to associate
neuron activity with religious belief. [Do you know what
your next thought will be and where it was initiated?].

What is certain is that two Christians will claim divine

revelations that contradict each other. There is no genuine
way of determining who has the correct revelation. Which
divine revelation is the correct one? Do we need divine
revelation to determine the correct divine revelation?
380
“God forgave me.”
This card is played to excuse all the failings, past, present,
and future of the religionist. It is especially handy when
condemning others, who are yet to become Christians, for
their apparent failings - “Yes, I sin, but God has forgiven me,
so I’m free to point out the sins of others!”

An 80-year-old man who abused children murdered the

innocent and destroyed countless lives can escape punishment
by genuinely confessing Jesus as Lord. The 15-year-old boy
who has barely lived life, but while he lived in was decent
and respectful, dies having rejected Jesus and in a thousand
trillion years he will still be wriggling in the flames of
torment in hell. This system of justice is a seriously flawed.

“Oh, that was the Old Testament.”

The full version is, “Oh, that was the Old Testament, but we
are under grace now!” This response blurs the genuine
differences between the Old and New Testament. Does it
mean God is more loving in the New Testament? Does it
mean it was moral to kill babies in the Old Testament, but it
is immoral now? Has and can morality change? Is God not
unchanging? Hebrews 13:8; Malachi 3:6

Answering Questions with Questions

Questions are sometimes answered with loaded questions to
trick someone into implying something they did not intend.
Instead, you should answer the question and question your
answer.

Threats

381
The argumentative religionist resorts to threats when their
arguments are dismissed. Hellfire, demon possession and
being left behind at the second coming are common threats.
Are their beliefs so bad that they have to frighten people into
believing them?

The Weird and the Wonderful

I was once told, “One-day time machines will be invented
and then you will see the Bible is true.” Enough said.

A frequent appeal is, “Pray and sincerely ask God to reveal

himself to you. You haven’t done that yet; that’s why you
don’t believe the doctrines I do.” Even atheists are asked to
do this - pray to a god they do not believe in? It would be like
asking you to pray sincerely to Santa Clause to reveal
himself. “I know you don’t believe in him, but try it anyway.”

“You Need An Open Mind To Believe The Bible”

An open mind is fine, but not so much that your brain falls
out. You can request others to have an open mind, but do you
have an open mind? What would convince you your faith in
certain beliefs is mistaken?

“I Have a Child-Like Faith Towards The Bible.”

This response is a dig at intellectualism. A childish approach
is poles apart from a child-like approach. Children are
inquisitive and have a way of asking intrusive and probing
questions in the most awkward ways.

Tough Guy Image

Some animals enlarge themselves when faced with danger.
When cornered, brash and ‘tough guy’ debaters beat their
inflated puppy chest trying to hide their frustration with
382
phony mocking laughter. Body language, tone, shaky voices,
swallowing and exaggerated bodily movements indicate their
fear of being exposed. They will high five everyone trying to
appear as if they have just said something profound.

Foolish Talk Too Much

Nervous people are wordy. Instead of cutting to the chase
they waffle. Long-winded answers are a cover up: “…they
[fools] chatter on and on.” Ecclesiastes 10:14. They try to confuse
people by speaking loud and fast. Raising your voice does not
make your explanation correct.

“The Bible is True Because It Says So.”

This circular argument fails to provide evidence outside the
bible. The bible is the claim; it can't be the ultimate evidence.

“Don’t Twist the Truth”

This is a common trump card. The fact is, the truth is not
being twisted, it's being untwisted. The religionists interpret
logic and rationality as ‘twisting.’ They will even admit it
makes sense, but since it contradicts their interpretation of the
Bible, it’s classified as ‘twisting.’

“I Believe….”
Religionists often start an objection, “But I believe...” What
you believe or don't believe is of no relevance if it lacks
evidence, logic or rationality. You could believe cheese
grows on trees; no one cares unless you can prove it does –
even if you sincerely believe it.

Conclusion

383
Christianity is heavily criticized for being anti-science, anti-
freedom and anti-everything. The media show substantial
bias against Christians. Widespread public ridicule provokes
Christians to react combatively. This reaction only
perpetuates the stereotype.

Pride locks the mind in error. Strongholds in the mind built

by seeds of erroneous schooling lodge in the thoughts and
promote self-gratification, interests and ambitions instead of
rationality, logic and reason for the betterment of humanity.
Victims become un-teachable and argumentative while they
seek to teach others. Delusional folk, like those at Westboro
Baptist Church, with a degree in Know-It-All-ology, have
studied at the University of Witlessness, also known as places
of worship. Lectures are presented as Sermons. The entry
qualification for this University is a grade ‘A’ in the
following subjects: Pride, Ignorance, and Senselessness. The
super hard-core religionists qualify and graduate with flying
colors. If you possess a graduation certificate, it is not worth
the paper it is written on. Fundamentalist Christianity is a
walking corpse; the autopsy on this zombie has found the
cause of death to be a self-inflicted wound to the head
resulting in fatal brain injuries. Consider putting your beliefs
through a third-degree investigation. Humility goes a long
way. Those who try to hang their hat higher than they can
reach will find the higher their high horse, the greater the fall.

A religious fundamentalist approaches the Bible with a mind

noticeably made up, and will create any argument they can,
good or bad, to defend what they already believe. Have you
ever met an individual who is unwilling ever to admit they
are mistaken? Life has taught me one important lesson – how
little I know. I am amused by religionists who feel they have
384
arrived. The truth is a journey, not a destination. It is a
journey that often involves having to admit you are mistaken.
A prevailing sickening attitude within religiosity is one of
thinking they are dead-on in everything. You cannot always
be correct, but you can always be real. I am occasionally
accused of not being humble enough to accept the truth of the
religionist. To reach my current conclusions, I have had to
admit humbly my mistaken beliefs many times. It can be a
hard pill to swallow. I’ve been where the religious
fundamentalist is positioned. I am more than willing to admit
if I am mistaken; I merely insist on evidence, logic, and
rationality. Would you ever make an 180-degree turn? If not,
what if convincing evidence is presented?

385
 Chapter Ten
Judgmental Attitude
Standing Up for Truth or Looking Down at Others?

“It’s one of the meanest sarcasm of history, the path of

radical love prepared the way for the innumerable highways
of Christian hate.”
Catherine Keller

“Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to

condemn than to think.”
Emma Goldman

“Dammit!” Jeff shouted as he rolled out of bed. His alarm

never went off this morning. If he wasn’t at church so late last
night, he might have remembered to set it. He scrambled
around his house trying to get ready for work. Last week he
received a warning about his tardiness, so he couldn’t afford
to be late. Jeff has always been a firm believer that prayer is
the answer to everything. He prays every night to God, but
ironically God refuses to help correct his truancy. His usual
excuses about bad traffic and dying relatives for being late to
work were not going to hold up much longer.

He zoomed down the street in his car towards Starbucks and

parked in the regular spot. Rushing in, he budged through the
busy line claiming that it was an urgent situation. He needed
his daily latte with cinnamon cream immediately. Stomping
his foot as he waited for his beverage, he stared at his watch.
He was already an hour late, and it would be at least another
hour to get to work. The barista finally called out his name.
386
“It’s about time!” Jeff huffed as he shoved a sleeve over his
coffee cup and stormed out.

As he pushed the glass door open and headed to the sidewalk,

an old man bumped into him. “Whoa!” Scolding hot coffee
splashed all over his face and expensive suit. He let out a loud
shriek as he fell to the ground. The old man was hurled back
against the side of the building. Jeff glared at the old man as
he stood up and brushed himself off. “Watch where you’re
going, you stupid old man! You could trip people with that
stupid cane of yours! It’s a good thing I did not injure
myself!”

Jeff continued to blame the man for the accident and cursed at
him intensely, waving his arms wildly until he got tired of
yelling and stormed over to his car. He mumbled more insults
as he settled into the car and slammed the door. The tires
screeched as he sped down the street, and his ‘Jesus Loves
You’ bumper sticker faded into the distance.

The old war veteran was visibly shaken up. He pressed

himself against the wall, fear all across his face. A solitary
tear rolled down his right cheek as a wave of war memories
flooded his mind, engulfing him in grief and reminding him
of the time when he took a bullet in the shoulder for a fellow
soldier. Explosions rang in his ears; shrapnel and the blood of
his friends and enemies splattered into his ocean blue eyes.
“Lieutenant Harper!” he exclaimed and held his arm out in
the air.

He shook his head and brought himself back to the present.

The world could see him; he could not see the world, or who
had knocked him to the ground. He sighed deeply,
387
straightened out his brown jacket and bent down to search for
his black shades. The old blind man patted the sidewalk until
he felt the shape of his crushed black shades between his
fingers. After struggling to stand up, he continued walking
shakily along the sidewalk with his white cane stretched out
in front of him, shaking it side to side against the pavement.

-----------------

The above scenario is a picture-perfect illustration of the

haughtiness of Christians who gripe against the behavior of
those they consider ‘spiritually blind.’ How can you criticize
people for not seeing what you see when you claim they are
spiritually blind? Would you criticize a blind man for not
being able to appreciate a painting in a gallery? The irony is
they too are blind if they are infuriated by the blind colliding
with them. As I’ve heard Carlton Pearson say, people are not
necessarily blind but blindfolded. The religious are
blindfolded.

My repeated admonishment to fanatical Christians would be:

“Put down your binoculars and pick up a mirror. A
judgmental attitude is obnoxious. Cut people some slack.”
Studies reveal that our natural tendency is to pass judgment
that is often unfair. Our force fed preconceived baggage and
logic influences our decisions about others. This warped
judgmental attitude is intensified in fundamentalist religious
circles where moral judgments are ripe and empathy rare.
Empathy is the ability to appreciate a person's difficulty from
their perspective by placing yourself in their shoes.

Humans imitate the deity or idol they worship. If they

worship a mean spirited God, they behave as such.
388
 “I don’t know whether or not most of the Christians I come
across think they’re acting and being like Jesus was – but if
they do, they need to go back to their Bibles, and take a
closer look at Jesus.”
— L.B., Phoenix

Christians are well-known for what they are against rather

than what they support. Marketing gimmicks, emotional
hype, and even sanctimonious deadness have become the
norm in the many religious circles that have been branded
lifeless. There is a harsh, judgmental tone in their
presentation and near total absence of heartfelt love and
empathy, except for deceitful evangelistic honey-trap love.

Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad
things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad
things.

Lessons from History

Religious pulpits are filled with sermons condemning
rebellious youth. Reading the following quote, does this
sound like a quote that describes modern day youth? Which
generation do you think it is a reference to?

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners,

contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and
love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants,
not the servants of their households. They no longer rise
when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross
their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.”
389
The quote allegedly originates from SOCRATES 469 BC–399 BC,
hundreds of years before the time of Jesus. He was not the
only one with a bleak outlook.

“What is happening to our young people? They disrespect

their elders; they disobey their parents. They ignore the law.
They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their
morals are decaying. What is to become of them?”

— Plato (428/427 BC – 348/347 BC

“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are

dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth
are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were
taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present
youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of
restraint.”
— Hesiod, 8th century BC

Nothing has changed much. Ranting preachers of

condemnation think that negative criticism will result in
transformation. Fundamentalist Christianity is habitually
guilty of sensationalism. Each generation believes it is the
last and most evil one, condemning their own as lukewarm
while painting all who disagree with their particular brand
with the same harsh brush.

It’s All the Lens You Wear

If you wore yellow-tinted shades, everything would appear
yellow. As much as others endeavored to persuade you a
white wall was white, you would sincerely insist it is yellow.
390
The lens you wear when evaluating determines your
assumptions. Be aware that experiences do color your
judgments and preconceived opinions about others.

Hurt People Hurt People

Religionists frequently experience chronic guilt. Guilty
people condemn others to project and reproduce the guilt
their experience. What is obsessively denounced publicly, is
often practiced privately. I am highly suspicious of those that
speak from a single page. To hide their failings they prop up
an image of guiltlessness.

“The empty vessel makes the loudest sound.”

― William Shakespeare

The next time you hear religionists harp on about immorality

realize that they are more than likely practicing behind closed
doors what they preach against in public. The guilt they
experience increases the volume and intensity with which
they are prepared to besmirch others. I’ll let you into a secret,
preachers are often preaching at themselves, but projecting it
as preaching at the hearers.

Weak people are offended easily

Religion is virtually bankrupt. It creates a weak mindset that
is constantly misjudging, condemning and critical. The fear
of being dismissed for compromise causes the mind of a
religionist to become uneasy and easily offended. Being
constantly offended is not a sign of being right. It just means
you are a narcissist, unable to tolerate differing opinions.
Repeated protests are not signs of strength, as they perceive,
but strong signs of feebleness.

391
Use the Same Measuring stick
Judge others, in the same manner, you critique yourself. The
failures of the religionists are self-classified as “a mistake,”
but when others fail, “they possess an evil heart” are
“married to Lucifer’s sister” and “the spirit of Jezebel is in
their underpants!”

You should not judge others by your personal standards and a

higher level of understanding you assume you have. It is
essential to meet people where they are. Would you send your
seven-year-old child out to work to earn a living? And if they
refuse, would you condemn them? Is this not unreasonable?
Have you sinned? Whenever I confront condemning
Christians, they become very hostile when I point out their
failings: “Not a single person on earth is always good and
never sins.” Ecclesiastes 7:20. The words of Jesus ring loud and
clear, “If anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to
throw a stone...” John 8:7. It’s a shame these words often fall on
deaf ears.

Paul lists what he considered as sinful behaviors to the

Corinthian church. Then he says, “and all this describes what
some of YOU were” I Corinthians 6:11. We fail to remember our
history, instead we become pharisaic and excessively pious
with a sickening sanctimonious attitude.

According to Jesus if you lust then you have committed

adultery. Perhaps you have not done the physical act because
you lack opportunity (or no one would want to do it with
you), but since no one is aware of your private thoughts you
justify yourself while condemning others. You expect
clemency and leniency, yet you condemn others.

392
Across the globe and throughout history religious preachers
condemn their audience, instead of being considerate. It’s a
‘do as I say, not as I do’ line of attack. This hypocrisy
produces a mass army of judgemental mimics. It’s easy to
follow half the Bible while critiquing others for disobeying
the parts you obey. You selectively cling to certain passages
while expecting others to follow the whole Bible.

What you fight you ignite

Christian extremists can be found picketing abortion clinics
and spewing hate on social media against homosexuals,
Muslims and a whole host of other grievances. Pouring
gasoline on fire will not extinguish it.

Striving to create a sense of guilt in others backfires because

that sense of condemnation causes them to repeat the
behavior, not cease it. Simply instructing people what not to
do will only trigger their curiosity. I created the following
illustration to explain this:

A group of school children walked past a brand new

greenhouse with shining glass panels every day on the way to
school. They took no notice of it. One day the owner placed a
clear sign that read, “Do Not Break This Glass.” The next
day the sound of breaking glass and running footsteps was
heard. The sign had attracted the children’s attention and
mischief set up housekeeping in their mind.

This could explain why the divorce rate amongst Christians is

the same as or above the national average in some nations. It
may also explain why in surveys 50% of Christian men and
20% of Christian women admit an addiction to pornography.

393
Double Standards
Those who press to establish their personal moral views as
the standard practice double standards. If Christians object to
a statue of the Ten Commandments being removed from
public property they cannot then protest when the Hindus
want a statue of one of their gods displayed on public
property.

It’s hypocritical to ignore the protests of others when your

protest is identical. Atheists frequently protest the lack of
recognition for their views. The following illustrates this and
has been circulated virally online:

“To my Christian Friends: Be honest, how would you feel:

If lawmakers wanted to use your tax revenue to support

Private Muslim schools to teach children Islamic beliefs?

If police cars and courthouses had the words, ‘Allah be

praised’ on them?

If your son or granddaughter was forced to recite Islamic

prayers to be on a public school sports teams?

If presidential candidates said that your National

Constitution might be ignored in favor of Islamic teaching?

An appalling thought isn’t it?

The thing is, atheists are living with this every single day, not
with Islam, but with Christianity.”

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

394
Contradiction in Actions & Beliefs
The religionist declares that love is the force that fuels their
religious life. Deep down the prime motivation is the fear of
the devil and hell, and this leads to hypocrisy.

They claim to love, but they hate. Their actions betray them
when they robotically speak to people with little or no
genuine care. The focus on being right blindfolds them from
being real. Securing a new convert is the real motive, not
meeting the person where they are and accepting them for
who they are. There conscious is drowned by the mantra,
“God loves you too much to keep you where you are.”

If the religionist genuinely believed in hell, they should be

out like a frantic lunatic warning others instead of making
cute excuses to justify their hypocrisy. If a man was trapped
in a burning house, would you warn him or ignore him?
Which excuse would justify walking past?

Dear religionist, do you believe in hell [Christianity], or are

you just trying to believe it? In my opinion, you truthfully
believe in good, but you have attached extra baggage to it,
dumped on you by religion.

Misjudging
Misjudging is the act of making an incorrect assessment. The
religionist habitually misjudges others, in most cases jumping
to unfounded or misinformed conclusions.

A television advertisement illustrates misjudging: A man

drives his concrete mixer lorry eagerly on his way to visit his
girlfriend. As he parks outside, he notices an unfamiliar open
395
top sports car parked outside. Peeking through the front
window of the property he gets a glimpse of his girlfriend
joyfully hugging a man as he hands her a bunch of flowers.
The lorry driver reverses his vehicle near to the sports car
and pours a full load of cement into it. He returns to the
window, and just then a camera man appears just as his wife
notices him in the window and points to the cheque in her
hand from a lottery win. He soon realizes his mistake.

In another video: A woman on a flight gets up in the middle

of the night to go to the toilet. It’s dark and as she attempts to
pass the passenger seated next to her she trips and falls,
landing straddled on his legs. Just then the lights come on,
and fellow passengers gasp.

When we only get a snapshot of a longer narrative, we tend to

fill in the blanks with our prejudiced ideas. Countless
numbers have been misjudged by religionists, frequently with
good intentions, but nonetheless hurtful for the victim.

Let me illustrate how they prematurely denounce non-

believers in a classic act of misjudgment based on a fallacy.
A Christian meets a non-believer and conveys to them they
are on a one-way ticket to hell and that the only remedy is
accepting Jesus Christ as Saviour. At each meeting with this
non-believer, the conversation is maneuvered towards the
subject of religion and the urgent need to escape hell. Every
tactic and graphic illustrations is employed to scare the hell
out of them. The non-believer endures this assault patiently
for many months, and the verbal assaults increase in intensity
as the Christian desperately tries to ‘save their soul’ because
they ‘care.’ It has not dawned on this Christian that according
to their beliefs the person’s name might already be in the
396
Lambs Book of Life since in a years’ time God knows they
will become a Christian.

----------------

“We’re having issues with Timothy again, Dr. Prophet,”

Mrs. Hershel sat in the Preacher’s office with her teenaged
son. He slumped in his seat and picked at a scab on his arm.

“What seems to be the matter?” he asked with concern.

“He’s stubborn and acting out!” Mrs. Hershel exclaimed,

“It’s a struggle to get him up for school. His father and I are
very frustrated. Nowadays he barely communicates with us
and shuts himself up in his room. His grades are dropping
dramatically too, and he is losing interest in church.”

“What disciplinary measures have you implemented?”

“We do just as the Bible tells us. We spank him on a regular

basis to get the foolishness out of him, but it’s all been in
vain. I threaten to take away his computer and push him to
do more chores, but he still won’t take school seriously,” she
sighed and looked over at her boy with disappointment.

“Why don’t we bow our heads and pray for this poor boy,”
the Preacher suggested. Timothy rolled his eyes as the
preacher laid his hand on his head. “Satan, I command you to
come out of this boy, In Jeeesus Name!” After the Preacher
had said his prayer, Mrs. Hershel smiled with pride.

“Thank you so much, Dr. Prophet Archbishop, I will go home

and pray as well,” she turned to Timothy and grabbed his
397
hand, but he pulled away. “Are you going to join your youth
group?”

“I can’t,” he snarled, “They kicked me out for being rude.”

“That should teach you a lesson,” his mother nodded and

stood up to shake the Preacher’s hand. As she dragged him
out the door by his ear, she began yelling at him. “You’re
such an ungrateful little brat! We’re trying to help you here,
and you didn’t even take part in the prayer.”

“Whatever, Mom,” he sighed and listened to her insults all

the way home.

Six months later, Timothy’s father and mother wept as they

sat on his bed that will never be slept in again. They stared at
the note in horror.

Dear Mom and Dad,

When Brett died, I blamed myself. I loved my big brother. I

should have gone to the park with him; maybe I could have
saved him when he fell in the lake. I’m sorry for not being
able to overcome my depression. All the kids at school make
fun of me, and I have no friends anymore. Even the teachers
ignore me. By the time you read this, I will have gone to
Chester’s Park to hang myself on the massive oak tree in the
middle. You’ll never have to be bothered or irritated by my
existence ever again.

Please forgive me.

Love,
398
Timothy.

-------------------

Dearest Mother,

I stumble into church every Sunday with a pair of dark

sunglasses covering the circles under my eyes. My head was
often pounding from a massive headache. Being hungover is
never fun. I felt nauseous as I slipped into the middle pew
while the Preacher gave his sermon, often directed at me. I
heard whispers all around me about my behavior.

“She’s disobeying the Bible and soiling His good name,” an

old lady with glasses that have a chain attached to them says.

“Her unwillingness to obey God is appalling,” a mother of

three whispers.

I heard every insult that they threw at me, but I pretended to

ignore them. I never let them see the tears that swelled up in
my eyes. Pretending to yawn and rubbing my eyes, I wiped
the bitter tears away before they could roll down my cheeks.
The names that they called me are far too vile to repeat in
this letter. Why didn’t they say them to my face? They
consistently shut me out of every conversation they had out of
spite. They don’t appreciate my way of life. Just because my
relationship with God was different than theirs, that doesn’t
mean that it’s was wrong.

I was always a party girl, right from my teen years. You know
that, Mom! I drink and sleep with as many men as I possibly
399
can. You’ve always told me that I had a free spirit. You
always saw me as your precious little girl. But why did you
always criticize the way I dressed?

Remember our neighbor Tom? He lived across the street

from us and babysat me until I was about fourteen. He moved
away because I got too old for his preferences. You’re
probably confused now, aren’t you?

I bet you didn’t know that Tom raped and molested me every
chance that he could. He crept into my room every single
night and forced himself on me. Sometimes he didn’t even
wait until bedtime. He would just grab me on the couch while
I was watching TV and start touching me.

It hurt really bad. I was too afraid to tell you because I didn’t
want him to hurt you. He threatened to do that many times.
As a five-year-old, I didn’t know that what he was doing was
wrong. I figured it out when I got older, but he continued to
touch me right up until I was fifteen. Did you know that he
broke into our home a lot?

As an adult, I give my body away to anyone who asks for it,

women and men alike. I drink the pain away and try to
forget, but when mornings arrive the pain rushes back –
wash, rinse, and repeat. I’ve decided to join God up in
Heaven. The people on Earth don’t understand me and don’t
want me here. Please forget about me.

I love you with all of my heart.

-Alexa

400
Self-inflicted persecution
“No problem can be solved from the same level of
consciousness that created it.”
― Albert Einstein

It touches me profoundly when I see Christians beaten and

killed for their faith. Religionists persecute other religionists
of differing faiths. When dealing with radical extremist
religious persecutors, it essential to be cautious in responding.
A negative attitude towards oppressors invites retaliation.
Very often the persecution inflicted on Christians is the
consequence of reckless conduct by overzealousness
evangelistic Christians. Persecution can arise merely from
being a Christian, but too often unwise words and actions can
escalate the situation. Inflammatory remarks and comments
are unhelpful. Using petrol to douse a fire is never advisable.

Fanatical Christians, either sent on imperialistic missionary

assignments or they of themselves packed up and went
seeking evangelistic adventures, are seldom prepared
adequately. Jesus said his disciples were like sheep sent
amongst wolves. These overzealous individuals are like goats
sent amongst wolves; wise as doves and harmless as serpents,
blindfolded soldiers armed with gospel machine guns and
more dangerous than a rabbit with aids - a sure recipe for
disaster, and unsurprisingly persecution arises. This
persecution fans the flames to fund additional fanatical
missionaries sent like a swarm of bees to combat the
persecution by evangelistic pollination, and the vicious circle
of guerrilla warfare tactics continues.

401
The tainted name of Christianity will be cleared with extreme
difficulty. Mass campaigns and hurtful comments against the
heathen flop. The hateful message of fundamentalist
Christianity cloaked with ‘Christian love’ is unproductive and
provocative. When squeaky clean Christians voice their
grievances they time and again sound irritatingly squeaky.
Yelling, “Stop persecuting Christians!” like a mad lunatic
filled with anger and hate will never produce positive results.
Knee-jerk emotional responses result in more destruction than
good. When we are wronged, our natural inclination is to
fight back, to get even. It goes without saying that this
reaction, though completely human, is almost always a
mistake. Mindless revenge is the sign of a savage nature.

Short term solutions like marching through city centers with

homemade banners usually amount to nothing more than
placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. The outcome of these
publicity stunts is the image of Christians is further tainted at
worst and a hollow victory at best. Does this mean no action
should be taken against persecution? No! Awareness does
help, yet at times, silence speaks louder, and a mature, refined
response is more effective on other occasions. Wise responses
are more constructive than emotional reactions.

The damaged done by a fundamentalist's mindset must be

stopped in its tracks by curbing the numerical growth they
need to survive. Similar to a shark, fundamentalism swims or
dies. To end its hard-line message and tone it must reform to
a more Christ-like approach. Jesus never preached Jesus.
Preaching the essence what Jesus taught is a sensible
solution.

402
The New Testament, as I have read it, portrays and outlines
the Gospel as a proclamation, not an invitation. This single
perspective can revolutionize traditional Christianity. A
message of inclusion is more effective than an insensitive
elitist message.

Christmas or Xmas?
Numerous Christians are irritated when Christmas is referred
to as ‘Xmas.’ Let’s take this point as an example of how a
fuss can be made over nothing.

“The idea of using “X” in place of Christ is not a modern

idea. In the Modern Roman alphabet, which comes from the
Greeks who were before Rome, the first letter of the word
“Christ” is “chi” which is represented by a symbol similar
to the letter “X.”
X in Ancient Greek is pronounced as the hard “ch.” The
Greek Chi or X is the first letter in the Greek word Christos
as in Iesus Christos aka Jesus Christ. You will frequently see
people write Xmas, as well as Xian, which means Christian,
using the same principle.

Chi is written as an “X” and Rho is written as a “P,” but

they are the first two letters of the Greek word Christ
“savior” “XP” is sometimes used to stand for. Sometimes X
is used alone. This is the case in the Chi (X) abbreviation for
Christ in Xmas.

Thus, Xmas is not directly a way of secularizing the holiday,

but since “X” is not Chi in English, we read the word as X-
mas and see no connection with Christ. It’s really not the
word Xmas fault, but our ignorance. Some may use Xmas
today as an unchristian shortcut for Christmas, but the
403
ancient abbreviation by no means originated as such, so if
those who wish to secularize Christmas really knew their own
history and etymology they’d stop using the old (before 1551
AD, before the KJV was translated) way of writing out the
word for Christ in Greek. The scribes who copied New
Testament manuscripts had no intention of taking Christ out
of the New Testament. They used the abbreviation simply to
save time and space.

Jokingly we’d say X-Men could mean “Christ Men” and X-

Box “Christ Box” and Generation X as “Generation Christ.”
Knowledge is power, and the truth (veritas- Latin for truth)
will set you free. No matter how you spell it, Xmas or
Christmas, it is still about the celebration of the birth of
Christ regardless of the actual date when he was really
born.”
― X Means Christ: It's All Greek To Me by Chris Head

Evidentially Christians unnecessarily get their knickers in a

twist. I have presented this fact to Christians, and they remain
angered by the fact people write ‘Xmas’ instead of Christmas.
It is self-evident they are disinterested in facts; they are only
concerned about their personal agenda and being right.

When Preachers Fall

The mean-spirited hostility is plainly witnessed in the way
fallen ministers are treated. This hostility highlights the
hypocritical hostile attitude within Christendom.

The Christian Church is the only army that executes it’s

wounded. Christians can often be ruthless and brutal when
dealing with individuals who they consider having failed
morally. Why do people expect leaders to be flawless when
404
they are not? Leaders are prone to blunders for a variety of
reasons; stress and pressure can be common reasons.
Whatever the cause, any response should be seasoned with
compassion.

Rather than supporting an individual that fails, lies and

rumors are viciously spread unchecked. Razor sharp daggers
appear hastily out of thin air to stab the heart, just to
guarantee their death. Character assassination becomes the
agenda as the attempt to belittle the perpetrator gains
momentum.

When an individual of notoriety fails should Christians affirm

the secular media response or the Bibles? Secular media
desires scandalous news stories and will exaggerate, distort
and lie about any incident. Should Christians engage in
malicious talk? Do they ultimately exhibit compassion or
hatred? In their striving to avoid plummeting into the ditch of
justifying immorality, countless individuals fall into the other
ditch of condemning verbal mob justice, instead of being
supportive.

In the gospel, we read the story of a woman caught in the act

of adultery by the religious right. Jesus proceeds to annihilate
the hateful doctrine of the theology graduates that had
assembled. Just envisage this solemn assembly as he
gracefully takes charge of the proceedings. There was no
condemnation, just the uncomplicated words, “Then neither
do I condemn you, go now and sin no more.” Pure, undiluted
empathy.

I can imagine what the reaction of the modern church would

have been. While they would condemn punishment by
405
stoning, they would smugly partake in verbal stoning aimed
at homosexuals, atheists, Satanists, and anyone who differs
from them.

The prodigal son was not relegated to the seat of a second

class citizen. He was restored to his original position of
nobility. The senior brother, like numerous Christians, could
not comprehend and appreciate the father’s response. His
reaction is identical to the thinking of religious Christians.
Careless remarks betray and expose self-righteousness, for
example when the self-righteous proclaim, “I would never do
such an evil thing!” “We can never trust them again” “We
can’t allow this type of behavior in the church. They should
NEVER be allowed to preach again!”

“So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you
don't fall!”
I Corinthians 10:12

Our response when one fails lays bare the condition of our
heart. Do we seek to join the lynch mob and be agents of
gossip, make false accusations and spreading rumors? If you
have aught good to utter, then utter nothing. It is disgraceful
that some Christians delight when others fail, hardly a Christ-
like response. How can you claim you love God, who you
cannot see, yet not love your fallen comrade who you can
see? 1 John 4:20. Some respond by saying they feel hurt and
offended. Weak people are easily offended. In any case, you
are to “forgive those that trespass against you” Matthew 6:14. The
truth of the matter is that you attack and seek to destroy the
person because you have not forgiven the person. You cannot
quench your thirst for vengeance by drinking poison
expecting the other person to die.
406
What if you failed morally, how would you like others to
respond? “Do to others as you would have them do to you”
Luke 6:31
. Your response to the failing of others is revealing. If
you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the
problem. Continual probing and meddling are more harmful
than helpful.

“Sen. Mark Hatfield recounts the following history: James

Garfield was a lay preacher and principal of his
denominational college. In l880, he was elected president of
the United States, but after only six months in office, he was
shot in the back with a revolver. He never lost consciousness.
At the hospital, the doctor probed the wound with his little
finger to seek the bullet. He couldn't find it, so he tried a
silver-tipped probe. Still he couldn't locate the bullet.

They took Garfield back to Washington, D.C. Despite the

summer heat, they tried to keep him comfortable. He was
growing very weak. Teams of doctors tried to locate the
bullet, probing the wound over and over. In desperation, they
asked Alexander Graham Bell, who is working on a little
device called the telephone, to see if he could locate the metal
inside the president's body. He came, he sought, and he too
failed. The president hung on through July, through August,
but in September, he finally died - not from the wound, but
from infection. The repeated probing, which the physicians
thought would help the man, eventually, killed him. So it is
with people who dwell too long on [their] sin and refuse to
release it to God.” ― Roger Thompson

The cure is a fresh realization of the principle of forgiveness.

It’s one thing to proclaim, “Christ is the answer” but then
407
turn around and apply destructive solutions to problems.
According to the Bible, bad decisions are not a trivial matter
and so they do not require your selfish, self-righteous efforts
to deal with them, they need a realistic solution that produces
lasting transformation.

Regardless of what is said to some people, they will cling to

their old rugged attitude. The words ‘grace’ or ‘empathy’ are
not found in their dictionary. In fact, if you look in their
dictionary under the word ‘judgemental’ you will see their
photo.

When it comes to misjudgment and lack of empathy a

substantial segment of Christianity is in desperate need of a
makeover. Their hostility towards one another overspills into
the wider community [“the world”], toward whom they are
also unsympathetic and hostile.

Empty Vessels Make the Loudest Noise

As already mentioned, when you hear somebody repeatedly
condemn a practice you can be sure they are making every
effort to hide their struggle with that very behavior. Their
secret guilt compels them to oppose the very vice that grips
them in an attempt to prove to themselves and their God that
they genuinely believe their undisclosed immoral inclinations
are sinful.

People condemn others because they feel condemned.

Condemned people condemn others. Hurt people hurt people.
They verbally stone others while seated on their self-
righteous high horse gawking intimidating with piercing eyes
that scrutinize the victims every move, hunting faults to

408
criticize haphazardly, to indirectly create a superior image of
themselves. Their protests sound like a broken gong.

The Art of Influence

People will reject a message, simply because they reject the
messenger. Religious nuts in Christianity will say, “We need
to stand up for righteousness!” For arguments sake let’s say
your version of morality is the superior. What would be the
best approach to teaching others?

Imagine teaching a child to walk. They take a few steps then

fall. Would you smack them on the head and scream,
“Focus!?” On their second attempt, they fall again. This
time, you scream, “Are you serious about this or not?” The
third time they fall you strike them viciously in the face, “Do
you want to learn to walk or not?”

How does this illustration relate to schooling people to walk-

the-walk and talk-the-talk according to your moral standard?
Which is the greatest methodology to teach them to walk?
What is the correct response towards what you perceive to be
the failures of others? Take a moment to ponder these
questions: “Do not remove a fly from your friend's forehead
with a hatchet” Chinese Proverb.

Retaliating hatefully and aggressively, in the name of religion

and worse still ‘in the name of Jesus’, backfires on the
Christian cause and amounts to falling on their sword. Once
the root of bitterness finds a home in the heart, the individual
drinks poison, hoping their enemy dies. Patience,
understanding, and care are ideal ingredients when seeking to
instruct others.

409
Grace versus Law
One of the controversies in Christendom is the clash between
the grace and legalistic camps. Each camp’s understanding of
grace and the law is fundamentality different. It is not within
the scope of this book to deal with this subject so I will be
brief.

Those that refer to themselves as the ‘grace camp’ emphasize

the love, mercy and grace of God. They consider Christians
who differ with them as legalistic, mean-spirited and
condemnatory. The grace Christians tend to be more
inclusive, loving and understanding with a growing number
now rejecting the concept of hell as a place of never-ending
punishment. They believe their message of grace empowers
them not to have to live in offense, defense or pretense.
According to them when you live by unconditional love for
others you will live a more moral life by ‘accident’ than you
ever will on purpose. The Biblical standpoint is that the root
of sin is the absence of grace and love. When grace is
abounding sin has no dominion.

Those on the opposing side tend to be more antagonistic and

less forgiving. They emphasize holiness, hell, judgment and
the devil. The direction the grace camp is moving in is to a
certain degree a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the
majority are still fundamentalist in their overall approach to
the Bible. If Christianity could become more inclusive and
less judgmental, the outcome would be phenomenal.

Too Good to be True

Shockingly the religious right will accuse others in the
Christian camp of proclaiming a message that is, “too loving,

410
graceful and merciful.” The root meaning of the word
‘gospel’ is “News almost too good to be true.”

“Good News is the English translation of the Koine Greek

ευαγγέλιον (euangelion) (eu “good” + angelion "message").
The Greek term was Latinized as evangelium and translated
into Latin as bona annuntiatio. In Old English, it was
translated as gōdspel (gōd "good" + spel “news”). The Old
English term was retained as gospel in Middle English Bible
translations and hence remains in use also in Modern
English.” ― Wikipedia

Within Christendom, there are varying versions of the gospel.

Specifically, amongst those that proclaim an inclusive
message, there are varying degrees of inclusiveness.

Heretic Hunters
On the tail end of this chapter, I would like to address the
spiritual police force that parades around with pulpits hanging
from their necks pointing fingers and quick to accuse others
of being heretics, false prophets, and spokespersons for the
devil. This brand of Christian takes any criticism or question
as an attack. I am highly suspicious of their motives as they
appear to be stubborn defenders of traditions rather than
genuine seekers of truth. Regardless if someone is an atheist,
liberal or religionists, their views should be considered
rationally and not shelved simply because of they speak from
a differing platform.

It is not uncommon for individuals in society to be innocently

be accused of rape or being a pedophile just to ruin their
name. Within Christendom, the label that can harm a person’s
reputation is being accused of being a heretic. This word
411
sounds worse than it is, but once labeled a heretic it can be
difficult to clear one's name.

A heretic is ‘one who holds to heresy; one who believes some

doctrine contrary to the established faith or prevailing
religion’ Webster’s Dictionary, Heretic Page: 688. By the above definition,
Martin Luther was a heretic in the opinion of the established
church. This further indicates that the accuser may be
heretical.

The Greek word for ‘heretic’ found Titus 3:10 is ‘haireticos’

and it is used only once in the New Testament. There is
another related Greek word - hairesis - which means a ‘sect’
or a ‘heresy.’ This word is used in Acts 24 where the Apostle
Paul was accused of heresy. While defending his new belief
in Christ before the court he says:

“But this I confess to you, that I follow the way which others
call HERESY, in this way I worship the God of my fathers,
believing all things which are written in the law and the
prophets.” Acts 24:14

Historically Christians have even murdered other believers

that disagree with them.

“In the year 1553, an event occurred which would forever

blacken the reputation of Calvin in the eyes of an ungodly
world. In that year a heretic named Michael Servetus entered
Geneva after fleeing from France after being condemned for
his heresy there and escaping from prison in Vienna. He was
seen in the streets of Geneva and arrested on August 13. This
trouble he had brought upon himself by his book which

412
denied the existence of the Trinity as well as the practice of
infant baptism.

The trial began, and as it progressed, it became evident that

the authorities had two choices: banish Servetus or execute
him. The counsel for each city was the same: execute the
heretic. The method of burning alive was chosen. Calvin
intervened to appeal for the quicker and merciful beheading
as the method of execution, but the council refused and on
October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed.”

― Excerpted from “Calvin Vs Servetus” by J. Steven Wilkins

Thomas Aquinas openly supported the burning of heretics

stating:

“If the heretic remains pertinacious the church, despairing of

his conversion, provides for the salvation of others by
separating him from the church by the sentence of
excommunication and then leaves him to the secular judge to
be exterminated from the world by death.”

― Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae q. 11 a. 3

What kind of Christianity is this? Merely claiming these

heretic-killers were not authentic Christians challenges the
moral judgment that banishes someone to eternal fiery
torment in hell for disagreements that amount to nothing
more than differences in definitions and interpretations of
ancient texts.

Insecurity, narrow-mindedness, and opinionated

fundamentalists conclude all are heretics, except themselves.
413
Always be weary of people who are quick to use the label
‘heretic.’ It could be a cover. Remember, we are all unaware
of beliefs and views we hold that are errors.

There are so many topics and issues I could have a view on,
but I do not have the time to investigate them to give a quality
opinion. Truthfully, there are some general subjects I have
not reached a conclusion on, nor I am sure I ever will.

I enjoyed this illustration I read many years ago.

“I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man

standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and
said 'Stop! Don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said,
'Well, there's so much to live for!' He said, 'Like what?' I
said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?' He said,
'Religious.' I said, 'me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?'
He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'me too! Are you Catholic or
Protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'me too! Are you
Episcopalian or Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, 'Wow! Me
too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the
Lord?' He said, 'Baptist Church of God!' I said, 'me too! Are
you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed
Baptist Church of God?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church
of God!' I said, 'me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of
God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of
God, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist
Church of God, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic
scum,' and pushed him off.”

Conclusion
Religion is largely a personal issue and a quest for security. It
means a lot to a lot of people, and it means nothing to others.
414
 “Don't complain and talk about all your problems - 80
percent of people don’t care; the other 20 percent will think
you deserve them.” ― Mark Twain

Christianity is heavily criticized and accused of being anti-

science, anti-freedom, and anti-everything. Atheists attack
Christianity by antagonistically scorning Christians for their
intolerance. This negative impression of Christians is
widespread, and the media show heavy bias against
Christians. Public ridicule has caused many Christians to
become defensive and antagonistic. As a result, both sides
predominantly live up to these stereotypes and contribute to
perpetuating the stereotype. This vicious circle benefits no
one.

Fundamentalist Christianity is primarily made up of

religiously overfed pot-bellied Christians hyped up by
Christian media, relaxed in their piousness and overly zealous
to protest like spoiled children about whatever upsets them.
In some nations Christians cannot voice their opinion openly,
let alone stand up for their rights and in this environment,
Christianity is less religious and more spiritual. They do not
have time to play the games Western Christians do, largely
due to the fact it is a matter of life or death. Freedom of
speech has become a license to voice beliefs no matter how
absurd they are.

Countless numbers turn from or ignore Christianity due to the

intolerance of certain sects, and I’m not just referring to the
Westboro Baptist Church. Grouchy protests do not work.
Leave it to the freaks like those at Westboro Baptist Church
and other self- righteous churches. Christians should instead
415
focus on social justice, human rights and other worthy causes
to make the world a better place.

I can hear religionists complain, “Yes, but we must make our

voice heard! Stand up for our rights!” I agree. Expressing
your opinions and concerns is fine, but is it a voice of reason,
inclusion, and compassion? A tone and message that carries
the sound of condemnation acts as a repellent. Is it not time
that Christians cease trying to police the world? Conservative
imperialistic dominionism is a venture doomed to failure.
Soft-Dominionism includes beliefs like “The USA is a
Christian nation” and the separation of church and state.
Hard- Dominionism, also known as ‘dominion theology’ and
‘Christian Reconstructionism’ will be met with heavy
opposition. Dictatorship does not work. Militant Christian
dominionism is universal Biblical jihad against infidels,
conquering the world with the proverbial ‘Sword of the
Spirit.’

Each should undertake an internal examination rather than

point and wag fingers. Let me end this chapter with some
humor:

‘A guide at Blarney Castle in Ireland was explaining to some

visitors that his job was not always as pleasant as it seemed.
He told them about a group of disgruntled Christian tourists
he had taken to the castle earlier in the week.

“These people were complaining about everything,” he said.

“They didn't like the weather, the food, their hotel
accommodations, the prices, everything. Then to top it off,
when we arrived at the castle, we found that the area around

416
the Blarney Stone was roped off. Workmen were making
some repairs.”

“This is the last straw!” exclaimed one lady who seemed to

be the chief faultfinder in the group. “I've come all this way,
and now I can't even kiss the Blarney Stone.”

“Well, you know,” the guide said, “according to legend, if

you kiss someone who has kissed the stone, it's the same as
kissing the stone itself.”
“And I suppose you've kissed the stone,” said the exasperated
lady.

“Better than that,” replied the guide. “I've sat on it.”

There are those on the other extreme who think all

complaining is wrong.

“A monk joined a monastery and took a vow of silence. After

the first ten years, his superior called him in and asked, "Do
you have anything to say?" The monk replied, "Food bad."
After another ten years, the monk again had the opportunity
to voice his thoughts. He said, "Bed hard." Another ten years
went by, and again he was called in before his superior.
When asked if he had anything to say, he responded, "I quit."
"It doesn't surprise me a bit. You've done nothing but
complain ever since you got here.” ― Source Unknown

If your intention is to portray yourself as a representative of

God, then offload the smarmy exterior - that certain attitude
accompanied by a squinty stare and a proud smirk that
instinctively creates animosity and causes others to be

417
revolted by you. Be compassionate, empathetic and authentic.
Tolerance is sanity. You can walk and chew gum at the same
time. You don’t have to have a narrow perspective.
Remember, when you point a finger at others, three fingers
point back at you.

418
 Chapter Eleven
Cultic Christianity
“There's a difference between knowing the path, and walking
the path.”
― The Matrix

At the core of church attendance and ministry, affiliation is

the sense of community and belonging humans crave. My
personal observation over decades has left me convinced that
countless churches are dangerously sinister and cultic in their
methodology and agenda. These hierarchical and
authoritarian churches reek of emotional and psychosocial
death. Ironically they snub cults like JW's and Mormons,
failing to realize they share identical leadership methods, like
two peas in a pod. Over eighty percent should pull the plug
and close their doors immediately.

Pollution is in air, even if you can't smell it. Poison is in your

food, even if you can't see it. Visible dirt is swiftly and
meticulously cleaned up. The reality is, 99% of it is invisible
and odorless. Your church could be bursting with cultic
bacteria, but customization to its methods, practices and ethos
desensitize your intellectual immune system rendering you
powerless to detect harmful cultic behavior.

The blame predominantly lies with church leaders. Some are

nothing more than snakes in suits - pleasant outwardly, but
you will spot glimpses of darkness within. Their captivating
hype is fuelled by energetic music, motivational speeches,
love bombing and seducing the vulnerable with irresistible
empty promises. Once trapped in the web of religiosity,
419
struggling for freedom produces increasing guilt, and in due
course, you learn to dampen the guilt by accepting claims of
divine forgiveness.

Each branch of Christianity considers itself Orthodox – the

official brand. The reader might be aghast if their version of
Christianity was labeled cultic. In this post-scientific age, we
have no need for infallible Pastors and Popes, inerrant and
infallible Scriptures and exclusive and elitist religions. Permit
me to point out tell-tale signs of cultic behavior and leave you
to make diagnoses of cultic behavior. Cultic conduct can be
intentional or unintentional, so it is not always easy to detect.
Either way don’t carry your Bible to church and leave your
brain at home, skepticism and inquisitiveness are your human
right. Keep your eyes peeled. Where there's smoke, there’s
fire.

Allow me to take you beneath the hood of a fundamentalist

church so you can differentiate between a church where you
are celebrated and one where you are tolerated. The
subliminal techniques employed are not easily discerned by
insiders. In hindsight, after parting from a religious
community, these techniques become more discernible.
Viewing from an external perspective offers an entirely
different view compared to viewing from an internal
standpoint. Internal perspectives tend to be colored. An
independent non-biased view should always be welcomed.

Factory Vs Garden Production

If you like sausages or Christians, you shouldn’t watch either
during the manufacturing process. Observing extreme
fundamentalist terrorists it is as if they were all mass
produced at the same factory minus their brain cells and
420
shipped worldwide. The unifying factor is the reading lens
through which they interpret the Bible.

In a garden, growth is natural and free, but a factory mass

produces products in identical batches. When you’ve seen
one, you’ve seen them all. Individuality is not encouraged or
celebrated. Predetermined beliefs and behaviors are
dogmatically enforced to produce cookie cut-out Christians,
whose growth is stunted like a tree stump.

Evangelism and Discipleship

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make
one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the
child of hell you yourselves are!” Matthew 23:15

Your ultra-pleasant Christian neighbor has been sublimely

programmed to be robotically polite, merely to convert you.
Their fraudulent candor is a tactic engineered in an
evangelistic rivalry for the most converts and a ploy to
neutralize your natural defense mechanisms. They’ve been
convinced that millions will burn in hell unless they convince
non-believers to repeat a ‘magical prayer’ to appease an
angry God.

Religious conversions can be dramatic while others casually

slip in. Once in the ‘Christian world’ converts don’t often
realize how dramatically visible their behavior changes are.
Forget the positive changes; it’s the negative ones that
concern family and friends. The intense experience is
overwhelming, making ongoing entrapment extremely easy.

421
Discipleship and indoctrination are part and parcel of
evangelism. In strict evangelistic Christian communities, this
two-fold model is clearly practiced: Preach and disciple
[train] converts to do the same. It becomes a vicious circle.
The new convert absorbs the new group’s teachings like a
hungry sponge, even learning to speak Christianese while
trapped in a web that assumes complete doctrinal accuracy.
The conversion experience freezes thinking capabilities since
natural mental virus checking software is first uninstalled, the
brain then goes into a frenzied download mode – perceived as
innocent ‘new-covert enthusiasm.’

Over time the new convert will struggle in the web, resisting
restrictive beliefs or practices in an environment where
questioning is frowned upon. They dread being labeled
‘unspiritual,’ not a desirable tag in an ‘ultra-spiritual’
environment. Eventually, they either rebel or conform by
falling in line and losing individual autonomy.

In cultic churches, there is a consistent in-out flow of

members. The deal is this: If you don't join, you will be
tortured in hell - that's blackmail. If you join, then want to
leave you will be eternally burned, that's not freedom. The
new convert falling away rate in Christianity is as high as 95 -
99% within the first year.

Group Dynamics
In most group settings faith is practiced in the style of that
particular local church; individual expressions are subtly
discouraged. The result is group dynamics begins to play out.
Group dynamics is a term that defines procedures and
conduct within a group where a group is two or more persons
who are allied with each other through social relationships.
422
The influential interaction results in the development of
processes that give them their distinct identity. The leader
will classically have strong influence and define the group's
aims.

Group dynamics works in gatherings where the atmosphere is

charged with passion and enthusiasm. The service functions
as a performance where all are participants and the distinction
between the lead performer and audience is virtually non-
existent. When like-minded people gather a euphoric
experience is produced by the brain releasing oxytocin that
creates an addiction to the experience.

Not all religious communities are unhealthy; they can be

extremely beneficial. In fact, healthy group dynamics is a
normal part of human existence. Faith-based communities
can bring powerful social solutions. Problems arise with the
abuse of the human need for interaction.

Unhealthy Leadership
I am very sympathetic towards the majority of fundamentalist
church leaders. In many cases, they have been thrust into the
position, and other times their overzealous desire to make a
difference in society launches them on a self-appointed
assignment, camouflaged as a divine assignment. A good
number are hard-working, sincere and underappreciated.
However, the cultic nature of a church unquestionably stems
from the church leadership.

‘Just because a person is in front of you doesn't necessarily

mean they're leading you. They could be blocking you. Learn
to discern!’

423
 ― Source Unknown

The one in the driving seat has control, learn when it’s time to
hop off their bus. Attempts at back seat driving will fail.
When the horse is dead, it’s time to dismount, or you’ll
become part of the problem since it takes two to tango.

Controlling Leadership
Individuals attempt to control others when they can barely
control themselves. Controlling leadership is not always
innocent. When abusive leaders do not secure the cooperation
of their congregation, they use control techniques to achieve
their goals. The church becomes ego driven.

The need to be extremely controlling can be a self-defence

mechanism. The church may have hurt them. Hurt people
hurt people. Either way, thuggish leadership paralyzes
people.

In controlling churches, members are required to secure

consent to go on vacation or to miss church services for a
family weekend away. This requirement is understandable for
church employees, but to expect everyone to secure
permission is unhealthy control.

Cultic Pastors intensely loathe members terminating their

membership. This dislike stems from a subconscious belief
that they own people by divine mandate, and so they
habitually stress their position as leader. If someone
disconnects from the church their name will be dragged
through the dirt, this is especially true of long-term members.
If someone wants to leave a church, it goes without saying
that they should be permitted and supported in their
424
transition, perhaps even assisting them to find a suitable
church.

Those who claim to be a ‘spiritual covering’ for others are

nothing more than wet blankets dipped in icy water. Leaders
may be at the steering wheel, but they must not forget who
fuels the vehicle.

Telling versus Teaching

The word ‘education’ means ‘to lead thought out’ and not,
‘to push thought in’. Cultic Pastors tell instead of teach.
There is a fundamental difference between telling others what
to believe and teaching them how to think. Indoctrination is
not true education; it is brainwashing. Healthy teaching
consists of showing the student how to assess the validity of
the evidence presented while allowing them the freedom to
come genuinely to their conclusions without the fear of a lash
back. Indoctrination is essentially brainwashing. It focuses on
showing people what to think instead of how to think.
Ironically, cultic teachers are themselves unteachable.

Hurt Preachers Hurt People

I am sympathetic with church leaders who have felt betrayal
and disillusioned when those they heavily invested in are
ungrateful or even casually walk away, often with the
ricketiest of pretexts. That does not justify harsh, vindictive
and heavy-handed reactions. Cult leaders are prone to
outbursts of anger, something I’ve witnessed first-hand.

Drone attack sermons are used to bomb people, rather than

build people. Frequently they preach at people instead of to
people, more than often it is ambiguously directed
specifically at a disgruntled individual or group in the
425
audience for the purpose of scolding or even humiliating
them. Personal hurts and frustrations of the preacher are off-
loaded on the congregation via the pulpit.

“You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That's

assault, not leadership.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

These forked-tongued black belts in manipulation demolish

people instead of empowering them.

Fear Based Preaching

In cultic churches, congregants are threatened with curses,
hellfire and missing the second coming. Their message is so
phony that they need to petrify folk into obedience. Abusive
leaders use fear tactics and emotional blackmail to secure
allegiances. Focus on hell, holiness, and the end-times is a
sign of cultish behavior.

Favouritism
Rivalry, favoritism and a system of rewards & punishments
ensure loyalty to the leader. Cultic church leaders surround
themselves with ‘yes-men’ to guard their mini-empire.
Conforming secures promotion and recognition while
rebelling leads to banishment.

The financially secure are the recipients of greater

recognition. Some Church leaders can be purchased and
controlled by the economically wealthy, even to the point of
selling the pulpit to prosperous church members who become
puppet masters pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

426
Family-based favoritism is also widespread where control is
reserved for family members. Some ministries run deep
generationally.

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth
Cultic leaders blow smoke and project their beliefs as
faultless. Failing to realize that no one is immune from error
is the blunder of the deluded. Everybody innocently accepts
some inaccuracy as accurate. An individual, church or
denomination that considers it has a monopoly on the truth is
truly cultic. All contain some truth; it’s the poison that is
lethal.

Financial or numerical growth in your ministry is not an

indication that everything you teach is accurate. There is
always a better understanding. For example, you may claim
that believing in the Trinity is essential to salvation, but
which of the, at least, five different versions of the trinity do
you believe? Which is the official one? Each Christian is
convinced their view is the correct version.

The fact you are convinced does not mean you are correct.
Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Calvinists, Oneness
Pentecostals and numerous other sects contradict mainstream
beliefs, but they are equally and sincerely convinced their
doctrines are correct. A little humility will go a long way to
earn respect.

Blowing Own Trumpet

Insecure leaders persistently need praises and will even fish
for compliments. The chronically insecure blow their own
trumpet, and any conversation with them will be steered
towards highlighting their past accomplishments and current
427
activities. The self-obsessed leader is skilled at disguising
their language to conceal their proud obsession with personal
achievements and qualities. Anyone who brags they are
humble is not Col. 2:18 NIV. Projecting strength is a gimmick to
conceal fear and weakness.

Touch Not the Lords Beehive

Insecure cultic Pastors detest being challenged, confronted or
resisted. To do so would stir a hornet’s nest. The insecure
leader habitually reiterates their position and the potential for
divine retribution for challenging them. They are quick to go
into a defensive mode and label members ‘rebellious’ and ‘a
trouble maker.’ Anyone who constructively criticizes or
suggests improvements is viewed as a threat, they are
marginalized, stigmatized and cast out of the system.

The cultic leader is paranoid and afraid of outsiders. Inquiries

from outsiders are viewed as meddling and intrusion. The
fear of scrutiny and vulnerability fuels their isolation.

Fear of Diversity
Diversity threatens cultic Pastors who fear change in style,
doctrine or methodology. They associate practically
exclusively with those of their ilk with similar styles,
doctrines and methods. Fear of contamination and change
lock them into a limited circle of association. An exclusion
mentality is a cultic trait.

Competitive Environment
Fundamentalist Church leaders are competitive and under
immense pressure to build a congregation larger than the
competitors - the Joneses. The primary goal becomes
numerical church growth by conversions, blatant sheep
428
stealing, and subliminal cross-congregation attraction-
marketing: build a mega-church, instead of building mega-
people. Their sole concern is ‘bums on seats,’ unconcerned
whose bum it is; any bum will do – large, small, saggy and
even those that appear to have been pelted with pebbles of
condemnation, causing extensive dents.

A conversation between pretentious leaders consists of one or

both subtly belittling the other while highlighting their self-
importance and achievements. If a leader is more qualified or
a better orator the cult leader senses a threat and a subtle
rivalry commences. Could you imagine your church leader
going out of their way to support the work of another leader?
How about suggesting 100 members join another church to
support a small church? These would be unusual actions from
a house of slavery where members are pawns in an empire
building game. Should not leaders be serving the people?

Money Focused
The greatest advocates for tithes and offerings are recipients.
A cultic church relentlessly demands financial contributions.
Contributions that should be given willingly are made under
coercion. Granted that this is occasionally due to a genuine
aspiration to build a charitable work that benefits people, it’s
not an excuse for such gimmicks as selling snake oil.

Constantly hearing begging sermons, camouflaged as

opportunities to be blessed, by leaders skilled in the art of
extracting donations, results in emotionally drained and
financially depleted congregants defiantly adopting a belief in
‘One Lord, One Faith, One Dollar.’

429
Preachers who are guaranteeing blessings for donations are
running a scam. Tele-evangelists give persuasive sermons to
convince viewers to call the number on the screen and make a
credit card donation. Others ask you to call and make a
‘pledge’ if you have no money, a ploy just to obtain your
contact details and seduce others to make a guilt-trip pledge.
At the height of an emotional appeal, the donor calls to
pledge an unaffordable financial gift. When their emotions
have died down, they feel guilty not honoring their pledge,
regularly hounded through email and snail mail until they
fulfill their pledge.

Why do these preachers insist you donate ‘now’ using your

‘credit card’? Not in a million years would they say, “Take
your time, - and send in the donation after you are sure; wait
for a week or a month”?

Donor interprets unexpected cash incomes as rewards for

their payoff. Five thousand may call in and donate, less than
1% write-in claiming a miracle as a result of the donation
they gave. Their report is used in the subsequent appeals, and
the 99% percent who expected a miracle but received none
are not mentioned or worse still accused of lacking faith.

Sadly, their effective fundraising is possible owing to a

gullible audience who are either sincerely fervent to please
God, hungry to satisfy their greed, or cruelly exploited. Either
way, the giver, and receiver are often motivated by the need
to make a quick buck. Cultic leaders skilfully fleece victims
while claiming not to be motivated by money. So, what
should you do if a coin becomes stuck in your throat? Call a
cultic Pastor; they know how to take money out of people.

430
Donors give more willingly than they do under pressure.

Unhappy Atmosphere
Some churches exhibit a jovial atmosphere where everyone
appears genuinely content, yet the church itself adopts cultic
features. Others churches are endured, where congregants are
merely props.

During worship, facial expressions typically exhibit anguish

and pain instead of joy. Services resemble a funeral than a
celebration service. Dreary songs produce a countenance that
bears a resemblance a sufferer of constipation who has just
drunk undiluted lemon juice.

Mental suffocation is the root of this unhappiness. Churches

can be funny farms. Faith can be a form of mental illness.
The mind deteriorates when it is not permitted to function
unhindered, often leading to depression. Minimal
opportunities exist to think independently in cultic churches.
An example of this is the corporal punishment of children.
Some parents feel it is abuse, as do pediatricians and mental
health professionals. Fundamentalist churches seem to
believe spanking a child is the solution to global problems.
Pulpits make parents feel second-rate for not spanking their
children. The list of other practices that damped spirits is
depressingly long, including parents pressured to disown their
gay children, women excluded from leadership and dating is
forbidden without permission from the Pastor. This
suppression of human expression is detrimental.

Smile, Jesus loves you, but his dad thinks you’re ****.

Killing You Softly

431
Cultic churches maintain a heavy schedule to retain
supporters. Burnout is common, both for leaders and
congregants. Devotees transform from human beings to
human doings. Their life revolves around the leader’s
egotistical vision. Churches that drive people with fear
become a pain in the butt. Activities that should be an honor
to carry out, become a chore.

Broken families and marriages are common fruits of over

commitment to church activities. The minister who boasts of
his exemplary wife who willingly tolerates his ministerial
busyness and hardly gets to see him is nothing more than a
freak who loves hearing the sound of his voice. If you’re too
busy for family, you’re too busy. Preacher’s kids suffer
immensely due to this; conferences are organized for
preacher’s kids specifically to address issues that specifically
affect them.

The competitive burden to achieve numerical growth leads to

forceful techniques to compel the congregation to evangelize.
The cult leader dreams of standing before a full house packed
front to back, side to side and floor to ceiling. Instead, they
gaze across the auditorium barely able to see Sister Tight Fist
on the back row with her customary ‘just eaten twenty
lemons’ face. Seated next to her is Brother I-Can’t-Be-
Bothered with a face that reads, “Try and make me if you
can!” The church leader is frustrated by the same old weary
faces, and it drives him to implement gimmicks to secure the
growth they so crave.

In these churches sermons are soul destroying. The tough

sermons are condemning and ‘God’ is apparently peeved,

432
again. It seems like God is in a perpetual bad mood and
constantly making demands on your time, energy and money.

Conclusion
Not many church leaders are phony. A vast number of
Christians have been mentally raped and impregnated with
ambitions to be successful in ministry. They never give birth
to these embryonic ambitions, though they try. Instead, they
suffer, become frustrated, burnt-out and perhaps suffer a
mental breakdown. More than 95% of fundamentalist
Christian ministers I've met over the years are too engrossed
in their ministry. Their personal and family life is neglected;
typically their spouse suffers in silence and their children
become bitter and regretful. For all their efforts most pastors
are unappreciated. They lose their life and family for a
fictitious vision. I don't have much time for such ministers.
The ministries they lead become cultic. You should act on gut
feelings and intuition when you smell a rat. If you have been
abused by a church/leader confiding in someone is not gossip.

Many Church leaders would never wish to be treated the way

they treat others. The startling irony is that often the
congregation sincerely believes their leader is the most
pleasantest and thoughtful leader. The poor sheep have no
idea of the Pastors hidden agenda. This book may unsettle the
foundation of religious nuts because it challenges the very
core beliefs they use to control the masses.

Bogus preachers are reaching epidemic levels, resulting in

Governments cracking down on preachers who target the
susceptible for personal gain. Christendom is a minefield of
cultic traps, lethal doctrines, scams, human frailty in
leadership keen to build empires founded on flimsy dishonest
433
egotistic ideologies. Tread with care. The Bible is twisted for
bait using hoax promises. The gullible and credulous are
defrauded, swindled and fleeced ruthlessly. Motivational
control techniques, tricks, and gimmicks are not the way
forward for any faith-based community seeking to benefit
society.

The mind-renewal process to transform a cultish leader is a

slow and painful experience, a course that not many leaders
are willing to undergo. Instead of caging eagles, they should
permit them to spread their wings and live their life liberally.
Proselytes are either subtlety or forcefully pressured to
conform to dilute individuality. Diversity is healthy and
colorful. Give people from different cultures the same
ingredients and they will all create different dishes.

Ask yourself, “What if your church was interesting and

inclusive, upbeat and down to earth, dynamic and dramatic,
open and honest, excellent and engaging, creative, loving,
informal, relevant, understandable, not judgmental and not a
waste of your time and an experience that made you laugh
out loud. A life journey where you learned something useful,
made new friends, had space to explore spirituality at your
pace and an experience that caused others to chase you
rather than you chasing them to convert them? A place that
practiced radical hospitality and inclusion. Ask our self,
“What if Christianity was simply, different?”

The discontentment you feel could be a healthy frustration

and a sign that you need to move on from religiosity to
reality. Don't waste your life pursuing cloudy visions
explained with fuzzy words while remaining motivated by

434
false expectations. You don’t have to dance to the church
anthem. Create your music.

435
 Chapter Twelve
Rebranding Christianity
Through Personal Evolution
I can certainly respect Michael Jackson as a legend and the
King of Pop, but his fans can be freaky. The same is true with
Jesus and his fanatical fans. Chaotic institutional Christianity
needs to be purged of its extremes and bigotries. Fossilized
Christendom requires an emergency heart transplant. Through
Christian and social media a transformation is taking place,
yet there still exists a mass of fundamentalists Christians who
hold to out-dated views based on flimsy sources. Their
priorities are to “get-it-right”, discover the truth by figuring
out what to believe so that they can ‘remain saved’ and evade
hell. They use the Bible in a way that eclipses the face of
truth. New converts are stripped naked and left to navigate
these chilly waters.

Happiness and peace are the pursuits of all humans, we all

find it in different ways. Some discover it in religion, but
even then it can fade. Once happiness is lost, it can be a sign
that you need to move on. Life decisions should be based on
honesty and intellect, not merely emotions. People have an
emotional, financial and denominational attachment to
specific Biblical passages and interpretations. To shift would
be like tectonic plates shifting and causing an earthquake.

Religion is exceptionally successful in trapping followers in a

fishbowl. It has an iron grip on their ability to think and
reason. Emotional blackmail is a major tool utilized by
stressing guilt-producing skeletons in closets. The need to

436
eradicate guilt attracts masses to religion, once tangled it’s
hard to untangle. De-conversion is a process following deep
indoctrination. The path from religious fundamentalism to
freedom can be tough because of the rugged terrain and
hardened layers that have to be dug through to unearth the
diamonds that are buried within you. There’s a whole lot of
shackling psychology going on in the mind. They are buried
under layers of misconceptions, and each has to be peeled one
by one. This can take years. Until the light comes on we are
oblivious to the darkness. The light is accurate information,
not the old repackaged: “Therefore, be careful lest the light
in you be darkness.” Luke 11:35

What you think you know can change when you come to
know what you don't yet know. You can only change if you
expose yourself to new educators and wisdom. It is critical
you remain open to new knowledge. Education commences
when you admit you are mistaken. I have a sneaky suspicion
that the global community is progressing through education,
and so can you. The journey is well worth it. From my
experience, the freedom is breath-taking. I’ve chosen to
define myself or instead of being defined by people who
don’t even know me or care for me. I'm not where I could be,
but at least, I'm not where I used to be. Are you ready to
detox your mind? Have you outgrown hyped Christianity? Is
it time to go back to the drawing board? The ball is in your
court.

What does ‘rebranding’ mean?

Rebranding is the process of taking an existing brand and
reworking the brand into an improved version. The generic
brand of Christianity is a mishmash hodgepodge variety of
sects. The movement has evolved and mushroomed over
437
centuries into what it is today. The word ‘Christianity’ means
a variety of things to a variety of people. Christianity in my
widest definition is, “the belief system based on Jesus
projected to the world through a variety of sects.”
Fundamentalist versions are faced with a challenge to
reorganize to fit a progressive world that is not static. A false
definition of rightness keeps them trapped in primitive
thinking.

All religionists have been branded with a version of religion,

and just like the frog in the well that thinks the well is the
whole world they misguidedly assume their version is ‘The
Version.’ Religionists will even stare condescendingly at
sects within their religion and to add insult to injury, they
deny the religious arena is chockfull with this stinking
arrogance.

The un-churched world should experience a loving

community of believer’s not religious nuts on an ego trip.
Religion can be beneficial when negative features are
removed. Christianity can positively participate in the
evolution of humanity if it evolves into a force for good,
inclusiveness, and unity. Superficial beliefs, definitions, and
practices need to die, and ‘safe’ and ‘sensible’ faith
encouraged.

Christianity is an evolving faith, it just needs to continue

evolving.

1. Levels of Consciousness
“No problem can be solved from the same level of
consciousness that created it.”
438
 ― Albert Einstein

Your perception and worldviews are the interpretations of the

lens through which you see the world. Perception must grow
and mature to comprehend the world better. Fanatical
religionists become partially trapped in a primitive perception
of the world since they view the world through the lens of
ancient texts.

The brain is a 3lb organ made up of hundreds of billions of

cells, with quadrillion connections between them, these cells
fire trillions of electro-chemicals every second of your life to
create your reality. Reality and perception are not one size fit
all. Bats echo- locate, that's their perception of the world. Sea
creatures have a different perception of reality. With billions
of brains in the world, none sees the full picture. Your reality
is virtually whatever your brain tells you. Numerous variables
fashion how your brain interprets the world. You don’t even
know what your next thought is going to be or where it
originated from, and so have limited choice about your
perception. It’s what you do with your thoughts that count.

A child’s level of consciousness of the world grows, develops

and adapts. They do not understand the complexities of life
and innocently base all their reasoning and thinking on their
limited comprehension. This thinking is their level of
awareness and consciousness. It is interesting how children
interpret information that is fed to them through their five
senses:

Teacher: How do you spell crocodile?

Kid: K-R-O-K-A-D-I-A-L
Teacher: No, that’s wrong!
439
Kid: Maybe it’s wrong, but you asked me how I spell it.

A flea lives in a small sphere, considering it as the whole

world and oblivious to the wider world. Its whole world is in
its mind. The same is true of a frog that lives in a well; the
well is its world. In the same way, human worldviews can be
nothing more than illusions, and this is especially true with
blinkered religious worldviews.

It is possible to live simultaneously in two worlds - an

imaginary one and the real world. The religionist struggles to
differentiate the two. They can exist in an imaginary world,
thinking it is a reality. Their worldview is the result of
centuries of erroneous teachings that has climaxed into the
present generation, perceived by the real world as small
minded, judgmental and brainwashed. The only escape from
this imaginary world is to catch sight of the big picture, turn
the telescope the right way around and think factually, not
just speculatively; narrow-mindedness needs to be eradicated
and the progressive thinking activated.

In some nations the population is kept in darkness with little

or no contact with the outside world, citizens accept ill-
informed propaganda as fact. These countries are ruled by
dictators using fear tactics to control the thinking of the
general population. Not only do leaders of nations use fear
tactics, so do smaller groups, organizations, and communities.
This approach is especially true of religious communities
where original thinking is often discouraged by threats of
hellfire. This thought-pattern is a low level of consciousness.

Global awareness and consciousness advances as the

information age forces religionists to confront and reject
440
primitive concepts. Intellectual growth results in a gradual
elevation of our level of awareness. With the availability of
information at our fingertips, primarily through the internet,
the global populace is learning faster - people are growing up.
It is becoming increasingly problematic for religion to keep
people blindfolded.

Those who wear the mask of religious superfluity do not fool

those who have awakened from the sleep and slumber of
religiosity. You think the awakened have not understood your
deep revelations; the problem is they have. It is you that has
been lulled to sleep by the monotonous rambling of religious
jargon and are unable to tell the difference between a dream
and real life. The brain creates a firework of neuron activity
to create experiences, perceptions, and even illusions.

You are a seat of awareness; a living, conscious being. Your

perceptions are not static. You will evolve to some degree
whether you invite it or not. An active brain will force you to
contemplate unfolding truth. Stimuli cause the brain to create
patterns of behavior; these patterns can evolve by introducing
new information. Once your awareness reaches a certain
level, you can observe your choices and exercise choice. The
brain will be stagnant until you challenge it with new
information and demand creativity from it.

2. Intellect, Rationality, Logic, and Reason

I’ve run into some extremely intelligent individuals who
excelled in knowledge in various fields of expertise. For
some reason, these staunch believers in the Bible do not
engage the Bible with the same level of intellect and
rationality they do other studies. It appears they had been
taught to remove their thinking caps when engaging with the
441
Bible. There is an antidote to this cunning and crafty
methodology that has infiltrated the minds of the masses. The
antidote is rationality and logic.

It is disturbing and amusing when religionists accuse me of

being logical and rational in my approach; evidently they are
not guilty of it. Are they indirectly, pompously and proudly
declaring not to be logical and rational in their approach?

Civilization has and is advancing through science. Religion

seems hell bent to curtail progress or promote its warped
version. It seeks to spread suspicion of science and
scholarship in order to prevent their enterprise being exposed.
I smell a rat. In fact, I smell dead men’s bones buried in white
burial chambers - individuals influenced by those educated in
fundamentalist cemeteries... I mean seminaries.

Human civilization has moved away from the survival of the

fittest to the survival of the wisest. We need innovative and
improved explanations of the world around us.

Dirty Seminary Secrets

The word ‘Seminary’ [religious, educational institution] is
rooted in the word ‘semen.’ Christianity can become
impregnated with either misinformation or rationality. The
misinformation of the masses has produced aggressive
fanatics, the offspring of religionists with T.T.D.
[Theologically Transmitted Disease].

Church leaders who graduate from decent seminaries, where

critical theology is openly discussed, admit that they do not
teach their congregation what they have learned at the
seminary for fear of damaging confidence in the Bible. They
442
fear to let the cat out of the bag. These clergies insult the
intelligence of their congregants. The conclusions are not
erroneous teachings but are the result of an open environment
where critical theology can be explored without fear of being
labeled a heretic. On the other hand, fundamentalist Bible
colleges and seminaries do a disservice to their students by
selectively teaching presuppositions as absolute facts
knowing full well that Biblical study is complex and not as
black and white as they portray. There is no method to their
madness.

If the general population of Christian religionist is serious

about Biblical studies, they need to adopt a more intellectual
approach and abandon an infantile attitude. They
predominantly take a casual approach coupled with reading
through the lens of a limited, minuscule and microscopic life
experiences. Viewing a tiny section of the whole picture
forms the basis of their worldview. An academically honest
approach to Biblical studies leads to a much more accurate
reading of the Bible.

Church leaders might hate me if they discovered their

congregants reading this book.

Why Do You Believe What You Believe?

This question is the golden thread throughout this book. Over
the years, I have observed that many religionists have not
thought through what they believe. You might not agree but
you along with everyone that reads the Bible, including me,
pick and choose which verses and biblical topics to
emphasize, explain away or ignore.

443
Let’s be honest; you believe what you believe because you
were born or converted into a particular flavor of Christianity.
Had it been another denomination your beliefs would have
been shaped differently. As Mrs. Gump Sally Field said in Forrest
Gump 1994 “Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never
know what you're gonna get.”

How would the religious institutions that shaped your beliefs

react if you drastically reformed your beliefs? Are you
genuinely free to reach own conclusions and publicly declare
them without a hostile reaction?

Christianity often avoids healthy debates. Certain questions

are not permitted to be asked, lest the sacred cows of
Christianity are slaughtered. Certain facts are hidden, all in
the name of ‘protecting’ the fold. Well, I have a newsflash.
This generation is the age of the internet. The masses have
access to heaps of information, and there is little religious
brains can conjure up to dupe them for much longer. The
religious towers that once shadowed the Christian landscape
and protected ‘mini-kingdoms’ are diminishing in size. A new
age is dawning. The end of an age is fast approaching. (‘End
of the world’ in KJV version should read ‘end of the age’ as
used in many Bible translations. Matthew 28:20).

I have observed that most religionists have failed to think

through what they believe. They have not considered the
validity of some of their outlandish statements.

“The trouble with talking too fast is you may say something
you
haven't thought of yet.”
― Ann Landers

444
Religionists believe what they have been taught to believe,
someone else’s weird interpretation, blindly accepting it as
accurate. Sacred texts are like a software license. Few read
and examine the fine print. They just scroll to the bottom and
click ‘I agree.’ To every sermon, they shout, “Amen.”

I am stunned at know-it-all attitudes to religious faith.

Compared to a frog humans may seem intelligent; compared
to the universe our knowledge is minuscule. The religionist is
prepared to make peculiar claims based on literature by
primitive writers who knew nothing of what today’s science
does. Religion may have been at the top once, but now we are
in a different era. If religion is to survive it must present a
cutting-edge version that is relevant and authentic.

Some think they have arrived at the ultimate truth. Two

people can argue, and both are mistaken. The truth is a
journey, not a destination. By all means, believe what you
believe, but always with the humble attitude that you maybe
be wrong or that your beliefs require tweaking. There are
things you once believed wholeheartedly, but today you have
outgrown those beliefs. Could there be beliefs you hold to be
true today but one day you will abandon them for an
improved understanding?

The only way to uncover fresh insights is to expose yourself

to new information.

Gullibility
It's a pretty well-known fact that many turn to religion during
challenging times. It's usually the time they are most
vulnerable and gullible; that should be a hint. Learn to
445
question your church leaders: “If my pastor said it then it
must be the truth.” This is a dangerous philosophy.

I am flabbergasted at the extent of gullibility within the

religious community. In their desperation to validate their
beliefs, usually established on flimsy foundations, the
religionist is easily duped hook, line, and sinker. Blind-folded
faith creates a gullible a mindset that finds extremely
implausible ideas completely plausible.

Satire websites with fake news articles for the purpose of

humor and are not meant to be taken seriously. One such
website is WorldNewsDailyReport.com. An article on their
website that has gone viral is titled, ‘Archaeologists Discover
Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus.’
Christians have shared this website with social media without
checking the facts – it has gone viral. The website disclaimer
clearly reads:

“WNDR assumes, however, all responsibility for

the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature
of their content. All characters appearing in the articles on
this website – even those based on real people – are entirely
fictional, and any resemblance to them and any persons,
living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.”

Gullibility will make you appear and behave like you are not
playing with a full deck. Numerous examples spring to mind
including religionists tricked into parting with their hard
earned money to support snakes in suits. One such example is
the fake archeological discoveries by Ron Wyatt, apparently
confirming Biblical events, who has conned many financial
investors and duped many Christians.
446
Consider the urban legend, circulating online since at least
1996, of the borehole in an undisclosed location in Siberia
which was allegedly drilled so deep by a team of Russian
engineers that it unexpectedly broke through into hell.
Fascinated by what they heard, they let down a heat-tolerant
microphone and recorded the screams of hell. It was first
promoted in English during a 1989 broadcast by the largest
Christian TV broadcaster, Trinity Broadcasting Network who
touted it as evidence for the existence of hell. This story has
been debunked as a hoax and an urban legend. On a daily
basis, I witness Christians promoting hoax news on social
media.

The discovery of the 11,000 Ebla clay tablets caused a

sensation amongst Christians, and early reports suggested
they proved the Bible was historically true. After much
debate scholars now reject that the tables show any evidence
to support the Bible. Even today Christian’s reference
outdated sources regarding the Ebla tablets.

Religious media is plagued with misinformation and

exaggeration and few bother to sift through it to confirm
information. Screening mechanisms and techniques are
seldom taught. Instead, they are taught to follow and not
think outside the box. It is not surprising that scammers who
send out mass emails target Christians by making references
to Jesus and the Bible as bait. I’ve had to persuade Christian
not to send funds, even though they insisted it was God’s
provision for them that a Nigerian was randomly contacting
them to give then millions of dollars.

447
In bygone years, only a small percentage of the population
was literate and educated. They just believed what they were
told. Today, a person can spend a few hours online studying
and investigating the history of scripture canonization, the
errors in translations, ‘imaginary’ prophecies and a whole
host of garbage that is dumped on truth seekers. With the
wealth of information so readily accessible, it is inevitable
that people are less likely to be hoodwinked.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of
the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the
people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln, (attributed), 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Unfortunately, Christians have been duped into unhealthy

beliefs and practices because of their sincere desperation to
experience the supernatural. The result – they become
gullible and often their intellect is insulted in ‘pursuit of
God’. The normal reasoning is abandoned in the name of
sincerity - the cloak that obscures reality. Can the bright light
of one's desire for God blind you? Is it indeed possible to be
Christian without being crazy and insane? Is it right that we
ask searching questions? Too late! Questions are already
being asked by a mass army of truth seekers fed up with the
flakiness of Christianity.

3. Become More Inclusive

Intelligently designed religion is reasonable and inclusive.
Let’s be honest; Christians are not known for their love one
towards another. Historically fundamentalist religions have
produced sexist, racist, homophobic and divisive offspring.

448
I advocate a move towards spontaneity and vibrancy and a
hasty shift away from rigid, lifeless formalities; the result will
be a faith community that is attractive and inviting.

“The church today should emulate the NT example of

inclusion by being diverse at all levels of participation” ―
David K. Bernard, General Superintendent, UPCI

There are two routes a religious journey ordinarily takes.

Either the religionist gradually becomes liberal, or they take a
stricter, harsher stance. In an attempt to avoid the ditch on the
left they over-correct and swerve into the ditch to the right.
The danger is their mind becomes padlocked with an
exclusiveness, discriminatory and elitist philosophy.

“The NT church gave prominent roles to people with low

social status including women, youth, foreigners, the poor,
and even slaves.”
― David K. Bernard, General Superintendent, UPCI

A fear of rejection can lead a religionist to develop a harsh

stance towards others to avoid accusations of compromise.
For them, acceptance is more important than compassion and
empathy.

4. Return to Dialogue
The dialectic system of argument was designed to resolve
differences of opinion. It is a discussion amongst two or more
individuals with different views but who desired to settle the
truth of the matter by dialogue using rational arguments. The
dialectic method is unlike a debate. Debaters are devoted to
their opinions with a focus on winning. Religionists prefer a
debate over the dialectic system. Socrates was allegedly
449
killed for questioning the commonly held views of his day.
Nothing has changed. Anyone who questions is stoned,
especially in religious circles. Religionists fear genuine
dialogue and the progress that accompanies it.

Religionists should be open to genuine dialogue. Open

dialogue is not ‘waiting for your turn to speak.’ To the
religionists being open to change is faith compromised. This
stubbornness stems from their belief that their particular
interpretation of their religious text is the correct version,
even though other followers of their religious text disagree
with them.

Willingness to examine one's views for the purpose of

development, progress and accuracy can only be beneficial,
but avoided for fear eternal punishment. The religionist is
locked into a way of thinking through psychological trickery.
It seems their God forbids genuine and sincere questioning. If
questioning is permitted, it is not for the purpose of being
open to a new way of understanding. The religionist is hence
satisfied only with a monolog, loving only to hear their voice.

It’s Healthy to Doubt and Question

“In all affairs, it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for
granted.” ― Bertrand Russell

In modern religion, there is a limited scope of questions

permitted since it tends not to bring into question its rigid
core beliefs. It's worthwhile pausing and prodding your
beliefs. Religious fanatics are typically taught to suppress
doubts in favor of faith. They assume the answer before
450
asking the question. Believing is easy when you are not
thinking. Doubt is a question. It is a security system. Never
switch off your skeptical mind, even when accused of being a
“doubting Thomas.” A bird in the hand is worth two in the
bush.

Asking questions is stimulating and liberating. For example,

if you visit your local park every morning at the same time
and sit on the same bench, you will experience the same
things. If instead you asked, “Where shall I go today?” your
brain becomes open to a world of creativity. Questioning
your beliefs and then investigating is a priceless endeavor.

Liberating religious cult members is challenging because they

have been taught not to doubt the teachings. Cults universally
instill animosity towards doubt since it is the first step in
escaping the fear-based mental incarceration.

“Fear is the emotion that comes forth when you are choosing
a thought that is out of sync with the desire that you hold in
your spirit. Fear is the basis of all hypocrisy. Hypocrites are
afraid of their truths and all others. Present truth demands
we review and revise what we believe and why we believe it.”
― Carlton Pearson

Doubting is a healthy, self-protective activity of the mind. For

example, if you were approached by someone posing as a
salesperson, but instinctively you doubted their genuineness
and suspected criminal intentions, would you suppress those
doubts or investigate and act on them? The Chinese proverb
rings true: Deep doubts, deep wisdom; small doubts, little
wisdom.

451
Doubt questions and examines so you can make quality
decisions. Fanatical religionists do not venture outside their
limited thinking owing to the ban on asking questions. Only
those with hidden motives and blind faith forbid doubting and
questioning. You have the right to ask questions.

Ask questions then question the answers. Niggling doubts are

potential seeds of your future beliefs and convictions. Follow
up those gnawing suspicions. Embrace and explore them.
They can lead you to better understanding. Take the risk to
think for yourself. As you grow in knowledge and
understanding, your perceptions change. For this reason, you
should regularly re-examine your beliefs in the light of new
data. I challenge you to rethink everything. Engage your
doubts, don’t fear them. Refusing your brain freedom shuts
down its ability detect faults and evaluate situations.

This writing asks some hard hitting questions. There are those
who have voiced their concerns about this writing. I am
aware that they fear challenging questions that contest the
shaky philosophy their lives and work is built on. I'm often
accused of questioning everything; proudly guilty as charged.
Investigate hungrily. Interrogate thoroughly. It's how I
escaped religious captivity after being sentenced to life
imprisonment with no parole. Unless you permit your mind to
function, fully you will otherwise develop bad mental habits
and religion will become an addiction.

5. Return to The Christ Principle

The famous Christian writer C.S. Lewis once commented that
some many have been exposed to just enough Christianity to
immunize them against the genuine thing. I may not agree
with him on what defines the ‘genuine thing’ but it is true that
452
fundamentalist religiosity immunizes individuals from being
lovingly inclusive.

For arguments sake, I define Christianity and what I term the

Christ Principle as two separate mindsets. Christianity is the
religious system built around Jesus the Christ. The Christ
principle is life-based on the practice of love. The true body
of Christ Principle practitioners are a living entity, a global
community who seek global peace and happiness. It is an
organism, not a rigid organization or stiff movement. It is a
vibrant and fluid movement. To reduce it to a religious
system is to kill the body. Without life, you will have to be
satisfied with the stinking corpse of religious Christianity.
The repulsive stench burns in the nostrils of those who seek
the truth. Religiosity can be smelt a mile off. They carry the
body odor of a rat. People are fond of Jesus; countless
numbers detest Christians. Mahatma Gandhi said, “I’d be a
Christian if it were not for the Christians!”

Humanitarianism
Self-appointed ministers of religion crowd the global
landscape as they claim to be the voice of God. The
contradictory nature of their statements and beliefs escapes
their mind, and so does the obvious dilemma it causes for
them. Do Christians practice what they preach?

It appears to me that too many Christians do not care as much

as they have convinced themselves they do. In fact, these
moderate Christians are proud how greatly they care. Tony
Campolo states it well:

”I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you
were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or
453
 diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t
give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the
fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last
night.”

― Tony Campolo

If Churches are to exist their primary call should be

humanitarian work. Instead of just preaching to the hungry,
feed, clothe and care for them. Fanatics are crossing land and
sea to spread information that could be done via a book or
online. The excessive funds spent [wasted] on preaching is
staggering. If those funds were used for genuine humanitarian
projects it would significantly impact the world; the
revolution and outcome would be nothing short of incredible.
The status of fundamentalist Christian would soar to new
heights if they exchanged elitist views and agendas in favor
of humanitarian work and harmless spirituality.

6. Abandon Traditions
Not all traditions are wrong. There are many good ones.

“To those who argue that tradition can kill a church: The
second time you do anything it becomes a tradition” ― Brett
Blair

Healthy traditions need to maintaining while unhealthy

traditions abandoned. Many of the traditional practices in
Christendom are non-essential, and their origins are
unknown, even by devoted practitioners.

A very poor holy man lived in a remote part of China. Every

day before his time of meditation in order to show his
454
 devotion, he put a dish of butter up on the window sill as an
offering to God, since food was so scarce. One day his cat
came in and ate the butter. To remedy this, he began tying
the cat to the bedpost each day before the quiet time. This
man was so revered for his piety that others joined him as
disciples and worshiped as he did. Generations later, long
after the holy man was dead, his followers placed an offering
of butter on the window sill during their time of prayer and
meditation. Furthermore, each one bought a cat and tied it to
the bedpost. ― Source Unknown

When you adopt a new belief it is like hot wax; it is unable to

support itself until it becomes solidified. Internal change in
beliefs is solidified in numerous ways including constant
exposure to materials expounding the belief, social support
and fear. Once solidified it’s hard to persuade someone
otherwise. This fact is the reason most new kids on the block
to Christianity are under thirty. Rarely do the over fifty adopt
Christianity as a new faith. Once a person is set in their ways,
it’s hard to rewind and reprogramme them. Blinded by
tradition, believers do not want to be persuaded to change
their beliefs. They are content with traditions in worship,
prayer, and life that produce little or no genuine results.

Traditional models of operation need to be abandoned, for

example, traditional manipulative methods of securing loyalty
through guilt, fear, and incentives. Not surprisingly we have
the most influence on people when we are the least
manipulative. Christianity has lost its credibility through
unconventional methods of operation.

In the same way, that business owners will tenaciously hold

onto a failing business, religionists hold on to failing
455
traditions. Giving up your baby is hard. Why not question
every practice and tradition and see if there are better
explanations and understanding? Surely Christianity is more
that the routine morning mirror Jesus affirmations: “This is
the Word of God, I am what it says I am…”

7. Personal Evolution
None of the atoms in your body are the ones you had had at
birth. You are continually in a process of physical recreation.
You have inbuilt protective mechanisms, like genes that self-
repair. Your body is a process. In the same way, your mind
can self-repair your beliefs. Don't permit religion to stifle
your mental evolution.

Religion forces adherents to continue wearing shoes they

have outgrown. The discontent they feel is not malicious
rebellion but the desire of a caged eagle to spread its wings.
This natural discontentment is often sincerely suppressed
instead of enthusiastically explored. I want to invite you to
sail personally into the unknown without fear. In the exciting
process, you will discover and define your authentic self.
People wish to see the real and raw you – struggles, wounds
and all.

Self-Reflection
If you could pull back the curtain and look behind the scenes
of your life, you would see certain events shaping you,
including the people you’ve met, situations you experienced,
challenges you’ve faced and information to which you’ve
been exposed. We all evolve as we experience numerous
minor turning points and a few major ones. These defining
moments challenge us to adjust our views or the direction of
our life.
456
You are either evolving or revolving. Many find themselves
going round in circles trapped in a revolving door. Take time
to freely reflect and ponder your life journey. Listen to the
voice of your rational mind.

Discovering and Designing You

“To thine own self-be true” ― Polonius in Hamlet

It is said each person has three faces. The first face, we show
to the world. The second face is shown to close friends and
family. Our third face is never exposed to anybody. This third
face is said to be the most authentic reflection of your true
self.

Many people live life pretending to be the person others

expect them to be. Churches subconsciously teach people
how to mask their true identity. Social groups can be so
suffocating that you find yourself gasping for breathing
space, “I just really need to focus on me right now.”

Cognitive neuroscience studies indicate our judgments of

ourselves is twisted. It requires a conscious effort to identify
your true self. Perhaps it is has George Bernard Shaw
remarked, “Life isn't about finding yourself; Life is about
creating yourself.” In that process, you may transition more
than once.

“I have already lost touch with a couple of people I used to

be” ― Joan DiDion

457
Within the laboratory of your life, you will experiment with
numerous experiences in your pursuit of happiness. During
this journey of awakening, you must avoid being frozen in a
‘phase’ you should merely pass through.

Whether you belong to a church where they run around

waving their hands like an insane chimpanzee with a 70’s
haircut, overdosed on Viagra, while searching for a victim to
impregnate with your brand of Christianity or a church where
you can hear a pin drop during the service, the fact of the
matter is you do not have to assimilate into any of these
brands of Christianity –be yourself. Stick to authenticity, self-
ownership, and individuality. When you have two faces,
sometimes you forget which one you're showing. Be careful
who you pretend to be, you might forget who you are. Never
change so that people will like you. The right people will like
the real you.

Niggling Doubts
Niggling doubts can be the seeds of your future beliefs. There
is something deep within us that sounds alarm bells when we
have strayed into dangerous paths and confronted with
superstition and myths. This built-in alarm system should
never be ignored. During your lifetime, you will experience
this alarm warning you that something you are hearing or
reading is out of sync with truth. Beware, though, sometimes
this alarm can be imitated by irrational religious beliefs about
hell, devils and judgment warning you not to stray from
religiosity.

The human mind is powerful enough to self-deceive. Pay

attention to your thoughts so that intuition can guide you
rather than externally imposed interpretations. When you lay
458
in bed in the still of the night, your mind is in a relaxed state,
and your arguer will be switched off, during that time listen
to your deep thoughts and doubts. Listening to doubts can
help you gravitate towards a better answer.

Stuck in the Past

Methods, views or beliefs can evolve. Advances in science
and society demand change. Modern scientific knowledge
categorically dwarfs past scientific knowledge. Modern
societies are more advanced as science and technology
stridently advance. Meanwhile, the religionist prefers to
remain in straitjackets of previous eras, still meeting in 16th-
century buildings, sitting in18th-century pews and singing
19th-century songs and listening to primitive views preached
in the 21st Century.

It can be Monday 15th January 13.45pm in the UK and

Tuesday 00.45am in Australia. Both the British and
Australians are living now. The Brits are living in Monday
while the Australians have already gone into another day. In
the same way, it is possible to be mentally trapped in the past
while living in the present. We’ve all met the person who
intentionally or unintentionally is trapped in a past decade in
their taste of dress or music. More than likely you have
evolved with the times in your fashion sense. Evolution and
change are normal. In religious circles, the faithful tend to
favor past flavors as a pretext for righteous loyalty.

Sadly, many religionists are living in the past. They are

trapped in bygone days of yester-years as they reminisce
about the “good old days.” Their methods and message are
deeply rooted in the past as they operate on an old model. A
new version of Windows is out, and the religionist is still
459
acting like Windows 95 is the latest thing out. Upgrading
your mental operating systems with new information is
essential for the progress of humanity.

The title ‘Christian’ should carry a great deal of weight. It

does not. Toilet paper weighs more. It was once an asset,
associated with compassion and good behavior, but today it’s
a liability. Christians have bankrupted and tainted the title
and it now largely refers to know-it-all judge mentalists,
touchy-feely, happy-clappy separatists. Do you want to
identify with this crowd?

In the story where Jesus turned water into wine, he did not
save the best till last, as commonly misquoted. The wedding
guests asked him, “Why have you have saved the best till
now.” John 2:10. This story illustrated that somethings can be
yesterday’s best and not necessarily today's best. It could be
time for you to move on from your religious past.

Bored with Ritual and Routine

Religious life can lose its novelty, making you bored with its
mundane rituals of routine services, rehashed sermons, and
clichés. Most churches are built on the same unimaginative
weekly routine and unoriginal services. They are more like
funeral service than celebration services.

Christianity claims to be a religion of liberty, yet, in fact, it is

one of the most controlling religious movements on earth.
This life can revolve around guilt that fuels your addiction for
religiosity. Do you want to be a Christian TV junkie,
obsessed with the anti-Christ and mother-in-law, or would
you rather help make the word a better place by genuinely
helping others? The religious life is similar to a hamster
460
wheel. Once you muster the guts to hop off you open yourself
to a world of discovery. Imagine you could think for yourself
and believe anything that convinces you without fear?

If you have not become bored yet with religiosity, you will
when you start thinking.

Become Like a Scientist

A scientist is not satisfied with existing knowledge, they
hunger and hunt for the undiscovered. Technological and
scientific discoveries improve the quality of life. New
discoveries in your life will improve your life. It will mean
venturing where few dare not travel. Are you unafraid and
prepared to step out of the boat of religiosity and think for
yourself?

Naivety in Christian circles stems from seclusion from the

outside world. The outside world is portrayed as the ‘enemy.’
Naivety and gullibility should not be confused with noble
qualities like sincerity and humbleness. To be bold and
inquisitive is an indication of a passion for truth. Sincerity,
though, does not ensure protection from religious deception.
That requires a fully functioning brain.

A New Way
In the story of Abraham and Isaac God instructs Abraham to
sacrifice his son Genesis 22:2. The same voice prevented him
doing that, “Don’t sacrifice your son.” Genesis 22:12. Listen to the
second voice.

Jesus said that some followers prefer the old Luke 5:39 even
though he was offering something new. He stated that “You
have heard that it was said…” Matthews 5:27, but “But I tell
461
you…” Matthew 5:28. The old religious system accused him of
rejecting the very commands of God; Jesus was introduced on
the scene in a way the religious did not expect.

When Jesus said, “I did not come to abolish [the law] but to
fulfill it” Matthew 5:17 he was quoting an idiom used amongst
Jewish teachers of the law. It meant, “I have not come to
misinterpret the law, but to correctly interpret it.” It was after
this he says, “You have heard it said…but I say to you…”
Matthew 5:27-28
. The correct interpretation of the Bible is with a
21st-century rational mind, and this is the survival solution for
Christianity.

A new way is not just about compromise, but an

enhancement. There is a much better way to walk a spiritual
life and understand the Bible that does not involve being
divisive, narrow-minded and mean-spirited.

New Information
The fear of new things is known as ‘neophobia.' Some people
fear to adjust and accepting news concepts. Religion has
mentally incarcerated them using fear tactics. There is
liberating information you are not aware exists. Fresh
information can change what you initially believed as true.
We have all passionately believed things that we do not
believe anymore. We live and learn.

The way to escape the clutches of religiosity is exposing you

to new information. It is especially critical to expose yourself
to information by those who disagree with your views.
Education is always the way forward. There should be a
conscious training of thinking if we are to graduate from
where we are to where we could be. This method is a clear
462
strategy with no room for speculation and experimenting with
superstitious methods.

“Develop a passion for learning. If you do, you will never

cease to grow.”
― Anthony J. D'Angelo

The ability to swiftly admit when you are mistaken is noble.

When challenged pious fanatics smugly resort to ridiculous
arguments to uphold pretentious rightness, rather than admit
error. We should be open to having our views challenged and
if the evidence corrects us, quick to change. Improved
knowledge humbles pride swiftly.

A Vibrant Fresh Life

Once you have been a Christian, you soon realize most of it
is re-runs and repeats. It’s become a routine to many when
life should be an exciting adventure of discovery.

Constant fine-tuning works like steroids to produce a fresh,

vibrant life. It is not just the end of one chapter but the
beginning of a new journey of discovering new things.
It is a transition that can leave you unrecognizable compared
to my past.

Why People Fear Change

Change is resisted for several reasons.

Fear: Fear of hell, retaliation or

compromising.
Old age: Too old in age to risk a new path.
Pride: Having to admit being mistaken.

463
Comfort Zones: Change can be uncomfortable at
first.
Loyalty to Tradition: To some, tradition is more
important than progress.
Financial Loss: Change could incur financial loss.

In the Jesus story, the religious leaders hated his new

concepts: “And all were astonished, so as to discuss to
themselves, saying, what is this? What new teaching is
this…?” Mark 1:27. Thinking they already knew it all, they
became accustomed to doing things the old way and feared
the new.

“The hardest people to reach with the love of God are not the
bad people. They know they are bad. They have no defense.
The hardest ones to win for God are the self-righteous
people.” ― Charles L. Allen

Jesus said it well: “And no one drinking old wine

immediately desires new; for he says, the old is better” Luke
5:39
.

Building a wall of resistance to change is not healthy, but it’s

a practice that prevails in religious communities. Research on
prejudice indicates that people reorganize personal perception
of the world to retain the superiority of their beliefs. To
maintain a sense of peace and security people will discard
anything that suggests they are mistaken.

Expect Criticism
Divert from the status quo and expect heavy criticism. Being
ahead of your time or those you normally associate with can
be met with hostility. To add to the hardship fundamentalist
464
‘friends’ and family will drop you like a hot potato. Not
everybody will comprehend your journey; some may even be
offended.

“A tiger never loses sleep over the opinions of sheep.”

The gift of not caring what faultfinders think is priceless.

Never waste words on things that deserve silence. Silence can
speak louder than words yet silence can never be misquoted.
As the adage goes ‘a wise man once said nothing.’

Global Community
Traditionally religion divides. Fundamentalist Christianity is
essentially suffering from Xenophobia, the fear of those who
are different. Christianity itself is a cesspool of multiple
thousands of denominations, yet internet has unified the
world as never before. Information that progresses humanity
will eventually win over destructive ideology since survival
dictates it.

The unified moral consciousness will advance humanity. It is

this convergence of ideas and mindsets that will bring about
an awakening within religious communities not only likely
but imminent. The information age has fast-tracked the clash
between science and religion; between genuine beauty and
sheer religious ugliness. A new day is dawning. A new type
of spirituality is emerging out of the clasp of past limitation.
Call it a ‘revival,’ ‘awakening’ or as Jesus alluded to it, a
‘new age’ – it has made its grand entrance. Embrace this
truth. Move consciously and intentionally in the direction of
enlightenment and allow it to illuminate your daily activities
and especially your attitude.

465
This parable illustrates the need for unity and not
sectarianism:

A Holy man was having a conversation with the Lord one day
and said, “Lord, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell
are like.”

The Lord led the holy man to two doors. He opened one of
the doors, and the holy man looked in. In the middle of the
room was a large round table. In the midst of the table was a
large pot of stew, which smelled delicious and made the holy
man's mouth water. The people sitting around the table were
thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished. They were
holding spoons with very long handles that were strapped to
their arms, and each found it possible to reach into the pot of
stew and take a spoonful. But because the handle was longer
than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their
mouths. The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery
and suffering. The Lord said, “You have seen Hell.”

They went to the next room and opened the door. It was
exactly the same as the first one. There was the large round
table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's
mouth water. The people were equipped with the same long-
handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and
plump, laughing and talking.

The holy man said, “I don't understand.”

“It is simple,” said the Lord. “It requires but one skill. You
see, they have learned to feed each other. The greedy think
only of themselves.”

466
 ― Parable of the Spoons (Author Unknown), Source:
www.tahoeepiscopal.org

There are far better endeavors to be involved in than

spreading superstition. The solution to world issues is not
your sectarian religious opinions. If you’re not part of
authentic solutions, you are part of a headache. Missionaries
have left their shores triggered by hyped up emotions The
fruit of this haphazard attempt to ‘save’ the world and
establish ministry empires while running in a circle
frantically like headless chickens, will result in burnout. Do
you want to waste your life trying to live a vision cunningly
sold to you as the ‘will of God for your life’?

There is a better way to make a difference. Watch carefully

those who have moved on from where you currently are. The
world is bursting with individuals that have progressed from
where you currently are in your understanding of the Bible.

Conclusion
It is better to have a few deep beliefs, than countless shallow
beliefs. Seek simplicity. The irrationality of human nature is
that though we recognize where answers can be discovered,
we avoid it, afraid of what we will discover. Hence,
Christians abandon fundamentalism by their will, not when
pressed: “When the student is ready the teacher will
appear.”

Factual evidence will not sway a fundamentalist churchgoer.

Fear and insecurity have to be eliminated before they will
even entertain a new thought. When presented with facts that
contradict their beliefs, the Christian is typically left between
a rock and a hard place as they go into a tailspin and
467
automatically change gear into a defensive overdrive. Stuck
between personally convincing transcendental experiences
and questioning the Bible, they ignore the conflicting issues
by dumbing down the niggling doubts and focusing on
arguments that appear to substantiate their beliefs. They are
left clutching straws by trusting subjective experiences,
flimsy arguments, and faith-based personal opinions.

Christianity is a wide spectrum of beliefs and sects; each

convinced it holds to the authentic version. Progress can only
be achieved once this cocky attitude is exchanged for a
humble and rational approach. This humble approach will
result in Christianity becoming more fluid and adapting to
better ways of understanding. What can be wrong with
improving understanding?

What I have written here I have stated in speeches, articles,

over lunch and dinner tables with Christians and Church
leaders whose lips curled with lofty contempt. I have
compiled these thoughts into one writing. I hope something
deep within you will realize the realities presented. Reality
will refuse to fit into your religious values. Your conscience
will throw you curveballs until you awaken and realize you
don’t have to take cues from or organize your life around a
primitive book.

The inability to unbiasedly question your views and an

unwillingness to truly listen to others with a different view
are signs of weakness. Changing the belief of a staunch
Christian is not as easy as giving a plausible explanation that
logically challenges their beliefs. Religious minds retain
layers of pre-conceived ideas that have to be gradually peeled
until a ‘Eureka Moment’ when it gradually dawns on them
468
that the views they so tenaciously held as accurate were
grossly erroneous. Sometimes this realization catapults the
individuals into shock and denial. What is the result of this? -
Even more ridiculous, defensive explanations and
interpretations of scripture in a desperate attempt to cover up
and cling to a collapsing doctrine. The ability to acknowledge
when one is mistaken is an admiral quality to possess. We all
struggle with this. There are few things more gut-wrenching
than discovering you have been duped, especially when your
life has been based on a lie or half-truth.

When a member terminates membership at a congregation,

the classic response is, “They went out from us, but they did
not really belong to us…” 1 John 2:19. This was not the tune when
prophetic utterances were spoken over that person’s life, and
people claimed God was imparting a message to that
individual about their divine purpose. The mass exodus of
people escaping the oppression of cultic religiosity is not a
sign of the end-time falling away [the religionists interprets
everything through a lens], it is the fruit of the information
age. Sleeping giants are waking up. They are becoming
chronically allergic to religiosity.

We all seek happiness and understanding for the insecurities

of life. We all face challenges in life and try to cope in an
insane world. Simplistic answers are not a solution. The
answer lays in living creatively, being your authentic,
evolving self and embracing uncomfortable ambiguity and
uncertainty.

Listen to the questions your self-reflective thoughts ask you.

You may discover that you don’t believe what you claim to
believe. Are you willing to turn from or burn in the fires of
469
religious condemnation? How far are you willing to stray
from religious Christianity? Your story is not finished; it's
just a new chapter. Life slips by. We can only hold so much
sand in our hand, so start writing today.

“Get busy living, or get busy dying.”

― Andy Dufresne/Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Don’t live your life answering questions that are no longer

being asked. Move on. Don’t color your reality with the toxic
beliefs of primitive people. Join the tireless struggle for
justice and the progress of humanity. Elvis has left the
building.

-----------------

If this book has changed your thinking in a positive way,

we’d love to hear from you. When you write, please confirm
if we can publicly/anonymously share your story/quote.
Emails are filtered so James will not see negative responses.

www.xplorewithjamespeter.com

Appendix

"Christian: A follower of the religion of Christ [Note carefully that Christ

never started a religion - John 7:16]. It is probable that the name Christian, like
that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in
reproach or contempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch
in Syria, Acts 11:26, where they were first called Christians observed by
Zosimus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous
jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to
themselves; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of
which cases we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts,
470
and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of which were written some years after;
whereas it is found but in two more places in the New Testament, Acts 26:28,
where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Peter 4:16, where reference appears to be
made to the name as imposed on them by their enemies. The word used, Acts
11:26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few
others take to imply a divine appointment, they disregard the usus loquendi
[established acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The
words Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, are
remarkable, ‘vulgus Christianos appellabat,’ ‘the vulgar call them Christians.’
Epiphanius says that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of
David, or, which is much more probable, from the name of Jesus, whose
disciples they were. They were denominated Christians, A. D. 42 or 43; and
though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing
their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally accepted it." Richard Watson,
Watson’s Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 233.

"Cristianos, Christian: a word formally not after the Greek but after the
Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as
used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says
(Annals 15, 44), ‘The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this
denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the
procurator, Pontius Pilate.’" Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon
and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152.

"This name (Christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is
never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those
without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called
themselves were ‘brethren,’ ‘disciples,’ ‘believers,’ and ‘saints.’ The
presumption is that the name ‘Christian’ was originated by the heathen."
Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), page 567, note 3.

"The name (Christian) given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to

the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch." Easton’s Bible Dictionary.

"Egypt, which you commanded to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be

wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about every breath of
fame. The worshippers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are
devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ." Emperor
Adrian to Servianus, written A.D. 134.

471