25 Feb, 2025

Blog

Freedom From Religion in Public Education

Whose rights take priority?

Do public-school students have the right to be free from religious coercion in the classroom?

Do christian teachers have the right to share their religious beliefs in their classrooms?

Depends on who you ask.

“There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years regarding the taboos against Christian activity on the part of teachers in public school classrooms. It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.” (Abounding Joy, 2005)

“As a student, you have the right to fully participate in your public education free from school-sponsored religious pressure or indoctrination. No public-school employee, including teachers and coaches, may coerce or attempt to coerce students into believing in a religion, participating in prayer, or performing any other religious activity.” Freedom From Religion Foundation

In the last couple of blogs, we’ve been critiquing a christian blogger called Abounding Joy. The first half of AJ’s blog is spent vilifying secular humanism. Even though much of what he writes completely misrepresents what secular humanists actually believe, it doesn’t stop there. It soon becomes all too obvious that Abounding Joy has an agenda that goes much deeper than just bashing secular humanism.

Abounding Joy: It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.

Yes, he really said that. As a retired schoolteacher, I am already uncomfortable with where this discourse is headed. So, I took a deeper dive into Abounding Joy and discovered that its author, a guy named Steve, was at some point, a public-school teacher. Mr. Steve claims that those villainous secular humanists have threatened his right (and his freedom) to share his religious beliefs with his “captive audiences of schoolchildren”.

Mr. Steve: But it is of critical and paramount importance that we realize the simple (and obvious) fact that Christian theism is not the only religion or belief system found in the United States. In particular, there is one other very powerful and widespread belief system (i.e. religion) in the United States called Secular Humanism.

Ah, there it is, secular humanism is a religion, and not only that, a very powerful one, which is competing for the souls of his students. Now we’re getting to the meat of his blog. By painting secular humanism as a competing religion, he has named the enemy and now he can convince his readers that christianity is under attack. According to him a secret battle is being waged for the souls of christian youth and his particular battlefield, as a christian soldier, is the public-school classroom. Those demonic secularists are keeping christian teachers from sharing their faith with their (captive audience) students. Action on the part of christians is being called for. Oh my!

Mr. Steve: Currently, the primary problem is that Christian students and teachers are frequently being expected to pretend that they are secular humanists while at school. Our goal should be for both teachers and students to have freedom to express (or not express) their beliefs…“

I’ve never heard of anyone actually pretending to be a secular humanist, but I guess it’s possible. However, I have heard of nonreligious students, pretending that they are religious in order to avoid being singled out and bullied while at school or in classrooms with teachers like Mr. Steve. This situation should definitely be avoided.

According to Steve’s website, he tells us that he earned an undergraduate degree in science: specifically, physics, math, and psychology. He followed his undergraduate science degree with a Master of Divinity in Christian Education and Theology. He also tells us that he taught math, physics, and ACT Prep in a public-school setting for 29 years. Let’s see what Steve says he would like to teach his captive audience in his math and physics classroom, but can’t, due to the prominence of secular humanism.

Mr. Steve: “How can we achieve a more equitable state of affairs? In a word, “freedom.” Our goal is an atmosphere and environment of freedom to express beliefs, for students… and teachers. You might wonder how such freedom could work out practically in a classroom.”

Actually, I was wondering how this might work out in Steve’s physics, math, and ACT prep classes. Let’s see what he thinks is appropriate for him to be able to teach in his public-school classroom.

He writes, “Now consider the situation in our public schools.

It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.
It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.
It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.
It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.
It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.
It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.
Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.”

We’ll take a look at each of these statements to see if there is any legitimacy to Mr. Steve’s claim that his religious freedoms are being violated. What first comes to mind is just how any of the above statements apply to the subjects of math, physics, and ACT prep.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.

Actually, neither is appropriate in a public-school setting. In my 25 years as a classroom teacher, with the hundreds of hours spent in faculty meetings and teacher in-services never once did anyone require us to talk about the supremacy of man. Talking about the supremacy of God was strictly taboo, as it should be.

The field of education has always been prone to fads. A new teaching strategy would come along, and faculty meetings would be dominated by the new method for the entire school year (and usually forgotten by the next). Administrators would drop into our classrooms to make sure the new fad method was being used in the classroom. Never in my 25 years did an administrator drop into my classroom to see if I was talking about the supremacy of man. But I can guarantee that if they heard I was talking about the supremacy of God, an administrator would have visited my classroom “tout de suite”. So, why is this an issue for Steve and how would he work this topic into his math or physics curriculum?

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.

Is evolution even taught in a physics, math, or SAT prep class? I wasn’t sure, so I asked the AI gods and this was the response.

SERI: Evolution is not typically taught in a physics class; it is primarily a topic covered in biology classes as it deals with the changes in living organisms over time, which falls under the realm of life sciences, not physics which focuses on the fundamental laws of matter and energy.

So, while discussing the laws of matter and energy, perhaps Steve felt the need to teach creationism as well? I worked with many good science teachers who considered themselves christians and even they would have found such behavior inappropriate. By the way, The National Academy of Sciences strongly disagrees with Mr. Steve’s stance that creationism should be taught in public schools. We’ll get into that in the next blog.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.

Yes, he is correct on this one, but I don’t think he believes it to be a good thing. Without question, there are great men (and women) whose lives and writings can teach us (and our students) a great deal about math and also about physics. Once again, I just don’t see why Steve feels the need to talk about great men of the bible in his math or physics classroom.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.

As someone who spent 25 years in the classroom, I can say with confidence that lecturing students about moral values was always considered tricky territory and was never once discussed in any faculty meeting. The only possible exception was to say, “Don’t do it!” Having that kind of discussion with students in a public-school classroom just wasn’t done. It’s not the job of schoolteachers to discuss moral values with students, unless of course it’s a parochial school. But to work this discussion into a public-school physics or math class is a real stretch.

Of course, we want our students of be good people, who treat others with respect and kindness. But a public-school teacher who uses his or her classroom to lecture students about establishing their moral values based on the bible is a violation and would never be appropriate.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.

As teachers we often times do our best to promote academic success and tell students that financial success in life correlates to the level of education achieved. Research shows that college graduates normally earn more than someone with only a high school diploma. Someone with a graduate degree usually earns more than just having an undergraduate degree. There’s nothing inappropriate about having this discussion with students. But, to lecture students about eternal life is just wrong. It was never discussed at any faculty meeting I attended, and it would be a very inappropriate to broach the subject in classroom full of students who have no other choice than to be there.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.

Once again, as teachers, we were very sensitive to how our students felt about themselves. Teen suicide was and still is a huge concern for educators all over the country and thus warrants time spent in teacher in-services. However, telling students that they must repent from sin was never one of the strategies we discussed to combat teen depression and suicide. Especially if the student’s depression was caused by being picked on (by christians) because he or she is gay. It’s dangerous to tell a gay student that their depression would go away if they would just repent of their sin and stopped being gay. Anyone who thinks that is the correct solution, shouldn’t even consider becoming a teacher.

Mr. Steve: Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.

Notice that he’s not saying that “either one communicates that God exists, or one communicates that God doesn’t exist.” By the way, neither would be appropriate in a public-school classroom. What I think he’s saying is that, in a classroom, a christian teacher has two choices. Either they communicate their believe in God or they choose to remain quiet on the subject. I would suggest that in a public-school setting the wisest choice would be to remain quiet about your personal religious beliefs. There’s nothing to stop a teacher who is a christian from sharing their faith outside the school boundaries. We’ll get more into this topic in the next blog.

Conclusion

Abounding Joy: Our country was established primarily for freedom. In public education we have moved dangerously close to establishing a state religion (based on) secular humanism. And in doing so, we have begun the process of denying freedoms to those whose belief systems are contrary to that of the secular humanists. This is an intolerable situation.

Is it just christians who are being denied freedoms? Do we really have “liberty and justice for all”? I wonder what Steve would think about allowing Muslims to share their belief systems in public schools. Aren’t their beliefs also contrary to secular humanism? Would he support Islam being taught in public schools or would he call it an “intolerable situation”? I have to wonder if Steve believes in religious freedom for everyone or whether it’s reserved just for evangelicals.

Coming next:

Steve seems to be inflicted with PCC, Persecuted Christian Complex. Christianity has been in power for millennium. However, things have changed and christians no longer have the power to simply burn someone at the stake for heresy. Oh, how the tables have turned! How will they cope?

From Where I Stand

Feb. 25, 2025

Dale Crum

16 Feb, 2025

Blog

Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism

Is Secular Humanism a religion?

“Saying secularism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby.” Ricky Gervais

In the previous blog we discussed a christian blogger called Abounding Joy. In an article entitled Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism, the author proposed that secular humanism is a faith-based religion. Let’s see how he justifies that claim.

AJ: Since secular humanists do not believe in God, obviously they do not believe in a Creator.

MTP: Since secular humanists do not believe in gods, obviously they would not believe in any of the creation stories from all over the world. Many of those creation stories are no less believable than the one found in Genesis. The most common variety of “special creationism” asserts that, the Earth is very young, all life suddenly appeared and was created by God or gods, no organism has changed since the creation and different life forms were designed to function in particular settings.

For example, secularists would not believe that the Mayan God Tepeu the maker and Gucumatz the feathered spirit created the world with their thoughts and created man out of corn. Neither would they believe that Yahweh create the world in six days with his words and created man out of dust.

AJ: Secularists hypothesize (in spite of strong scientific evidence to the contrary) that life simply sprang into existence, through a process of chance events. Higher life forms came into existence, they believe (again in spite of strong evidence to the contrary) through the process of biological evolution.

MTP: Some Christians hypothesize (in spite of strong scientific evidence to the contrary) that the universe, the earth and everything in it were magically created in six days by a supernatural deity around 6,000 years ago. Scientists, on the other hand, have used scientific methodology to conclude that there is strong scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that life sprang into existence through a process of chance events. Secularists believe that evolution is based on strong scientific evidence, and that higher life forms came into existence, through a very long process of biological evolution.

AJ: Secularists believe these things on the basis of faith, as many of the more honest scientists who are evolutionists have admitted.

MTP: Many Christians believe the six-day creation story as it appears in Genesis to be 100% historically accurate. This belief is solely based on faith, as many of the more honest christians who claim to be creationists have admitted.

AJ: Many scientists who are evolutionists have explained that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific” (in their minds). Therefore, they hypothesize evolution to explain the existence of life. They hope to find evidence to support their hypothesis, but so far, the vast predominance of evidence points to a Designer Creator.

MTP: Many people, including scientists, have concluded that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific. Therefore, they would also hypothesize that the creation story as found in Genesis is also not based on science. Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, it leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe. Scientists believe the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature. There continues to be a vast predominance of evidence that points in that direction. On the other hand, Christians explain the existence of life in supernational terms. They hope to find evidence to support their creation hypothesis, but so far, no evidence exists that points to a designer creator.

AJ: Since, to secular humanists, God does not exist, any appeal to His authority would be considered to be foolish. The only authority that secular humanists appeal to is the authority of men who are perceived to be highly educated, brilliant, and wise.

MTP: Since, to secular humanists, gods do not exist, any appeal to the authority of an imaginary god, would indeed be considered foolish and futile. It is accurate that some secular humanists are highly educated, brilliant, and wise. Unlike theists, secularists do not feel the need to submit themselves to some higher authority, such as a pastor, a priest, a prophet, or a pope. Neither would a secularist recognize the authority of a supernatural deity.

AJ: Secular humanists believe the Bible to be simply a book of human traditions and ideas. To them, it has no authority. The only writings that have authority for them would be the writing of men whom they perceive to be especially brilliant and wise.

MTP: Secular humanists rightly believe that the Bible is simply a book of human traditions and ideas. Despite what christianity teaches, the bible is not inerrant, nor infallible. It contains errors, discrepancies, and contradictions. In addition, some of the stories found in its pages are truly disturbing. Secularists believe that, like the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the bible contains some wisdom, but also, like the writings of Marcus Aurelius, the bible certainly has no authority to direct our lives. Secularist most certainly appreciate brilliant and wise men (and women) but would not agree that they have authority over them or anyone else. The writings of prominent secularists might be widely circulated and well read, but other secularists would not consider those writings as having authority over them.

AJ: Secular humanists generally reject the concepts of moral absolutes and of “sin.”

MTP: Secular humanists generally have strong concepts of objective moral absolutes which are not based on biblical teachings. Sin has been defined as “breaking, violating, or rebelling against God’s divine law by any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action which leads to eventual death“. Secularists would reject such a concept that is based on offending a supernatural deity. Conversely, humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using an ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge. They would judge the consequences of their actions by the well-being of all life on Earth.

AJ: In a situation in which Christians might see a need for repentance and forgiveness and forsaking sinful behavior, secular humanists would more likely see a need for every person to decide for himself what is right or wrong, and to try to build personal self-esteem regardless of an individual’s behavior.

MTP: Christian beliefs, which are strictly based on the bible, frequently put them in the situation where they feel guilty that they have “missed the mark” and somehow offended their God. For these offenses they must seek repentance and forgiveness for their “sinful” behavior” in order to stay in “right standing” with God. Their feelings of unworthiness are all part of a never-ending performance-based religion that often (daily) results in personal guilt and shame, rather than personal self-esteem and value. Humanists would not subscribe to such a guilt-based lifestyle, nor does their self-esteem come from pleasing a supernatural deity. Humanists would not say that every person gets to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. “It is possible to reject the religious concept of sin and still maintain strong moral values, beliefs and opinions.” *

AJ: While a Christian’s goals are determined by God and are influenced by the reality of an eternity after this life has passed, the secular humanist goals are entirely focused on this present physical existence.

MTP: A Christian’s goals are determined by the belief in an imaginary God and are influenced by “pie in the sky” stories of pearly gates and an eternity of blissful servitude. Such goals, which are not based on reality, have little or no connection to the real world, making them essentially moot and irrelevant. However, humanists derive their goals from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions. They assert that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny rather than relying on “pie in the sky” dogma. Such reality-based goals have a better chance of success in creating the “best possible life for everyone”, not just for “the chosen”.

End notes

*This comes from an essay by Phil Zuckerman entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being.

Coming next:

In the next blog we’ll take a deeper dive to find out more about the author of Abounding Joy. We discovered that he spent 29 years as a public-school classroom teacher. We will look at what subjects he taught and why he believes it was his right to teach his “captive audience” about his faith in the supremacy of God, despite, of course, the first amendment.

From Where I Stand

Feb. 16, 2025

Dale Crum

10 Feb, 2025

Blog

Is Secular Humanism a Faith-based Religion?

The process of spiritual maturity is replacing lies with truth.

When I was young and still involved in a church, secular humanists were the big, bad, boogie man who we suspected would somehow corrupt us. Sometime later, I decided to find out for myself what secular humanist actually believe. What I discovered was that what I had been taught about secular humanists was mostly lies. I’ve covered that in an earlier blog. I decided to revisit this topic, and this time, we’ll see if what christians teach about secular humanists is actually true.

While researching what secular humanists believe, the Google gods directed me to a christian website called Abounding Joy (AJ). The article was entitled Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism. Sometimes what AJ says about secular humanists is accurate, like when he says that they do not believe in supernatural gods. Sometimes his evaluations of secular humanists are based on misconceptions, and he often misrepresents what they believe. But there are also times (as we will see in future blogs) when something he says about secular humanists is an outright lie. To be fair, we will acknowledge when he is accurate, but we will also attempt to replace his misrepresents and lies with a more accurate view of secular humanists.

But first, I must say that I fully understand Abounding Joy’s distrust of what he can’t understand. I know I was distrustful back then; we were taught from the pulpit to distrust anyone who wasn’t a part of us. My guess is that AJ has never personally met or had a conversation with someone who calls themselves a secular humanist.

Also, I am completely aware that nothing I say in this blog will change AJ’s deep seeded distrust of secular humanists. His mind is made up and he will never change. To do so would be considered treason to his tribe. The price for that could be quite high, including being shunned by his congregation. This blog is not written for him. Neither is this blog written for secular humanists. They already know what they believe.

This Blog’s for You

If you are still active in christian circles, but you’re not satisfied with all the answers you are getting to your questions, then this blog might be for you. Don’t be afraid to keep reading. Secular humanists aren’t really all that scary and neither am I.

So, let’s see if Abounding Joy is accurately representing what secular humanists believe. For the record, just about every paragraph of AJ’s blog contains some level of false statements; therefore, I’ve decided to address them one at a time for the sake of clarity.

The Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism

AJ: Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists. Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind. They do not believe in a supernatural God.

Much of this paragraph is an accurate representation of what secular humanistic beliefs. However, the glaring falsehood can be found in the first eight words.

AJ: Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) …

This is simply not true. There is nothing about secular humanism that needs to be based on faith. Faith is the realm of religions. Humanism is not a religion. A belief system maybe, but not one that requires faith and certainly not a religion. We will show later in this blog, that secular humanism is not a faith-based system, while christianity is nearly entirely faith-based.

AJ “…whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists.”

What he says here is accurate. Secularists believe that the material world is all that we have certain knowledge of. Here is a quote from The Humanist Society of Western New York.

“Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.”

No faith is required to hold this belief.

AJ: Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind.

Obviously, for AJ his god is the highest being (based entirely on faith) and he cannot fathom the idea that anyone would not embrace his faith-based believe in God. Not being a religion, secularism would not accept such a faith-based belief.

AJ: They do not believe in a supernatural God.

I understand that just by saying this AJ and his audience are already appalled. Their bible says that the “fool in his heart says there is not God” therefore AJ mistakenly comes to the debate with a predetermined idea of how lowly secular humanists are.

To say that secular humanists do not believe in a supernatural God, is just partially accurate. It would be more correct to say that Secularists do not believe in supernatural gods (plural). In the history of civilization, mankind has created over 8,000 gods. Christians would dismiss the existence of 7,999 of those gods. A Secularism would agree with theists on that point but then would take it one step or one god further. Secularists would say that they simply believe in one less god than monotheists do.

Let’s compare

Let’s compare secular humanistic beliefs with christian beliefs and see which one is actually based on faith. For this comparison, I have chosen the mission statement from a christian college, and statements from a secular humanism website explaining their values. I will leave it up to the reader to decide which is more faith based. If you are an evangelical, you will obviously come to a different conclusion than I did. This might be an indication that you really need to reevaluate your religion.

Veritas International University offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees. The following comes from their Doctrinal Statement. (Remember, they are an institution of “higher education”. After reading their doctrinal statement, it might be fair to ask what a degree from Veritas will actually prepare its graduates for after college.)

Veritas International University

Are these statements verifiable, or must they be taken by faith alone?

We believe the Bible is the Word of God, comprising the totality of Holy Scripture, is verbally inerrant in the original text, and remains inerrant, inspired, and infallible.
We believe in the full historicity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people.
We believe God is the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth.
We believe the creation account as described in the book of Genesis is factual and historical.
We believe God created the heavens and the earth in six historic days as described in the book of Genesis.
We believe in a literal, worldwide flood that destroyed the earth, animal life, and the human race, except for Noah and those he took in the ark with him.
We believe in the origin of the nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
We believe that the triune God eternally exists in one essence and three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that He is essentially Spirit (i.e., essentially one without parts).
We believe that God is personal, transcendent, sovereign, life, love, truth, almighty, simple, timelessly eternal, unchangeable, wise, just, holy, relational, pure actuality, dynamic, infallible in all things.
We believe that God has foreknowledge of all future decisions and events.
We believe that Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless and miraculous life, provided for the atonement of our sins.
We believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who guides the believer into all truth.
We believe that man is created in the image of God; however, after the fall of Adam and Eve, all people are by nature separated from God.
We believe that when a person receives Jesus Christ that person is immediately born again and becomes a child of God, destined to spend eternity with Christ in heaven. Those who do not personally receive Jesus Christ by faith will spend eternity separated from God in a state of conscious torment.
We believe the universal church is an organic body composed of all believers, both living and dead.
We believe in the imminent rapture of the church and the second coming of Christ which will be physical, personal, and visible.
We believe there is a real personal devil of great malevolence. We believe his power is limited by God to only what God permits him to do. We believe the Devil will eventually burn in the lake of fire and brimstone.

Secular humanism

“Humanism is a joyous alternative that does not need to rely on faith for its beliefs.”

We believe there is no evidence a supernatural power ever needed or wanted anything from people, ever communicated to them, or ever interfered with the laws of nature to assist or harm anyone.
We do not accept supernatural views of reality.
We affirm our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
We believe humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.
We believe in the dignity of each human being.
We believe in participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society and standing for human rights and social justice.
We believe that the goals of life originate from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
We believe that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
We believe humanism stands for the building of a more humane society through human capabilities.
We believe humanism is a joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter.
We believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.
We believe that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world’s problems.
We believe humans should take responsibility for their own lives.
We believe in a world view based on the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real.
We do not believe in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural.
We believe the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature. Humanists view this natural world as wondrous and precious, and as offering limitless opportunities.
We believe that science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, and the lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe.
We believe humans have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity.
We value the welfare of humankind — rather than the welfare of a supposed God or gods — to be of paramount importance.

This about sums it up:

“Set your mind on things above, not on the things that are on earth” Colossians 3:2

Due to the lack of any evidence for an afterlife, this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have.

Coming next:

We will continue with Abounding Joy’s misconceptions about secular humanism.

From Where I Stand

Feb. 10, 2025

Dale Crum

22 Jan, 2025

Blog

What you see is what you get! (WYSIWYG)

Reading between the lines of christian mission statements.

In the previous blog, we were exploring the mission statement of Trinity Lutheran Church, in Denver. In their 2,100-word mission statement they called themselves a confessional church and (lucky for us) they tell us exactly what that means.

What is a Confessional Church?

“A confessional church is a church that clearly tells you what it believes and teaches and does. Many churches do not have a confession of faith, or if they do have a faith statement, it’s not very long or very clear. So, you never know what you’re going to get. At Trinity what you see is what you get.”

Okay, that makes sense. By reading their mission statement anyone who might be church hunting could read their mission statement and decide whether they might want to visit or not. I agree that it’s good when a church’s mission statement says what you can expect from them. But I do not agree that the length of a mission statement automatically corresponds to its clarity. I have read dozens of church mission statements over the past several years and found some lengthy ones to be very unclear and some brief ones that state very clearly what the church is all about.

The longest one I encountered had over 7,000 words, with 28 sections covering nearly all aspects of christian life. They had rules and regulations for tithing and giving, for abstinence from all liquor or strong drink, for use of tobacco and what foods and drinks were allowed. One section called Adornment gave directions on what women were allowed to wear in public. They dictated regulations for wholesome speech, and to top it all off, a section on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. However, nowhere in their 7,000 words, did they think to include the word “welcome”.

Granted, they certainly left little to question, but what have we really learned about that congregation? By reading between the lines, we start to realize that in order to be accepted as a part of their congregation, you must subjugate yourself to the control of the church… and that means you will be held accountable for every one of those 7,000 words. That kind of religious control may be appealing for some people, but certainly not for me. (1)

The shortest mission statement I have encountered belongs to a small church called Kirk of Bonnie Brae. They needed only 136 words to express what they are all about. Read for yourself.

Kirk of Bonnie Brae

Welcome to the Kirk of Bonnie Brae! We believe that all people are children of God and are created in the image of God. We believe that welcoming all people was and is at the heart of the ministry of Jesus. We find joy in being a diverse community of faith, and welcome everyone to join our spiritual journey.

We celebrate people … of all ages, races, and ethnicities; of all gender identities and gender expressions; of all sexual orientations; of all faith backgrounds and no faith background; of all viewpoints on the issues impacting our society; of differing physical and mental abilities; who are single, married, divorced, separated, widowed, or partnered; who are well-fed or hungry, sheltered, or homeless; who wonder how a congregation could welcome all of the above. We welcome and celebrate you!

So, what do you think? With only 136 words, are you able to ascertain what kind of church they are and what you might expect from its congregation? It’s pretty clear that they are a welcoming church. The word welcome appears five times and they are very clear about who is welcome at their church; anyone and everyone! Some people (congregations) might feel uncomfortable with that level of diversity.

Trinity Lutheran is one of those congregations. The word welcome never appears in their mission statement. Since they have stated that “what you see is what you get” we must conclude that since welcome is not mentioned in their mission statement, then it is not something that is important to them. As you will see for yourself, not everyone is welcomed at Trinity Lutheran.

The Acorn and the Tree

Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement is a clear case of the proverbial acorn not falling far from the Martin Luther tree. In order to understand Trinity Lutheran, we need to understand the writings of its founding patriarch. Their mission statement directs the reader to other Lutheran doctrines such as the Orders of Creation, the Table of Duties, the Small and Large Catechism, all written by Martin Luther himself.

So, let’s take a brief look at the roots of Lutheranism in hopes that it might help us understand the workings of Trinity Lutheran. (I say brief because Martin Luther was rarely brief.) Let’s see if we can discover in the writings of Luther the reasons behind Trinity Lutheran not being a welcoming church. The following is from Luther’s catechism.

But those who refuse to learn (i.e. believe as we believe) are to be told that they are denying Christ and do not belong to Him. They are not to be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at Baptism, or allowed to exercise Christian liberty in any way. They should instead be simply directed back to the pope and his functionaries, yes, even to Satan himself. Moreover, their parents and superiors should refuse them food and drink, telling them that the prince is of a mind to expel such rude persons from his realm, and so on.

Ironically, his very next sentence is,

Of course we cannot, and we should not try to force the Christian faith on anyone.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. True Lutherans are directed to deny food, drink, and shelter to non-conformers and also to shun them from being included in the community (2). When this was written in the 1500s, being shunned by your community would have been a death sentence. That is of course unless the actual death sentence was to be burned at the stake. Yet it’s important that, as good christians, they don’t force their Christian faith on anyone. “And they’ll know we are christians by our love, by our love, and they’ll know we are christians by our love.”

Rather than giving you a paraphrased version of their statements, I have decided to let Trinity Lutheran to speak for themselves. It will be up to you, the reader, to decide if Trinity Lutheran is a welcoming church and whether you would be welcome or comfortable there.

Trinity Lutheran Mission Statement

Orders of Creation

(Editor’s note: The Orders of Creation is a Lutheran doctrine that describes the social structures of human existence, such as the family, state, church, and economy. The doctrine is based on the idea that God established these social domains and that they are the basic framework for human life.)

“God is a god of order. Birds cannot become pine trees. Oceans do not turn into azaleas. Boys do not turn into girls. Women do not become men. No amount of screaming will turn the bird into a pine tree. No amount of denial will change the Atlantic into an azalea. No social media post or politician’s speech will make boys into girls or women into men.

When we conform our thoughts and words and deeds to God’s orders, we live a better life. When we expect to get pinecones from a pine tree and to see a boy grow into a man, we find wisdom. When we expect otherwise, our foolishness leads to all kinds of destruction. (This is a thinly veiled threat.)

Marriage

Marriage has three purposes: the procreation of children, faithfulness to one’s spouse, and the symbolizing of Christ’s marriage to His church. Marriage can therefore only be between one man and one woman since God Himself has only one Bride, the holy Christian Church, and when He instituted earthly marriage in the first times of the world, He brought together just one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. Marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex or multiple people at the same time because God did not establish marriage to be that way. We support and protect marriage so that God’s will might be honored and the children He has given us might be protected. (Another thinly veiled threat.)

Sex and Gender

We are not free to be whatever we would like. We were made to be some things and not others, to be male or female, neither both at the same time nor the opposite at some time nor something else altogether. If we were free to be whatever we would like, we would be greater and more powerful than God Himself, and since we plainly are not gods, do not have such control, cannot even keep ourselves alive without His help every moment, we can scarcely become something we were not made to be. We might play act, but we cannot become other than He has made us to be. (3)

WYSIWYG

What does this mission statement tell us about Trinity Lutheran? Clearly, not everyone is welcome at their church. Perhaps that is the one good thing about being a confessional church. They are indeed very clear about who is and who is not welcome at their church. Members of the LGBTQ community can see for themselves what kind of church Trinity Lutheran is and choose to steer clear of that kind of religious based bigotry.

Lutheranism is so German.

As a German, Luther was greatly concerned about the need for everything to be orderly. Just look at his writings. In the Table of Duties, Luther describes and sets standards for the social structures of human existence, such as the family, state, church, and economy. The doctrine is based on the idea that God established these social domains and that they are the basic framework for human life. In the Table of Duties Luther gives instructions for Pastors, and Preachers and also for the congregation which are told to obey and submit to authority. (4)

What we see in Trinity’s mission statement is that orderliness is more important than God’s love. Imagine how uncomfortable Trinity Lutheran would be with Kirk Bonnie Brae’s mission statement. It would put them WAY out of their comfort zone. It’s obvious that Trinity is most comfortable with an orderly world, dictated by authority/subordinate relationships. Imagine if they had to deal with a congregation the contained “all faith backgrounds and viewpoints”. That would be way too messy for them. It’s pretty clear that they are not a diverse community of faith, nor do they have any desire to be.

Remember, what you see, is what you get.

End Note:

1) Churches like this can be very legalistic. By attending a church like this, you have opened your life to constant scrutiny with multiple ways to fail. This kind of highly regulated, performance based christianity can lead to what some christians are calling Spiritual Abuse. An internet search for the phrase spiritual abuse, resulted in 225 books on the topic, with titles like, Churches That Abuse: Help for those hurt by legalism, authoritarian leadership, and spiritual intimidation, Recovering From Churches That Abuse, and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. If you’re experiencing that kind of authoritarian leadership in your church, I would encourage you to get some help and find another church.

2) Denying food, drink, and shelter to non-conformers, and shunning them from community involvement sounds like “spiritual abuse” to me. See end note one.

3) Trinity Lutheran: “We might play act, but we cannot become other than He has made us to be.”

I once interviewed a pastor who identified as gay. She told me that she played acted for decades that she was straight, but the time came when she decided to be honest with God and the rest of the world. By embracing how God had made her she felt God’s blessing on her as a gay person. It was not just okay; it was how God had made her. “This is what God wanted, she said, “this is not a mistake that we have to fix.” To read her perspective on being gay in a christian world follow this link.

4) Of all the instructions given in the Table of Duties, the one I find the most disturbing is the one written for widows. “The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.”

Whatever happened to James 1:27 “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

Someone forgot to tell the Widow Clicquot that she was already dead when she made the decision (in opposition to religious authorities of that day) to carry on her husband’s champagne business after he died.

Coming soon: A Tale of Two Churches

After reading Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement and the writings of Martin Luther, I was about to conclude that all Lutheran churches were pretty much the same. Then I discovered Bethany Lutheran in Denver.

From Where I Stand

Jan. 22, 2025

Dale Crum

11 Jan, 2025

Blog

Part trois: What’s Sin Got to Do with It?

The main thing about the main thing, is to keep the main thing the main thing.

What’s the main thing?

Most christians, like Rev. Rick Warren, will say that LOVE is the main thing. However, as we have already seen in previous blogs, when we examine church mission statements, LOVE, (especially God’s love) takes a back seat to SIN, even in Pastor Warren’s church. So, with that fact in mind, let’s take a closer look at how important the concept of Sin is in church mission statements.

Got love?

Trinity Lutheran Church in Denver is a great example of the disproportionate amount of times love is mentioned when compared with how often sin is mentioned. In their 2,100-word mission statement, LOVE is mentioned only twice, (in the first paragraph) where they simply quote Mark 12:30-31.

“The Bible has two big commands that God gives us: to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Everything else boils down to those.” (34 words)

(Quick point: If “everything else boils down” to those two verses, why does Trinity Lutheran feel the need for 2,066 more words? They actually tell us why, but we’ll address that later*.)

Notice that humans are commanded to love God and our neighbor, (whoever that might be). This is something that Rick Warren echoes in chapter 22 of his simple-minded book, The Purpose Driven Life. He says, “Remember it’s all about love – loving God and loving others”. There is no mention of God’s love for humanity anywhere in Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement, nor in chapter 22 of Warren’s book. I think for believers it would be important to include God’s love in the equation, don’t you? (And I don’t mean by simply quoting John 3:16). God’s love should be the main thing, but by neglecting to include, (or even mention) God’s love on one side of the equation, christians are left with an equation that is imbalanced.

What you end up with is an uneven justice scale with God’s love on the left and sin on the right.

Sin becomes the main thing.

Got sin?

Trinity Lutheran might have neglected to include God’s love in their mission statement, but they certainly didn’t neglect to mention SIN, which appears 21 times and death 17 times. (These two go hand in hand in christian doctrine.) The ratio of Sin to Love is nearly 10 to 1.

This might lead some to ask, “What exactly is sin?” That’s a good question and fortunately Trinity Lutheran has done us a favor by actually defining it. They say, “By ‘sin’ we mean every word, thought, and deed against God’s Law.”

A quick internet search for other definitions of sin, pretty much produced the same result.

Sin relates to breaking or violating God’s divine law.
Sin is any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action, contrary to the law of God.
Sin is any rebellion against God.
Sin is a lack of faith in God
Sin consists of acts of rebellion against God and leads to our death.

If you take a close look at these definitions, you will notice that all of them, without exception, say that SIN is something that offends God. This confirms what secularists have been saying for years and what I personally have come to believe since letting go of christianity . Sin is a fabricated concept invented by religions. I’m not an expert in religious studies, but it seems to me that the concept of sin is especially prevalent in monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. Christianity in general and specifically Trinity Lutheran teaches that God’s rules/laws, which are given via the bible, must be obeyed. Any word, deed, thought, action, or inaction that violates God’s divine law is considered as rebellion against God and therefore, constitutes SIN.

SIN is not universal.

Christianity also teaches that “ALL have sinned and fallen short…” and that “the wages of sin is death”. However, secularists, like me, reject that idea. We realize that the concept of sin (i.e. offending a deity) is not universal, which means, it doesn’t apply to everyone. As, I’ve said before, SIN is an artificially fabricated concept invented by religions to control its participants. Many people across the globe, do not believe that the concept of offending a deity applies to them. Me included.

After letting go of christianity, it still took me awhile to wrap my head around this concept. Our status as wretched sinners was reinforced on a regular basis from the pulpit, and much like most church mission statements, our sinfulness was addressed more often than was God’s love. The first time I heard someone (on YouTube) say that SIN is an artificially fabricated concept invented by religions, a figurative light bulb turned on in my head. So, if you are just getting started on your journey of deconversion, let me give you a comparison that might explain the concept better.

I live in Denver, and during the NFL season almost the entire city embraces the boys in Blue and Orange. Devotion to the Denver Broncos borders on a religion in these parts. But that’s also the case in just about any city that has either a college or a professional football team. (If you’ve ever been to a high school football game in Texas, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.) On game day, the television news reminds Bronco fanatics to dress in Blue and Orange. If you want to show your team loyalty, it’s mandatory and not doing so could be considered a sin against the NFL gods and might get you 86ed from your local sports bar.

I no longer consider myself a Bronco fan, (it’s a long story) just like I no longer a consider myself a member of the Jesus Club (also a long story). Funny thing is when I openly admitted that I no longer support the Broncos, I got the same reaction from my sports friends as I did from my church friends when I confessed that I no longer supported christianity. There was a sense that I was committing a betrayal from both groups.

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that since I am no longer a Broncos fan, I am no longer obliged to wear blue and orange on game day. (I don’t even own anything blue and orange.) And likewise, since I am no longer a member of the Jesus club, I am no longer obliged to believe in any doctrine that says my behavior offends some deity. If christians want to live under the tyranny of having every word, deed, thought, action, or inaction constantly judged by some distant deity, then they have that right. But to me, it sounds a bit like living in North Korea and I choose not to live like that.

Rejecting the concept of Sin is not rejecting morality.

It’s important to understand what I’m saying, and more importantly, what I’m not saying. Christians often say that by rejecting the concept of sin, secularists and atheists, have no moral base and are just giving themselves a license to sin. They say that atheists feel no guilt, no remorse for wrongdoing and therefore must be amoral. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Renown secularist Phil Zuckerman says this,

“It is said over and over again by religious conservatives: without faith in God, society will fall apart. If we don’t worship God, pray to God, and place God at the central heart of our culture, things will get ugly. For if people turn away from God and stop being religious, then crime will go up, corruption will increase, perversion will percolate, decency will diminish, and all manifestations of misery and malfeasance will predominate. It is an interesting hypothesis. Perpetually-touted. And totally wrong.”

Atheist Dan Barker writes, “Notice that biblical wrongdoing or sin is connected not with real human suffering, (or minimizing harm) but with offending a deity.”

Defining Secular Morality

Secular morality, often associated with non-religious or atheistic worldviews, derives its principles from human reason, ethics, and humanism rather than divine authority. It emphasizes a foundation in the here and now, centering on the well-being of individuals and society. One of its fundamental tenets is the separation of moral principles from religious beliefs, highlighting that ethics can exist independently of faith.” Freethinkers International

Love is universal

The main objective of this blog is to question why christian churches focus more on SIN then on God’s Love. As we have seen, Sin is not universal. Love, on the other hand, is universal. It’s been said that “Love is the universal language that transcends countries, borders, barriers, and differences.” It doesn’t matter the color of your skin, or where you live. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, gay or straight. Theists of all different religions experience love. Atheists experience love as well. Conservatives and Liberals both experience love. So, why is LOVE so noticeably lacking in church mission statements? God only knows. (Pun intended.) Perhaps I should be thankful. If christian churches talked more about God’s love and less about our wretched sinfulness, I’d have to find something else to write about.

After thought

According to Trinity Lutheran’s website, their mission statement is rather lengthy (2,100 words) because they are a confessional church. And what exactly does that mean? We’re in luck, because they are going to tell us.

*What is a Confessional Church?

Coming Next

We’ll explore the pros and cons of being a confessional church in the next blog. We find out pretty clearly who is and who is not welcome at their church. We’ll also take a deeper look into the beliefs of Lutheranism and the teachings of Martin Luther. Boy, is that an open can of worms. We will be exploring the controversial writings of Martin Luther, including his 50,000-word essay The Jews and Their Lies, where he writes, “Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them. We should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants and then eject them forever from this country. (Germany)

Prepare yourself, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

From Where I Stand

Jan. 11, 2025

Dale Crum

1 Jan, 2025

Blog

What’s Love Got to Do with It? Part deux

What’s more important than LOVE?

In his wildly popular book, Rev. Rick Warren says that love is “what matters most”. He writes, “Because God is love, the most important lesson he wants you to learn on earth is how to love. It is in loving that we are most like him.”

Wow! What a touching statement, but is it true?

If it is true, and fundamental christians actually believe that love is so important, why is LOVE so noticeably lacking from their mission statements? Take for example, the church that Rick Warren and his wife founded in 1980. In Saddleback’s 538-word mission statement LOVE is not mentioned even once. If Warren really believes that LOVE is the most important lesson God wants us to learn in this life, why is it so noticeably lacking in Saddleback’s mission statement? Since LOVE is not mentioned in their mission statement, what is worth including?

What’s more important than LOVE?

Logic tells us that the more important something is, the more likely it will be mentioned, right? So, if church mission statements mention something more often than LOVE, it logically means that it’s more important than love. So, what could be more important than LOVE in christian doctrine? It will be no surprise to anyone who has escaped evangelical christianity that the (obvious) answer is the concept of SIN. Warren’s Saddleback Church might have neglected to mention love, but they certainly have not neglected to mention SIN, which appears eight times.

Warren’s church is not the exception, it’s the rule in christian mission statements. In a sampling of 50 church mission statements, containing over 50,000 words, LOVE was only mentioned 116 times, (with only a fraction of those actually referring to God’s love for humanity). On the other hand, sin, sinner or sinful were mentioned 317 times. If you do the math, it means that the concept of sin is roughly three times more important than love. Why is that?

Of the 50 church mission statements I read, only a few actually mention LOVE (and specifically God’s Love for humanity) more often than they do SIN. The following two churches are rare anomalies among christian churches in that their mission statements actually reflect the importance of God’s love.

Highlands Church, Denver

There is nothing we can do or not do to increase or decrease God’s love for us.
We trust the flow of God’s love toward us and toward all people.
God’s love is an inclusive and unstoppable love.
God’s love for the world is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.

Bethany Lutheran, Denver

We believe all people are created in God’s image and loved by God.
God loves all humanity.
God loves us.
God did this to demonstrate God’s love for us.
God’s love is unconditional.
God’s love is never-ending.
God’s love is unfathomable.
God’s love is infinite.
God’s love for us is limitless and persistent.
Nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God.

These two churches alone mention God’s love for humanity more times than the other 48 mission statements combined. Once again, if LOVE is so important for christians, why is God’s love so conspicuously missing from their mission statements? Of the 50 mission statements I examined, the vast majority of them mention sin way more times than they do love. Sometimes it’s quite dramatic. For example,

The Church of God of Prophecy: 7,000 total words with 4 mentions of love (one quoting John 3:16) and 27 references to sin.
Angelical Church of North America: 4,100 total words with 3 mentions of love (none referring to God’s love) and 25 references to sin.
Trinity Lutheran, Denver: 2,100 words with 2 mentions of love (neither referring to God’s love) and 25 references to sin.
Fellowship Bible Church, SC: 1,845 total words with zero mentions of love and 19 references to sin.

These four churches alone, with a combined 15,000 words, only mention love 9 times and only once is there the slightest hint of God’s love for humanity. On the other hand, sin is referenced 97 times. So, what does that tell us about these four churches?

Which is more important love, or sin?

This is what christian mission statements are giving us rather than giving us God’s Love?

Mankind is sinful and under justified condemnation.
Without exception every man and woman is sinful and totally depraved.
Humanity sinned and consequently experienced spiritual death.
Sin then spread like a virus to all humans.
Every human is born with a sinful and depraved nature and are separated from God.
We believe that man is sinful, lost and deserves eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire.

Where love is thick, faults are thin.

Where love is thin faults are thick.

It’s ironic that the more fundamental a church is, the less likely they are to mention God’s love. The more progressive a church is, the more likely they will focus more on God’s love and less on sin. I’ve told this story before in a previous blog, but I think it’s worth retelling here. I stumbled on a church whose sign out front read “Cloverdale Church – Love is in our name“. So, I went to their website, found their mission statement and looked for the word LOVE. To my disappointment Love was not mentioned even once. So, I wrote to them and said, “L-O-V-E may be in your name, but it’s certainly not in your mission statement.” The church secretary responded by saying that “God’s Love is important to Cloverdale as a church”. I wanted to say, “If LOVE is so important to your congregation, then maybe, just maybe consider including it in your mission statement.” She said they were updating their mission statement, but the last time I checked nothing had changed. I wasn’t surprised.

How does your church stack up?

If you haven’t read your church’s mission statement, I would challenge you to do that. Count the number of times LOVE is mentioned and compare that to the number of times SIN is mentioned. And if you would be so kind, please share your results with me.

From Where I Stand

Jan. 1, 2025

Dale Crum

15 Dec, 2024

Blog

Did Israel Actually Conquer Canaan?

What if it never happened?

Much has been written about the biblical narrative of the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan. As we have seen in previous blogs, most of what has been written by christians apologists focuses on letting God off the hook for genocide. The intent of this blog is not to challenge those christians who attempt to justify morally questionable biblical stories. I’ve done that already. The question we’ll try to address in this blog is not about the morality of it all, but its historicity. Did it really happen? And if it didn’t, what does that mean for believers?

It’s not about morality, it’s about historicity.

What we know now is that there is little or no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of many biblical narratives, including the patriarchal narratives of Abraham, Issac and Jacob¹, the stories of Moses and the Exodus from Egypt², and Joshua and the conquest of Canaan³.

The curious thing is, if the scholars are right, and I believe they are, wouldn’t that mean that the stories of the Israelites conquering the Holy Land and annihilating the Canaanites are nothing more than fictitious legends created many centuries later? That would make the debate about whether God commanded genocide a rather moot point, wouldn’t it? It would be on the same level as debating whether legendary lumberjack Paul Bunyan was born in Maine or Minnesota, or how many storks it took to carry him to his parents.

If the conquest of the Holy Land and the accompanying stories of genocide never actually happened, wouldn’t that let Yahweh and christians off the hook for biblical genocide? One might think that removing divinely commanded genocide from the biblical narrative would be good news for christians. There would be no need for the plethora of books and articles written on the topic, no need to absolved Yahweh of wrongdoing, because historically, there was no wrongdoing.

But it’s not that simple.

One rather well known christian apologist (who shall go unnamed) puts it this way, “Many Old Testament critics are skeptical that the events of the conquest of Canaan ever occurred. For such critics the problem of God’s issuing such a command evaporates. Now that puts the issue in quite a different perspective. If we Christians can’t ﬁnd a good answer to the question before us… then we’ll have to give up biblical inerrancy.”

As we’ve explored in previous blogs, this is something that is easier said than done. It’s more of a good news, bad news kind of thing for christians. If the stories of the Canaanite conquest never actually happened, then believers are faced with an all-new conundrum. They will be forced to reevaluate their belief that the Old Testament is a reliable source. Christian author Charlie Trimm says that this view provides an “obvious ethical benefit by disassociating Yahweh from biblical violence”. Therefore, Christians’ belief in a good and loving God could remain intact, and the angst they feel when confronted by stories of God commanding genocide would just go away.

But, the other side of coin, according to Trimm, is that choosing this view comes at a “cost of not being able to trust the Old Testament as a reliable document”. In addition, the social cost of rejecting the stance of biblical inerrancy “may be quite high, perhaps even leading to… the removal from fellowship at a church.” (Oh my!)

On the other hand, Trimm says that the cost of holding the view that Yahweh actually did command the slaughter of innocents would be that “many will be repulsed by such a god and might also question the sanity and compassion of one who follows such a god… and (this) could make evangelism more difficult”. Christians can live with that, but the thought of being shunned by their christian community is terrifying.

Let’s see if I understand this correctly.

If a christian believes that divinely commanded genocide never happened because the OT is not a reliable source, they run the risk of being rejected by other christians. If they maintain the reliability of the OT and believe that Yahweh actually did command the slaughter of innocent women and children, they run the risk of being rejected by non-believers.

Who would have thought that given the choice of the lesser of two evils, Yahweh commanding the deliberate and merciless slaughter of innocent men, women, and children would be the lesser evil. I seriously doubt that anyone was ever removed from church fellowship for professing that God commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites.

There are a couple of reasons why many evangelicals would prefer that Yahweh actually did command genocide. First, the image of an angry vengeful God, who judges the wicked, is appealing to most evangelicals. And second, by hanging on to the conquest narrative, (even though there is little evidence to support it) they don’t have to face the reality that the Old Testament is an unreliable source.

The bottom line is this, it’s socially better for christians to believe in divinely commanded genocide than it is to question the reliability of the Old Testament. It would take an uncommonly courageous believer to openly deny biblical inerrancy, knowing that doing so would have “grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.”

The road less traveled!

If you happen to be one of those courageous believers, stand firm! You might be ostracized by your christian “friends”, but you are not alone. Many of us secularists experienced the same thing when we arrived at the crossroads where you are now. As foreign as it might seem to you now, you might actually feel more at home in the ranks of those who (like you) are repulsed by such stories of a violent god. You too can learn to (openly) question the sanity and compassion of those who embrace such a god. It’s definitely the road less traveled, but it’s the right one.

End notes

1) “The absence of archaeological evidence for the Exodus narrative, and the evidence pointing to anachronisms in the patriarchal narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, have convinced the vast majority of scholars that the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.”

“Thomas L. Thompson, a Danish biblical scholar and theologian, and John Van Seters an ancient Hebrew Bible scholar, both proposed that based the lack of compelling archaeological evidence the biblical patriarchal narratives can no longer be considered as historical. Of course, some conservative scholars attempted to defend the patriarchal narratives, but this has not found acceptance among the vast majority of scholars. By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists have stopped trying to recover any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures.” Historicity of the Bible.

2) “While Jewish tradition holds that all five books were originally written by Moses sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE, leading scholars have rejected Mosaic authorship since the 17th century. It is believed that the composition of the Torah was a process that involved multiple authors over an extended period of time. On the basis of a variety of arguments, modern scholars generally see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Persian Empire (a thousand years later around 450–350 BCE).” Composition of the Torah

“Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as historical for a number of reasons. It is generally agreed that the Exodus stories were written centuries after the apparent setting of the stories. Archaeologists argue that archaeology has not found evidence for even a small band of wandering Israelites living in the Sinai: “The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable… repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence.” The Exodus

3) In a blog from September 30, 2019, entitled Did The Israelites Really Conquer Canaan? Dr. Bart Ehrman writes,

“For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?

References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).

And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? The answer appears to be: none of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. But on the whole, the book of Joshua would be a legendary account of the conquest, not a historical narrative that can be accepted as accurate in its details.”

From Where I Stand

Dec. 15, 2024

Dale Crum

18 Nov, 2024

Blog

A Morally Questionable Escape Clause

The bible doesn’t condemn divinely commanded violence… but we should.

“Anyone who condones, the ‘deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing’, …should be regarded with abhorrence.” Raymond Bradley

“We trust that this book will bring insight and moral understanding to an issue that continues vex many people. We hope that sufficient light has been shed…” Copan and Flannagan

That isn’t what I found in their book; no real insight, no moral understanding and definitely no sufficient light being shed on the issue of biblical violence. What I did find was a book so full of prevarications and morally questionable justifications that it was incredibly painful to read. We’ve covered chapters one, five and fifteen in previous blogs, so lets see what more they have to offer.

Chapter 17: Is it Rational to Believe God Commanded the Killing of Innocents?

When Professor of Philosophy Wesley Morriston says that “the reasons given in the OT texts (for the massacre of the Canaanites) are implausible and morally suspect”, (which they are), C&F spend the rest of the chapter attempting to discredit him. They write, “We have given good reason to think that the objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute.” They write that they believe God issuing the command is stronger than the grounds for thinking that killing innocents is always wrong. Simply put, if God gives the command to kill innocents, it’s okay.

This is the kind of sanctimonious rationalizing disgusts me and, “should be regarded with abhorrence”.

Chapter 18: What if Someone Claimed God Commanded Killing the Innocent Today?

In this chapter C&F quote Morriston, as saying that if a contemporary leader were to issue such a command to kill innocents, we would say that he was out of his mind and that we should treat OT divinely mandated genocide in the same way. Once again C&F use this chapter to discredit Morriston by saying that modern day “thus says the Lord” utterances are not authoritative, like those from Isaiah and Paul and therefore, should be rejected. Obviously, they have not seen the YouTube videos where self-proclaimed modern-day prophets are foretelling the coronation of a new anointed one (who happens to be a godless, immoral man) who will soon occupy the White House and bring a theocracy to America. They also foretell the complete destruction and annihilation of his enemies. Most reasonable minded Americans would agree that these modern-day prophets are out of their minds. However, if these so-called prophets were to issue a decree that they said, “came from God”, there is little doubt that their followers would, without question obey, even if it violates widely held objective moral principles.

Morriston also referred to a 2008 event in which 52 children were rescued from a polygamist sect in Texas. He then asks what if the (fictitious) governor of Texas had said that he received a divine command to completely wipe out the fundamental Mormons, by saying “Make no agreements with these people. Show them no mercy and kill them all”.

C&F discredit Morriston by saying that “we have good grounds for ruling out the suggestion about some… fictitious Texas governor who now speaks on God’s behalf” What C&F fail to grasp here is that, for christians, any command coming from someone in authority is a command from God. The book of Romans tells us that “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good… and agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” It wouldn’t matter that the governor wasn’t ‘speaking on God’s behalf’, if the decree came from someone in authority (as long as it was a republican) christians are commanded to obey. This theme also permeates human history. It would be impossible to document all the times in history that after an atrocious act was committed the subordinates claimed, quite innocently, that they were just following orders.

It’s interesting that C&F would use the example of a fictitious governor ordering an extermination, because it resembles an actual historical event. (See end note 1.)

Chapter 19: The Role of Miracles and the Command to Kill the Canaanites.

In this chapter they argue that we can know the command to commit genocide in the OT came from Yahweh, because there were corresponding miracles to demonstrate that the command came from God, such as a burning bush experience, crossing the Red Sea on dry land, a pillar of fire and manna from heaven. According to them, these miracles were validation that the command to kill innocents did indeed come from Yahweh and not someone’s “mere inner subjective sensing”. Meaning, if some modern-day prophet was to issue a command to, let’s say, exterminate all atheist, we can only be assured the command came from God if it was accompanied by some grand miracles. But as we have already seen, it wouldn’t matter. Even if it violates objective moral principles, any order from someone in authority will be followed despite the lack of miracles.

Chapter 20: Does Religion Cause Violence?

In this chapter, they quote several modern-day scholars who make the case that religion, especially monotheism is, by its very nature, violent. Obviously, C&F disagree and make their case by pointing fingers at secularist, atheists, and polytheists, which they say are equally as violent. It’s a classic case of diversion and if we read between the lines, we can see what they are actually saying. “Our religion might have a history of violence, but look at those other guys, they’re violent too.” Then in an attempt to completely divert the attention away from its violent history to something more positive, C&F say that even atheists would agree that there are some positive aspects of christianity. According to them, christianity might have a violent history but it is also responsible for influencing “human rights, education and literacy for all, moral reforms, democracy, and equality before the law.”

Wow, that’s quite a claim, which I personally believe would disappear, much like a mirage, with closer evaluation. But that’s a blog for another day.

Chapter 21: Are Yahweh Wars in the Old Testament Just Like Islamic Jihad?

This chapter is especially interesting. C&F quote several “popular writers on religion” who say that there is far more violence in the bible than in the Qur’an. C&F call their claims misleading and misguided and spend the rest of the chapter attempting to show that Islam is historically more violent than either Judaism or Christianity. They have even created a side-by-side table graphic comparing “Yahweh War in the Old Testament” with “Islamic Jihad” which for them clearly shows that Islamic Jihad is the more violent. Why this is important to their original argument is unclear. Perhaps, in their attempts to justify biblical violence, it is helpful to show that other monotheistic religions are just as violent. Something, by the way, they tried to disprove in the previous chapter. (Yahweh wars? See End note 3.)

Chapter 22: Did Old Testament War Texts Inspire the Crusades?

I didn’t even bother to read this chapter because, after the previous 21 chapters, I already knew what their answer would be. And if you’ve been paying attention, so will you.

My summary – From where I stand.

With each chapter I read, my disgust with Copan and Flannagan’s prevarication and disturbing lack of moral integrity grew. What can you say about a person who believes that “if God gives the command, it’s okay to slaughter of men, women, and children”. It hurt my soul to read their book, much in the same way it hurts my soul when I hear white supremacists indiscriminately spewing hate at non-whites, or when overzealous patriots violently attack minorities like Asians or Muslims (both verbally and physically) simply because of something they read on the internet, or how insensitive and pious christians condemn my gay friends based entirely on only six bible verses. And the most disturbing part is that all of them will use the bible to justify their morally questionable behavior, just like Copan and Flannagan do.

By commanding and condoning (and not condemning) the massacre of the Canaanites, the bible sets a precedence, much like the issue of slavery. Since, the bible never condemns the practice of slavery, pastors in the Antebellum South used scripture to justify the practice of owning another human being (see end note 2). In like manner, the bible never condemns the slaughter of the Canaanites, and therefore, some well-meaning christians, just like in the Antebellum South, will have precedence and justification (given them by C&F) for violating objective moral principles against harming another human being.

Although, C&F repeatedly say that it is only on “rare or highly unusual occasions” that God allows exceptions to a general rule against killing innocent women and children, some of their more zealous readers will skip over the “rare and highly unusual” part and embrace the “can be overridden” part. This is the most concerning part about their book. The following disturbing statements are the underlying message of their book and should not be ignored.

“Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden.”
“On closer investigation, the wrongness of killing innocent people is not a nonnegotiable principle” Chap. 16.
The objective moral principle that it is wrong to ‘deliberately and mercilessly slaughter innocent men, women, and children’, is not an absolute. Chap. 17
“Many ethicists contend that while the claim “it is wrong to kill innocent people” is correct as a general rule, it can be overridden.” Chap. 15.
“God did issue an exception to the general prohibition against taking innocent human life.” Chap. 17
“God issuing the command to kill innocent woman and children is stronger than thinking that killing innocents is always wrong.” Chap. 17.
“Killing innocent women and children is not always wrong.” Chap. 16.

By saying that the killing of innocents can be overridden if God gives the command, C&F have given their readers an “escape clause” that gives them permission to violate any number of object moral principles.

Final thoughts

At one time in my life, I called myself a christian, and spent decades in a christian community, but If Copan and Flannagan’s twisted reasoning represent mainstream christianity, then I am proud to say that I am no longer a part of such a community. I want nothing to do with people who believe that “sometimes” it’s okay to kill innocent women and children. Raymond Bradley was correct when he said… “they should be treated with abhorrence and disgust”.

The following two quotes, although separated by a couple of centuries, sum it up rather succinctly for me.

“Many will be repulsed by such a god who can command the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, and might also question the sanity and compassion of those who follow such a god.” Charlie Trimm

“Copan and Flannagan’s book “is the reverse of truth, and I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and absurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed to something better.” Thomas Paine

End note:

1) In October of 1838, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs issued an “extermination order” saying that the “Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven out of the state… for the public good.” Two hundred militiamen carried out that extermination order by butchering everyone in a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill. It’s more than likely that many, if not all, of those militiamen were good christian men who were doing their duty to rid their christian community of Mormon influence. Ironically that kind of thinking corresponds with C&F’s third justification for killing the Canaanites.

Justification 3: Corrupting Inﬂuences and the Risk of Assimilation. We cannot risk assimilating with “those people”. Whatever threatens the purity and integrity of our religion should be taken with utter seriousness.

C&F might argue that the governor’s extermination order was not divinely given, but to the militiamen, it made no difference.

Nineteen years later, the Mormons (now in Utah) in an eye for an eye sort of fashion, retaliated by attacking a wagon train of non-Mormon settlers from Arkansas, who were not guilty of any wrongdoing except trespassing on Mormon land. (Which, by the way, is C&F first justification for killing the Canaanites.) The story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a twisted web of deception, corruption, and coverup. It is unclear who gave the order, but when the federal government showed up to investigate the massacre, Prophet Brigham Young denied any involvement, and instead, pointed a finger at militia leader John Lee and said, “The time has come when they will try John D. Lee and not the Mormon Church, and that is all we have ever wanted.” John Lee, surprisingly enough, was the only person arrested for the massacre. He was convicted in 1876 and executed in March 1877 at Mountain Meadows.

Once again C&F might argue that the command to slaughter the Arkansan settlers did not come directly from God, but to the Mormon militiamen, who were undoubtedly religious men, it made no difference. The order was given by someone in authority in their religious community and they obeyed it without question and thus slaughtered 120 trespassing gentiles.

2) Some of the arguments for slavery that were used by pastors in the Antebellum South really were quite compelling. If you haven’t actually read them, you should. See my previous blogs for more on this topic.

3) C&F’s referring to the conquest of Canaan as “Yahweh wars” is both misleading and deceptive. Numbers 31: 48-49, says that the officers of the army took a census and reported to Moses that not a single man was missing. Hmmm, let’s see, one side is completely annihilated (except of course for the young virgin girls) and the other side doesn’t lose a single man. That is not war, that is a massacre, plain and simple. Verses 50-54 tell us that the booty of this slaughter was 16,750 shekels of goal. This biblical narrative shows us that it was not a holy or just war, it was a mass genocide carried out for land and for riches. And one more thing, verse 54 tells us that Moses and Eleazar took all the gold for themselves and called it a “memorial before the lord”. How convenient!

Coming next:

There is little or no archaeological evidence to support the historical narratives of the conquest of Canaan. So, what if it never actually happened? Would that let Yahweh and christians off the hook for genocide? We’ll explore that idea more in the next blog.

From Where I Stand

Nov. 18, 2024

Dale Crum

10 Nov, 2024

Blog

Guilty of Not Being Innocent

How Theists Justify the Final Solution of the Canaanites

Theists will try to show that our moral principle that it is wrong to “deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”, is either inapplicable to the situation or that they present exceptions which would absolve God of violating it. Raymond Bradley

No sooner said than done!

“God on rare or highly unusual occasions allows exceptions to a general rule against killing (women and children) for the sake of some greater good. Therefore, the killing of innocents can be overridden in rare circumstances of “supreme emergency”. Copan and Flannagan

In this blog we’ll explore the validity and problems with Copan and Flannagan’s (supreme emergency) exceptions to Bradley’s non-negotiable moral principles. It should be noted before we begin that C&F’s book “Did God Really Command Genocide” was most likely written for a christian audience, who needs reassurance that God did not command genocide. They repeatedly reference the bible (66 times in chapter 5) and treat it as an authoritative resource whose validity is not to be questioned. However, a careful reading of their book reveals that many of their proposed ideas, in defense of Yahweh, are the product of false assumptions and unsubstantiated beliefs based on ancient religious writings.

Also, C&F employ the expression “Bradley’s Crucial Moral Principle”. I have changed that innocuous phrase to more closely match Bradley’s original moral principle. See my previous blog for a further explanation.

With that said, let’s see how they defend the reputation of Yahweh.

Does the Bible Portray the Canaanites as Innocent?

This is the title and topic of chapter 5 of C&F’s book. We can already see where their argument is going.

Atheist Raymond Bradley says that ‘it is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”. In addition, Bradley says that Yahweh, as portrayed in the bible, does indeed command others to violate that objective moral principle, therefore, according to Bradley, the god of the bible is immoral.

Copan and Flannagan counter by saying, “At best, Bradley’s argument shows that at one point in history God commanded Joshua to exterminate every single Canaanite man, woman, and child in the land he had given his people. What should be clear, however, is that God does not command us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.”

Wait, what? God commanded Joshua to exterminate every single Canaanite man, woman, and child, but “God does not command us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing”?

Those two statements appear to be not coherent with each other. How could C&F say that God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites, and in the next sentence say that God does not command the deliberate slaughter of men, women, and children. I struggled with these conflicting statements, but then I got it. I had been focusing on the first half of the moral principle; the “extermination and slaughter” part, but C&F are focused on the second half; the “innocent of any serious wrongdoing” part. For theists, this changes everything.

“Merciless slaughter is not how the biblical text portrays the situation.”

Blaming the Victim

C&F continue, “merciless slaughter is not how the biblical text portrays the situation. While it may be plausible to suggest that some Canaanite individuals, particularly Canaanite children, are innocent of any crime, the Bible does not portray the Canaanites in general as innocent of… wrongdoing.”

By saying that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent, C&F can state, (apparently in good conscience) that slaughtering them did not violate any objective moral principle. Atheists like Raymond Bradley and Dan Barker would disagree, and so do I.

To support this “they deserved it” justification, C&F present what they call “three features of the (biblical) narrative” which, according to them, will clearly show that the Canaanites (children included) were not innocent. Let’s be perfectly clear here. When C&F use the innocuous phrase, “three features” it really means “three justifications”. Changing the wording doesn’t change the fact that they are justifying the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children, and using the bible to do so.

We saw in a previous blog that some christians use New Testament theology to justify Old Testament genocide, however C&F use Old Testament narratives to the same end.

So, what exactly were the “supreme emergency exceptions for the greater good” that C&F use to negate the general rule against killing innocents? Just how were the Canaanites guilty of not being innocent? It’s not as complicated nor as ancient as you might think.

Justification 1: Israel’s Legal Ownership of Canaan: (i.e. We want your land. It’s our land that was given to us by our god and you’re trespassing.)
Justification 2: Israelite Refugees and the Sins of the Amorites (i.e. We are refugees who experienced hundreds of years of oppression in a foreign land, and we need a place to live. The Canaanites are a people of unrepentant wrongdoers.)
Justification 3: Corrupting Inﬂuences and the Risk of Assimilation (i.e. We cannot risk assimilating with “those people”. Whatever threatens the purity and integrity of our race should be taken with utter seriousness.)

By presenting exceptions to rule against killing innocents, C&F have done exactly what Bradley predicted in his essay. They are attempting to absolve Yahweh of the annihilation of the Canaanites as found in the Old Testament. In this blog, we’ll take a closer look at C&F’s first justification, which according to them, supports the idea that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent.

Justification 1: Israel’s Legal Ownership of Canaan

“Hence, when Isreal is commanded to attack these nations, they are not… conquering or attacking an innocent nation and stealing their land; rather Israel is repossessing land that already belongs to them and evicting people who are trespassing on it and refusing to leave.”

The inaccuracies of this statement are simply astounding. You’ll notice that C&P didn’t say that “God commanded” the Israelites to attack these nations. They instead use a passive phrase, “when Isreal is commanded”. This is a significant difference. In my previous blog we saw that in chapter one C&F write that it wasn’t God who commanded the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children, it was some “secondary (unnamed) human author”, thus relieving Yahweh of culpability.

What’s amazing with C&F’s first justification is that they never question the validity of the stories in Genesis where Yahweh supposedly gives the land to Abraham. For them, Genesis (all of Genesis) is historically accurate. They write, “Israel’s title to the land is reiterated several times in the proceeding narrative. In Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendants.”

‘The whole land of Canaan… I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you.’ The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, and the Creator promises a portion of that earth – the land of Canaan – to Abraham and his descendants, then they are the rightful owners of the land.”

But is that narrative an actual event or mere folklore? C&F treat it as an actual historical event, so it’s not surprisingly, they use expressions like “the Israelites had ‘legal title’ to the land”, and the Canaanites were “trespassers” who did not acknowledge the Israelite’s claim to the land and refused to leave. The Israelites were simply “evicting people” who were trespassing on their land. C&F frequently use modern concepts to explain ancient events. So, let’s look at the modern definition of “legal title” to see if it applies to the biblical narrative.

Legal title: Absolute ownership of real property that is evidenced by a written deed that is recorded in the public records and enforceable in a court of law.

It’s nothing short of silly to say that the concept of “legal title” applied in ancient times. Did the Israelites present the Canaanites with a 400-year-old written document, (signed by Yahweh and Abraham) as evidence for their “legal title” to the land? Did the Israelites serve the Canaanites with an eviction notification that was approved by some ancient court? Had there been some sort of ancient court of law, would the Israelites been able to prove that the Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for 400 years, were actually trespassing?

C&F’s “legal title” defense gets even more implausible. They say that Abraham took possession of the land by walking across it. They write that Yahweh allegedly told Abraham to, “arise, walk about the land through its length (500 kilometers) and breadth (100 kilometers); for I will give it to you”. Gary Anderson, a professor of catholic thought, notes that “walking across a piece of territory in such a fashion has often been understood as the legal custom of formally taking possession; hence, in this passage, by divine decree, Abram gains legal possession of Canaan.”

So, are we to believe that Abraham gained possession of Canaan by walking on all of its 50,000 square kilometers of land? So, let me see if I got this right. According to C&F, the Israelites were the true owners of the land because their patriarch allegedly walked through the land some 400 years earlier. And when the current occupants of the land refuse to acknowledge the Israelites right to the land, the Israelites “evicted the trespassers” by exterminating them.

Would this mean that if someone, by walking across my front lawn could “gain legal possession” of my property? Or better yet, what if they said that their grandfather had walked on the lot before houses were built there and therefore his family had legal title to my property? And if I refused to leave, they had the right to kill me and take what they said was rightfully theirs? This scenario is ridiculous, I admit, but it is the basis for C&F’s argument.

For C&F’s proposition to merit any kind of validity the historicity of the Genesis narrative must be proven. It’s one thing to say that according to the bible Yahweh gave the land to Abraham, it’s quite another to provide evidence for it from sources outside the bible. This is important. Since christians are using this story to justify acts of genocide, it would be nice if their justification for slaughtering men, women, and children, was based on the truth and not folklore.

Since it is clear that the bible, and specifically the book of Genesis, is the only reference used by C&F to support their claim of divinely gifted land, we must conclude that their argument is based solely on false assumptions and unsubstantiated ancient religious writings and thus invalid.

This sums it up pretty well.

“Theists will try to show that our moral principle is either inapplicable to the situations or they will present exceptions which would absolve God of violating it. Anyone who condones, the ‘deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing’, …should be regarded with abhorrence.” Raymond Bradley

“While it may be plausible to suggest that some Canaanite individuals, particularly Canaanite children, are innocent of any crime, the Bible does not portray the Canaanites in general as innocent of wrongdoing. Hence, when Israel is commanded to attack these nations, they are not… conquering an innocent nation.” Copan and Flannagan

In the end, Copan and Flannagan’s attempts to discredit atheist Raymond Bradley have failed. What has become clear, however, is that by holding onto the belief that it is wrong to slaughter men, women, and children, atheists hold the moral high ground. Theists, on the other hand, by saying that sometimes it’s okay to slaughter men, women, and children, have claimed the moral low ground. All they have to do (to ease their conscience), is to show that the Canaanites were guilty of not being innocent.

Coming next:

The bible doesn’t condemn divinely commanded violence, so Copan and Flannagan don’t either. Not only are they letting Yahweh off the hook for genocide, but they are also providing their readers with an escape clause to the moral principle that it is wrong to kill innocent men, women, and children. Is this inadvertent or on purpose?

From Where I Stand

Nov. 10, 2024

Dale Crum

20 Oct, 2024

Blog

The Problem of Pious Prevarication

Rational discussion with persons who contradict themselves is impossible; if contradictions are allowed then anything goes.

Prevaricate: verb: to deviate from the truth; to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression.

Christian authors, Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan in their book, Did God Really Command Genocide? go to great lengths to exonerate Yahweh from any culpability for the passages in the Old Testament that look suspiciously like genocide. In their first chapter (inaccurately entitled The Problem Clarified) Copan and Flannagan (C&F) explore the argument of atheist philosopher Raymond Bradley, who wrote an essay in 1999 entitled A Moral Argument for Atheism which discusses, what he called, “objective moral truths”. He believes that the Bible clearly reveals incidents where Yahweh violates those objective moral truths.

As might be expected C&F’s objective is to discredit Bradley. In this blog, we will address how Copan and Flannagan, in their attempt to exonerate Yahweh of genocide, are guilty of prevarication. (It always amazes me how theists defend their truth by using prevarication.)

Let’s look first at what Bradley writes.

Objective moral truths.

Here, now, are a few examples of moral principles that I take to be paradigms of objective moral truths:

P1: It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
P2. It is morally wrong to provide one’s troops with young women captives with the prospect of their being used as sex-slaves.
P3. It is morally wrong to make people cannibalize their friends and family.
P4. It is morally wrong to practice human sacrifice, by burning or otherwise.
P5. It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

“On all of these examples, I would like to think, theists and other morally enlightened persons will agree with me. And I would like to think, further, that theists would agree with me in holding that anyone who committed, caused, commanded, or condoned, acts in violation of any of these principles is not only evil but should be regarded with abhorrence.”

God’s violations of our moral principles.

In this section of his essay, Bradley gives specific examples from scripture showing that the God of the bible violates all five of these moral principles. He writes, “But now comes the linch-pin of my moral argument against theism. For, as I shall now show, the theist God–as he supposedly reveals himself in the Jewish and Christian Bibles–either himself commits, commands others to commit, or condones, acts which violate every one of our five principles.”

A logical quandary for theists.

Bradley continues, “These–and countless other–passages from the Bible mean that theists are confronted with a logical quandary which strikes at the very heart of their belief that the God of Scripture is holy. They cannot, without contradiction, believe all four of the statements:

Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible.
The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.
It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.
The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.

The trouble is that these statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one. Thus, one can coherently assert (1), (2), and (3) only at the cost of giving up (4); assert (2), (3), and (4) only at the cost of giving up (1); and so on.

The problem for a theist is to decide which of these four statements to give up in order to preserve the minimal requirement of truth and rationality and logical consistency.

After all, if someone has contradictory beliefs then their beliefs can’t all be true.

Changing the Narrative

We shall see that C&F, by making subtle, but significant changes to Bradley’s original statements, are able to eliminate any contradictions. Not surprisingly, their subtle (and dishonest) wordsmithing changes everything. Compare Bradley’s original statements (above) with C&F’s (below).

Copan and Flannagan write, “We believe that (Bradley’s) argument should be rephrased as follows:”

Any act that God commands us to perform is morally permissible.
God is the author of the Bible.
It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.
The author of the Bible commands us to perform acts that violate the Crucial Moral Principle.

Since Bradley is an atheist, I doubt he would approve of the changes C&F make to his second statement. Another change Bradley might object to is C&F’s use of the phrase “the Crucial Moral Principle.” For the record, Bradley never uses that expression. Plus, an internet search of the phrase produces zero results outside of C&F’s book.

In paragraph one, on page one, of chapter one, C&F switch Bradley’s statement, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing,” to something more innocuous which they call “the Crucial Moral Principle.” Possibly it’s an attempt to mask the reality of what is really being discussed here: genocide. From this point on, whenever C&F use the innocuous expression “Crucial Moral Principle,” I will replace it with Bradley’s original statement.

C&F continue, “A problem surfaces: if we assume that the human author of Scripture commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing, then this undermines Bradley’s argument. Let’s rework things (again) to show how this is so:”

C&F continue to make even more changes to Bradley’s four statements.

Any act that God commands us to preform is morally permissible.
God is the (primary) author of the bible.
It is morally impermissible for anyone to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.
The secondary human author of the bible commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.

Remember, if you will, Bradley’s comments that “They (theists) cannot, without contradiction, believe all four of the statements to be true.” However, with some skilled wordsmithing and a generous helping of prevarication, C&F are able to claim that their newly worded “four truth claims (propositions) are consistent and do not involve any contradiction whatsoever.”

Voilà!

This is really interesting Let’s take a closer look at their 4^th statement.

“The secondary human author of the bible commands us to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.”

This is an obvious attempt by C&F to let Yahweh off the hook for commanding the deliberate and merciless slaughtering of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing. By blaming the human author, whose hand actually penned the words, C&F can now redirect the blame (unsuccessfully, I might add) from Yahweh to some anonymous human author.

Just exactly who is the secondary human author of the bible that they speak of? And how does that human author “command” and who exactly is meant by “us,” when C&F say, “commands us”? Did the human author command the deliberate and merciless slaughter of men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing? If so, and Yahweh didn’t intervene to prevent it, wouldn’t that make Yahweh just as guilty?

C&F continue to defend their statement by continuing their prevarication. They write,

To get a contradiction, we have to add a further premise: God’s role as primary author entails that whatever the secondary human author of the Bible afﬁrms or commands, God likewise afﬁrms or commands. But this argument therefore must assume a particular understanding of the relationship between divine and human authors of Scripture so that whatever the human author says or afﬁrms is identical with what God says or affirms. Human biblical writers were not God’s typewriters nor were their words being dictated by God.

This statement directly contradicts the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which says,

“…although the human writers’ personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness ‘spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit’. Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.”

However, as we see in chapter one, C&F disagree. They write,

“But this understanding of the relationship between divine and human authors is implausible. It would be silly to say that whatever the human author says or afﬁrms is identical to what God says or afﬁrms.”

It would seem that C&F are calling the authors of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy silly. But the Chicago statement is very clear when they concluded that, “what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author.” Therefore, if the human writer commands genocide, then God commands genocide. Therefore, it is dishonest to switch the culpability from God to a human writer.

If we take another look at Bradley’s four statements, you’ll notice that he never mentions biblical authorship: neither human nor divine. He simply writes “The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.” That statement is completely true and needs no clarification of authorship. As we have already seen, C&F disregard Bradley’s original four statements and deceptively switch the narrative to authorship which, by the way, better serves their purpose.

Bradley, who wrote his essay decades before C&F published their book, accurately described what I discovered and experienced while reading it. He wrote,

“I shall, however, have to deal with the counterarguments of those who defend God and the Scriptures against criticisms like mine. Theistic apologists have two main strategies.

Try to show that the Bible either doesn’t really say what I claim it says or that it doesn’t mean what it says.
Try to show that our moral principles are either inapplicable to the situations described or that they present exceptions which would absolve God of violating them.”

It’s not surprising then, that C&F have incorporated both of those strategies. Bradley ends his discussion with this statement.

Rational discussion with persons who contradict themselves is impossible; if contradictions are allowed then anything goes.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, Copan and Flannagan’s book is filled, cover to cover, with prevarications similar to the ones found in chapter one. Had I read more carefully, when I first picked up their book, I would have recognized the deceptions in chapter one, and probably would have decided to not waste my time on such a book.

End note: For what it’s worth.

“But which of the four statements will our theist deny?” Bradley.

Christian author Charlie Trimm attempts to answer that question in his book, entitled The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide and Biblical Interpretation.

Similar to Bradley, Trimm also proposes four different statements that he says cannot all be true. (Sound familiar?) The following are Trimm’s four statements.

God is good and compassionate.
The Old Testament is a faithful record of God’s dealings with humanity and favorably portrays YHWH’s actions.
The Old Testament describes events that are similar to genocide.
Mass killings are always evil.

Both Bradley and Trimm say the same thing about their four statements. Bradley writes, “One cannot believe all four of the statements to be true without contradiction.” Trimm writes that all four of his propositions “cannot be true at the same time because of the contradictions between them.”

The rest of Trimm’s book is devoted to addressing the consequences of rejecting each of the propositions. For example, one chapter is devoted to the notion that someone might choose to reject the proposition that God is good and compassionate. Another chapter deals with believers who question the reliability of the Old Testament. It’s clear that he is answering Bradley’s question, however Trimm does not reference Bradley anywhere in his book. So, my question is, WHY NOT?

In a footnote citing his four proposed statements, Trimm cites four theists who he says, “have framed the problem with similar questions.” Without exception, all of those noted authors wrote their essays decades after Bradley’s four statements first appeared in his essay in 1999.

Given the obvious similarities in their ideas, I find Trimm’s failure to mention Bradley a bit curious. He cites Copan 10 times, so it’s obvious that he has read Copan and Flannagan’s book, where Bradley is introduced on page one of chapter one. Given the fact that Trimm’s book is very well organized and well documented, I doubt that it was an oversite on his part. My conclusion, therefore, is that Trimm purposefully left out any reference to Bradley. Think about it! What christian writer would want to expose their readers to an essay entitled, A Moral Argument for Atheism? It might be just too dangerous for some believers. Better safe, than sorry, I guess!

From Where I Stand

Oct. 20, 2024

Dale Crum