Chr

"J. P. Holding"

A Christian apologist named Robert Turkel, who goes by the name "J.P. Holding" online, maintains a web site called Tekton Apologetic Ministries. Turkel's site contains a large number of essays in which he insults Bible skeptics and attempts to attack their positions. Turkel actually had a page devoted to deceased Bible skeptics entitled Rogue's Cemetery. Very tasteful.

Curiously, Turkel seems to have a great deal of trouble actually providing links to the articles upon which he heaps his scorn, which makes for a bizarre website. In his "Rogue's Gallery" section, he mainly appears to be fighting an army of foes that only he can see. How hard is it to make a link, anyway? Why is it so incredibly difficult for Turkel, who earned a Master's degree in Library Science and who has worked for many years as a reference librarian, to simply paste in a URL? Actions speak much louder than words and clearly the problem here is that Turkel is terrified of what skeptics write. Of course he does link to some skeptic's articles and to some debate responses, but this behavior is the exception rather than the rule. His "explanation" for why he links to Christian articles but does not link to most of the skeptical articles that he attacks is that these latter articles can be found using search engines!

The folks at the Secular Web are familar with Turkel's modus operandi:

"...he avoids linking to or even naming the essays he rebuts, and usually avoids so much as naming the author he is attacking. He also routinely changes his essays after being refuted, yet rarely announces the changes or concessions in any way, and he also employs childish insults and other rudeness."

(To see the full quotation above, Go here.)

Some other details about this apologist:

• He is a demonstrated liar. He will simply make things up in order to explain away Bible problems.

• He uses fraud and deceit to promote his religious beliefs, yet he constantly accuses skeptics of being dishonest. Psychiatrists refer to this type of behavior as "projection." Other people call it "hypocrisy."

• Despite biblical admonitions against the sin of pride, Turkel brags constantly and with great enthusiasm about what he perceives is his thorough dismantling of skeptical arguments. He often uses very violent imagery to describe the destruction he assumes he is wreaking. Indeed, he believes that he is a "warrior" in a holy war for God, that God is actually working through him and his web site. In a plea for cash to support his efforts, Turkel wrote the following:

  "We need Tekton full time. Mr. Walker's impotence and fish-flopping is plain evidence (only the latest!) of this ministry's effectiveness, of the Holy Spirit's movement through these pages. Please submit your testimony and help make full-time ministry a reality. Free my warrior side from its shackles, and let the destruction of strongholds begin in earnest."

• As was noted above, he heaps insults on those who do not agree with him. He does it constantly and even derides other Christians. He will invent babyish nicknames for people in an effort to minimize and denigrate them. His insults become more petulant and childish directly in proportion to how powerfully his claims are being refuted or how desperately he is trying to dodge a question. Many people would describe this type of behavior from a 34-year-old man as incredibly immature, possibly indicative of some form of mental illness. However, Turkel sees things a little differently. To Turkel, spewing childish insults is a way to appear cocky and confident, and he believes that this ultimately helps him to win souls for the Lord. The following is from a "Tektonic Ministries" essay:

  If you play the nice guy, you're likely to get swarmed, not by any irrefutable arguments, but rather, by a veritable skyscraper of excess and inflammatory verbiage. And unfortunately, there are those, on both sides of the argument, who are persuaded by such things. We are humans, not computers, and a show of confidence or arrogance does, to some, seem to equate with being the victor.

• He uses various methods to dodge questions about Bible problems that he has no "answers" for:

  • He may simply refuse to answer certain questions--even if these questions are very basic and concern large and important topics. For example, queries to Turkel about evolution and the Bible or natural history and the Bible are greeted with evasions and remain unanswered.

  • He may repeatedly claim that he has answered a question when in fact he has not. This tactic-yet another example of Turkel's dishonesty-is most brazenly employed in his debates with Farrell Till. Go here to see a number of examples.

  • He may cut and paste large blocks of information in response to a question. This information will have some vague, peripheral relation to the subject of the question but will not specifically answer the question. He will then pretend that this pasted information has answered the question. This is how he responded to one of my questions about Deuteronomy 20:22.

• He will misrepresent skeptics' positions and then mock and insult these skeptics based on his misrpresentations. For example, in our discussion below he proposed a "deal" in which I would read 150 books of his choosing if he would read 150 books of my choosing. I pointed out that this was simply a debate tactic of some kind and was clearly ridiculous. Turkel then implied that I was a hypocrite for refusing to read his books since, he said, I had actually expected him to read the equivalent of 150 scientific books in order answer one of my questions about the book of Genesis. Turkel's claim was not only false but was the exact opposite of the truth since I had specifically made the point that nothing more than a sixth grade education was required to answer my question.

  Here is an excerpt from this exchange:

  ME:I would suggest to you that it is not necessary to earn a science degree or to be a scientist to understand and accept that the earth is not and cannot be only a few thousand years old. It does not take a PhD in astrophysics to see this, just a sixth grade education and some measure of common sense.

  (snip)

  ME: As far as the "deal" to read 150 books, what is the point of this? The point, clearly, is to make an absurd challenge that you know no reasonable person would ever accept, to take my refusal to accept such a "deal" as some kind of victory for your position, and then use this "victory" in any future responses you might make. Pathetic.

  TURKEL: As in, expecting me to go out and read all that science material? Ha ha! Actually what has happened here is that you've realized you've put your foot in your mouth and are now backing up as fast as you can.

  Turkel not only completely misrepresented my position, but he used his fabrication as a reason not to answer my question and also as the basis for claiming that I had "put my foot in my mouth" and was "backing up as fast as" I could. Unreal.

  Here is another example of this dishonest Turkel technique.

• He concocts absolutely ludicrous rationalizations for Bible problems. He speculates wildly about the geographical, social, and historical conditions of the ancient Near East in a desperate effort to deny Bible contradictions and justify God-ordained evil. This type of rationalizing can be seen in my discussion with him below and in his debates with Farrell Till.

• He mistakes excessive verbiage for profundity and will crow loudly about the the size of his responses to Bible critics, as though the validity of his arguments is somehow determined by the number of words he can type.

• He became unemployed in the last year or two and has begun begging for money on his website. He has also used less than honorable methods to pocket some cash from Amazon referrals. This article, Drooling for Dollars, describes Turkel's feeble efforts to to rationalize what he is doing.

• Though he doesn't seem terribly eager to advertise it, he is a young earth creationist. He is a college-educated, grown adult and he actually believes that the book of Genesis is literally, factually, historically true.

• He enjoys branding skeptics as "bigots" if they don't praise and celebrate the barbaric cultural practices of the ancient Near East.

• He supports and justifies the Spanish Inquisition.

• He supports and justifies the Crusades.

• He supports and justifies every biblical massacre and atrocity condoned, commanded or committed by the biblical god.

• He supports and justifies the eternal torture of everyone who does not happen to share his religious beliefs. I will leave it for others to decide whether this qualifies as a form of insanity.

• He is a Baptist.

I became aware of much of this only after getting into a discussion with Mr. Turkel. He offers his e-mail address for questions-so I decided to e-mail him a few questions in 1999. After three or four exchanges he asked me to post my next questions publicly. I have complied with his wish and have decided to include all of our correspondence here, further on in this page. Immediately below I am posting a large number of links to other people's replies to Turkel as well as some of Turkel's own writings. I believe that Mr. Turkel's actions and statements demonstrate the dangers of fundamentalist indoctrination. My hope is that readers will find the information on this page educational and enlightening.

If you would like to contact Mr. Turkel, you can reach him at his e-mail address or you can get into a discussion with him on this free discussion board for Christian apologetics.

'James Patrick Holding,' the Want-to-Be Apologist An interesting article about this apologist. Tektonics Ministry My own modest contribution to this genre. Turkel's dishonesty is examined and a page of hilarious Turkel quotes is provided. This site is still under construction. The Turkey Challenge More of Turkel's dishonesty is exposed, and he is challenged to a live debate on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. TEKTONICS.ORG EXPOSED! A great site that contains a collection of links and information that detail Turkel's weak apologetics. This essay from the site employs Turkel's style of apologetic doublespeak to demonstrate that the cow really did jump over the moon. Turkel's Software Blunder This is actually an essay from The TEKTONICS.ORG EXPOSED site. The essay details a very revealing mistake Turkel made when, in a discussion with Farrell Till, he tried to explain a repeated word in the book of John. Turkel claimed that the author of the book repeated the word twice for emphasis: "First let's understand exactly what is in John here. The words are 'rise again from the dead' -- 'rise again' is the Greek anistemi used twice for emphasis. In fact this we will see is the key to the whole issue; the word is commonly used for anyone just getting up from their place." Unfortunately for Turkel, the word was not actually repeated twice. Software that Turkel was using repeated the word and he didn't catch the error. Turkel's explanation of why the author repeated the word is simply bogus-something he made up off the top of his head. This reference has now disappeared from Turkel's site. Ebon Musings and Turkel A rebuttal to a Turkel rebuttal. In it, the author asks Turkel what he would accept, hypothetically, as a Bible contradiction. Despite being asked the question numerous times, Turkel never answers it. Gee, I wonder why? Ebon author describes Turkel's apologetics This author deserves to be quoted at length: "In regards to more substantive material, it is my impression that Mr. Holding essentially has only one argument, only one defense to skeptical attacks and charges of contradiction. This defense recurs throughout his site, phrased in a variety of different ways and appearing in a number of different guises, but it always boils down to the same thing. This defense, as I have pointed out before, is essentially, 'The Bible doesn't mean what it says.'" "Naturally, though, Mr. Holding is never this blatant about saying so, and he has devised a wide variety of ways to say it so as not to appear that he is repeating himself. He might say that the Bible can't be 'read like a newspaper'. He might say that statements in it are 'paradoxical' or 'in tension', but they are never contradictory. It's not true that God doesn't know everything, but nevertheless there are some verses where he 'feigns ignorance' and acts as if he doesn't. It's not true that two gospels depict the same event as having happened at different times - that's just an example of 'dischronologized narrative'. If a blanket statement contradicts some other verses, that statement is 'proverbial literature' and thus non-absolute; or else there were exceptions 'implicit in the social context'. Or else that statement is a 'strong, colorful expression', an 'outrageous, rhetorical teaching technique', or an 'exaggeration for emphasis', the product of a mindset that was 'given to expressing itself in hyperbole and extremes'. If an entire book contains many such blanket statements, it is a symbolic 'discourse of a man who lives without knowledge of God' and we're supposed to realize that nothing in it can be taken literally. If a statement contradicts other statements by saying 'don't do X,' it's a 'negation idiom', and what it means is 'do do X'. And if all else fails, Mr. Holding simply declares the contradiction 'intentional', which 'puts [it] beyond the measure of 'contradiction' and into the semantic realm of artistic license.' After all, a Van Gogh painting can hardly be construed as 'contradicting' a Picasso." "(I hear some major corporations have been using similar tactics in court lately - arguing that the blatant errors and discrepancies in their books were 'intentional', which puts them beyond simple-minded measures of 'legality' and into the semantic realm of artistic license. If only the investors had done their homework and learned to view reality through the eyes and mindset of a modern executive, they wouldn't have foolishly assumed these balance statements were intended to be true in all places and at all times!)" "My comments above about Mr. Holding's straining for any explanation rather than admit the errancy of the Bible apply with force here. In his bid to defend this book, which he believes to be the true Word of God, he has indeed actually declared some of the contradictions in it 'artistic license'. While the ludicrousness of the lengths he will go to may provoke laughter, the fact remains that he is deadly serious, and can offer such incredibly forced arguments without irony. This is, of course, another symptom of fundamentalist religious indoctrination, that memetic virus which has locked itself around the minds of Mr. Holding and those like him, preventing them from viewing the world through any lens but their own rigid preconceptions, and removing their ability to ever admit error or uncertainty in any matter of theological significance. (A clear case of Morton's Demon in action.)" -Emphasis added- An informal reply to J.P. Holding's "Allan Glenn's Questionnaire,... A guy named Allan Glenn wrote a questionaire for religious folks. Turkel wrote a "rebuttal" to the questionaire, and Mr. Glenn responded. From the response: 10. Do you better understand the atheist/agnostic position now than before taking the quiz? Yes ( ) No (x) (Turkel) I already understood that atheist/agnostic positions often took refuge in ethereal issues rather than hard data, primarily because the hard data tends to make the atheist/agnostic position go to the cleaners. (Glenn) How odd: I was under the distinct impression that science and critical thinking, in particular, have taken religion to the cleaners time and time again during the past 10,000 years or so on almost every specific, testable claim it ever made, from gods causing natural disasters to the entire universe and all terrestrial life forms being created in a span of six 24-hour days. This apparently necessitated its ever-continuing retreat into affairs ethereal and untestable due to its complete lack of anything which might be called "hard data". Mr. Holding and Evolution In this critique, the author describes how Turkel dismisses all of biological science simply because he doesn't like an analogy that a scientist uses. Turkel, of course, is a young earth creationist who accepts Genesis as literal history. Farrell Till's response to Turkel Till used to be a fundamentalist minister, so he has an excellent understanding of the Bible and he is very familar with how apologists like Turkel operate. He is willing to go into exquisite detail in order to explain why Bible inerrantists are wrong. Turkel and Farrell Till had a discussion over the Internet a couple years ago. Till posted his response to Turkel, but Turkel has never linked to it, and it looks like he never will. Of course this is not terribly surprising, since Turkel almost never links to skeptics' replies. In his response, Till shows that Turkel very selectively quotes the Bible in order to misrepresent the meaning of a Hebrew word, he explains that Turkel's main method of "argumentation" is simply to cite people who agree with his position, he exposes Turkel as a colossal hypocrite, he demolishes Turkel's effort to portray himself as an expert in linguistics, and he also addresses Turkel's desperate use of taunts, insults and name-calling. (Turkel actually goes so far as to suggest that Till is a member of the Klu Klux Klan, something he also implies about me in the discussion below.) This excerpt summarizes these points. Since this initial debate or discussion, Till has repeatedly requested that Turkel engage in a formal debate with him on the Internet, on a Christian web site if possible, so that people can see EVERYTHING that Farrell writes, but Turkel has repeatedly refused. Clearly he is afraid of the fact that he would not be able to control access to the information as he does on his site, and would not be able to prevent his readers from seeing EVERYTHING Till writes when he responds to him. Because of his refusal to debate, and his unwillingness to link to skeptics' responses, and perhaps for other reasons as well, Till has described Turkel as a "sniveling coward." While Turkel has adamantly refused to debate with Till, he devotes an inordinate amount of space on his website to angrily belittling and insulting Till like an enraged, petulant child. Of course, he never links to any of Till's articles or to his publication-The Skeptical Review. What is quite humorous about Turkel's attacks on Till is that while he repeatedly dismisses Till as not worth anyone's time, he has clearly spent more time focusing on him than on any other skeptic on his large and growing roster of Bible doubters. Can you say cognitive dissonance? Till describes e-mails he gets from Turkel's fans, and his response: "Whenever anyone who sees his articles writes to me and says, 'Ha, ha, Holding [Turkel] nailed you,' I send them a 28-part reply that I posted to his position on Jehu's massacre. I include a request that the recipient remind Turkel that he has been challenged to debate on the internet, and that always ends the matter." Update After much prodding, Turkel has finally agreed to debate with Till. Although he has refused to agree to formal rules, Turkel has been forced to link to Till's articles and his responses. The debates are located here: The Skeptical Review Quotes from one debate, located here: "He (Turkel) is using a tactic of cutting and pasting irrelevant comments over and over to make the debate so long that some readers won't remember whether he has answered specific points 'above and below.' His dishonesty has become so flagrant that it amounts to outright lying." (snip) "So Turkel cut and pasted another evasive comment. Why didn't he just cut and paste his explanation from 'below'? If he actually had an explanation, he could have pounded me mercilessly by just putting it into all of the places where he has cut and pasted his evasive comments like those above. Well, he didn't do that because he knows that he has not explained anything 'above or below.'" "In a word, Turkel is a liar, who hopes that inattentive readers won‘t notice his lie." Turkel and the Trilemma by Brian Holtz Turkel attacks this article, but will not link to it or name the author. Here is a quote from the article: "Turkel is losing this debate so badly that his defeat is amusing to quantify. In his latest response alone Turkel fails 79 times to answer, acknowledge, or correctly represent my arguments. On six occasions his reasoning is so faulty as to constitute textbook examples of fallacies, and in six other instances he exhibits a misunderstanding of the elementary logic of his own Trilemma argument. In 19 instances he edited his essay to hide from his readers his defeat on particular points, and six other times he changed the subject to deflect attention from a defeat. Seven separate times he adopts the pretense that forcing a successful defense of my thesis is somehow a victory for him. Finally, on 14 occasions he indulges in insubstantial argument by way of generalization, hollow bluster, ad hominem, and slurs (such as calling me 'bigoted' for disagreeing with people of other cultures)." The Not-So-Impossible Faith by Brian Holtz Turkel attacks this article, but will not link to it or name the author. Richard Carrier's comments on Turkel's antics Carrier is the Editor in Chief of the Secular Web. He views Turkel as childish, disrespectful, misinformed and dishonest: posted December 09, 2001 03:36 PM "I see no need anymore to respond to Holding. His method is typically polemical, childish and disrespectful, he rarely comprehends anything I or any opponent says or means, and he has a nasty tendency to make wild, unsubstantiated claims about antiquity, and then, when he is called on it, deletes or alters his essays without notice, and modifies them to suit research he conducted only after his lack of research was pointed out." "In this case, his argument against me is simply bizarre. He says that a story about a man who died and came back to life and founded a religion wherein believers went to eternal paradise has no parallel with Christianity. That is to engage in some pathetic special pleading, and I think it is patently absurd to any reasonable observer." (snip) "The rest of his points fall to the same objections: wild generalizations about antiquity that he does not back up with any scholarship, and which are seriously suspect to anyone familiar with the actual literature of the period; complete disregard for how my evidence actually relates to my point; misunderstanding of even the simplest things I said; and addressing details as if they refute my point when in fact they have nothing whatever to do with it." G. A. Wells replies to Turkel's criticisms In a familar cycle, Turkel attacks an article written by a Bible skeptic, the skeptic somehow finds out about the critique and writes a reply (linked above). Turkel then criticizes the reply, spews a bunch of grade school insults, and links to neither the skeptic's original article or the skeptic's reply. A sampling: "Holding begins his criticisms, as do many of my critics, by questioning my qualifications to say anything on the subject at all. His final dismissal of my views as 'the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, and nothing more' is just childish." Response to "Packham Refuted" Richard Packham has to shame Turkel into actually linking to the original article he attacks (it is a miracle that he makes the link), and Turkel, of course, predictably hides this response from the eyes of his readers. Packham writes: "Since we are discussing bigotry and bias, and Holding's accusation that I am guilty of such a terrible thing, it might be appropriate to quote his own statement, referring to himself, from another article on his website: 'As far as the "mind already made up" issue - that is absolutely correct! Hopefully, the whole reason the non-professional evangelist is wanting to witness is because he KNOWS JESUS CHRIST personally. Their mind IS made up - and why else would you witness?!? The personal experience of Christ is so much more convincing than academic and intellectual discussions!' "Thus Holding himself discards the first requirement for the honest searcher for truth: the open mind. I cannot imagine a clearer statement of bias and bigotry than Holding's own statement of his position just quoted. But he accuses me of 'bias.'" Acharya S. describes Turkel's apologetic hijinks From article: "(...I have read so many absurd and inaccurate statements of his I am beginning to wonder if he's a joke, hired by some millionaire philanthropist out to destroy Christianity by making its representatives look idiotic. Not that they need any help.) Hilarious Turkel quote E-mail about this apologist Demented Turkel quote Turkel caught in bald-faced lie goof or lie? Turkel's childish parody of a Secular Web article Another silly parody Turkel accepts the "Josephus" quotes Despite the overwhelming evidence against the legitimacy of statements about Jesus attributed to the historian Josephus, Turkel concludes the quotes are genuine. Released from the Holding Cell Turkel critisizes this guy, but-surprise, surprise-does not actually link to the guy's site. This guy replies to Turkel's criticisms, and among other things, has this to say: "Once he got back to his site, the apologetics began. He did what all 'good' apologists do; he attacked, he belittled, he used ad hominem arguments, he ignored the issue at hand, and he was largely dishonest." A response to Turkel from Earl Doherty From the response: "I have been known to employ touches of sarcasm myself, and I can be provocative, but I have always been careful to maintain a basic level of civility. Mr. Holding knows little of this concept, which is a common characteristic of the zealot, who regards dissenters as the incarnation of the devil." Another response from Earl Doherty From the reply: "Absolutely no reason . . . superfluous data . . . out of context. Mr. Holding is clearly in a state of denial, one which has led him and many others to make the most untenable claims and rationalizations about the great void on the Gospel Jesus in the early Christian record." Nous Article Critique of Turkel's extremely humorous article on the Genesis creation stories. Turkel has since changed his article in reponse to this critique. I believe the following quotes illuminate the motivations of people like Turkel: "A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life. When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the point categorically." Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism, (San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 5. "To say that atheism is credible is to suggest that the atheist may be right; to say that the atheist may be right is to suggest that the Christian may be wrong; to say that the Christian may be wrong is suggest that faith may be an unreliable guide to knowledge; to say that faith may be an unreliable guide to knowledge is to suggest that each and even tenet of Christianity should be reexamined in the light of reason-and from here all hell breaks loose as the process of deconversion dashes headlong to its logical destination." "When reason is liberated from the shackles of faith it will inevitably claim sovereignty, the right of critical jurisdiction, over every sphere of knowledge. This inner logic of ideas (for which we have many historical examples) is one reason why so many theologians have found it necessary to dismiss the case for atheism as unworthy of serous consideration. To move from the position that atheism is unreasonable to the position that it is credible is a bigger step than the step from credible to justification-for it may require the Christian to question God himself by subjecting his divine revelation to critical analysis. Thus has the slander of atheism and atheists played a major role throughout the history of Christian propaganda." George H. Smith, Why Atheism [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2000] p. 17-18.

Discussion Highlights

This discussion is lengthy so I have highlighted what I feel are some of the more interesting comments and statements. Enjoy!

• Turkel believes that all Jews (like all unbelievers) deserve to suffer in hell for eternity, and uses an example which, intentional or not, equates all Jews with mass murderers. Go here.

• In answer to a question, Turkel writes that "YES" indeed, if he lived in biblical times, he would hurl stones at certain young girls until they were pulverized into bloody piles of protoplasm. He would do this based on his belief that these girls were not virgins on their wedding nights. (One wonders if he would do the same to this Nigerian woman?) Go here for my question, and scroll down for his response.

• As mentioned previously, Turkel is a college-educated, grown adult who believes Genesis is historically, scientifically, literally true. He is a young earth creationist. At the time of this discussion, he provided a link to a "feasibility study" of Noah's Ark by an author who speculated that Noah potty-trained lions, elephants and polar bears. Go here

• He proudly admits that, as an ancient Hebrew holy warrior, he would butcher mothers and the babies in their arms. He jokes about this. Go here

• Without providing any evidence, Turkel insists that the ancient Hebrews stoned men to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights, and he claims, again without providing any evidence, that the status of their virginity was determined by the physical appearance of babies. In other words, Turkel asserts that men were linked to babies by the babies' appearance and that these men were stoned to death on this basis. This claim of Turkel's is apparently an effort to make the treatment of the sexes seem more equitable.Go here.

• He insists that the "God"-given law requiring girls to marry the men who raped them was a wonderful thing. Go here.

• To bolster the claim above, Turkel asserts that he would find it "immensly satisfying" to marry and spend the rest of his life with a rapist psychopath who raped him. Go here.

first e-mail to apologist

Subj: George Smith:Atheism-the case against God
Date: 6/30/99 10:55:20 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. Holding,

You have a very impressive website. Quite large.

I was referred to your site by someone who visited my page. I have not gone through your entire site, but I did not see a critique of George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" This is a an excellent book and lays out the case against Christianity very clearly. Is a critique of this work on your site, and if not, are you planning to make one?

By the way, if you want to visit my site, it is located at:

http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/home.htm

Thanks for your time and have a nice day.

Brooks T

second e-mail to apologist

Subj: a stumper question
Date: 7/1/99 10:54:53 PM EST
From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. JPHolding,

According to Christian theology, anyone and everyone who is not a Christian deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity. This includes all the Jews who suffered and died during the Holocaust.

My question is this: does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Brooks T

first apologist response

Subj: Re: George Smith: Atheism-the case against God
Date: 7/4/99 7:21:01 AM EST
From: jpholding@integrityonline15.com
To: BBu84@aol.com

Greetings, JP Holding here -- sorry it's taken a while to answer, but I only answer mail twice a week and you sent your first message a few hours after my last session. At any rate --

"Atheism: The Case Against God" This is a an excellent book and lays out the case against Christianity very clearly. Is a critique of this work on your site, and if not, are you planning to make one?

None yet -- since my material tends to be request-driven, I usually only write about books when people ask me to. I suppose your inquiry counts as a request, so I've ordered it via interlibrary loan, where hopefully it will fall on the positive side of my local library's 95% ILL success rate.

I gather that Smith is mostly concerned with the "existence of God" debate. I don't enter that arena much because the field is far too crowded as it is, so if that's his main concern, don't expect me to say much of anything about it. A book review may be all I'll do.

Concerning item #2 ---

According to Christian theology, anyone and everyone who is not a Christian deserves to be and will be tortured for eternity. This includes all the Jews who suffered and died during the Holocaust. My question is this: does your god or does your god not torture all the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust?

Well, let's see. My guess is I'm supposed to do one of two things here: 1) Fudge and fumble and compromise by saying "no", because I'm supposed to be ashamed of a God who condemns to hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth; 2) Say "yes" and thereby justify your view of the Biblical God as a cruel and vicious beast who unfairly sends to Hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth. I'll answer closer to #2, although"torture" implies a sense of direct activity where Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in "sending" someone there is more passive rather than active). It also seems to assume a Dante-esque vision of eternal torment; I doubt if things in Hell are that variable and creative.

The "question" you put forth rates well as a psychological manipulation, but I don't fall for that kind of thing. The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions . Were the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust not sinners? Did they have a perfect life before and during the Holocaust? No more so than anyone else, unless you have a list of them you can show me who didn't sin. The question is really no different if you substitute "Jews/Holocaust" for "peasants/invasion of the Visigoths", "unwilling Aztec sacrificial victims/Aztec sacrifices", or "Kosovars/Serbian invasion".

If you have sincere questions for me, or if you just threw this out because others do, fine -- I'll be glad to exchange thoughts with you. But don't think that you're just dealing with an everyday doof-Christian who attends church and sits there with a hypnotic gaze swallowing sermons whole. I've had my bouts with the arguments by the likes of Barker, Paine, etc. and they don't impress me. Knowledge isn't picked up just by shuffling through the pages of a few books down at the Seven-Eleven.

Regards,

XXXXX aka JPH

third e-mail to apologist

Subj: follow-up from BBu84@aol.com
Date: 7/15/99 1:09:05 AM EST
From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

July 14

Dear Mr. Holding,

I wrote a few weeks back concerning a book called "Atheism: The Case Against God" and I also asked you a question regarding the Christian hell. You replied to both my questions, for which I thank you. I will check back on your site to see when you review the George Smith book. I was not satisfied by your answer to my question about the Christian hell, however. The question was regarding the torture of unbelievers in the Christian hell. I asked if the Christian god tortured the victims of the Holocaust in the Christian hell, and you replied that the Christian god does not actively send people there and torture them but that it is a person's choice to go there. I have problems with both parts of your response. To begin with, I have never met anyone who would chose to go to a place where they would be tortured for eternity. Have you met anyone like this? Can you imagine anyone "choosing" to be tortured for eternity? I can't, but maybe you have a more active imagination than me.

As far as your god not actively torturing people, well, that is just semantics. According to Christian theology, the Christian god created Hell and is all-powerful: a person would not go to the Christian hell unless it was the wish and desire of the Christian god. If the Christian god thought it was wrong for a person to end up in hell, all this god would have to do is snap its fingers and, presto, that person would be elsewhere. It is meaningless to talk of an omnipotent god not "actively" sending people to a hell it created.

You also try to say that what happens to people in the Christian hell does not qualify as eternal torture. However, the torments of Hell have been a part of Christian theology for the last 19 centuries. Was it Augustine who mused that one of the main pleasures of Heaven would come from observing the torments of unbelievers in Hell? In any case, your claim flies directly in the face of Jesus' own words. He describes the Christian hell as a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched," (Mark 9:48), where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."(Matt. 25:30). Jesus warns people that "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." And there is, of course, Jesus' colorful parable of the suffering man in Hell begging to have his thirst quenched. Because of all this, I am a little perplexed as to why you would think that the Christian hell is not a place of torment and pain. Does the Christian devil just spend his time throwing ice cream parties?

You made an interesting foray into a strange form of "blame the victim" argumentation by averring that anyone who goes to hell deserves to go there because they are sinners. Since I am not a Christian, I am a little fuzzy on the meaning of the terms "sin" and "sinners," though, obviously from your perspective, the crime of sinning deserves eternal torture. Whatever sinning is, it must surely be more evil than eternally torturing people since eternally torturing people is deemed the appropriate punishment for sinning by an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god. I surely can't imagine what would be more evil than eternally barbecuing someone, but again, maybe you can enlighten me.

You made this point about sinning by using an interesting metaphor:

JP Holding: The "question" you put forth rates well as a psychological manipulation, but I don't fall for that kind of thing. The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.")

With this metaphor, you were implying that all 6 million Jews who suffered in the Holocaust were each guilty of committing something as evil as murdering 32 people apiece and thus richly deserve their fate of being sent to the Christian hell. Again, please enlighten me: what "crime" did these people commit such that they deserve eternal, infinite punishment?

Let's do a brief review, shall we?

• First you said that people choose to go to hell, but did not describe anyone who would chose to suffer and weep and gnash their teeth for an eternity.

• Then you said that your god did not actively send people to hell. That is nonsense. It is contradicted by the qualities attributed to the Christian god by the Bible.

• Then you said that hell is not a place of eternal torment, which is clearly contradicted by the Bible and Christian theology.

• Then you said that those people who go to hell deserve it, which begs the question of what these people did to deserve eternal torture.

Could you please clarify you responses for me? Help me to understand your belief system, because so far it is not making any sense to me.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brooks T

second apologist response

Subj: Re: follow-up from BBu84@aol.com
Date: 7/18/99 8:25:23 AM EST
From: jpholding@integrityonline15.com
To: BBu84@aol.com

G'day,

your site to see when you review the George Smith book. I was not satisfied by your answer to my question about the Christian hell, however.

I rather wonder whether your "satisfaction" is a goal that can be achieved on this subject. I will respond to your query at any rate, but may I ask if there are any circumstances under which you would accept that eternal punishment is justified? Or is this a dead steed that I will be beating?

met anyone who would chose to go to a place where they would be tortured for eternity. Have you met anyone like this? Can you imagine anyone "choosing" to be tortured for eternity?

Perhaps you have not understood my point1; notice that I said "essentially" people choose hell. I do not imagine people "choosing" hell in the sense that they open one of two doors, and seeing what is behind each door, state their preference. I see the choice being made first in the very actions of living, i.e., in that rebellion against God is chosen; therefore, the end result is that they end up where those who have rejected God belong. [Of course this inevitably involves the question of whether Christian faith is the "correct" choice; for the sake of further discussion (without tangents) we must assume that it is.] Of course you will reply that no one would choose to act in such a way as to obtain that fate; but faced with the choice, what is it that people do? They either a) accept it as true and thereby avoid it; b) reject it as false -- for what reason? Christian theology assumes that it is because of the sinful nature that people choose b). It may well be so, and I see no reason to doubt that it is so, but nor do I see it as provable from a scientific or logical perspective. Intent of mind/heart is hardly the sort of thing that can be put in a test tube. I am content to argue that a severe shortage in critcial thinking skills is a primary cause of poor choice-making...and at least can prove it to a goodly extent where certain individuals I have encountered are concerned.

According to Christian theology, the Christian god created Hell and is all-powerful:

I have addressed this matter in an essay at http://www.integrityonline15.com/JPH_DTW01_VV.html, but for convenience will summarize here. You speak of God "snapping His fingers" and getting people out of Hell. Christian theology also avers that God cannot change His nature so that sin/sinners can remain in His presence. This has nothing to do with being "all-powerful". It has to do with being holy, with being unchanging and immutable, and being non-contradictory.

You also speak of sending them "elsewhere". By definition there would be no "elsewhere" -- I see we're getting to this, so I'll hold off a moment.

You also try to say that what happens to people in the Christian hell does not qualify as eternal torture.

No, what I said was that the word "torture" "seems to assume a Dante-esque vision of eternal torment; I doubt if things in Hell are that variable and creative." Beyond that, if you have studied the literature of the period, as I have, you would realize (unlike Augustine and Dante) that the descriptions given are metaphorical -- how else could hell be a place of fire, but also a place of darkness? Is the fire black?

I would ask you to read an item of mine at http://www.integrityonline15.com/JPH_BOC.html. It is not all relevant, but pay particular attention to the word "apollumi" and its meaning. This does not eliminate torment and pain, incidentally; I imagine the actual nature of hell -- a place where God's presence is absent (2 Thess. 1:9) -- is far worse than the metaphors can capture.

hell is not a place of torment and pain. Does the Christian devil just spend his time throwing ice cream parties?

He tried it once, but the ice cream melted. These days they have weenie roasts. ;-)

You made an interesting foray into a strange form of "blame the victim" argumentation by averring that anyone who goes to hell deserves to go there because they are sinners. Since I am not a Christian, I am a little fuzzy on the meaning of the terms "sin" and "sinners,"

The three words used most often in the NT are:

266. hamartia, ham-ar'-tee'-ah; from G264; sin (prop. abstr.):--offence, sin (-ful).

4624. skandalizo, skan-dal-id'-zo ("scandalize"); from G4625; to entrap, i.e. trip up (fig. stumble [trans.] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure):--(make to) offend.

3900. paraptoma, par-ap'-to-mah; from G3895; a side-slip (lapse or deviation), i.e. (unintentional) error or (wilful) transgression:--fall, fault, offence, sin, trespass.

good, all-knowing, all-powerful god. I surely can't imagine what would be more evil than eternally barbecuing someone, but again, maybe you can enlighten me.

I think I have made it clear. The "eternal BBQ" is the result of willful rebellion against God. It is what people choose: They do not want to live with God while on earth, and God, consistent with His nature, will not force them to be with Him afterwards; nor can they endure His presence unless their sin is paid for, and because any sin, no matter how small, is an infinite offense against an infinitely holy God (Anselm first noted this, I believe), it requires an infinite payment of some sort -- hence Christian theology's argument that Christ's sacrifice pays for sin. Hell remains the only place that will hold those who reject the payment.

Could you please clarify you responses for me? Help me to understand your belief system, because so far it is not making any sense to me.

I perceive that by "making sense" you mean more along the lines of "I find it distasteful, offensive," etc. rather than "I don't understand the process." But I have answered as though it were the latter rather than the former.

Regards,

JPH

fourth e-mail to apologist (months later-3/00)

From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. Holding,

Could you please explain something to me? The Christian god is called the source of morality and goodness by Christians, and yet this god is responsible for much murder and suffering in the Old Testament. He murders children, he supports slavery and he continually orders the massacre of men, women and children in the Old Testament. In the new Testament, of course, this god is said to torture people for eternity for their opinions. There is one verse in particular which I have a great deal of trouble understanding, in light of Christians' continual claim that their god exemplifies moral perfection. Deuteronomy 20:22 contains an explicit order directly from the Christian god which reads as follows:

"But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."

A few questions regarding this quotation. Why is this viriginity law directed at females and not at men as well? How was the girls' virginity determined by the men of the village? The quote mentions "tokens of virginity"-what does this refer to? What God-ordained failsafe investigative method was used to insure that true virgins were not inadvertantly stoned to death by the men of the village? Would it be morally right to stone girls to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights in the first place? Which is the worse crime, not being a virgin (or not appearing to be a virgin) or ganging up on a girl and pitching rocks at her until she was a splintered, bleeding pile of pulverized protoplasm?

Finally, do you think the Christian god smiled as these ancient men pelted helpless young women with rocks on his command?

Thanks for your help in answering these deeply intellectual questions.

Brooks T

third apologist response

Subj: Re: a question - from JP Holding
Date: 3/7/00 7:37:58 PM EST
From: jpholding@integrityonline15.com
To: BBu84@aol.com

Ah -- you again. You haven't changed, have you? Have you really gotten interested in an answer yet, or is this just another attempt to annoy me? It looks very much like the latter, but you amuse me, so I'll treat it seriously for a while.

Tortured for their opinions, eh? That's an interesting way to refer to sins...merely opinions, are they? Yeesh -- and people like you wonder why God doesn't interfere when the Holocaust victims cry out? Little wonder -- you want God's help when bad things happen, but when it comes to following a few simple standards He lays down, it's: "What? Get out of my face -- we don't need you telling us what to do." You want a senile Grampa who pats you on the head; why aren't you happy when He gives you that?

To business. Deut. 20:22. I have some social background data for you, although I seriously doubt that it would interest you, or that you inquired actually having the desire to know...or that you won't just smugly and anachronistically assume your personal values to be superior to those of a bunch of backwards, bone-in-the-nose tribesmen...but just in case you are sincere...

A few questions regarding this quotation. Why is this viriginity law directed at females and not at men as well?

That it is directed at females does not exclude men at all. Ancient law codes were didactic in nature; they were meant to present case law, not an exhaustive remedy for all situations...no more so do all the laws that begin "If a man..." mean that a woman could get away with whatever it was. (Thus a judge could use the case law Deut. 22:22 to convict a man who had violated a willing virgin.)

How was the girls' virginity determined by the men of the village? The quote mentions "tokens of virginity"-what does this refer to?

There are two ideas offered:

1) It refers to menstrual blood -- proving the woman was not pregnant (and therefore did not have sex) before marriage.

2) It refers to blood drawn after the initial act of intercourse -- this is a practice still done (quite proudly, and with no reservations by anyone, may I add) in some Near Eastern countries today.

What God-ordained failsafe investigative method was used to insure that true virgins were not inadvertantly stoned to death by the men of the village?

As noted, ancient law codes were didactic -- ancient judges made the decision based on evidence at hand; the laws were exemplars. Investigative methods would be used just as they are used today for any crime. (You can debate standards of evidence and competence of investigation, of course...but that is a human matter.)

Would it be morally right to stone girls to death for not being virgins on their wedding nights in the first place?

In the context of the Ancient Near East, where the family structure was essential for personal survival, I would say that it was quite right to stone someone to death who put the survival of the family and community at risk by their foolish behavior.

not being a virgin (or not appearing to be a virgin) or ganging up on a girl and pitching rocks at her until she was a splintered, bleeding pile of pulverized protoplasm?

This is rational argument? I favor the death penalty: That you may say that the electric chair is an instance of men forcibly tying a man to a wooden seat with cutting leather straps and zapping him until he is a quivering, burning, sizzling chunk of flesh may stir the emotions of those whose maturity as on a kindergarten level, but it hardly passes as a rational argument against the implementation of the supreme penalty. Suffering is temporal. Results are eternal. Please grow up before you write to me again.

Finally, do you think the Christian god smiled as these ancient men pelted helpless young women with rocks on his command?

No; most likely He strummed a tune from the Rolling Stones on his harp. Maybe He played "Rock of Ages."

Thanks for your help in answering these deeply intellectual questions.

Snort, snort, guffaw....

- JP

fifth e-mail to apologist

Subj: corrected-stoning of non-virgin girls e-mail
Date: 3/19/00 9:25:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. Holding,

Thank you for your response to my last e-mail regarding the stoning to death of Israelite females who are not thought to be virgins when they are married.

In the first part of your response you wrote:

"Tortured for their opinions, eh? That's an interesting way to refer to sins...merely opinions, are they?"

What I was referring to was the New Testament's description of the punishment of those who do not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. According to the New Testament, people who do not hold to the idea that Jesus Christ was a god or the son of a god deserve to be and will be tortured in a place called hell for eternity. Not believing that Jesus Christ was divine is an opinion. So, torturing people for not believing that Jesus Christ was divine is torturing people for their opinions. There is no other way to describe it.

Regarding the stoning of non-virgin girls on their wedding nights: the appearance of menstrual blood does not prove a girl to be a virgin, of course. And the lack of menstrual blood indicates pregnancy, of course. If the accused girl was stoned to death in the absence of menstrual blood, if she was pregnant, then the men of the village would not only be killing her, but would be killing the embryo developing inside her. Don't you think the biblical god could have come up with a more intelligent way to deal with a pregnant, unwed girl than murdering her?

Maybe the "tokens of virginity" refers to the blood produced from a hymen being broken by intercourse. But there is an obvious problem with this. Remember that this law comes directly from the biblical god-it is a direct quote. Surely this being, the creator of everything, would know that not all girls have hymens in the first place, that in the course of everyday life hymens do break prior to sex, and that not every girl bleeds from having intercourse for the first time. So the lack of blood from sexual intercourse does not necessarily prove that a girl is a non-virgin. And what about girls who are the victims of rape or incest? If they could not prove their virginity to the satisfaction of the men of the village, would they then richly deserve to be battered to death with rocks? Again, it seems doubtful that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god would create such a ridiculous law.

I found it interesting that you would equate the imposition of the death penalty on murderers with the stoning to death of girls whose only crime was not being able to sufficiently convince some village yahoos that they possessed hymens on their wedding nights. There is no comparison. You say that girls who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding nights "put the survival of the family and community at risk by their foolish behavior." Could you describe in detail how? In any case, here is an idea: why doesn't the biblical god, in his infinite wisdom, make a law that a gentleman who gets a girl pregnant has to help her raise the child? Wouldn't that make far more sense then having a gang of men pelt helpless, pregnant women with rocks till they died?

This brings us to the question of equality. If a girl is to be stoned to death because some village men think she is not a virgin when she is married, then how is this law applied to men? What are the "tokens of virginity" that a man would have to generate to certify that he was a virgin on his wedding night? Realize that this quote, which comes directly from Jehovah, does not refer to a "young man" but rather to a "young woman." If we are to take the Bible literally, not adding to it or taking away from it, then this law is only applicable to girls and women. Why would the biblical god make this law apply only to females?

You say that I am making an emotional argument when I describe the effects of being stoned to death. I agree with you. The idea of stoning a girl to death because she could not prove her virginity is barbaric. To get that point across, it is necessary to make it clear as possible what is being described. I am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. As a villager living in ancient Israel, would you personally take part in stoning a girl to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night? Yes or no?

Finally, the murder of presumed non-virgin girls or women was not confined to new brides among the Israelites-it was also practiced on girls and women living in the villages around the Israelites. As we read in Numbers 31:17, Moses commands his soldiers to go into a neighboring village and "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." I wonder how they determined the virginity of the girls and women? I mean, it does not appear that there was time to collect "tokens of virginity."

Thank you for you considering these questions.

Sincerely,

Brooks T

fourth apologist response

Subj: Re: corrected-stoning of non-virgin girls e-mail
Date: 3/21/00 4:59:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jpholding@integrityonline15.com
To: BBu84@aol.com

for eternity. Not believing that Jesus Christ was divine is an opinion. So, torturing people for not believing that Jesus Christ was divine is torturing people for their opinions. There is no other way to describe it.

Other than as a refusal to accept hard fact, and if you are able to prove otherwise, I have a challenge posted...you know where it is.

In terms of the rest of this you wrote, I bother little with it. Most is already answered. I have told you at least twice how ancient law codes were put into effect; if you understood this point then you would know that your "questions" are already answered. The fact that you are clearly unable/unwilling/pretending not to see this is prime evidence that you are writing merely to make a nuisance of yourself and have no true interest in these subjects...or else do not have the capacity to understand them. The fact that you resort to mere denigration and snobbery ("village yahoos") is further evidence. Do you think ancient judges were picked by drawing straws?

I am answering no further inquiries from you. If you have anything further to say to me, put it on your page and send me the URL, because I want the next question to serve to publicly expose your intentions and your manifest ignorance/snobbery. If you want to know more about ancient cultures, haul yourself down to a seminary library and learn something; start with "Social World of Ancient Israel" by Matthews and Benjamin if you are actually interested in anything beyond snobbery and anachronistic inquiries.

being a virgin on her wedding night? Yes or no?

YES.

with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." I wonder how they determined the virginity of the girls and women? I mean, it does not appear that there was time to collect "tokens of virginity."

Gee, if you weren't such a snob, you would know that ancient cultures often had coded dress for various strata-members of society. Beyond that, how about a simple question to the girl at issue, the answer taken for granted in the context of one outside of Israel's laws? Now leave me alone before I report you for spamming.

sixth e-mail to apologist

Subj: web page now up, as per your request
Date: 4/16/00 12:10:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: BBu84
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. Holding,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my last e-mail. In your reply you wrote:

"I am answering no further inquiries from you. If you have anything further to say to me, put it on your page and send me the URL, because I want the next question to serve to publicly expose your intentions and your manifest ignorance/snobbery."

In order to comply with your wish and show my questions in their complete context, I have compiled all the e-mails we have exchanged, including this one, and made them into a web page, which is available here:

http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm

This web page will serve to publicly expose my "manifest ignorance/snobbery" and will allow others to judge how well you respond to questions about the Bible. Since you have already stated that you will not answer any more of my questions, the lack of a reply to this e-mail will not necessarily be interpreted as an inability to answer any of my latest questions.

I appreciate the fact that in your last e-mail you did answer my query about whether you would hurl rocks at pregnant young girls till they were dead. You said that "YES" you would stone girls to death. I would not, but I guess I am not as morally advanced as you. I guess that, unlike you, I don't have the moral fiber to pitch rocks at a young girl as she was crying, screaming, bleeding to death, suffering multiple bone fractures and internal injuries.

You wrote that in order for the rampaging Israelite warriors to determine the virginity of the young women of the village they were attacking, all they would have to do was ask them. Interesting. Let's see…how would it work? The soldiers would be running amuck, slaughtering the men, the young boys, the women, the elderly and the infants with swords. If they momentarily interrupted their stabbing and hacking frenzy to ask a young woman or girl if she was a virgin and she answered no, what would the soldiers do? Well, according to the clear instructions from Moses, they would then kill her, with their swords. If she answered yes, then she would be abducted and raped. Pretty much a lose/lose situation for the girl or woman, but apparently what was of utmost importance was that the soldiers did their killing and collected their virgins, as per Moses' direct command. Would you follow this command from Moses?

You said that you explained to me twice how ancient law codes were put into effect. I examined your e-mails to determine if you had, in fact, clarified how ancient laws were put into effect. Here are the relevant quotes:

"That it is directed at females does not exclude men at all. Ancient law codes were didactic in nature; they were meant to present case law, not an exhaustive remedy for all situations...no more so do all the laws that begin 'If a man...' mean that a woman could get away with whatever it was. (Thus a judge could use the case law Deut. 22:22 to convict a man who had violated a willing virgin.)"

You are implying that this virginity law is a general law directed at both men and women. Again, I am confused. If this law is directed at men, what are the "tokens of virginity" that they would need to produce to certify their virginity was intact? You still have not answered this question.

Here is the second relevant quote which you apparently feel clearly explains the implementation of this God-ordained law:

"As noted, ancient law codes were didactic -- ancient judges made the decision based on evidence at hand; the laws were exemplars. Investigative methods would be used just as they are used today for any crime. (You can debate standards of evidence and competence of investigation, of course...but that is a human matter.)"

What would the "evidence at hand" be? The verse only mentions "tokens of virginity"-nothing else. As I explained before, bloody bed sheets do not represent a perfect test of virginity, and neither do menstrual-blood soaked undergarments. If these items were considered tokens of virginity or the "evidence at hand," they would not necessarily differentiate virgins from non-virgins. Just tell me how, in practice, in detail, a girl's non-virginity was ascertained prior to her torture and murder at the hands of the village men. This law came directly from God's mouth, so it should be perfectly clear-don't you think?

I call Jesus' divinity an opinion; you call it "hard fact." Despite all of the verbiage on your web site promoting this idea, there is no evidence that such things as gods exist in the first place. So whether an ancient book proclaims that Jesus was the son of a god or that he rose from the dead to go up to live in a place called heaven, the assumption of a supernatural realm, an assumption that underlies all of your essays, is not supported by observations in the real world. On your web site you have a challenge for skeptics to disprove anything that you write about. In one of your articles, you write that there are NOT two separate creation stories in Genesis, and you spend a good deal of time discussing various ways in which you think the language can be interpreted to make the two stories non-contradictory. I applaud you for your efforts but I am wondering why the writer(s) of Genesis had to tell the creation story twice? Wasn't it clear enough the first time? In any case, the supposition underlying your essay is that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of events a few thousand years ago (this time-line is based on a genealogy of Jesus to Adam given in the third chapter of Luke). If it is your contention that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the geological, meteorological and biological history 6000 or 10,000 years ago, I think I can provide a reasonable amount of evidence to show that you are mistaken. Want me to try?

Thank you for the time you have taken to answer my questions. And thank you for a very interesting apologetic web site.

Sincerely,

Brooks T

fifth apologist response

Subj: Re: web page now up, as per your request
Date: 5/6/00 7:04:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jpholding@integrityonline15.com
To:BBu84@aol.com

G'day,

I appreciate the fact that in your last e-mail you answered my query About whether you would hurl rocks at pregnant young girls till they were dead. You said that "YES" you would stone girls to death. I would not, but I guess I am not as morally advanced as you.

Clearly not, for you have no appreciation of what this sort of behavior meant in the context of a society where corporate survival was key and such behavior could easily lead to the destruction and death of a family unit as a whole. Such behavior today drains the tax base and causes a lot of headaches, but in this age prior to daycare centers, food stamps, and government programs for the needy, the need to enforce chastity strictly and set an example of those who violated this cardinal rule was rather significant.

I guess that, unlike you, I don't have the moral fiber to pitch rocks at a young girl as she was crying, screaming, bleeding to death, suffering multiple bone fractures and internal injuries.

In which case, you would likely be one of those who would contribute to the overall death of society. I admire the moral fiber of someone so self-centered and wrapped up in emotion that they are unable to grasp moral concepts that carry a longer view.

You wrote that in order for the rampaging Israelite warriors to determine the virginity of the young women of the village they were attacking, all they would have to do was ask them. Interesting. Let's see…how would it work? The soldiers would be running amuck, slaughtering the men, the young boys, the women, the elderly and the infants with swords.

Yes, of course. Military campaigns are always unplanned and every one of them was like the stereotypical Viking raid. No one ever planned a campaign carefully and berserkers were the norm.

If they momentarily interrupted their stabbing and hacking frenzy to ask a young woman or girl if she was a virgin and she answered no, what would the soldiers do? Well, according to the clear instructions from Moses, they would then kill her, with their swords.

Correct.

If she answered yes, then she would be abducted and raped

Incorrect. Read Deut. 21:10ff, which is quite an advanced bit of legislation for this period.

Pretty much a lose/lose situation for the girl or woman, but apparently What was of utmost importance was that the soldiers did their killing and collected their virgins, as per Moses' direct command. Would you follow this command from Moses?

Sure -- Deut. 21 sure beats turning them out into the wilderness to starve to death, don't you think? Very merciful action in that day and age, in fact. But perhaps, living as you do in a modern housing unit with televsion, air conditioning, a computer, social services, grocery stores, and so on, you fail to appreciate the significance of such actions within their context. I would not be surprised.

You said that you explained to me twice how ancient law codes were put Into effect. I examined your e-mails to determine if you had, in fact, clarified how ancient laws were put into effect. Here are the relevant quotes:

"That it is directed at females does not exclude men at all. Ancient law codes were didactic in nature; they were meant to present case law, not an exhaustive remedy for all situations...no more so do all the laws that begin 'If a man...' mean that a woman could get away with whatever it was. (Thus a judge could use the case law Deut. 22:22 to convict a man who had violated a willing virgin.)"

You are implying that this virginity law is a general law directed at Both men and women. Again, I am confused. If this law is directed at men, what Are the "tokens of virginity" that they would need to produce to certify their virginity was intact? You still have not answered this question.

What need is there to do so? A man who did not preserve his virginity in this day and age left behind a great deal of evidence: Babies. (No effective birth control, remember. And you know the laws against adultery...the didactic applications would be the same.)

Moreover, keep in mind that a virgin daughter would live a highly protected life; the accusation delivered would suppose that she had purposely left/evaded the security of her household and was sneaking around at night. The man bringing the charge against the woman is saying much more than that she wasn't a virgin, but that she was of suspicious moral character.

Here is the second relevant quote which you apparently feel clearly Explains the implementation of this God-ordained law:

"As noted, ancient law codes were didactic -- ancient judges made the decision based on evidence at hand; the laws were exemplars. Investigative methods would be used just as they are used today for any crime. (You can debate standards of evidence and competence of investigation, of course...but that is a human matter.) "

What would the "evidence at hand" be?

Anything. What constitutes evidence of (or against) a crime today? Beyond DNA testing, there is little that did not have an analogue in ancient times that is not used for evidence today. Questioning potential witnesses. (Remember the "2 or 3 witnesses" requirement?) Investigating the security of the household and the character of the family. Discerning what the basis of the accusation is, and whether it has any validity. Establishment of reasonable doubt is not a new process.

men. This law came directly from God's mouth, so it should be perfectly clear-don't you think?

It's perfectly clear to scholars who study ancient law codes. Perhaps the problem of clarity is your own?

I call Jesus' divinity an opinion; you call it "hard fact." Despite all Of the verbiage on your web site promoting this idea, there is no evidence that such things as gods exist in the first place.

Oh? You have refuted all the standard proofs? (Cosmological, design, ontological, etc.?) What a relief! The Secular Web can shut down, and we can throw all of those turgid works of philosophy in the trash. That's great, because I need the bookshelf space.

So whether an ancient book proclaims that Jesus was the son of a god or that he rose from the dead to go up to live in a place called heaven, the assumption of a supernatural realm, an assumption that underlies all of your essays, is not supported by observations in the real world.

Ack! That same old line from David Hume...why are "observations in the real world" absolute proof in this regard? You got a logical syllogism for that argument?

you write that there are NOT two separate creation stories in Genesis, and you spend a good deal of time discussing various ways in which you think the language can be interpreted to make the two stories non- contradictory. I applaud you for your efforts but I am wondering why the writer(s) of Genesis had to tell the creation story twice? Wasn't it clear enough the first time?

Your bigotry is showing again, Brooks. Did you read what I said about how other ancient creation accounts had double accounts? (I guess ancient people were stupid, huh? They all told the same story twice in a row because they were not sure the first time was clear.) Get this: In an oral-based society, repeating a story, putting it in slightly different form, was NORMAL. And what I call G1 and G2 likely represented originally separate oral units that were combined literarily into what we now call Genesis. Now can you get beyond your temporal provincialism and try to understand these texts on their own terms?

In any case, the supposition underlying your essay is that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of events a few thousand years ago (this time-line is based on a genealogy of Jesus to Adam given in the third chapter of Luke). If it is your contention that Genesis is an accurate portrayal of the geological, meteorological and biological history 6000 or 10,000 years ago, I think I can provide a reasonable amount of evidence to show that you are mistaken. Want me to try?

Nope. Unlike you I do not venture into realms where I do not have knowledge, and my science knowledge is minimal, as I will freely admit. (Take the hint: Until you learn about ancient law codes, literature, and societies, you need to change the subject. But somehow I doubt if you will refrain....too much pride at stake.)

Thank you for the time you have taken to answer my questions. And thank You for a very interesting apologetic web site.

My own thanks for your honest representation of our interchange, thus showing a commodity that I have lately found rare in skeptics: Integrity!

Regards,

Subj: reply posted
Date: 1/25/2001 11:39:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:BBu84@aol.com
To: jpholding@integrityonline15.com

Mr. Holding,

Ahoy. This is Brooks, the owner of the Christianity: Bogus Beyond Belief web site. We have exchanged a few e-mails over the last couple of years and our exchange of e-mails is preserved on a page in my web site. I still have some questions and some thoughts in regard to the issues we have discussed and the things you have written, so I have posted a reply to your last e-mail on the aforementioned page on my site. I am forwarding you the URL to the reply rather than e-mailing the reply itself, which is what you instructed me to do "If you have anything further to say to me."

Here is the URL:

http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm

Have a nice day.

Brooks

January 25, 2001

Mr. Holding,

I have sent you an e-mail directing you to this reply, which is in response to your last e-mail. Your last e-mail was sent way back in May 2000.

One of the questions I asked you earlier was whether the Christian god condemns to hell all the Jews who were beaten, starved, tortured and killed in the Holocaust. You stated that, indeed, the Jews who suffered and who died in the Holocaust are sinners and deserve to be tortured eternally. It even appeared that you compared the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust to serial murderers:

'The modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime ("Your honor, although my client did murder 32 people, he deserves to get out of the death penalty because his father kicked him as a child.") is an irrational play on the emotions.'

I am sure that the Jews who suffered in the death camps and who survived will be surprised to find themselves compared to serial murderers, but then Christians have been denigrating and demonizing the Jews ever since the time the Gospels were written. In any case, your effort to label a person's opinion a crime worthy of infinite punishment is truly fascinating:

"The 'eternal BBQ' is the result of willful rebellion against God. It is what people choose: They do not want to live with God while on earth, and God, consistent with His nature, will not force them to be with Him afterwards; nor can they endure His presence unless their sin is paid for, and because any sin, no matter how small, is an infinite offense against an infinitely holy God (Anselm first noted this, I believe), it requires an infinite payment of some sort -- hence Christian theology's argument that Christ's sacrifice pays for sin. Hell remains the only place that will hold those who reject the payment."

Let's see if I understand this whole scenario, JP. People who do not accept Christianity are willfully rejecting something that is obvious to them? People somehow "choose" not to believe in Christianity, even though, in some way, they know it is true? Are you seriously suggesting this? Could you clarify how people do NOT believe in something that they DO believe in? And if people are engaged in "willful rebellion" against something that is so obvious, then why do apologists like yourself go to such remarkable lengths and compile such prodigious quantities of text to try and reconcile the Bible with reality? If everyone believes in Christianity anyway, then just whom are you trying to convince?

Think about this: the main claim of Christianity, the fundamental belief, is that Jesus was resurrected. Thomas, as the story goes, was there when this event occurred and he was not willing to accept that Jesus was resurrected-so how can people who were NOT there be expected to give credence to the conflicting and highly absurd resurrection stories?

Apart from the historicity of the hearsay resurrection stories, the whole schema of sin and redemption is rife with difficulties. Your god can see the future, and knew before he created Adam and Eve that they would eat that apple, right? (Okay, so maybe the apple is figurative for something else) Your god also foresaw that he would get so angry with the people he created that he would arrange to have them kill him (or his son) so that he could forgive them, but only if they believed that he would arrange to have them kill him (or his son) for being angry at them, and it all started because a man and a woman ate an apple (which probably means something else), an event which the biblical god had foreseen, and which he created them to do. What kind of sense does this make to you, and why should people be tortured forever for thinking that this story's relationship to truth and reality is, well, somewhat tenuous?

A god which sees the future with perfect clarity and which creates people knowing that they will suffer eternally for their beliefs in a hell it created, is a god that is either very stupid or very sadistic, and possibly both. What is obvious is that the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible with eternal torture. What is also clear is that the threat of eternal torture for skepticism is a remarkably effective persuasive technique, and some people have even suggested that this is the real reason why it is found in Christianity.

We discussed the subject of stoning young women to death on their wedding nights. The Bible states, in Deuteronomy 20:22, that if the "tokens of virginity" are not found in a young woman on her wedding night, then she is to be taken to the door of her father's house and stoned to death by the men of the village. I asked you to put in plain words what "tokens of virginity" were, and you offered the explanation that they were probably bloody sheets on the marriage bed or garments stained with menstrual blood. When I pointed out the problems with using these things as evidence of virginity, you floated the idea that Israelite judges launched extensive background investigations to determine a girl's virginity:

"Questioning potential witnesses. (Remember the "2 or 3 witnesses" requirement?) Investigating the security of the household and the character of the family. Discerning what the basis of the accusation is, and whether it has any validity. Establishment of reasonable doubt is not a new process."

The problem here is that the quote in question specifically refers to "tokens of virginity." It does not talk of a 'virginity board of inquiry' that took testimony, performed exhaustive background investigations and then carefully deliberated on the question. The quote does not imply this in any way, in any shape or in any form. In fact, a previous passage reveals the sum total of this "evidence" and the very limited way in that it was used:

Deuteronomy 22:13-19

"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

So to be clear, the basis of stoning a young woman to death on her wedding night appears to have rested solely on her "garments," and, as I pointed out, these can hardly be considered reliable indicators of virginity. I asked you whether you would stone the young women in question to death, and you shouted "YES," apparently in the belief that this would be the performance of a valuable social service, the women in question threatening to bring about the very "death of society." Let's put aside the issue of how reliable this "test" of virginity was for just a moment. If young, unmarried non-virgin women were such a scourge and a danger to Israelite society, what happened to mothers who were widowed when their husbands died? Were they also pelted, pegged and pummeled with stones by their neighbors? Also, were there women who never married, and if so, what happened to them?

Apart from the problem of accuracy and fairness of this test of virginity, there also seems to be a problem of equality. You claimed that simply because the quote refers to "young woman," it does not exclude men.

"That it is directed at females does not exclude men at all. Ancient law codes were didactic in nature; they were meant to present case law, not an exhaustive remedy for all situations...no more so do all the laws that begin 'If a man...' mean that a woman could get away with whatever it was. (Thus a judge could use the case law Deut. 22:22 to convict a man who had violated a willing virgin.)"

Apparently, you still do not see the difference here. The specific virginity rule found at Deuteronomy 22:20 can only and does only apply to females. Nowhere does the Bible say that if men do not produce "tokens of virginity" on their wedding night, they must be immediately stoned to death. This was not a unisex, equal opportunity rule-it couldn't have been. The Bible writers clearly had no idea of what would constitute "tokens of virginity" for males. And no, babies cannot be considered evidence of a male's illicit sexual unions. If an unmarried girl got pregnant, it seems clear that she would be stoned to death before giving birth. If a married woman got pregnant and gave birth, the assumption could only be that her husband was the father. In any case, the ancient Israelites did not have DNA testing and could not link a particular baby to a particular male if they wanted to. For the sake of argument, however, IF the Israelites did have a law which specified the stoning to death of non-virgin, unmarried men and IF they could actually link specific men to specific babies, then instead of killing the men and the mothers, why could they not simply make the men marry the women they impregnated? If not, why not? There certainly is precedence for this in Deuteronomy 22:28.

I think it will be instructive here to examine Deuteronomy 22:22 along with some of the other crime laws in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:22-30:

"If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor; because he came upon her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

In the first passage, the woman is stoned to death because she did not cry out. But if the woman was being raped and she did cry out, her attacker may have killed her. Seems like a cruel Catch 22 situation to me. What do you think? Also, it appears that the man is to be executed not because he attacked a woman, but because he "violated his neighbor's wife." Deuteronomy shows that it is not rape per se which deserves death, but the violation of another man's property. As we can see in the last passage, a man who rapes an unbethrothed girl is not put to death, but gets to marry her after paying off her dad. I know that you would say this is a wonderful, merciful solution to the problem of finding this girl a husband, but don't you think the supreme ruler of the universe could have come up with something slightly more palatable to the girl than forcing her to marry her rapist?

I explained to you that, according to the Bible, the Israelites went on war raids and killed a sizable number of women and children. I asked whether you would have taken part in these God-ordained massacres. You seem to indicate that you would have-however I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Could you clarify this for me? Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?

I described these killing sprees as "stabbing and hacking" frenzies where "the soldiers would be running amuck, slaughtering the men, the young boys, the women, the elderly and the infants with swords." You sarcastically replied that

"Yes, of course. Military campaigns are always unplanned and every one of them was like the stereotypical Viking raid. No one ever planned a campaign carefully and berserkers were the norm."

I did not say these raids were unplanned. I only said that they involved the killing of women and children by hacking and stabbing. Do you disagree with this description? Planned or not, if "soldiers" are ordered to kill women and children and they attempt to carry out this order-using swords and battle axes-the people who they are trying to murder will not patiently stand in line and wait to be skewered, disemboweled and decapitated. Rather, these people will be attempting to flee the gore-soaked "soldiers" in desperation. How this situation could be described as anything other than a stabbing and hacking frenzy is unclear.

Of course, the virgin girls were somehow identified and spared in these raids. Their entire families were slaughtered, but they were saved to become wives of the men who butchered their families and friends. You described this as a "very merciful action in that day and age." That is a fascinating perspective. However, this seems like it had less to do with mercy and more to do with the soldiers getting good-looking wives. The women in question certainly did not have any choice in the matter:

Deuteronomy 21:10-13

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife."

Let's put aside Deuteronomy, and move on to Genesis. You wrote an essay that attempted to reconcile the two creation accounts given in Genesis. Whether or not you were successful in resolving the disagreements between the two creation accounts is a moot point, in my opinion. You are missing the forest for the trees. There is a far bigger and more basic issue that you completely fail to address. In my previous e-mail, I explained to you that the Bible puts this creation event within the last 6000 years (see the genealogy for Jesus given in Luke 3). Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), actually calculated the creation of the universe to have been in the year 4004, BC. Today we know that the earth is quite a bit older than 6000 or 10,000 or even 100,000 years. You refused to take up this subject in your last e-mail, writing:

"Unlike you I do not venture into realms where I do not have knowledge, and my science knowledge is minimal, as I will freely admit."

I would suggest to you that it is not necessary to earn a science degree or to be a scientist to understand and accept that the earth is not and cannot be only a few thousand years old. It does not take a PhD in astrophysics to see this, just a sixth grade education and some measure of common sense. This particular discrepancy between the revealed facts of reality and the claims in Genesis is a serious problem, a very large problem, and one for which you owe your readers an explanation.

On a related subject, I see no discussion of the Noah's Ark story anywhere on your site. This is an event that is also placed within the last few thousand years by the Bible writers, but the evidence for this astounding, catastrophic worldwide flood is pointedly absent from every single field of study of the ancient world. To be fair, you do have a link to a book titled Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study by a gentleman named John Woodmorappe. This book, however, does not appear to address the lack of evidence for the biblical flood, but instead it concentrates on the engineering aspects of building the ark and maintaining the staggering horde of animals on board the ark. Interestingly, a review of the book indicates that Woodmorappe believed Noah trained the animals to defecate into buckets:

"When it comes to care on the ark, Woodmorappe enlists the aid of the animals themselves. According to Woodmorappe, prior to the flood, Noah had kept a menagerie and trained the animals to defecate and urinate on command into buckets. They were also trained to leave their pens for exercise and return to their cages on command. Snakes and bats were trained to take inert food. Birds were trained to take sugar water from pots. This, of course, makes Noah the greatest animal trainer in history. How much time Noah and his hired hands required to train 16,000 animals is almost incalculable..."

"....Woodmorappe states (p. 27) that the urine could be drained overboard by gravity. He does not tell how this is possible from the lowest floor level which was below the water line. At one point he suggests that the animals could be trained to urinate and defecate upon command while someone holds a bucket behind the animal. Assuming that this can be accomplished for the largest quarter of the animals and that they need to be serviced three times per day, each person must service 125 animals per hour, 2 animals a minute. What a fun job that must have been."

I won't comment further on this book, as this excerpted description is quite eloquent. I will say, however, that I am pleased that you have seen fit to make a link to Woodmorappe's work.

My main point, again, it that you do not deal with an issue that has very serious implications for everything else that is written on your site. I would not expect you to try and refute every problem in the Bible-after all, who would have the time? But this one seems to be basic and foundational. It is just too large to ignore.

To sum up: I don't understand how you reconcile an all-knowing, all-good god with eternal torture in hell; I don't think your explanation of the "tokens of virginity" is in accord with what is written in the Bible, nor do I think you made the case that men and women are treated in an equitable manner; I am unable to see how my description of the Israelite war raids on civilians was inaccurate as you have implied; and, finally, I feel you are doing your readers a grave disservice by not explaining how the creation story (or stories) and the Noah Ark story of Genesis fit into modern astronomy, meteorology, the geological and biological history of the earth, and the history of human civilization.

Have a nice day.

Brooks

Subj: Re: reply posted
Date: 1/25/2001 2:33:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: jpholding@mail.integrityonline15.com
Reply-to: jpholding@mail.integrityonline15.com
To:BBu84@aol.com

Well, Brooks,

It'll have to sit a while...I have checked your site periodically for updates and wondered if you'd been run over by an elevator or something, as Bugs Bunny would say.

At any rate, I am working on self-publishing a book, and will be busily engaged for the next few months. Depending on how things go, I may respond in a few days or a few months. Nevertheless, the alert is appreciated.

Regards,

JPH

Subj: The next installment
Date: 4/4/01 3:14:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:jphold@iexalt.net
To: BBu84@aol.com

File: brooks.doc (27136 bytes)
DL Time (48000 bps): < 1 minute

-------------------- My next reply is attached. Please update at your earliest convenience.

JPH

Howdy again, Brooks,

I have sent you an e-mail directing you to this reply, which is in response to your last e-mail. Your last e-mail was sent way back in May 2000.

Yep, it's been a while; and I took only about 3 months to get back to you. At this rate we'll be done by June 2008. Just so you know, if you get back quickly this time, don't expect a quick response from me -- that self-publishing effort is starting to come together, and you're not exactly top priority, nor do you need to be, on my list.

One of the questions I asked you earlier was whether the Christian god condemns to hell all the Jews who were beaten, starved, tortured and killed in the Holocaust. You stated that, indeed, the Jews who suffered and who died in the Holocaust are sinners and deserve to be tortured eternally.

Actually, "tormented" is a more accurate word -- the suffering in question would be primarily spiritual and emotional rather than physical; but, that's another topic.

It even appeared that you compared the Jews who suffered and died in the Holocaust to serial murderers:

That's because you're a very shallow reader, Brooks. I used the most outrageous and facetious example of the modern notion that some previous experience ought to mitigate a penalty for a crime -- that is, that someone did not deserve the death penalty because they were kicked as a child (that's an actual example, by the way) in order to make the point as clear as possible. Only a mind as wooden as yours could conclude that a comparison was thereby being made in the manner you suggest. And I find your comment that "Christians have been denigrating and demonizing the Jews ever since the time the Gospels were written" rather comical in hypocritical, in light of your classification elsewhere of the Jews who executed the judgments prescribed in the OT law as "a deranged mob of superstitious, goggle-eyed pinheads." I'm sure the B'nai B'rith folks would find that comment eminently worthy of attention. Or did you not mean to denigrate and demonize all Jews, and am I using too much imagination? And by the way, I think you mean "google," not "goggle." I know of no evidence that Ancient Near Eastern Jews had a special ability to see clearly underwater.

In any case, your effort to label a person's opinion a crime worthy of infinite punishment is truly fascinating:

I'm glad we found something to occupy your otherwise valuable time.

Let's see if I understand this whole scenario, JP. People who do not accept Christianity are willfully rejecting something that is obvious to them? People somehow "choose" not to believe in Christianity, even though, in some way, they know it is true? Are you seriously suggesting this?

Yup. Beyond this there may be issues of those who have never heard the Gospel, but that's another realm of discussion, so don't try to drag it in to score brownie points, as you're wont to do. I'll discuss it, but as a separate issue only and after all else is settled here.

Could you clarify how people do NOT believe in something that they DO believe in?

Gee, Brooks, you can't figger that one out? By your thinking it is me who is deluding myself, and must be refusing to accept the obvious truth. So how do people do this? Think of how you think I and other "goggle-eyed pinheads" do it, then just turn it around. One of us is obviously deluding ourselves, or maybe both of us are; but we can't both be right. Get it?

And if people are engaged in "willful rebellion" against something that is so obvious, then why do apologists like yourself go to such remarkable lengths and compile such prodigious quantities of text to try and reconcile the Bible with reality? If everyone believes in Christianity anyway, then just whom are you trying to convince?

No one -- apologetics is mainly for the information and edification of the believer, not for the shifting of the will. I can hardly expect temporal provincialists like you to appreciate any of it.

Think about this: the main claim of Christianity, the fundamental belief, is that Jesus was resurrected. Thomas, as the story goes, was there when this event occurred and he was not willing to accept that Jesus was resurrected-so how can people who were NOT there be expected to give credence to the conflicting and highly absurd resurrection stories?

Well, there's that usual yellow-belly sniping tactic I see from skeptical quarters. You throw in this little two-cent comment about "conflicting and highly absurd resurrection stories," thereby reducing complex issues of literary methodologies of the first century (Have you ever compared parallel accounts in Josephus' Antiqiuities and Jewish War? If you haven't even looked into this area, you shouldnt even open your mouth.), philosophy, psychology/human will, Jewish eschatology, and so on, down to a sound bite; and I'm supposed to look bad if I don't answer. Well, I'll just be content with exposing that little manipulation for what it is, then move on; I have answers enough on my page for such blatherskeit. No brownie points for you, except among your little play-friends of equal critical capability.

As for Thomas, what do you mean that Thomas was "there when the event occurred"? What event? If you mean the resurrection, he wasn't "there" for it; no one was. He was not "there" when the Risen Jesus first showed up, if that's what you mean. And he, like every skeptic I have run into, including you, was disbelieving in spite of sufficient evidence. He had nearly a dozen men, if not more, whose company he had known for many years, whom he had come to trust and know as friends, testify of this to him -- isn't that enough to believe? If not, why not?

Apart from the historicity of the hearsay resurrection stories,

Please, Brooks -- if you want to play that game, nearly all recorded ancient history (indeed, nearly all recorded history, period) is hearsay. So are you planning on throwing out Livy and Tacitus as well? Come to think of it, temporal provinicialist and sound-bite chucker that you are, you might at that.

The whole schema of sin and redemption is rife with difficulties. Your god can see the future, and knew before he created Adam and Eve that they would eat that apple, right? (Okay, so maybe the apple is figurative for something else) Your god also foresaw that he would get so angry with the people he created that he would arrange to have them kill him (or his son) so that he could forgive them, but only if they believed that he would arrange to have them kill him (or his son) for being angry at them, and it all started because a man and a woman ate an apple (which probably means something else), an event which the biblical god had foreseen, and which he created them to do. What kind of sense does this make to you, and why should people be tortured forever for thinking that this story's relationship to truth and reality is, well, somewhat tenuous?

Why should this be a problem? According to the scenario, you have the free choice to accept salvation right now, and nothing to lose by doing so; and yet you're going to complain that simply because God foresaw your rejection, there's some kind of problem? Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

A god which sees the future with perfect clarity and which creates people knowing that they will suffer eternally for their beliefs in a hell it created, is a god that is either very stupid or very sadistic,

In so saying, you've just proven the very point I'm making -- and emasculated your own arguments.

torture for skepticism is a remarkably effective persuasive technique, and some people have even suggested that this is the real reason why it is found in Christianity.

Really? Do you see any mention of hell in the missionary preaching of Acts? I don't. It didn't form any part of the kerygmatic message. And the Greco-Roman peoples had their own conceptions of Hades and a miserable afterlife well before the time of the NT; who were they trying to scare?

blood. When I pointed out the problems with using these things as evidence of virginity, you floated the idea that Israelite judges launched extensive background investigations to determine a girl's virginity:

"Questioning potential witnesses. (Remember the "2 or 3 witnesses" requirement?) Investigating the security of the household and the character of the family. Discerning what the basis of the accusation is, and whether it has any validity. Establishment of reasonable doubt is not a new process."

The problem here is that the quote in question specifically refers to "tokens of virginity." It does not talk of a 'virginity board of inquiry' that took testimony, performed exhaustive background investigations and then carefully deliberated on the question.

It doesn't have to, Mr. Temporal Provincialist, no more than your state statutes have to specify that a detective or police officer will investigate your crime. It's part of the social background of the Ancient Near East. Of course, I know you and a friend of yours, Mr. Krinkles, categorize such explanations in the "blah blah blah" realm, so perhaps I would be better off explaining it to a wall; they certainly have greater powers of comprehension, and are more apt to look into the matter rather than brush it off. Certainly a man like you with a career in photofinishing doesn't have the patience or wherewithal to pick up, much less understand, material on Ancient Near Eastern life and practices. Do you see anything about investigations or judges in the Code of Hammurabi, or in the Assyrian codes? Let me know when you find out.

If young, unmarried non-virgin women were such a scourge and a danger to Israelite society, what happened to mothers who were widowed when their husbands died?

Hello? The issue is not that they were "young, unmarried, non-virgin" per se; the issue is that they were engaged in licentious behavior that threatened the society's fabric and survival. A widow isn't doing that, nor are the unmarried.

Apart from the problem of accuracy and fairness of this test of virginity, there also seems to be a problem of equality. You claimed that simply because the quote refers to "young woman," it does not exclude men.

That's right, and as you quote me, I said:

"That it is directed at females does not exclude men at all. Ancient law codes were didactic in nature; they were meant to present case law, not an exhaustive remedy for all situations...no more so do all the laws that begin 'If a man...' mean that a woman could get away with whatever it was. (Thus a judge could use the case law Deut. 22:22 to convict a man who had violated a willing virgin.)"

To which you say:

Apparently, you still do not see the difference here. The specific virginity rule found at Deuteronomy 22:20 can only and does only apply to females.

Apparently the entire point I made went far over your head. Read it again: Ancient law codes were didactic. They presented case law, not exhaustive remedies. The rule could be modified and applied to a man by application. Do I need to put this in the form of a pop-up book for you? Clearly so, because later on, you still don't get this.

And no, babies cannot be considered evidence of a male's illicit sexual unions. If an unmarried girl got pregnant, it seems clear that she would be stoned to death before giving birth.

Where do you see that, may I ask? Now who's reading things into the law that aren't specified? Attorney, heal thyself! Show it to me in the societal context, not based on your personal opinion.

If a married woman got pregnant and gave birth, the assumption could only be that her husband was the father. In any case, the ancient Israelites did not have DNA testing and could not link a particular baby to a particular male if they wanted to.

Uh, Brooks? What is DNA? It's the genetic code for all we are -- including our appearance. You have the traits of your own father and mother, do you not? Hello? Sounds like a way to make a link to me, but I'd guess you'd put that above the heads of "goggle-eyed pinheads," right? Been fitted for your white sheet yet?

For the sake of argument, however, IF the Israelites did have a law which specified the stoning to death of non-virgin, unmarried men and IF they could actually link specific men to specific babies, then instead of killing the men and the mothers, why could they not simply make the men marry the women they impregnated? If not, why not? There certainly is precedence for this in Deuteronomy 22:28.

Why not? Well, Brooks, as I noted, the behavior in the former case, which is an instance of mutally-agreed upon fornication, involved licentious behavior that threatened the society's fabric and survival. Man and woman alike in this situation are guilty, and deserve the death penalty. Now knowing how the wheels in your head turn, you are saying: "Gee, JP, didn't the rapist in Deut. 22:28 commit licentious behavior that threatened the society's fabric and survival?" Of course he did, but unlike in the previous case, there is an innocent victim left behind who will now be, in light of ancient conceptions of purity, unmarriageable. Therefore, the punishment for the rapist is to take full responsibility for his victim for the rest of his life. (I can anticipate your anachronistic objections at this point, so go ahead and make them so I can make you look more foolish.) And if you think that's getting off easy, let me ask you this: Would you prefer to die, or be enslaved the rest of your life? IOW, do you agree with Henry's epigram, "Give me liberty of give me death?" Or do you cherish your life so much that you'd keep it even if it envolved unalterable servitude? I look forward to your answer -- it will reveal a great deal about your character.

In the first passage, the woman is stoned to death because she did not cry out. But if the woman was being raped and she did cry out, her attacker may have killed her. Seems like a cruel Catch 22 situation to me. What do you think?

I think that if your critical thinking skills were better, you'd see how what I said about the nature of ancient law codes ("blah blah blah") would cover this, and your complaint that follows. Try and figure it out.

would say this is a wonderful, merciful solution to the problem of finding this girl a husband, but don't you think the supreme ruler of the universe could have come up with something slightly more palatable to the girl than forcing her to marry her rapist?

You're being a temporal provincialist again. In this time and place, the girl would want this solution -- you need to look at this through the eyes of a society where the essence of survival was the preservation of key social units.

for now. Could you clarify this for me? Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?

Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy.

the norm." I did not say these raids were unplanned. I only said that they involved the killing of women and children by hacking and stabbing. Do you disagree with this description?

Nope, just having some entertainment at your expense. Or haven't you figu