Admittedly, the Bible does teach the "message of love" that Hutchinson spoke about, but this is just another inconsistency in this book that so many fundamentalist Christians revere as the inspired, inerrant word of God.Here it will proclaim that God is loving and merciful, but there it will proclaim that he is a jealous, angry, vindictive god who sometimes killed people for petty, trivial reasons.The front-page article in this issue "What Have These Sheep Done?" discussed this aspect of the Hebrew god Yahweh, so there is no need to rehash it here.Suffice it to say that it is hard to reconcile the image of a baby-killing god who ordered the death of people for trivial offenses like picking up sticks on the sabbath (Num. 15:32-36) or not having been circumcised (Gen. 17:13-14; Ex. 4:24-26) with the idea of a kind, loving, merciful god that Hutchinson claims the Bible teaches. Anyone with even a particle of objectivity in his brain should see the incompatibility of the two concepts. If I should say that John Doe kills babies and inflicts torture and even death on those who disagree with him in trivial matters, but John Doe is a kind, loving, and merciful person, even Roger Hutchinson could see the incongruity in the description, but his blind allegiance to an idea that should have died with the superstitions of the past will not allow him to see the inconsistencies in the nature of "God" as he was depicted in the Bible.Yet he has the unmitigated gall to accuse me of acting in my own "self-interest" and using "the document [Bible] to promote that interest" (p. 7, this issue). I guess we are supposed to believe that Hutchinsonhas no interest in promoting his belief that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" and that when he twists himself into verbal knots to "explain" that the Bible didn't really mean what it says, he isn't using the Bible to "promote [his] self-interest."
Wanting it both ways: In debating biblical inerrantists, I often have to remind those following the debate that my opponents are trying to play both sides of the street.By this I mean, that they will reject an argument or principle if it is detrimental to their cause but will turn around later and use the same argument or principle when it is beneficial to their cause.We see Hutchinson doing that in this discussion.He wants to have it both ways.On the one hand, he rejects the premise that people could be negatively influenced by the various stories in the Bible in which Yahweh was depicted as a petty, jealous, vindictive god who ordered genocide, even to the point of killing children and babies,and also decreed the death penalty for witchcraft, homosexuality, and various trivial offenses, but on the other hand, he wants us to think that people can be positively influenced by the "message of love" and high moral principles that Christianity teaches. Well, he can't have it both ways.If he is going to insist that the "good" contained in the Bible can have positive influences on people, he must admit the possibility that the "bad" contained in the Bible can have negative influences.If not, why not?
We hear Christians today declaring that the violence that people, and especially children, see in movies, TV, and video games is responsible for the steadily increasing violence in our society, and I personally believe that they are at least partly right.However, they can't argue that violence in the entertainment industry contributes to violence in our society but that violence, hatred, and intolerance depicted in the Bible does not contribute to violence, hatred, and intolerance in our society.Christian organizations maintain radio and TV stations that specialize in so-called "family entertainment," and this is obviously done because they believe that wholesome entertainment will contribute to the development of wholesome values, so to be consistent, Christians need to acknowledge that if the unwholesome is contained in the Bible, it can negatively influence moral values.
I recently saw evidence that they do realize that some Bible stories need to be cleaned up before they are suitable for "family" audiences.While channel surfing a few days ago, I happened onto a station in Central Illinois that promotes itself as a "family" channel.At the time, Ancient Secrets of the Bible was on, so I paused out of curiosity to see if it had raised its standards of scholarship since the last time I had watched one of its programs. Needless to say, it hadn't.I quickly saw that it was up to its old tricks of showing brief dramatizations of Bible stories and then switching to "scholars" who would relate one-sided accounts of recent "discoveries" that prove the historical accuracy of the tales. On this particular night, the scholars were presenting evidence that the ancient city of Sodom once existed.The dramatization showed the angels entering the city and being invited by Lot to spend the night in his home, and it showed the crowd of men, who came to Lot's house and demanded that the strangers inside be sent out to them.However, it glossed over the reason why they wanted the strangers and simply depicted the crowd as revelers who wanted the strangers to come out and join in the fun, and it left out entirely Lot's offer to give his two virgin daughters to the men to do with as they pleased if they would just spare the strangers the indignity they intended.The dramatization depicted the departure of Lot's family from Sodom prior to its destruction and showed Lot's wife looking back and being changed into a pillar of salt, but the story stopped short of showing Lot's daughters getting him drunk and then engaging in sexual intercourse with him, which resulted in their impregnation.
I saw these omissions as tacit recognition by the producers of this "family program" that even certain Bible stories should not be dramatized for "familyentertainment" without leaving out the unsavory parts. If the Bible is a book that will have only positive influences on people, then why shouldn't movie producers show everything when they dramatize its stories?Maybe Hutchinson can tell us.
Citing Biblical verses out of context: Hutchinson accused me of acting in my own self-interest by quoting the Bible out of context "to create the illusion that the Bible is slanted in one direction or another" (p. 7, this issue). The only example of my promotion of this self-interest that he cited was a remark about my "trumpet[ing] those verses in the Bible about witches and homosexuals."Actually, I have said a lot more about verses in the Bible where Yahweh ordered the systematic extermination of non-Hebraic tribes, but Hutchinson made only a fleeting comment about this in a blink-of-the-eye admission that God did "instruct Israel to destroy pagan nations."I suspect that he doesn't want to say too much about this aspect of the Bible, because there is just a bit too much in it about Yahweh's instructions to "destroy pagan nations" for even diehard biblicists to feel comfortable in arguing that the Bible teaches an ennobling message of divine love and mercy and not intolerance and hatred.
I quoted Exodus 22:18, which simply says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,"but if Hutchinson thinks that I have quoted out of context what the Bible says about killing witches, I'll quote the "full context" and then let him explain to us just how my comments misrepresented what the Bible teaches on the subject.
Exodus 22:16-20: And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.He that sacrificeth unto any God, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
It's obvious that the verses before and after verse 18 (italicized) shed no additional information onthe commandment to kill witches.This statement was simply listed in a series of unrelated commandments, and so by quoting only this one verse, I was not taking anything "out of context" in order to promote my self-interest. In fact, by not quoting also the verses around the commandment to kill witches, I actually made Yahweh look a bit better than he does when he "full context" of the statement is read, because the verses before this commandment clearly show that Yahweh had no consideration for the rights of women, whose marital futures were putentirely into the hands of men if they made the mistake of having pre-marital relations.The men could buy their way out of forced marriage, but apparently the women were not given this choice. The verse after the commandment to kill witches shows that Yahweh was religiously intolerant to the point of ordering the death of those who would dare sacrifice to any god but him, yet Hutchinson expects us to believe that the Bible will have only an ennobling influence on those who read it.
If I had had any devious desire to promote my own self-interests, I could have expanded the Bible's condemnation of witches by quoting other scriptures besides Exodus 22:18.
Leviticus 20:27: A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12: There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer, for all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD.
Now maybe Hutchinson can tell us how that I took anything out of context when I said that "it is entirely reasonable to think that at least some people who have firm convictions that the Bible is the `inspired word of God' will read such stuff as this and think that it is God's will for them to behave accordingly."Why is it so hard to imagine that people still living in the superstitious times of Puritan New England could read what the Bible says about witchcraft and think that they were doing God's will by hanging witches?Would he find it hard to believe that if people read where the Bible says, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," they might think that it is God's will for them to love their neighbors?If so, what criteria does he use to determine that if the Bible says something that is considered morally "bad," it won't influence people to do bad, but if it says something "good," it will influence them to do good?Talk about double standards!
I don't have to quote "full contexts" to make the same point about what the Bible says concerning homosexuality.If the Bible says--and it does--that "if a man lies with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13), and if the Bible says--and it does--that men who leave the natural use of the woman and burn in their lust one toward another are worthy of death (Romans 2:27, 32), why do I have to quote a long catalog of other "sins" listed in the same context (for which the infinitely merciful Yahweh also commanded the death penalty) before I can legitimately say that the Bible taught fanatical intolerance of homosexuality?If I am distorting what the Bible says by quoting out of context, let Hutchinson show that I am.
"Maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps" reasoning: Hutchinson said that my suggesting that the unsavory passages in the Bible could cause some people to think that God wants them to do what these passages say is "the `maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps' reasoning that one finds skeptics making in their efforts to denigrate the Bible when they cannot twist the Bible to say what they want,"but is it "maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps reasoning" when he claims that passages in the Bible that teach a "message of love" could cause people to think that they should do what these scriptures say?If so, then he must explain to us the reason for the double standard he is applying when he says that anything "bad" that the Bible says cannot influence people to do bad, but the good that the Bible says can and does influence people to do good.
His charge that I am using a "maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps reasoning" is downright comical coming from him, because this kind of reasoning has been his stock in trade in both The Skeptical Review and his "apologetic" attempts on the internet.In his first appearance in TSR (Autumn 1995, pp. 4-5), he tried to resolve the chronological discrepancy in Exodus 12:40 and the Exodus 6 genealogy of Aaron by suggesting that generations may have been skipped in the genealogy, because the Hebrew word ben (son) could have meant descendant.He further argued that the word yalad used in reference to Jochebed's having borne Moses and Aaron to Amram (Ex. 6:20) could have meant "borne" in the sense of being the ancestor of, and so "Jochebed can be said to have borne Aaron and Moses even though she may have actually given birth to their great-grandfather" (p. 5, emphasis added).To underscore the "maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps reasoning" that Hutchinson used in his article, I entitled my reply to it "Just Another Far-Fetched How-It-Could-Have-Been" (pp. 5-6).
There isn't enough space in an entire issue for me to summarize all of the maybesand could-have-beens that Hutchinson has postulated in his frantic efforts to defend biblical inerrancy, but one more example bears looking at. In the May/June 1996 issue, he tried to resolve the discrepancy in what Jairus said to Jesus by postulating that he could have said what Matthew claimed he said and also what Mark claimed he said.In other words, he proposed that Jairus said to Jesus both that his daughter was dead and that she was at the point of death.He then proceeded to write completely fabricated scenes of Jairus's encounter with Jesus in which both statements were said.Even he admitted that the scenarios were improbable."We can only speculate on what might have happened," he said (p.4) and later concluded the article by saying, "The above scenarios serve to illustrate how events could have played out in a manner consistent with the scriptures" (p. 5).Hutchinson writes articles riddled with speculations like these and then has the gall to say that skeptics use a "maybe, kinda, sort of, perhaps" kind of reasoning to "denigrate the Bible."I wonder if Hutchinson has ever heard the proverb about the pot calling the kettle black?
Who labeled the Khmer Rouge skeptics? Hutchinson said that I incorrectly accused him of "labeling, as skeptics, those responsible for the killing fields of Cambodia," but he needs to go back and read his first article in this present exchange.As Matson noted, here is exactly what he said:
When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind.As examples, we can readily cite the handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia.Collectively, those involved in just these three examples rejected the Bible and what it teaches and accounted for the deaths of some 50 million innocent people.If one is honestly looking for radical elements with a reputation for atrocities, one need look no further than to those who reject the Bible--skeptics (May/ June, p.8, emphasis added).
If Hutchinson wasn't accusing the leaders of Russia, China, and Cambodia of being biblical skeptics who were responsible for the deaths of 50 million people, then I am unable to understand plain English.After citing only the Russians, Chinese, and Cambodian leaders as examples of non-Christian atrocities, Hutchinson went on to say, "Skeptics of the Bible have proven themselves capable of great evil" (p. 8).After I pointed out the absurdity of attributing communist atrocities to skepticism of the Bible, Hutchinson is now trying to backpedal.He claims that he had used the examples of Cambodia and Russia only "to show very clearly that great atrocities have been committed in places and under circumstances that cannot be linked to Christianity" (p. 7, this issue). I don't disagree that many atrocities have been committed that cannot be linked to Christianity, but it was clearly not Hutchinson's intention to "show" this in his original article.He was trying to do exactly what amateur apologists repeatedlyclaim on internet sites, which is that atheism has resulted in more moral atrocities than Christianity, and just as Hutchinson did, they invariably cite the Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian leaders as examples of atheistic perpetrators of atrocities. Some of them will throw in Hitler for good measure, but many have learned not to do this, since it is easy to prove from Hitler's speeches and books that he was a believer in Catholicism.At any rate, Hutchinson obviously got burned on this point, and now he is looking for a graceful way out.
What exactly did Hutchinson say about Fred Phelps? Hutchinson accused me of misrepresenting what he said about the homophobic preacher Fred Phelps."He [Till] quotes me as saying that Phelps `has always personally hated homosexuals,'" Hutchinson said, and then added, "That is not exactly what I said, but it is pretty close for a skeptic, so why quibble" (p. 7).Well, let's look at exactly what I said:
I proposed that it is entirely reasonable to think that at least some people who have firm convictions that the Bible is the "inspired word of God" will read such stuff as this and think that it is God's will for them to behave accordingly. *I have read Hutchinson's article several times, but the only attempt that I saw him make to address these issues was to suggest that Fred Phelps, the Baptist preacher who is infamous for his hatred of homosexuals, "has always personally hated homosexuals and merely uses the Bible to give an air of legitimacy to his hatred"* ("The Two Faces of the Bible," May/June 1999,p. 9).
I have quoted a longer than necessary section so that Hutchinson can't accuse me of quoting out of context, and I have emphasized in italics what I said in reference to his comment about Phelps.Now here is exactly what he said about Phelps in his first article.
Maybe Fred Phelps has always personally hated homosexuals and merely uses the Bible to give an air of legitimacy to his hatred.He would not be the first to do so.Mr. Till would not be the first skeptic to mistake a casual relationship for a causal relationship. Skeptics can be heavy on emotion and short on logic ("Who's to Blame? More Hype Than Substance," May/June 1999, p. 8, emphasis added).
So just how did I misrepresent Hutchinson, and why wasn't what I quoted "exactly what [he] said"?I can see why he decided that it would be best not to quibble on this point.
Is Christianity responsible for "all kinds of evil"? Hutchinson accused me of claiming that Christianity is responsible for "all kinds of evil," but I have never said any such thing. I will stick by my claim that it has been responsible for numerous moral atrocities throughout its history, but certainly it has not been responsible for all of the atrocities committed in the part of the world it has dominated for the past several centuries.Unfortunately, as long as there are humans on the planet, there will always be atrocities regardless of what religions control the regions where they occur. However, the fact that Christianity has not been responsible for all atrocities in no way means that it has not been responsible for many atrocities.Hutchinson cannot wave aside Christianity's bloody past with just a fleeting comment about the Salem witch trials, like the "persecution of day care providers in late 20th century Massachusetts," having been "marked by hysteria and wild accusations."I would never dispute that the Salem witch trials were marked by hysteria, but it was a religious hysteria that occurred at a time when witchcraft was denounced from pulpits and the trials of "witches" were condoned by influential clergymen like Cotton Mather, and in a region that came the closest to being a Christian theocracy as any government ever established in the American colonies.This was a colony that exiled religious dissidents like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, openly persecuted Quakers, and eventually banished them too, under penalty of death if they returned.After she was banished for antinomian views and later became a Quaker, Mary Dyer was hanged when she returned to Boston.Mary Latham, an 18-year-old girl, was hanged for the crime of adultery.Are we to assume that it was merely coincidental that acts like these happened in a colony where a book that prescribed the death penalty for adultery and "false worship" was venerated?It's hard to study the history of early New England and exonerate Christianity of any blame for the religious persecutions that happened when government was under the control of a Puritan establishment.
Hutchinson left untouched the information that I included about the persecutions and executions of "heretics" that happened during the inquisition, except to say that my "reference to inquisitions and other persecutions add nothing to [my] argument" (p. 7).The inquisitions were sanctioned and authorized by official decrees of the church, but, of course, this adds nothing to my argument.If Hutchinson should produce records that clearly tied Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian atrocities to the atheistic views of communist leaders, you can bet that he would soundly denounce me if I should say that his references to this evidence "add nothing to his argument."
He ended with a biblically inspired barb: "Of skeptics such as Till, it
could be said that they are ever learning and never able to come to the
knowledge of the truth."Needless to say, I disagree.In my case, I'm
thoroughly convinced that when I was a preacher, I was "ever learning"
and finally able to come to the truth. I have little hope that this
will ever happen to Hutchinson. He seems doomed to live out his life
ever trying but never able to defend his absurd belief in biblical
inerrancy.
