On Doubt and Reasoning

As I visit  a local bookshop here in Manila, I stumbled on one of Joyce Mayer (that popular Christian author and TV Evangelist) books. I think it's called "Battlefields of the Mind." It's a devotional book intended for the Christian audience, but what sparked my interests was that chapter on doubt and disbelief.

Clashes in Genesis

“In many cultures, it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course, ask next where God comes from.” - Carl Sagan (Cosmos p. 212)

Most Christians criticized the theory of evolution for being merely a theory, but not known to many, Christians can't even agree on what "creation process" they will believe in.

Different types of Christian Creation Process.

Q: Do All Christians agrees on the creative process?

Not all Christians believe in a single creative process. Interestingly, Evangelicals, Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians don’t agree with one another with respect to the original creative process.

The creative processes on Genesis are the following:
a.) Progressive Creation (Day-Age Theory)
b.) Gap Theory (Ruin-Reconstruction Theory)
c.) Theistic Evolution

Q: What is Progressive Creation?

Progressive Creation, AKA Old Earth creationism.

Progressive Creationists present God as doing many more creative miracles. That is, God creates the world in numerous progressive steps. That is why this belief is called "Progressive Creation" or "Process Creation." More commonly, some advocates of an old Earth, in an attempt to harmonize mainstream science with biblical literalism, hold that the six days referred to are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years); the Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of a progressive creation, or sometimes a summary of life's evolutionary history. This view is often called "Day-Age Creationism".

Although there is little widespread agreement among Progressive Creationists, they generally believe the following:

• The "Big Bang" is interpreted as God's way of producing stars and galaxies through billions-of-years of natural processes.
• The Earth and universe are billions of years old.
• The days of Creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
• Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of Creation and were not the result of Adam's sin.
• Man was created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had already taken place.
• The flood of Noah was local, not global, and it had little effect on the Earth's geology, which represents billions of years of history.

It is obvious then that Progressive Creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism. The teachings of Progressive Creationism are not new or original, but only recently have the views of Progressive Creationism received unprecedented wide and favorable publicity through Christian radio, television and magazines. Because Progressive Creationists often present their views as being based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, they have been invited to speak at numerous prominent evangelical churches, schools and ministries.

Another concern for many Christians is the Progressive Creationist belief that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 can be legitimately understood as long, undefined periods of time.

Q: What is the Gap Theory?
According to the Gap Theory, Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the heavens and the earth, but then there is a "gap" of millions or billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2:
Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1:2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

There are different variations of the Gap Theory, but there seems to be a common belief that there was a "pre-Adamite" race of people who lived on earth during this "gap," long before Adam and Eve were created.

In addition, there were many other forms of life on earth during this "gap," such as dinosaurs and other creatures and plants which have been found in the fossil record. The basic idea is that the fossil record and many of the geological changes which have taken place on the earth are remnants from this "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Since many scientists tell us that it would have taken millions of years for the fossil evidence and the geological evidence to have been formed, the Gap Theory seems to provide Christians with a way to fit these "geologic ages" into the Bible while still believing in the six literal days of Creation and while denying the theory of evolution.

The basic Gap Theory goes on to say that there was a cataclysm of some kind which killed all life on earth and which left the earth "without form and void" and completely covered with water, and this water is "the deep" over which the Spirit of God hovered in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the Gap Theory says that the "six days of Creation" in Genesis are not actually six days of Creation, but rather they are six days of re-creation after the cataclysm which destroyed the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. For this reason, this theory is sometimes referred to as the Ruin and Reconstruction Theory. People who believe this theory tend to speculate that the "great cataclysm" which ruined the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was caused in some way by the devil being cast down out of heaven.

Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, was perhaps the man most responsible for the gap theory. (W.W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Collinsville, IL: Burgeners Enterprises, 1976), p. 40.)

The idea can be traced back to the rather obscure writings of the Dutchman Episcopius (1583-1643), and was first recorded from one of Chalmers' lectures in 1814. Rev. William Buckland, a geologist, did much to popularize the idea.

Although Chalmers' writings give very little information about the gap theory, many of the details are obtained from other writers such as the 19th century geologist Hugh Miller, who quoted from Chalmers' lectures on the subject.

This ruin-reconstruction view is held by many who use Bible study aids such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible.
The most notably influential 19th century writer to popularize this view was G.H. Pember, in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, first published in 1884. Numerous editions of this work were published, with the 15th edition appearing in 1942.

The 20th century writer who published the most academic defense of the gap theory was the renowned Canadian anthropologist, Arthur C. Custance. Custance produced Without Form and Void (1970), which many consider the ablest defense of the Gap Theory ever put into print.

The basic reason for developing and promoting the gap theory can be seen from the following very telling quotes:
Scofield Study Bible: Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.
Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.

The above quotes are typical of the many compromise positions -- accepting so-called "science" and its long ages for the earth, and incorporating this into Scripture.

The Gap Theory has had, and continues to have, numerous supporters. George H. Pember, in Earth’s Earliest Ages (1876), advocated the Gap Theory. Harry Rimmer, in Modern Science and the Genesis Record (1937), helped popularize the theory. George DeHoff advocated the theory in Why We Believe the Bible (1944). 

J.D. Thomas, former chairman of the Bible Department at Abilene Christian University, has stated that “no man can prove that it is not true, at least in part” (1961, p. 54). The popular Scofield Reference Bible was first published in 1909; by 1917, it contained a reference to the Gap Theory in the footnotes accompanying Genesis 1. In more recent editions, references to the theory may be found as a footnote to Isaiah 45. John Clayton has accepted major portions of the Gap Theory, but has added to and deleted from the theory to produce what has come to be known as the Modified Gap Theory (see Clayton, 1976, pp. 147-148; Thompson, 1977, pp. 192-194; McIver, 1988, 8[3]:1-23; Jackson and Thompson, 1992, pp. 114-130).

Arguments Presented in Support of the Gap Theory
Advocates of the Gap Theory base their beliefs on several arguments, a summary of which is given here; comments and refutation follow.

Gap theorists suggest that the word bara (used in Genesis 1:1, 21, 27) must mean “to create” (i.e.: ex nihilo creation), while the word asah cannot mean “to create,” but rather means “to make.” Therefore, the original creation was “created”; the creation of the six days was “made” (i.e., “made over”).
Gap theorists suggest that the Hebrew verb hayetha (translated “was” in Genesis 1:2) should be rendered “became” or “had become”—a translation required in order to suggest a change of state from the original perfect creation of the chaotic conditions implied in verse 2.

Gap theorists believe that the “without form and void” of Genesis 1:2 (tohu wabohu) can refer only to something once in a state of repair, but now ruined. Pember accepted these words as expressing “an outpouring of the wrath of God.” Gap theorists believe that the cataclysm that occurred was on the Earth, and was the direct result of Satan’s rebellion against God. The cataclysm, of course, is absolutely essential to the Gap Theory. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-17 are used as proof-texts to bolster the theory.

Gap theorists believe that Isaiah 45:18 (“God created the earth not in vain”—tohu; same word translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2) indicates that the Earth was not tohu at the initial creation. Therefore, they suggest, Genesis 1:2 can refer only to a judgment brought upon the Earth by God.
Gap theorists generally believe that there was a pre-Adamic creation of both non-human and human forms—a position adopted to account for the fossils present in the geologic strata.

C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). (Originally published as The Scofield Reference Bible, this edition is unaltered from the original of 1909.)F.H. Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1961), p. 51.

Q: What is Theistic Evolution?
Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. Theistic evolution believes that new species of animals develop from existing species over a very long interval of time, in response to the guidance, supervision, and intervention of a deity.

Famous theistic evolutionists included Asa Gray, Darwin's correspondent, and Henry Drummond, whose Ascent of Man was a popular apologetic work of the 1890s. Among modern proponents of theistic evolution are theologian John Haught and astronomer Howard J Van Till.

God, Haughtiness and Alex Gonzaga

It has been what? May 31 I think and Alex has already been thrown out of Kuya's house, but still the issue was not settled. There were no apology on her camp- Aha! Vanity! Anyway, I really don't want to give too much importance to this "has been" just to resurrect her dead showbis career (does she have a career in the first place?)

So instead let us just concentrate on what she said.

So, according to this Alex Gonzaga, a non-believer (obviously, she's talking about those who doesn't believe her God and Jesus - Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists) deteriorates easily if they have  problems and they become alcoholics, addicts criminals... what?

Hmmm... a lot of actors and actresses like her goes to drugs, illicit sex and some even commit suicide. Don't tell me that they're all atheists?

Now, why would you say that any person who doesn't believe in God can easily deteriorate into drug addicts or a life of crime...uh...any data to support this Ms. Gonzaga?

Well, I cannot really blame her of having such a prejudice remarks. Christians are so bigot when it comes to people who doesn't share their faith - some kind of a "holier than thou" attitude. Ms. Alex Gonzaga is just acting Christian-like. They think that when someone lose faith, it's a downhill life ahead.

No need to say that there are more Christian criminals inside national penitentiaries than non-believers. No need to remind her that it all about the attitude not the religious belief. No need to tell her that the Bible is more hedious compare to Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. She will never listen anyway... she already closed her mind that what she believed is true. Fucked up, holier than thou religious, self-righteous bi...

Nah...

Atheism on the march... and JW's were pissed. (Part 2)

It seems the Jehovah’s Witnesses are now affected by the "atheist scare" huh? In the latest Awake! (November 2010) they featured some stories about their issue against atheism.

These anti-atheist articles came out last September 2010.

The  first article is saying atheists are in a sort of "crusade". Crusade?

Ah OK...so atheists can't keep their view to themselves, say whom? Ah, those Jehovah's Witnesses who has this tradition of systematic, door-to-door sales pitch. They just love knocking to your gates in a peaceful Saturday morning to give you their magazines and try convincing you that the Jewish God name is "Jehovah."

These Jehovah's Witnesses who is knocking at your doors and doing the sales pitch not the atheists. In addition, what is the issue about atheist books? Why not write a JW best seller? Oh,  I get it, they seem to be having a hard time convincing people that it is a sin to salute to the American flag and to accept blood donations huh? Well...blame Red Cross not us atheists.

Moreover, when did we bully the agnostics? It seems the JW's doesn’t know that atheism and agnosticism can share a bed together. The issue here is, as Christopher Hitchin saw it, is how religion poison everything. This is beyond having a god belief or knowledge.

If a person believes that the gods are beyond human knowledge, then so be it. The only issue the New Atheists have with agnostics is that atheists now have factual evidences on the improbability of god. However, there is nothing wrong being an agnostic. Agnosticism will not make a person ram a jet plane into a building.

Whose Side Do You Think Time Will Vindicate?

The JW article poses two questions:

1.1. Is the belief in a Creator intrinsically harmful?

2.2. Would universal atheism makes for a better world?

Do these questions answer atheistic issues, or are the Jehovah Witnesses barking at the wrong tree? Let us explore them and, separate the fictions from the facts, and please...lets us have some ounces of honesty here.

Now, does believing in a Creator intrinsically harmful? It depends. If a person believes that a certain god ordered his people to refuse blood, thus letting her child die because of lack of blood, we have a problem.

In addition, what is this about “universal atheism?” Atheists are not interested with a so-called “universal atheism.” They just want to satisfy their skepticism towards religious claims. The issue here is not to proselytize atheism,  but free inquiry. When talking about something as “universal,” atheists are more interested on secularization: that church and state should be separated and that political decision should be based on reason rather than revelation.

I was wondering about this write-up on God’s view towards religious atrocities. Reading this gives me an impression; the people at Watch Tower are justifying God’s brutal action against the Canaanites.

In any case, the issue here is religious atrocities.

Besides, what is the difference between the Hebrews and the Canaanites when it comes to child sacrifices? The Hebrews were guilty of the same barbaric practice (See: Exodus 22:29-30 and Judges 11:39). According to Susan Niditch, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.” (War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence p. 5)

So child sacrifice is only evil to Jehovah when it is done in the name of foreign gods huh?

Going back to the subject. So what are religious atrocities? I define it as violence and killing done in the name of God and the article seems to be skipping the subject altogether.

The next article (A WORLD WITHOUT RELIGION—AN IMPROVEMENT?) deals with the issue of a godless society. Again, the author seems to imply the connection of being morally good and believing in God. There are even pictures of something from Nazi death camps and Pol-Pot’s ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia.

Is there a connection?

It seems the article was implying that communism is synonymous with atheism. The JW article was quite misinformed on the issue. The crime committed by Pol-Pot has nothing to do with theological debates. The “Killing Fields” was about politics and ethnic cleansing, not atheistic.

So let us answer the question, is a society without religion an improvement? Oh…eh wait a minute there folks! This is a little bit of a tricky question. It seems the people at Watch Tower are ignorant to the fact that religion is not synonymous with god – belief. Maybe the better question is “if a society without a belief in a personal God an improvement?”

Well… we can study the statistics of a secular nation like Japan, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. Now these nations do have religion, yet they seem to be too secular to bring God in their everyday issues. Happy, successful and almost crime-free even if these countries do not care what Jehovah has to say.

Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism , ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005).

Religion is not the only reason why people kill other people… I agree, but it is “the reason” why a religious fanatic will blow himself together with innocent civilians as ordered by his “Holy Scripture.” As what Baise Pascal has already said, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction” and as Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg observed, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Religion can impose a certain action in which believers think of it as a duty the pious has to perform in order to please their gods. That is why good Christians blow-up abortion clinics, good Muslims can destroy and vandalized national heritage sites (like what the Taliban did to the Bamiyan Buddha in Afghanistan) and good God believing families can attack and kill AFT agents (like what happened in Waco, Texas).

Morality Requires God

Does atheism mean relative morality as what Law Professor Philip Johnson (who is he?) says? Well, according to this certain Mr. Johnson, “No God means no accountability to a divine authority, as well as no objective values which we are obligated to respect, morality thus becomes relative, with each person determining his own standards-if he chooses to have any.”

Now, it seems this Johnson fellow thinks that the standard of morality can only come from divine authority. That is not true. Before humans have invented religion, we already have a standard source of ethics…if not our ancestors may have already killed each other. Such a standard is significant in the formation of a working society.

Not every atheist on this planet believed in a relative morality. Good examples are Paul Kurtz, Michael Martin and Wielenberg. Others say that the structure of moral theory is objective, yet its practice requires an input of subjective values (Steele 2008).

Yet by looking at it, the view that “morality” is objective seems to suggest that what is right or wrong can be ascertained by purely factual investigation, and if that is true, that would imply that a divine authority is no help in determining what’s right and what’s wrong.

Now the problem with Philip Johnson’s accountability to a divine authority is that he knew that God is all-good by a standard of God’s own decree thus making mortality arbitrary.

To convince their readers that belief in a god is somewhat scientific,  they have to place a certain celebrity – a guy who converted from being an atheist then converting to something else. Therefore, what is the best person to use? Why THEN, it is ex-atheist Anthony Flew (applause! applause!)

According to the article, Flew was convinced that there is a God because of science. What? Well… he was convinced that the universe, the law of nature, and life itself could not have arisen merely by chance. That is according to the JW article, but not from Flew himself.

The obvious reason why Flew headed in that direction is that he was a philosopher and not a scientist. Because of his ignorance with chemistry, physics, and biology, Flew was convinced by the so-called irreducible complexity. This has nothing to do with science. (See: Flew’s Flawed Science – Victor J. Stenger February/March 2005 Free Inquiry Vol. 25 No. 2)

The JW article is implying that an intelligent first cause was the start of everything. Intelligent… that means it is a person perhaps. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses booklet entitled “Is The Bible really the word of God?” (Watch Tower Bible 1969) on page 17, “Interestingly, there seems to be one point on which most modern scientists agree following Einstein’s equation, the hold that just as matter can be converted into energy, so energy can be converted into matter. If this is so, it would mean that an Intelligent Source of tremendous energy would have no problem in producing a material universe… the Bible speaks of that One as Jehovah God.”

OK, so all the energy in the universe came from an outside source, which is a god-person, called Jehovah, right? Yet the JW article did not explain to us what the proofs that this Jehovah was the source. It can be many things. In addition, the Law of the conversation of mass-energy simply state that mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed and the total energy in the universe is constant. That means energy can become mass (matter) and vice versa yet the total energy in the universe remains the dame. It is fixed.

If there is a so-called “source” outside the Universe, then that means, there will be an increase of the amount of energy every time the “source” released it, but that will contradict the laws of physics and… oh wait, the Intelligent First Cause can break any physical constraints in nature by making a miracle. Yeah, right… good science indeed!

It is quite amusing for a Cambridge professor to appeal to his ignorance on the subject of evolution. Anyway, the JW article seems to fail to mention what are those “many ways” in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment. Since this Awake! article didn’t mention them, we may look at what the Jehovah’s Witnesses believed in.

The Jehovah Witnesses believe that the 6 days in Genesis mean a thousand years per “day” (based on Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8) They are even that specific to say that each “day” was 7,000 years in length. This is known as the Concordist Interpretation and its first proponent was Hugh Miller (1869).

The real reason for this is to reconcile science with their doctrine. How is that possible? Since geology has been proving the fallacy of a 6000-year-old Earth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses took this interpretation so that it can settle Genesis with recent scientific discoveries.

Yet even with this interpretation of the scriptures, they must explain to their readers the following problems:

1. Did planet Earth come first before the stars, the moon, and the Sun? Reading Genesis 1, we see that the Earth came first and other heavenly bodies followed on the fourth (or should I say, after 28,000 years) day.

2. Vegetations came first before the Sun, so did the green plants survive even without sunlight for 7,000 years? According to one of their booklets, plant life survived on planet Earth through “lightless photosynthesis” – for 7000 years?

Who’s Blind?

What does “blind chance” have to do with atheism?

If Jehovah does not exist, does it follow that everything existed because of chance?

Contrary to the Jehovah Witnesses suggestion, there are many options.

Bear in mind that the questions of existence are answered by “the best guesses” we can come up. We can assume that a supernatural, intelligent being named Jehovah created the material universe or we can assume that a natural event formed it. However, a natural explanation of cosmology is not blind chance as renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” He also added, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

Is the First Cause Intelligent?

In the Awake! article, the First Cause is brought up on the issue of the origin of the universe and the evolution of life on Earth. Now, is First Cause a good argument to prove that Jehovah exists? Is it good science?

Ok, according to this argument:

1. Everything that exists has a cause

2. There is no infinite regression of causes; therefore there is an uncaused cause (a First Cause).

3. This First Cause is Jehovah.

Notice that the First Cause argument does not really answer the question. Why is the “First Cause” Jehovah? What is the explanation for that? That is not scientific. In fact, it only reflects the ignorance on scientific methodology.

True science requires explanations. As philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) has pointed out that what we assume to be the first cause may just as well be due to the ignorance of the cause and explanation of an event. It is a flaw of utilizing a principle beyond its valid range of application. The same issue was deeply expounded by Bertrand Russell in a debate with Father Copleston. According to Russell, the contingency argument rest in the misconception of what an explanation is and does and what makes it intelligible.

It is not surprising for the Jehovah Witnesses to use quotations from the Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton to discredit evolution. Dr. Denton was an influential proponent of Intelligent Design and was a former Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement. So that is self-serving huh?

They also forgot to say that Dr. Denton is known on recanting his own words. In his second book “Nature’s Destiny ”, Denton took back his earlier anti-evolutionary stand. He now believes that the Fine Tuning argument does not only imply cosmological evolution, but it also implies biological evolution (I wonder why the Watch Tower did not quote from Dr. Denton’s new book?).

The issue here is not faith but about natural or supernatural origin. Did the natural universe start to exist via natural method or with a help from a supernatural being named Jehovah? Maybe the Awake! article has a lot more to explain.

New scientific discoveries by prominent physicists and cosmologists are pointing to a direction that a natural origin of the universe is plausible. (For more discussion of the subject (see: Atkatz, David and Pagels, Heinz. "Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event," in Physical Review D, 25 (1982), pp.2065-2073. ... "Birth of Inflationary Universes," in Physical Review D, 27(1983), pp. 2848-2855).

So after reading the whole magazine...well...where's the beef? Where is the refutation against atheism? Oh I know...it is invisible to human eyes...

I thought so.

Read more: From The AWAKE! Magazine: IS ATHEISM ON THE MARCH? by The Atheist Geek

Atheism on the march...and JW's were pissed.

Have you ever encountered those annoying people who will knock on your door in a peaceful Saturday morning to convince you to…er… nope I’m not talking about Electrolux salesmen and Avon ladies. I am talking about those members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Now, these traveling salesmen of faith are saying to atheists to keep their ideas to themselves. What? Wait a minute there buddy, who’s the one tapping on windows to give (or sell) those nifty little magazines and pamphlets?


In their November 2010 issue, it seems the Watchtower Society has a lot to say about atheism (really?). Oh…yes it was on the Awake! Magazine. You know…that magazine who said that the Bible has 50,000 errors…I think it is their September 8, 1957 issue. Anyway, let see why atheism is pissing them off.


Let’s talk about what this Jehovah’s Witnesses are first.


Like those other Christian churches, JW (I’ll just call it JW, to save typing space) claims that they will restore Christianity to its original doctrines and practices. The organization adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931 to emphasize the belief that the most accurate translation of the personal name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures is “Jehovah” (Ps. 83:18), and that as believers, they are his “witnesses” (Is. 43:10; Acts 1:8). Charles Taze Russell and his associates (whoever they are) founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1872. Russell’s church was called Millennial Danism and later as The International Bible Students.


Russell’s doctrines were heavily influenced by G. Jonas Wendel (1815 - 1873),  a zealous Adventist who believed that Christ Second Coming would happen in 1874. In Chapter 5 pp. 43-44 of his book Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914) Russell said, “The twig, though, had been trained by God-fearing parents; it was inclined "in the direction of the Lord." 


While he was searching for the “truth” in 1869, something happens that reestablished Charles’ faith. According to the story, while walking along near the Russells’ store on Federal Street, Charles heard religious singing coming from a basement hall. In his own words, this is what took place: Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists [Advent Christian Church], the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell . . . Thus, I confess indebtedness to Adventists as well as to other denominations.”


So that it how it all started…then came those prophesies.


It seems Russell has this habit of not keeping his doctrine straight – he keeps changing his prophetic claims. He claimed that believers would be ‘called away bodily’ in 1878 but when this didn't happen he corrected his ‘explanation’, saying what he really meant (?) is that believers that die in the year 1878 and onwards will go straight to Paradise instead of waiting for the Second Coming of Christ in their graves.


He also said that you could gain enlightenment just by reading his 6-volume Studies in the Scriptures – Yes! You do not need to study the Bible.


In 1908 to 1916, he sold his ‘Miracle Wheat’ through the pages of his Watchtower Magazine. For your information, this Miracle Wheat was 60 times the price of ordinary wheat (at $60 a bushel!). The Brooklyn Eagle exposed this fraud.


In a court case that Russell filed against Reverend J.S. Ross of Hamilton, Ontario, he claimed (under oath) that he understands Greek, but it was proven in court that he did not even know the Greek alphabet.


Russell (again) claimed that Christ will return in 1914, and the resurrection of the ‘heavenly organization’ will follow in 1918 (and believing that the “Great Pyramid of Gizeh” was “God’s stone witness” which proved Russell’s claims that “the time of the end”). Again, nothing happened, but Russell was a very stubborn man. He again insisted that Jesus did return…invisible to human eyes (Oh for crying out loud!). Nevertheless, he keeps on yapping about the end times that will occur in 1915 and 1916. In fact, Watchtower has a history of proclaiming the end of the world on several dates: 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1940’s, and in 1975.


Russell believed that all 144,000 members of the JW have a place in heaven. This caused a problem when church membership swelled. New York attorney Joseph Rutherford, who replaced Russell after his death in 1916 wrote a ‘new’ seventh volume of Studies in the Scripture announcing that once heaven is full, the excess members of the church will re-populate the new Earth.


When Rutherford died in 1942, he was succeeded by Nathan Homer Knorr, who commissioned a new translation of the Bible – the New World Translation that incorporated all the JW doctrines.

Strange Christian Logic again...

Hayz! Have these Christians forgotten that there are Christians out there that believes in evolution?

As Dr. Francis Collins has said, "The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful - and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.” 
― Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Photo for today: Let me just remind you that...

These people needs food, not a leather-bound book full of Jewish and Roman fairy-tales. 

Jesus Who?

If you entered a Christian chat room or if you engage a talk to any Christian, the first thing he will do is to make sure you accept Jesus as your personal Savior.

Jesus who?

Oh, come on you gotta be kidding me?

Most of the readers may think that I am fooling around if I say that I do not really know whom this Jesus H. Christ is. In the first place, this Jesus is so popular like the Marlboro Man and the Beatles, it is quite impossible to say that you do not know who this Jesus is.

N. Geisler even wrote some chapters on his fundy book, “When Skeptics Ask” devoted to this Jesus character and even compares Jesus to other religious or philosophical people. Therefore, this Jesus person is that important huh. Talk about being a big shot!

Most Christians that I have chatted on the Internet asked me what is it like to live without Jesus Christ in my life and they always insisted that Jesus has already done something special in my life;  Now here’s my answer, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP and lots of it. That statement can really piss off any Christian.

And to top it all, Christians still insist that he is a god. So how can I say something like that? Maybe Christians who are reading my blog might say that I’m just being unfair, biased and they will never tolerate someone that trash talks their Savior.

Oh come on, I’m just saying facts here.

So you think Jesus is really that important huh? OK, let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about Jesus.

HERE’S THE FACTS! This Jesus fellow never really contributed much to society in general.  On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics. He instituted no social programs. Being a god, he is supposed to be "omniscient," he could have shared some useful technology or medicine to the Hebrews, yet he appeared ignorant of such things. Let’s put this statement in a more specific manner.

According to Christian legend, Jesus was born in the time when Palestine was under the rule of Rome. At those times, slavery prevails and very common. I was just wondering. What did Jesus say or did to abolish slavery? What’s worst, Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves. (Luke 12:47). He never denounced servitude, but quite the contrary, incorporated the master-slave relationship into many of his parables.

Also, what did Jesus did to bring about something in the issue of International Relation  Surely, Christian says that Jesus was God, so is it impossible for a god to talk to the Roman authorities and knock some senses in their heads? Well, today the United Nations is capable of putting conquering states at bay. I wonder why a god could not accomplish this feat.

Jesus did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying, "Ye have the poor with you always" (Mark 14:3-7).

Does Jesus do something to champion woman emancipation, women’s right and intolerance toward other culture? No women were chosen as his apostles or invited to the Last Supper. In Mark 7:27 ("But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. "). Imagine! Jesus equated non-Jews with dogs. It looks like Jesus teaches intolerance towards other religion and culture. Now just imagine what kind of a person will instruct his followers to kill in front of him those who don’t want him to be king  (Luke 19:27). By relating this incident, Jesus is implicitly condoning executions!

Christian believers say that Jesus turned water into wine, have healed the sick and resurrected the dead. Wow! Great feats of miracles! But when did this god-man turned health contagious? Did Jesus eradicate leprosy? Scientists, which are not gods, have eradicated smallpox. So what disease did this god-man have wiped out when he was on earth? What he taught to his disciples was that sickness were caused by demons possessing our body or you need God’s forgiveness to be cured of your illness instead of teaching people that diseases are caused by tiny life forms called “germs”, and proper hygiene can lessen the chances of having a disease. Christians say that Jesus made the blind to see and the lame walk again. Has he taught the Hebrews how to cure polio or glaucoma? Has he taught the Israelites how to cure different ailments using simple medicinal herbs?

How about teaching the Hebrews of turning dirty desert water into drinkable table water or a new agricultural technology that will make fig trees bear fruits even if it’s not fig season? All I have read so far in the Gospel is that Jesus knows how to curse fig trees. Does short time miracles really the only solution this god-man knows?

Now for Christians, Jesus is the sacrifice God uses to take away the sins of the world. Hmmmm.. According to Jewish belief, you need to kill an animal to serve as a burnt offering for your sins. Does this mean Jesus is as good as a sacrificial goat? Besides, after Jesus was offered as a sacrifice like a temple animal to please God wrath to humanity, still sin is around every corner. Nothing really changed that much.

Christians will tell you that Jesus was sent to us so we may have everlasting life. That is why it is very important to know Jesus. Yet the same Bible said to us that, “As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more” - JOB 7:9 and "Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal....all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" - Eccle. 3:19-21 NIV.

You will have a perfect idea about Jesus’ credibility after reading most of his self- prophecies concerning his eminent return or second-coming as Christians called it. In Matthew 24:27-34 Jesus gave his disciples a complete picture of his return. According to Jesus “…This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”. Now, when Jesus spoke of this prophesy, he was talking to his disciples, right. Therefore, when he said “this generation,” he was not speaking of generation circa 2014. He was speaking of their generation! Jesus strongly stated this prophecy would be fulfilled in the lifetime of his generation. Now, nearly 2,000 years have passed still no sign of his second coming. Used primarily to frighten the wits of Christians into compliance, this prophecy now exposes a gigantic falsehood. The Son of man has not come as he predicted. Generation after generation has passed away and the prophet of Nazareth stands convicted as an imposter. It is more specific than most predictions and so provides a good test of the reality of Christ's pretenses.

Again by flipping the pages of the New Testament we see JOHN 5:25 ("I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live...."). Another false prophecy by Jesus! "And now is" shows that this was to occur at that time. (Also see: MATT. 16:18, Matt. 10:23, Mark 9:1) Christian apologetic attempts to apply the word "generation" to the Jewish people and that Jesus was speaking about the “last days” on those other chapters and verses. However, modern scholars said that this “prophecy” is said to happen about 80-90 CE.

In Mark 14:62, Jesus told the chief priests, “ Ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand power and coming in the clouds of heaven”. Yet the chief priests have been dead for 2000 years or more, never lived to see Jesus coming from the cloud of heaven.

Now in a last ditch effort, a Christian might try to convince me about Jesus based on his moral teachings. According to Mr. Norman Geisler, Jesus moral was superior compare to Buddha, Lao Tse and Socrates. A certain person even tried to persuade me on liking this Jesus character because he claims Jesus taught us the Golden Rule. But Whoa! Wait a minute there. The Golden Rule is a universal rule and people like Confucius have already taught us that rule 3000 years before Jesus.

But does Jesus really have a superior moral standard?

1. "While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not at first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, `Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also?...woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done...'" (Luke 11:37-44 RSV).

Now this is an example of blatant rudeness! Imagine talking like this to someone in his house after he invited you to dine with him. Even if it were true, common decency dictated a more refined approach.

2. "So the devils besought him saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out they went into the herd of swine; and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters" (Matt. 8:31.32).

What had the owner or owners done to have their property destroyed by Jesus? What had the animals done to deserve such treatment? What happened to animal rights, huh?

3. "Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?" (Luke 19:30-33).

Are we to believe this isn't stealing? Imagine seeing an unfamiliar person driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it.

4. "Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30).

This teaching is not only immoral, but erroneous as well. Jesus is saying that the reward for giving up your wealth and following him is far greater wealth; So that means people should do right in order to obtain personal gain, not because it is the right act to do. Self-aggrandizement is not a decent basis for morality.

5. "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, `Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.' But he answered and said unto them, `Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?'" (Matt. 15:1-3).

The statement “Why do ye also" is admittance by Jesus that his disciples were violating a commandment of God. He doesn't deny they are breaking God's law; he simply says that his critics are guilty of the same offense.

6. "then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat;..." (Matt. 25:41-42) and "when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee hencefoward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away" (Matt. 21:18-19).

Here Jesus failed to show the mercy his believers claim he has. An eternal curse resulting from disappointed hunger is hardly the reaction of a divinely merciful being equal to God. Killing a tree for lacking fruit isn't indicative of a reasonably merciful and composed individual.

7. "the Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drundard..." (Luke 7:34 RSV).

If this comment is true, and there is little evidence to the contrary, the Jesus' character is, indeed, substandard.

8. "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands..." (Mark 10:29-30).

Promising one's followers immense riches are actually a form of bribery.

9. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33) and "Jesus said unto him, `If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me'" (Matt. 19:21) and (Mark 10:21, Luke 3:11, 11:41, 12:35, 18:22) yet on Mark 2:15 it is said that "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house".

Jesus has a house while telling others to surrender their wealth.

10. Jesus said, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John 5:31) and later stated, "I am one that bear witness of myself..." (John 8:18). The logical conclusion to be drawn from combining these two statements is that Jesus disproved his own honesty.

11. Jesus told us to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:17 ("...hypocrites...ye are like unto whited sepulchers....") These are excellent examples of hypocrisy.

12. "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). "I am come to set man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36). When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus rebuked him by saying "Let the dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Jesus never used the word "family" and he never married or fathered children. To his own mother, he said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4).

So what kind of family value does this Jesus taught us?

13. Jesus said that whoever calls somebody a "fool" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt. 5:22), yet he called people "fools" himself (Matt. 23:17).

14. He appeared to suffer from a dictator's "paranoia" when he said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30).

And here are some more of Jesus so called “superior moral teaching”.

• Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (Matt. 5:32).

• Don't plan for the future (Matt. 6:34)

• Don't work to obtain food (John 6:27)

• Don’t save money (Matt. 6:19-20)

• Take the money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors (Luke 19:23-26)

• If someone asks you for anything, give it to them without question (Matt. 5:42)

• If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment (Matt. 5:40)

(Source: Biblical Errancy by Dennis McKinsey)

So when a Christian told me things about Jesus, and by comparing what history and Biblical mythology have to say about this person, I always ask the Christian back, “Jesus who?”