Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live

SKEPTIC: Halloween has come and gone, and the witches have all gone back home.

Now I don't know a whole lot about witches. I know that the Wicked Witch of the West was not a very nice person, but that Glinda, the Witch of the North, was beautiful and kind. But I'm a little confused as to the Christian view of witches. I know that the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18). I know that Pat Robertson and Sarah Palin apparently believe in witches. And I know that the Puritans were instrumental in bringing about the Salem Witch Trials.

But I was stunned to read recently of the atrocities being carried out in Africa in the name of Jesus. Christian pastors, taking the Biblical exhortation to heart, have been implicated in the torture and murder of hundreds of children who had been accused of being witches. I'm having trouble getting my head around that.

PREACHER: If you want to know more about witches you could probably even meet and interview someone who at least calls himself or herself that in many parts of the world. There would be a great variety, including those that would be considered benevolent, and those that would be considered malevolent by the various cultures that they live in. But, one thing they all would have in common would be their claim that they can manipulate the spiritual world to make things happen in the physical world. The "good" witches might be able to improve the weather or heal sickness, while the "bad" witches would be blamed for illnesses and natural disasters. The reason that the Bible condemns witchcraft is that it attempts to bypass God and tries to employ the cooperation of other spiritual forces to get what is wanted.

In seminary I was privileged to study under a sociology professor who was quite an expert on traditional African religions. He said that it was very common when there was a sickness or some other mishap in a village that it would be blamed on witchcraft. Many times vulnerable children or women would be picked out as the witch causing the problem. So, their deplorable application of Exodus 22:18 has mostly to do with their traditional world view. Here we have the terrible results of syncretism. They just added Jesus on to their old religious system without changing their core values. From the article you refer to, it says that the churches had proliferated so fast that the leadership in the organizations had not kept up with what kind of people were pastoring the churches. When there is poor teaching of Christian doctrines and principles, it is very possible for even pastors to have decided to be "Christians" only for material gain, kind of like the cargo cults in Papua New Guinea except with much more tragic results.

Yes, I am stunned and sickened, too by the atrocities that these pastors committed. As a Christian who believes in the absolute value of these children who have become their victims, I encourage all the church in that part of Africa to wake up to this terrible problem and put an end to it as soon as possible. And, I am sure that the real Christians there are already working hard to help the situation.

SKEPTIC: I can certainly understand how African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities, but is there not some sort of heirarchy within the church or a government authority to step in and put a stop to it? Unfortunately, the problem with the government, as seen in the Nightline videos above, is that they claim that accusing a child of being a witch is illegal "unless you have proof" that the child is a witch. Well, gee, that's helpful. I wonder exactly what kind of proof is required. Maybe we should employ the Monty Python method.

The heros in this story are those people who are providing safe havens for these child victims. But where is the voice of the church, either in Africa or elsewhere? Where is the condemnation and outrage? I don't see it.

The problem, of course, is that the Christian religion, with its beliefs in witches, evil spirits, demons, and other supernatural boogeymen, is a perfect fit for scam artists who see an opportunity to marry Christianity with traditional African beliefs for their own personal gain.

PREACHER: Well, I am glad that you realize that African witchcraft culture plays into the current atrocities. Unfortunately the government authorities in the country (Nigeria) where this is happening are having so many problems and many times are so corrupt that they aren't able to even keep up with a lot of the violence and injustice that is happening on a daily basis in their country. Since a lot of these churches are independent, they have no church hierarchy to answer to, or the church hierarchy if it exists at all is much like the government, inadequate and corrupt. I frequently read the reports from missionaries who actually live in this part of the world, and realize that chaos and ignorance reigns everywhere most of the time. There is a lot more bad stuff going on all the time in this area besides these pastors who have mistakenly accused children of witchcraft and tortured them. Then, Nigeria is one of the better countries to be in. I suppose when you are living in an environment where atrocities have become the norm, you just become numb to it. That may explain the apparent lack of condemnation and outrage. However as the news spreads - the date of the news article is rather recent - there will more appropriate reactions and action. I have included this link. It certainly is a start.

I am sure that many of those heroes who are providing safe havens for these children are Christians. There probably would be some good non-religious folks like you, too. I disagree that the problem is the Christian religion. The problem is the greed and ignorance of men. You certainly would disagree too if I said that your hallowed atheism with its belief in molecules-to-man evolution was the problem behind the mass murders committed by the command of notorious fascist and communist dictators in the twentieth century because they also believed what you believe.

SKEPTIC: You seem to have divided the Christian world into "real" Christians and "fake" Christians, and whenever a Christian does anything really bad (like torture and murder) he gets moved into the "fake" column. But I'm assuming that all Christian pastors (even these African pastors) preach the same core Christian message, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the atonement that it provides. But then, maybe that's the problem. When you've got a religion that celebrates the torture and murder of its central figure and whose most important icon is a torture device, maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when some pastors go off the deep end.

By the way, I'm still not clear if you personally believe in witches or not.

PREACHER: You seem to think that Christians invented torture. You certainly know that torture has been practiced all over the world from far back in history in almost every culture. If anything, Christians have been in the forefront of alleviating torture. Those pastors were doing what was just common practice in their culture, not getting their inspiration from the gruesomeness of the cross.

You also seem to be setting yourself up as a moral authority over the Christian religion. I don't think your world view qualifies you to be a moral authority. You can't even prove that torture or witchcraft is really wrong or not.

When you can meet a witch on the street, it isn't necessary to "believe in" them. Whether they have supernatural powers or not is another question. I don't think they really do.

SKEPTIC: Well, no, I don't think Christians invented torture, and I'm not setting myself up as a moral authority on anything. I'm perplexed as to why you assume such things, unless perhaps you're reading a different blog entirely.

Is the Bible Too Liberal?

SKEPTIC: Conservative Christians can rest easy. Their interests are being looked out for by one Andrew Schlafly who has come to the obvious conclusion that the Bible is way too liberal, and needs to be changed. As a result of his "revelation," he has come up with something called The Conservative Bible Project, and it's about time. Who needs all that talk about "social justice" and all that other liberal nonsense? Just get rid of it. And since we all know that liberals used way too many words in the Bible, the CBP will set about combatting "liberal wordiness," apparently by using fewer, shorter words that most conservatives can understand. The Biblical saboteurs do note that "liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds." So there you go - the secret is out. The real purpose of this project is to get those godless liberals to read their Bibles. I just hope they ran this by God before embarking on their little project. I'm not sure he'd approve.

PREACHER: Pardon me, but I think you are setting up a "straw man" here, at least to an extent. Bible scholars would agree that our best translations are not perfect. I would welcome this project to get another translation with yet another slant. I find comparing translations very helpful in understanding the text, even the ones that I know are not very good. And, aren't all translations from whatever political or theological slant they are from, prepared with the hope that they will be read? The secret is already out, so there is no deception here.

I find it very amusing that one who doesn't believe that the Almighty even exists would think He would approve or disappove of any project men may do. Assuming that you think what they are doing is wrong, then you have placed yourself as a moral authority over them. What are your qualifications?

SKEPTIC: I don't think what they're doing is wrong - it's just stupid. How can Christians believe that it's okay to desecrate their sacred book by deleting and changing the text to fit a conservative ideological viewpoint? But you bring up an interesting point when you talk about translations not being perfect and even slanted. Since the Bible is considered by Christians to be the inspired word of God, doesn't that mean that all the translations of that inspired text need to be inspired, too? And if the translations are inspired by God, how can they be imperfect or slanted? If I'm a Christian, why would I even want to read translated versions that aren't inspired by God - that are, essentially, just someone's imperfect opinion of what the text means. Does this mean that the only way to understand God's true meaning is to read the original Greek and Hebrew texts? Are they the only texts truly inspired by God?

Of course, once you realize that the Bible was written by men with political agendas who didn't actually have any God looking over their shoulders to make sure they got it all right, your brain won't have to hurt so much trying to figure everything out.

By the way, I'm glad you found my reference to God not approving this project amusing, because that's what I intended - or did you think I momentarily forgot that I didn't believe in God? But my point is valid, I think. If you believe in God, do you think he would approve of this drastic alteration of his sacred book?

PREACHER: You might be interested to know that good translators use very scientific methods to translate the Hebrew and Greek into our vernacular. (This is why I don't go along with the King James version only crowd.) As one who trusts in science (almost makes a religion out of it), shouldn't you appreciate that? Wouldn't you agree that the more scientifically the translation is done the better it is. Still the translations are done by men so no scholar would consider any translation without defect. They would all agree that only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were inspired. (Yes we have to take that by faith, just as you take by faith that God doesn't exist and the text is only the accounts of men back when it was written.) When the translators take too much liberty in expressing their bias, their translation is usually not accepted very well. One example in the past was the gender neutral bible. The Lord's prayer started out with, "Our Parent which art in Heaven." Before I can make a good judgment on the new conservative bible, I would like to get reviews from those who know their Hebrew and Greek better than I do.

SKEPTIC: So do you consider this conservative Bible to be a "good" translation? This guy wants to completely edit out the story of Jesus and the Adulteress because he thinks it's too liberal! (Funny, I always thought compassion, forgiveness and redemption were good Christian values. Apparently, they're just good liberal values. Go figure.) And by the way, this new conservative Bible is not being translated from the original texts, but rather from the English King James Version.

It's fascinating to me that you admit that only the original Greek and Hebrew texts were inspired by God, and that all the translations have "defects" in them. So I guess that Christians who rely on the various translations of the Bible to guide them are reading the uninspired and defective word of God. Maybe the Bible should be more accurately known as The Approximate Word of God.

To me, this project seems like a bastardization of the Bible, more than anything else. It's one man's attempt to force the Bible to conform to his political and cultural prejudices. I would think most Christians would be appalled at the nerve of this guy.

Letting Women Vote: Good Idea or Not?

SKEPTIC: Okay, this falls into the category of "crazy things conservatives say that even The Preacher couldn't possibly agree with."

John Derbyshire is a conservative writer over at National Review. He was interviewed recently on the Alan Colmes radio show and took the courageous position that this would be a better country if the right to vote for women was repealed. He claims that "women lean hard to the left" and reasons that we "got along like that (women not voting) for 130 years." So apparently he doesn't really mind if women vote, as long as they don't vote for Democrats. But at least he draws the line at bringing back slavery. I guess that's something.

PREACHER: You said it! I thnk the guy is totally out to lunch.There are plenty of women who are very conservative on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. You would think that he never heard of Sarah Palin.

SKEPTIC: I don't think he's talking about women candidates (although I'm sure he's against that, too). He's just saying that women shouldn't vote because they tend to vote Democratic (a contention which doesn't prove to be true historically, by the way). The still-crazyAnn Coulter said basically the same thing a couple of years ago. Conservative Gary D. Naler recently wrote a book called The Curse of 1920 (a reference to the year when women were given the right to vote),in which he explains how the women's rights movement (along with rock music) has completely destroyed the fabric of American life. The truth is, the Republican party is not all that woman-friendly. There are plenty of misogynists who, given their druthers, would insist that all women stay barefoot and pregnant at all times - and who wouldn't be marching in the streets if women somehow lost the right to vote.

PREACHER: If you look hard enough I suppose you can find both liberals and conservatives that are so busy countering their rivals that they begin saying and doing things that seem almost psychotic to the rest of us. The other day I saw clip of a religious service of people praying to President Obama, saying "Obama help us" instead of "Lord help us". Then we can make a "straw man" of our opponent and criticize him for what he isn't in the first place. If you listen to those speaking on both sides of an issue long enough, you discover a lot of "straw men" out there.

SKEPTIC: Truthfully, it's not all that hard to find conservatives who appear to be psychotic these days - from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to the teabaggers insisting that Obama is worse than Hitler and hey, he wasn't even born in America. And when the right claims to spot signs of psychosis on the left, more often than not, it turns out to be nothing like what it was represented to be.

Take your "Oh my God, they're praying to Obama" video as a perfect example. First of all, they are not saying "Obama," they are saying "O God." (I'll admit - even I was fooled the first time I watched the tape.) The only reason you hear "Obama" is because you want to hear "Obama" and "Obama" is printed on the screen. It's the power of suggestion. It's no different than how people hear messages when a tape is played backwards, but only after being told what to listen for. Also, the only reason it's not crystal clear is because people are not speaking in perfect synch, which allows people to imagine they're hearing something different. (By the way, even the website that originally posted this video has backed off their claim.)

Try this experiment. Close your eyes and tell yourself that you're going to hear "Obama." No doubt you'll hear "Obama." Now listen again, but this time tell yourself you're going to hear "O God." Guess what? You'll hear "O God," because that's what they were saying!

Here's the thing - liberals do NOT worship Obama. That is a meme that the right has been pushing incessantly in an attempt to denigrate the enthusiasm of those of us who support Obama. If you're wondering what actual presidential worship looks like, however, check out this clip from the documentary "Jesus Camp."

("Jesus Camp" can now be viewed online, in its entirety.)

The Evolution of God

(In the video above, Robert Wright is interviewed by Bill Moyers about his new book, The Evolution of God.)

PREACHER: I would like to commend Robert Wright on his definition of religion. It fits well with what I have always thought, that no one is really non-religious, because we all value something. I see religion simply as a way of valuing. And, since that way of valuing inevitably includes presuppositions about reality that can't be proven true or false for the time being, it also includes faith or believing something without conclusive evidence. The word non-religious can only be ascribed in the sense that one is not an adherent to a particular religious organization or tradition. Even Richard Dawkins materialistic belief system is compellingly religious and he is deluding himself to say it is not.

I also appreciate Robert's air of humility in admitting the inability of the human mind to really comprehend ultimate reality. It is too bad though that he has exchanged the One who communicates quite clearly about Himself for the meditation techniques of some Buddhist monks and a vague recognition that there might be something out there. He is a textbook case of a person who went through the motions of becoming a Christian at an early age and then rejected that tradition after he was exposed to "education". If when he was struggling with the creation vs. evolution issue, some real scientists with PhDs instead of a preacher with a Bible school education had come to talk with him about the issue he might have remained a Christian.

When we use such phrases as "the evolution of God", it assumes that God really doesn't exist, or if He does he has no connection with us. All our thoughts about Him start with us. And, those thoughts have evolved over the years to what they are today and they will continue to develop through a process of natural selection. This is a religious statement in the faith of a god that only exists in the minds of men. I choose to have faith in the One who has revealed Himself apart from the limitations of our minds, and He has progressivily revealed Himself to mankind at certain times in history, and will continue to do so in the future.

SKEPTIC: I think your definition of religion is interesting, but seems overly broad. I think the more common definition would be something like "a set of beliefs that are accompanied by certain dogma and usually has some sort of sacred text." So if that's the definition, it's clear that there are lots of non-religious people in the world. Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly what purpose is served in trying to delineate the matter further.

I'm confused when you talk about the Christian God as "the One who communicates quite clearly," when it's pretty obvious that the meaning of God's message is seen differently even within the Christian community, from denomination to denomination - a point Wright was eager to make in the video. If God has given us such a clear message, it's a mystery to me why there is such an abundance of different understandings of it.

I'm confounded by your third paragraph. First, you seem to denigrate "education," implying that it's fatally flawed or something, then you claim Wright might have remained a Christian if only some real scientists had explained evolution to him, instead of a preacher. Am I to understand that by "real" scientists, you mean scientists who have twisted themselves in knots in an attempt to reconcile scientific evolution with biblical creationism?

I think Wright's book sounds intriguing, and I plan to pick up a copy. I think it's clear that his bottom line is that he believes that Man created God and not vice versa. His explanation that religion first appeared on the scene as an attempt by Man to try to "explain to people why good things happen and why bad things happen, and how you increase the number of good things and the number of bad things" sounds pretty reasonable to me. More generally, I think it's a fair statement to say that religion came out of man's desire to understand those things that seemed incomprehensible to him. These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing. Wright's purpose appears to be to explain how man's perception of God has changed as our understanding of the world and the culture has changed.

PREACHER: I would contend that your atheism does fit your definition of religion. It is a set of beliefs and dogma that claim that God doesn't exist. One of many sacred texts would be Darwin's Origin of Species. Since it attempts to explain the origin of life forms apart from a creator, it is your account that replaces the first chapter of Genesis.

I would agree that there are parts of the Bible that are hard to understand and Christians differ on the what they mean. However, my point is that there are doctrines in the Bible that are very clear and Christians who still accept the Bible as their rule of faith and don't twist what it says agree on them. I suppose though, for someone who chooses to be blind, even that which is clear seems unclear.

I would consider any education that leaves out the Creator is fatally flawed from the start. I have listened to scientists who are from all sorts of persuasions within those who accept evolution (atheist to progressive creationism). They don't speak so confidently about evolution as you do. You are expressing a faith factor there, so that is what I call your religion. To say, "These days, when we have a much higher level of understanding, our need for religion is decreasing," assumes that the ancients were all ignorant superstitious people. I don't believe that. Man's need for religion hasn't decreased, but its content (including what G(g)od is supposed to be like) has changed. Isn't that what Wright is writing about?

SKEPTIC: I'm not sure exactly why it's so important for you to believe that atheism is a "religion." How does that bolster your position? To me, calling atheism a "religion" is a bit like calling baldness a hairstyle. And it seems rather Orwellian on your part to call me "blind" because I choose not to believe in fairy tales and then label my belief in evolution "faith." My dictionary says that "faith" is believing something to be true without evidence. I've got plenty of evidence to back up my belief. You have none. In fact, what you demonstrate is "blind faith."

As to your belief that ancient people were not ignorant and superstitious, I think it's pretty clear that they were. Not ignorant in the sense of being stupid, but ignorant in that they lacked a very large body of knowledge that we are fortunate enough to possess in the times we live in. And they certainly were superstitious in the way that they created the different religious myths, although perhaps not that much more than many people today.

PREACHER: I call atheism a religion because that is what it really is by the definition that I use. It is the definition that I have used ever since I took college level courses in comparative religions. It is a definition that fits all, so I like it and will continue to use it. My faith is not blind. Blind faith twists reality. True faith should and will be in alignment with reality. As for evidence, I use the same evidence that you use. The difference in our conclusions is based on the interpretation of that evidence. We both look at this visible world: I see an invisible Cause and you see nothing. We both look at science: I see a difference between scientific fact and scientific speculation, you lump them both together (not very scientific). We both look at history: I accept what it says unless proven wrong, you rewrite anything that doesn't fit neatly into your limited world view. Another aspect that we would consider to be more subjective would be personal experience. I can honestly say that I have experienced God. You can claim that I am deceived, but all you have is your inexperience.

Kirk and Ray's Excellent Adventure

SKEPTIC: The world's wackiest creationists, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, have decided that the best way to convince people that Charles Darwin doesn't know what he's talking about in Origin of Species is by giving out 100,000 free copies of Darwin's landmark book to college students around America. The only difference is that Comfort has written a 50-page "introduction" to the book explaining why the book the reader is about to read is totally bogus. It's a "Trojan Horse" approach to getting their message out, as the book appears to be a genuine "150th Anniversary Special Edition" with Charles Darwin's name the only one appearing on the book's cover. Some nonbelievers have suggested that perhaps they should pass out free copies of the Bible with a 50-page introduction by Richard Dawkins explaining why the book that follows is completely bogus. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

PREACHER: As the son of a PHD biologist who taught assuming evolution for most of his career, I appreciate this endeavor by Kirk and Ray to get Origin of Species into the hands of college students, so they can find out what it really says, beyond the simplistic explanations that they get in freshman biology. I would encourage non-believers to hand out free copies of the Bible with Richard Dawkins intro. Maybe they can try to look more honest by putting a disclaimer on the front cover in fine print. My point is there are too many college students out there that have never read either book. The only reason Kirk and Ray are wacky to you is because of your wacky world view. You assume that the physical realm is all that there is. I could never be so conceited and deluded as to claim that that which I cannot know by my senses doesn't exist.

SKEPTIC: Luckily, I guess I'm just conceited and deluded enough to rely on my senses to determine reality. Call me crazy. If God had really wanted everyone to believe in his existence, I guess he should have given us more than just five senses. I'm glad, though, that you agree with me that Kirk and Ray are being dishonest (not a very Christian virtue)by attempting to conceal their true agenda. Hopefully, college students are smart enough to know when they're being punked. By the way, there is a fascinating online project called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, in which every verse is scrutinized and thoroughly analyzed from a skeptic's point of view. Nothing covert about it. The intent is right in the title. Let Kirk and Ray write The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species. That would be lot more honest, not to mention more interesting.

PREACHER: As one who in a previous post suggested that he would be glad to have people worship him, I see that the "shoe" fits very well on you. I'm reminded of the blind man who was too proud to ask for help as he walked along a narrow road with ditches on both sides. After falling in and wallowing around in the mud for a few hours, he finally got humble enough to ask for help.

Thanks for the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It will be a very useful tool for me. I see that there are a number of good Christian sites that answer the writers claims. Eventually there may be a site that is called Answers to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Some of the categories might be: 1) scientifically unprovable assumption 2) seeing a problem that isn't really there 3) invalid claim to moral authority....

Although I don't know of a complete version of The Christian's Annotated Origin of Species yet, http://www.answersingenesis.org/ would be a good site to go to for such information. Their News to Note articles are always revealing the false assumptions in scientific articles that are written from an evolutionary bias.

SKEPTIC: I believe my point was that it's great to be worshipped, but kind of ridiculous to require anyone to do it. It would be like me requiring my cat to worship me in return for my affection (although I suspect he may see me as a God - after all, I am pretty awesome the way I can walk around and talk and use kitchen utensils. Not to mention the fact that I'm his sole source of food - he really should say grace to me before he chows down).

By the way, the imaginary website you describe actually exists (kind of). It's called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, although it's not available online. The site is just selling his CD.

In any event, this kind of debate is perfectly legitimate. What's not legitimate is when you try to disguise what your true intent is. ("Here, kid, have a free copy of Origin of Species! Pretty good deal, don't ya think?") It's not all that different from the pervert who tries to lure a child into his car with a promise of free candy. Or the Mormons who lure Japanese students into their lair with a promise of free English lessons, for that matter.

When Pastors Go Bad

SKEPTIC: The above video is about a recent sermon by Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." In it, he explains exactly why he hates the president (because he's a murderer) and how he is going to pray that Obama dies and goes to hell. Am I safe to assume that we can both agree that this kind of hate speech is dangerous (especially given the recent rise of extremism on the right), and that Pastor Steven has no place behind any pulpit? I'm hopeful that most Christians would condemn this kind of preaching, knowing that it does their cause no good to have lunatics like this representing the faith. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he really does represent the emerging new face of Christianity in America today. That would be truly disturbing.

PREACHER: Pastor Steven Anderson is definitely over the top for most Christians. Even though we don't agree with Barack Obama on a lot of things and maybe even consider him our enemy, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. The apostle Paul taught to pray for those in authority, and in those days that was for the Roman government that was persecuting Christians. Extemists on both sides of the spectrum do no service to the causes that they intend to support. It is good to personally know those who are on the opposite side. I don't agree with you on many things, but I know we can live at peace with eachother.

SKEPTIC: Is that as far as you're willing to go in response to Anderson - he's "over the top?" Are you willing to say that he doesn't represent true Christianity and that his ticket to heaven should be revoked? And you can seriously consider the President of the United States your "enemy?" Jeez, I considered George W. Bush to be an incompetent boob, but I never thought of him as my enemy. I know Christians are supposed to "love your enemies," but that seems a bit silly to me. I mean, if you love someone, then they're not your enemy anymore, unless you want to change the definition of the word. My creed is "love your friends and ignore your enemies."

PREACHER: I wouldn't consider anyone's ticket to heaven revoked (not even yours) since I am not God and don't know what the rest of their (and your) story is. Anderson seems to be a very angry man, more emotions than reason. I agree with him that abortion is wrong, but anger and hateful threats don't change anything for good. You claim that you "love your friends and ignore your enemies," so why are you paying attention to him anyway? I think ignoring an enemy isn't very smart when he is making death threats and looks like he really can accomplish them. Loving your enemy is seeking what is best for him, not just making him feel good. It should make him change his mind about you so he can become your friend.

I think there are a lot of people that are very disappointed with president Obama, because he isn't coming through with all the naive promises that he made during the campaign. And, his liberal positions on abortion, gay rights, religion, education, and medical care really don't sit well with mainstream America. I doubt seriously that he will be in for a second term.

SKEPTIC: I guess I'm a bit dumbfounded that you seem unwilling to state clearly that you condemn this kind of behavior on the part of someone who claims to be a man of God. You seem intent, instead, on focusing on President Obama, whom you call your enemy. This is a Christian preacher who stands up in front of his congregation and tells them that he hates the President and prays to God to strike him dead. And by the way, he's not alone. Here's another Christian preacher engaged in the same reprehensible conduct. Is this how you "love your enemy" - by praying that he dies? Can you begin to understand why so many people are turning away from a religion that is capable of producing these kinds of leaders?

And to respond to your political point - you're right that there are people who are disappointed in Obama, from both sides of the political spectrum. I suppose that is to be expected of any president. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But it seems a little silly to write his political obituary after only seven months in office. The problem for conservatives is that they have yet to understand that the American mainstream has moved to the left, so when you say "his liberal positions...don't sit well with mainstream America," I think you're wrong.

PREACHER: Let me make myself clear. I condemn the behavior of praying for the death of individuals that you consider to be promoting evil. I condemn the sin (actions and words) not the sinner (the extremists on the far right and left). It isn't the Christian religion that produces leaders that advocate killing their enemies, it is only those few leaders' anger that has gotten away from them. Listening to the two preachers you have referred me to has convinced me that they need to have some kind of professional help. And of course, these angry preachers get to be on the news because they are so sensational. Actually, they are quite marginal in the mainstream Christian community. Those who turn away from Christianity because of such preachers were probably already looking for an excuse to prove that they were better than religious people.

What you and I consider to be mainstream America seem to be very different. Isn't your mainstream America concentrated in the big cities mostly on the east and west coast, including certain notorious cities like San Francisco and New Orleans. My mainstream America is everywhere else, including the people I rub shoulders with on a daily basis here is the rural Midwest and the South (I am presently in the USA).

SKEPTIC: Thank you for clarifying your position vis a vis these preachers. However, I think I'll go ahead and condemn the "sinner" as well as the "sin," since you can't really have one without the other.

I'm confused when you say that "those who turn away from Christianity because of such preachers were probably already looking for an excuse to prove that they were better than religious people." As one who has turned away from Christianity, it certainly wasn't because I wanted to prove that I was better than religious people. It was a natural process that resulted from a lot of study, debate, and critical thinking on my part. I think your description may be more applicable to many (not all) Christians who perceive of themselves as better than those of us that they consider "lost," "unsaved," and headed for the fiery pits of hell.

As to what constitutes "mainstream" America, I define it as where the majority of people are politically and culturally at a given point in time. If the last election can be used as a barometer (and I believe it can), then it's clear that mainstream thought has shifted to the left. (And as a former citizen of the beautiful city of San Francisco, I'd like to take exception to your description of that city as "notorious.")

One final point: You want to separate those in mainstream Christianity from those who advocate violence, and I'll grant you that - but Christianity has a long and dark history of violence, beginning with an Old Testament God who ordered genocide at every turn. Maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised when pastors like these end up going off the deep end.

The Mysterious Case of Adam and Eve

SKEPTIC: You mentioned in the previous post that you have recently decided that the creation account in Genesis is a literal account. (Did you not believe that before?) Does this mean that you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is the true account of how the human race began - talking snake and all?

PREACHER: I used to believe that the days in Genesis 1 were ages, now I believe that they are actual 24 hour days. As for the account of Adam and Eve, I have always believed that to be historical.

SKEPTIC: I'm always perplexed by how anyone could think that the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally. I mean, why should this story be given any more credence than any of the dozens of other creation myths that have grown out of various cultures through the ages? Beyond that, why is it so important to believe that the story is literal? What would be so horrible if it was just meant to be symbolic in some way?

Besides, the story itself doesn't really seem, to me, to put God in a very good light. If we were to think of God as the parent and Adam and Eve as the children, it's essentially the story of a mother who told the kids "Whatever you do, don't eat those delicious cookies I just baked." But of course, kids being kids, when their big brother tells them, "Hey, you know how mom is. She just said that because she wants to eat the cookies herself. Go ahead. Go for it." So the kids chow down on the cookies, only to face the wrath of mom, who flies into a rage when she returns and throws the kids out of the house forever and puts a curse on all of their descendants. It's probably just me, but God doesn't seem to exhibit very good parenting skills.

PREACHER: To be consistent with the rest of the Bible, I need to accept the account of Adam and Eve as real history. Incidentally, Jesus and the apostle Paul accepted the account as real history. The account of Adam and Eve explains the origin of the problem of sin. Without it, Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection loses its complete meaning. If sin is only our natural immaturity or imperfection, doesn't it seem cruel that God would demand eternal death? Wouldn't He as a loving God be more patient with us? Satan or the tempter (who takes the form of a snake in the account) is hardly a big brother. He is an evil spiritual being who God created and then who rebelled against Him, to the point of desiring to becoming equal with God. It wasn't so much that the fruit of the tree was so tempting as that Satan promised that eating it would make Adam and Eve like God, knowing good and evil. When they accepted what the snake said and ate the fruit, they rebelled against God. In so doing they tainted all of their offspring and all creation with their rebellion against God. That is what started the process of death (both physical and spiritual) which humans can't reverse. All men are infected now with sin, that is like a cancerous disease that is so utterly detestable to their Creator that He has to cast us out from His presence. In His great love, God sent His Son Jesus to die in our place (both physically and spiritually) and rise from the dead, in order to reverse the process of death so that all who stop rebelling against Him and trust Him can have eternal life (spiritual immediately and physical later). In 1 Corinthians 15:22 the apostle Paul wrote that for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. God is a "parent" who willingly gives the ultimate sacrifice for His children. Sounds like a pretty good parent to me.

SKEPTIC: So Adam and Eve's rebellion against God is what "started the process of death which humans can't reverse?" So I guess that means that if they HAD obeyed God and NOT eaten from that darn tree, people would have never died. They would have just lived forever right here on earth. I guess then that we'd all be living in some pretty crowded conditions by now, considering that there'd be something like a 1000 gazillion people on the planet. So I guess we all owe a debt to A and A for biting into that apple and making our lives rather more manageable.

But I think you may have stumbled onto what's going on when you talked about the death of Jesus being a direct result of Adam and Eve's original sin. In other words, if they hadn't disobeyed God, that would have messed up the whole story. There wouldn't even be a need for religion. In fact, the reason Christians try so desperately to attack scientific evolution is because it proves that Adam and Eve is a fairy tale, therefore there was no original sin, and therefore there was no need for redemption through Jesus's death. Game over.

In any event, for me, the talking snake is a dead giveaway that what we're looking at is a very clever fairy tale. And if you expect me to believe that this is how the human race began and it had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, then you've got your work cut out for you. And by the way, how exactly is it fair that all mankind should be "tainted" because of Adam and Eve's taste in fruit?

PREACHER: You seem to have great difficulty even imagining that your Creator exists. An all knowing and all powerful God would have already had a solution for the problem of overpopulation. Actually, the world He created was very good and would have had no problems to begin with. Adam and Eve's rebellion was indeed what made religion necessary. Without their rebellion we would have been able to relate to God just as we would relate to another human being, seeing Him face to face and hearing His audible voice. There would be no need for faith. So, yes there would have been no need for religion.

There are other places where beasts have appeared to talk to men in the Bible, so I don't find the snake a problem. There are plenty of other supernatural happenings in the Bible that I know you can't believe, all because of your world view. You assume that the universe is a closed system and that without exception it has always been subject to the laws of nature that science recognizes today. You refuse to believe in the God who created those laws and is also able to circumvent them whenever He chooses.

Evolution (and what I mean is big bang-molecules-to-man so that a banana is my distant relative) is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the secular scientific community. It is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe and life completely by natural laws that scientists have agreed do exist. The present system is always assumed to be absolute and used to explain the past. It is also assumed from the start that the existence of a Creator is unthinkable, or if He does exist, He is very disconnected with the universe. In so doing they have to rewrite history so it fits into their paradigm.

Adam and Eve knew and experienced only good until they ate of the tree. From then on they found out what evil was too for the rest of their lives. I see how you feel it is unfair that we should all be tainted by the choice that Adam and Eve made. But then, the choice that Jesus Christ (referred to as the second Adam) made, made it possible to be untainted by sin and have eternal life. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." We have a choice to remain tainted by sin or be set free from it through Jesus Christ. That sounds pretty fair to me.

SKEPTIC: When you say evolution is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the secular scientific community," that kinda blows my mind and reinforces my belief that there really is no way to reconcile science and religion. Actually, I would agree with your statement with just a slight change - Creationism is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the Christian community. Bottom line for me is if you've got two conflicting ideas about the creation of man, and one has tons of actual evidence to back it up, while the other one has no real evidence at all and is based on a book written two thousand years ago...well, you get my point.

And the fact that there are other animals who talk in the Bible doesn't really make me more open to the idea of a talking snake. It just reinforces my belief that the Bible is not to be taken literally. And the way that Christians always fall back on the "God can do anything" argument to try to explain things that make no sense is a pretty convenient escape hatch.

And yes, you're absolutely right when you say, "you seem to have great difficulty even imagining that your Creator exists." I guess that's why I'm The Skeptic and you're The Preacher.

PREACHER: You should know that both creationists and evolutionists use the same evidence (fossils, layers of sediment etc. ) to back up their very different views of how the universe came into existence. For more details please check out the sites of Answers in Genesis and True Origins. The difference is how they interpret the evidence. Creationists, many who are PhD scientists, accept the Bible as their final authority and evolutionists accept the current opinions of certain scientists who don't believe the Bible as their final authority. I see no conflict between true science and true religion. Evolution is an attempt by these scientists (many who are atheists) to explain the origin and history of the universe without any divine intervention. The only way to verify it would be to go back in time, which you can't do. True science is verifiable. Evolution is not true science, it is history. The Bible is history, too. Our disagreement is on which history we believe to be true. I am very happy with a God who can do anything, and sorry that you don't trust Him.

SKEPTIC: Well, first of all, you say that many creationist are PhD scientists. There may be some scientists in various fields who subscribe to the biblical view, but I seriously doubt that there are more than a tiny fraction, especially in biology, which is the relevant field of study when we're talking about evolution. Evolution is certainly true science. You only pretend it's not because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. One of the big differences between science and religion is that science has the ability to change and refine its findings as new evidence becomes available, so that we are able to get as close as humanly possible to verifiable truth. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are so set in stone that believers are usually unable or unwilling to change their beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence.

As to your final sentence, I'm glad that you're "happy with a God who can do anything," but there really is no need to feel sorry for me. To my ear, that sounds just a tad condescending. And it's not that I don't "trust" God. I don't believe God exists, so the question of trust becomes moot.