Years ago, I attended First Baptist Church, an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) in Bryan,Ohio. Recently, the church asked members to write letters to people, inviting them to church and subtly reminding recipients that their lives are worthless without Jesus and hell awaits if they do not purchase fire insurance.
One of my sons, a practicing Catholic, received one such letter. Here’s what the handwritten letter had to say:
We would like to invite you and your family to First Baptist. Sunday School is @ 9:30. Worship @ 10:30.
More importantly, we invite you to know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, if you don’t already.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 16:26
Based on the return name and address on the envelope, I know the letter writer. Why did this person choose to write my son? Does First Baptist really think that this is an effective way to reach people with the gospel?
Perhaps it is time for me to do some writing of my own about my experiences at First Baptist. Several years ago, I attended a funeral at First Baptist. You can read my thoughts about the funeral here. I feel a s-e-r-i-e-s coming on….
I am always amused when theologically educated Evangelicals attempt to defend Biblical inerrancy. Michael Kruger, President and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary, recently posted a three-minute video that purports to answer the question, Does the Bible Have Mistakes? Strangely, the blog post Kruger wrote for the video is titled, Does the Bible Make Mistakes? I thought, isn’t the Bible an inanimate object — black ink on paper? Does Kruger believe the Bible itself is an animate object? I know there are Christians who believe that the Bible has mystical, supernatural power, but Kruger, as a Fundamentalist Reformed Christian, surely knows that, according to orthodox Christian doctrine, it is the Holy Spirit that empowers (gives life to) the Biblical text. Not that I believe such a notion is true. I am just stating what Christians have historically believed about the Bible. (I have had countless Evangelicals tell me that now I am an atheist, it is impossible for me to understand the Bible.) [The title has since been changed, As Van noted in the comments, Kruger’s post is now inerrant.]
Kruger begins the video by asserting that the Bible is the Word of God and whatever it affirms is true. According to Kruger, there are no errors, contradictions, or mistakes in the Bible. Yet, he turns right around and says that readers of the Bible must use various literary skills to “properly” understand the text. Once these skills are put to use, the errors, contradictions, and mistakes fall away. In other words, when confronted with obvious mistakes, crack open the approved theology books and all the discrepancies will be explained away.
If someone uninitiated in Evangelical beliefs read the Bible, would they naturally conclude that the Bible is without error; that its teaching are consistent, coherent, and infallible? Of course not. Kruger is right when he mentions that many people who say the Bible has errors haven’t really studied the text. But others have. Former pastors who are now unbelievers certainly have studied the Bible from dedication to concordance. Over the course of 50 years in the Christian church and 25 years in the pastorate, I spent tens of thousands of hours reading and studying the Bible. I read scores of Evangelical (Calvinistic) theological books. Before beginning my studies I would pray and ask God to give me eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. (Many Evangelicals think that the knowledge I gained while studying the Bible magically disappeared when I deconverted.)
What kept me from “seeing” textual errors, mistakes, and contradictions was my presuppositional commitment to the Bible being without error — the Words of God. Since God was perfect, it was impossible for the Bible to be errant. It was only when I set aside my theology-driven presuppositions that I was able to see the Biblical text for what it is — a fallible collection of contradictory texts written by men.
Kruger is an educated man, so I suspect he lives with a good bit of cognitive dissonance. Surely at some level he knows inerrancy is a façade used to portray the Bible as some sort of God-inspired, God-written, supernatural text. Once inside the house of textual criticism, inerrancy is nowhere to be found, a circus mirror meant to entertain and deceive the faithful. Of course, Kruger has a vested interest in maintaining the inerrancy illusion. He’s in the business of training men for the ministry. If these preachers-to-be were told the truth about the Bible, why their home churches would gather up pitchforks and combustible materials and burn Reformed Theological Seminary to the ground, using Kruger as a quick-start fire log.
Thanks to authors such as Bart Ehrman, it is now impossible to intellectually defend Biblical inerrancy. While in many ways, Ehrman doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been known for centuries, his books put complex textual issues in a format laypeople can understand. (You can purchase his books through Bruce’s Little Bookstore of Atheism and Humanism.)
The best antidote for inerrancy is reading Bart Ehrman. It is intellectually impossible for anyone to read several of his books and still believe that the Bible is inerrant. Remember, most Evangelical theologians agree with Ehrman on the evidence. What they disagree with is his conclusions. Sadly, many educated Evangelicals — pastors, theologians, professors — refuse to accept what is clear for all to see: that the Bible is a fallible collection of contradictory texts written by men. In many ways, these defenders of inerrancy are similar to atheist pastors, people who have invested their lives in promoting and defending Evangelicalism. Admitting that what they teach is untrue would quickly and viciously destroy their livelihood. When men have spent their lives pastoring churches or teaching seminary classes, how will they earn a living if they suddenly lose their job? So, Evangelical and atheist pastors alike continue to promote the inerrancy myth, hoping to run out the clock before they are exposed. For some of them, the personal and ethical costs are too high, so they out themselves, causing tremendous heartache and loss.
I was fifty years old when I walked away from Christianity. I can only imagine how difficult it might have been if I had been some sort of high-profile Evangelical who spent his life publicizing far and wide the Christian myth. In my case, I never made a lot of money from pastoring churches, so it was much easier for me to walk away. I had no retirement plan or 401(k) to worry about. I could make just as much money flipping hamburgers as I did preaching. Such is not the case for many pastors, so I understand why some educated Evangelicals continue to preach what they know is not true.
There will always be some educated Evangelicals who refuse to see the facts about the nature of the Biblical text. Regardless of what the evidence says, these defenders of the faith plan to die with their boots on and hands clutched to the inspired, inerrant Holy Bible. All the books to the contrary will not move them. A Fundamentalist worldview forces pastors and professors to believe and preach only what can neatly fit within the Evangelical box. Please see The Danger of Being in a Box and Why it Makes Sense When You are in it and What I Found When I Left the Box.) This is why countless educated Evangelicals believe the earth is 6,021 years old, that Adam and Eve, Moses, and Noah were real people, and the fantastical stories found in the Bible are really, really, really true. Virgins have babies, dead people come back to life, and sick people are miraculously healed through spoken words. While some of these Evangelicals will see the light (after all, I did), most of them will go to their graves certain in their beliefs. Until they are willing to consider the possibility of being wrong, there really is no hope for them.
After watching the video, please share your thoughts in the comment section. Did Kruger adequately defend inerrancy and give plausible explanations for the mistakes, errors, and contradictions to be interpreted so as to maintain Biblical inerrancy?
This is the one hundred and thirtieth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section. Let’s have some fun!
Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is video clip of Pam Stenzel trying to scare the sex out of a group of teenagers.
We’ve heard it preached our entire Christian lives, “You are a new creation! Old things have passed away and all things have become new!” But do we really understand what this means?
….
Recently God gave me a vision of what happens to us at salvation and it radically altered the way I see myself. I saw the moment God encountered Mary in Luke 1:31-35 telling her she would bear the Christ Child. I saw the person of the Holy Spirit overshadow her. I saw Mary’s DNA and the Holy Spirit’s DNA. I saw them intertwine and become one, creating Jesus in her womb, fully God and fully man.
Then the vision shifted to me. I saw myself at salvation. I saw the Holy Spirit overshadow me and fill me. My body became the temple of the Holy Spirit. I also saw my spirit man’s DNA and the Holy Spirit’s DNA. I saw them intertwine and become one.
I saw the Holy Spirit wrap around my human spirit like two DNA strands coming together as one, just like when the DNA from a father and mother mix together to form a new baby. It looked like the Double Helix. As the Holy Spirit wrapped around my human spirit, they fused together, becoming one and forming a brand new creation. This fusion of Holy Spirit and my human spirit formed Christ in me!
….
When you receive Christ as your Savior and the Holy Spirit takes up residence inside of you, He actually fuses Himself together with your spirit. You become one with God! You have His divine nature inside of you. You are a brand new creation, with new desires and a new life. Your core identity is completely transformed. Christ’s very nature and identity is now completely formed in your spirit. It’s a glorious transformation! This is why you are holy, righteous and clean!
I have so much more to teach you on this amazing subject. I have just put together a teaching series called Divine DNA—New Creation Reality. I think it’s one of the most important teachings I have ever done. Having divine DNA in your spirit has so many effects on your life as you become transformed in your spirit, soul and body.
Perhaps I should have been prepared for the fact that answers to my many-religions questions were not forthcoming in the Bible. It was, to say the least, disheartening. Instead, I turned to the theology of the faith itself, particularly the book of Hebrews. Hebrews explains how the death of Christ is wed to the Old Testament covenants that involved ritual animal sacrifice. The Jewish people sacrificed animals to appease the wrath of God brought upon them by their sins; Christ was a perfect sacrifice that allowed the old covenant to be discarded and a new one, based on faith, was forged.
Except, none of this made any sense to me at all. Why did God want ritual animal sacrifice in the first place? What does that have to do with forgiveness? Perhaps, I thought, God wanted people to make a sacrifice — farm animals, in those days, were precious resources. But that explanation evaporates with Christ, since he took the sacrifice upon himself. What was so special about the “blood of Christ”? What did that have to do with God’s willingness to forgive people? And why did God spend centuries on ineffectual covenants in the first place? How does an omnipotent deity “sacrifice” anything at all — Jesus could have, conceivably, poofed himself right back into existence or simply refused to die in the first place. Generally when we mortals talk about “sacrifice”, it means something quite different. We don’t get to come back a few days later and float into the clouds.
Worse, Christianity holds that Christ is God. How can God sacrifice himself to himself to fulfill his own covenant? A covenant whose terms were, as far as I could tell, completely arbitrary! Adding insult to injury is the fact that modern Christianity (generally) holds that humans are “fallen”, and born into sin. Even those few who reject Original Sin still accept the Biblical decree that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. In other words, the system is rigged. You’re a sinner, and there’s nothing you can do to change that. But God can save you, as long as you assent to the belief that he created a convoluted system of arbitrary covenants and “sacrificed” himself to himself to appease himself of the terms he created so he could forgive you for being what you had no choice to be — a flawed human being. I should point out that it’s utterly irrelevant whether someone believes it’s all literal, as in the “penal substitution theory of atonement”, or they believe it’s either all or in part metaphorical. Either way, it doesn’t make an iota of sense.
Confused and frustrated, I sought out some church leaders to discuss these matters. One chaplain, in particular, was particularly patient with me as I probed for answers about the blood of Christ, ritual sacrifice, and atonement. But he couldn’t offer anything more than trite platitudes about having faith, that there are some thing we just don’t understand. Maybe that was good enough for him, but I couldn’t assent to beliefs that were, on their face, ridiculous. Frankly, I didn’t think it was too much to ask that a logically coherent explanation of basic Christian theology was forthcoming. These aren’t tertiary issues of theology, after all — they’re the fundamentals of what Christianity is in the first place.
Author’s note: This guest post is the same one as before, except that I have added some examples at Bruce’s and his editor’s request. At times, the post is a bit snarky. I have to say that I’ve used so many Biblical examples in it that it felt like preparing a Bible study. However, you might say that it’s more of an anti-Bible Bible study.
Suspension of disbelief and gaslighting
Some of the stories in the Bible depend heavily on the suspension of disbelief and/or on gaslighting. These tools are quite useful, as they give more credence to the stories, which is pretty important for a book that claims to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Suspension of disbelief is important when it comes to storytelling, as it is needed sometimes. If we all didn’t suspended our disbelief, why would we ever watch or read fantasy or sci-fi? Why would we be interested in mythology or superhero movies? The characters, animals, and events in these stories are not real, as we well know, and loads of impossible things happen. Suspension of disbelief is what keeps us going. Superman doesn’t exist, but we’ll still give him the benefit of the doubt because we’re interested in the story and the character.
But — and there is a “but” to this — if the suspension of disbelief stretches a little too far for a little too long — the tolerance varies from person to person — we stop believing in the story and instead get irritated and scornful. We stop reading or watching and feel a little cheated somehow. The promises are not fulfilled and the bubble is broken. There are many ways this can happen; I’ll mention two.
Deux Ex Machina and the plot hole
These are two of the pitfalls of some biblical stories. Deux Ex Machina literally means “the god from the machine.” It’s a plot device that comes out of nowhere and saves the day. It can be used for any kind of new event, character or development that fixes whatever was the problem. The audience feels cheated when this happens: it seems unfair because it’s too good to be true and not very believable. Deux Ex Machina tends to break the suspension of disbelief and creates an eye-roll moment instead. The plot hole has a similar effect. A plot hole is an error or gap in the story that cannot be fixed without ruining the story’s own internal logic. A situation where events clash with earlier information is an example of a plot hole. Plot holes are irritating to the reader and make a story weaker. If something doesn’t fit well in the story, once again the suspension of disbelief is much more easily broken, which will in turn lessen the enjoyment of the story. Other examples of this are characters who act out of character or, for instance, historical characters whose dialogue is far too modern. It becomes harder to enjoy a story when these things happen.
A few examples of Deux Ex Machina in Biblical stories
The story of Adam and Eve and the fall has an element of Deux Ex Machina in it. God threatens the first couple and informs them they will die if they break his laws, but when push comes to shove, they only get expelled out of paradise. God changes the rules of the story—because He can—as there wouldn’t be much of a story left if the only two protagonists are dead. So the ‘promise’ of death is not fulfilled and another solution is found: exile. This way the couple stays alive to live another day and it also means their story may continue. To stay with Genesis, I could mention another example. Cain, for instance, is responsible for the first murder but in order for him to stay alive, God protects him with a mark, gives him a wife and a city to flee to. None of these are mentioned beforehand, but they appear out of nowhere in order for Cain to have a somewhat happy ending.
Such a surprise happy ending happens quite often in the Bible. The story of Jesus breaking the bread where the food suddenly multiplies could fall in this category. It serves as a miracle but is also a bit convenient. Many of the miracles of Jesus rather follow this pattern. Think of it like this: when you first get to know Superman, you quickly learn that he can fly and cannot suffer to be near Kryptonite. You learn these things about him at the beginning of the story and if he later manages to escape by flying, say from a burning building, you don’t feel cheated because you already knew he could fly.
With the Jesus stories, it is different. We know he is the Son of God, but we don’t know what that entails. That means that any kind of miracle can occur, any kind of rabbit from the hat. If Jesus has a problem, he’ll solve it, with a flick of his fingers. He can heal the sick; he can raise the dead; he can walk on water; he can multiply food; he can battle the Devil in reciting Scripture; he can heal someone’s ear; he can foresee the future; he can control nature; he can…. The possibilities are endless. Because the story offers virtually no limits to Jesus’ powers, they can easily feel like a Deux Ex Machina. Easy solutions coming out of nowhere.
When you consider the stories of Jesus as a living body of work that has been shaped over years with various authors, this makes sense. There are many versions of Jesus as there are many versions of King Arthur’s tales and, indeed, many different versions of Superman or other comic book heroes too. Different authors think up different background stories, add to them, or eliminate elements. The enemies may differ, the powers may vary, the character itself often changes along with the story. With various authors, the internal consistency of stories can easily get muddled. This often happens when there’s a large body of work on a single character.
But even with only one author this might become a problem. Readers have, for instance, pointed this out in some of the Sherlock Holmes stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. It is hard to remember every little bit of detail of a character’s life if you write many stories about the same character. And so Holmes has hardly any interest in literature in one story, whereas he quotes Goethe in actual German in the next. (1) The same can be said for Watson’s war wound, which might be located either in the shoulder, the leg, or one of his limbs. (2) A popular explanation—one might be inclined to call this Holmes canon apologia —is that Watson was bending over and was, therefore, shot in the leg and the shoulder both with the bullet first hitting his leg and then his shoulder or the other way around. (3) However, it is just as easily conceivable that the author simply did not remember where he’d decided to give Watson his wound.
Plot holes in Biblical stories
In the Bible there are a few stories that have different endings. You could consider this a plot hole, or if you want to be kind, see it as a parallel universe instead. Both Judas and King Saul die differently in different versions of their life story. In 1 Samuel 31:4, Saul commands his armor-bearer to kill him. The man doesn’t obey and so Saul kills himself instead. However, in 2 Samuel 1:8-10, King David hears the tale of Saul’s demise told by the Amalekite that killed him. In this version, King Saul also asked to be killed and his command is obeyed. Both stories cannot be true, unless they truly did happen in parallel universes. Judas’ death has a similar pattern to it: it remains somewhat of a mystery. In one of the gospels, Matthew 27:5, Judas hangs himself, yet in the book of Acts 1:18-19, Judas falls, presumably onto a rock, and dies. It is not entirely clear if this is a deliberate act and, therefore, also a suicide or simply an unfortunate fall. Either way the deaths differ significantly and cannot be both true. The reader may think of it as an alternative ending, much in the way that some movies offer when they come out on DVD. Except, of course, that this is supposed to be read as history—if you are a literalist—and history does not have alternative endings. (On a fun note, historians sometimes do contemplate the “what if” question where history is concerned. This is called counterfactual history and a big source of new stories and ideas. The man in the high castle is a well-known example of a story that poses such a question.)
The two differing creation stories present a similar problem. They do not add up. Man and woman are created differently at different moments in the story. In the one story, Adam is alone for a while and Eve is created from his rib; in the other one, they are created together, apparently simultaneously. Again, they cannot both be true.
A short internet search brings you a world of Biblical plot holes. There are far too many to mention them all, but this Reddit thread alone, brings up quite a few. (4) If God is so powerful, why does he punish the people with the Babylonian confusion? He could have gone much further, and as the original poster suggested, these different languages that are created become pretty irritating when you get to the point where evangelizing becomes really important. However, that’s where speaking in tongues comes into play.
God’s power itself poses an interesting question as well. Satan is a created being; God isn’t, yet at times they seem equally powerful. Satan is able to enter heaven at will and makes a devious bet with God to get Job to lose his faith. A similar attempt is made by Satan to deceive Jesus as well. When Daniel receives news of an angel, the angel tells him he was held up for days and could only visit him, after an arch angel had assisted him. Where was God, you may wonder? (Daniel 10:13)
When Abraham is visited by the angels, they tell him that God has heard cries coming from Sodom and they have been sent to investigate what’s going on there. (Genesis 18:21) This seems to suggest that God is not omniscient and needs his helpers to find out instead. In Judges 1:19 God supports Judah and provides victories, however, chariots of iron are stronger than God somehow. Imagine that: the tribe in possession of more advanced weaponry wins!
These stories make some sense from the perspective of a world with various gods in constant battle where the winning tribe also represents the victorious god. They make no sense at all if the God in these stories is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient: because, in that case, demons and chariots fitted with iron shouldn’t matter one bit, let alone be on the winning hand.
Another one I find quite compelling myself is this one: if Genesis is meant to be metaphorical, as many people claim, consider the following, posed on another thread, by a former Catholic:
“[W]hen you finally break down all the inconsistencies and questionable passages in Genesis, many Christians come to the conclusion that Genesis is simply metaphorical. But Jesus sacrificing himself for a metaphor seems like a major plot hole all on its own.” (5)
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is a subject which has recently received more attention. It is a form of manipulation where the person who is being gaslighted will begin to doubt his or her own memories or reasoning. It’s seen as an abusive tool as the subjects will become doubtful and distrustful of, ultimately, themselves. Gaslighting is about being dismissive of someone’s arguments and about invalidating people’s feelings. “Are you sure it happened that way?” might be an example. It’s a way of discrediting someone before they’ve even begun to speak.
The term gaslighting is based on the play, and movie, Gas Light. In the story a woman is deceived by her husband. He spends time in the attic searching for hidden treasure and as he lights the gas lights up there, the lights in the rest of the house dim. His wife notices this but in order for him to keep his secret, he convinces her she is mistaken instead. He tells her not to trust her own perceptions but to believe him instead. Every time he goes up into the attic, she notices the dimming gas lights in the rest of the house, but he continues to make her doubt her own senses. She is simply imagining things. His manipulation of her: making his wife doubt herself, her own memories, and her own perception, is what became known as gaslighting.
You could say it’s what Job’s friends do to him as they invalidate his words and talk over his arguments. Job’s friends insist that has must have done wrong, for God to harm him so. Job is adamant that he did not. In fact, in the story, God himself agrees with Job on this. It doesn’t matter what Job brings forth in arguments, his friends will not have it. In Job 4:7-8 Eliphaz says “Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same.” His other friend, Bildad, makes a similar argument in Job 8:20. “See, God will not reject a blameless person nor take the hand of evildoers.” They cannot unify their beliefs about a just God and Job’s suffering, therefore, Job must have done something to provoke God’s wrath in their opinion. The friends do not succeed in making Job doubt his own account and point of view; they go to a great deal of trouble to make him see their point, but ultimately fail to gaslight him.
Another example of gaslighting is a story that is often brought as very poignant. Jesus accepting Peter back into the fold. Jesus asks Peter if he loves him as he has just betrayed him. In the story, this question is repeated three times —the number being symbolically significant in itself as the number of completeness, hence the Trinity, three days in the grave and I’m sure there are others — until Peter gets pretty frustrated. “You know I love you,” he finally exclaims, exhausted. And yes, it is a kind of punishment for his betrayal: can he be trusted after all? But there’s another side here as well. As part of the Trinity, as God, Jesus knows what Peter thinks and believes; he can see right through him. (John 21:15-17) Why does he need to ask him three times? Why else other than to make Peter doubt himself all over again (as punishment)? Peter becomes frustrated and desperate as his exclamations are unable to prove his fealty. He has nothing but his word and his word is not believed. This story is often portrayed as Jesus’ endless love for Peter —considering what happens to Judas, as a response to his betrayal of Jesus, one is inclined to see the story in that way— yet it also shows the more testily side of Jesus. He makes Peter grovel, makes him doubt himself all over again, and only after he has toyed with him, does he receive forgiveness. Perhaps Jesus forgot his own teachings? I seem to remember something about seventy times seven…. (Matthew 18:21-22)
When you take this further, it might be that God is gaslighting us. The Bible constantly warns us that as sinful people, we should not to trust ourselves, nor our sinful hearts. This is precisely what the term entails: making people doubt their own perceptions, their own lived experience, belittling their feelings or memories. The question is: who gains from this and what does the gaslighter have to gain? In a relationship the gaslighter will try to get the power, the reins of the relationship, by manipulating the other party in the relationship. If this is what God does to his own people, what does that say about Him? Why does God have to manipulate his followers in getting the power in the first place? Doesn’t He already have it?
“Trust in the Lord with all you heart and lean not on your own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9) “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.” (Psalm 111:10) What these texts have in common is that God is to be trusted and humanity is not. But it goes even further than that: God is to be trusted and you should not trust yourself. You cannot believe in yourself, rely on your skills, stand for your opinions, trust your sense, but you have to rely on God instead. God will guide you; God will keep you; and so on. This means ultimately that God wins every battle you will have with him. You might not like the existence of hell, for instance, but God has the final say. Perhaps you want to have an egalitarian marriage but God, and probably your preacher too, point you towards the headship of men. But it can get worse. You might feel pressured into forgiving someone because the Bible tells you to do so. You might stay in an abusive relationship because you believe God does not allow divorce.
It ends in you not being allowed to be yourself. You are considered a sinner by God. You have been saved by his Son and as a result you have to give up yourself. Your personhood. The Bible is quite clear about this. The price you pay is to no longer belong to yourself. You have been bought and paid for. It also means that you may end up in an identity crisis. You are no longer allowed to think for yourself and make your own decisions. Instead you are supposed to ask for and follow God’s will. Your opinion doesn’t matter. What your senses or instinct tells you is null and void, because the will of God will always win. You do not matter and what you think or believe doesn’t matter either. After all, you can’t trust your sinful heart. You cannot trust your sinning mind. Paul explains it like this in Romans 7:15: “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.” He is torn and struggles in this chapter with his own mind. The things he does, he sees as sinful; the things he wants to do, but doesn’t do, he considers to be good. The following link gives 23 Bible verses about the death to self. (6) Twenty-three times where you are told that you are not allowed to be yourself. That your self is bad and untrustworthy. As, for instance, Ephesians 4:22-24 “[T]hat, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self.” Or the often repeated phrase about crucifying your old flesh or taking up your cross. Galatians 5:24 says the following: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” John 3:30 talks about: “He must increase, but I must decrease.” These are only three of the twenty three verses and they all mention not trusting your own judgement.
Gaslighting is a specific tactic designed to make people doubt themselves and thus grooming them to believe the other person’s views and perceptions. It is something that leaders of any kind might use to their advantage to control (a group of) people. If people can’t trust themselves, they will be far more likely to start trusting their leader, which is the intended goal. Cults probably use this as well. Messages to the members to not trust themselves, nor the outside world, make it easier to keep them in the fold. Finally, the Bible itself has countless verses telling you not to trust yourself, to abandon common sense and your own judgement and to give your life with all its decisions over to another. You are told to die symbolically, by baptism, and to rise as a new person – an empty person who is the marionette to God’s strings. This is the ultimate goal of gaslighting.
Conclusion
One could say that when you de-convert, the suspension of disbelief for the Bible has been broken. You’ve been kind, and perhaps resilient, enough to hang on to its truths for a long time but you simply can’t anymore. The spell has been broken and suddenly the Bible is riddled with plot holes. Broken promises and prophecies abound. The story no longer captivates you as it did before. You become aware of numerous problems in the storylines. You can’t un-see them anymore. On top of that, the authors (or God) try to gaslight you into not trusting yourself and your own judgement. Once you realize that, you’ll have a hard time going back to Biblical bliss.
Last Thursday, Republican candidates for Defiance County sheriff attended a forum at the Defiance County Fish and Game Club and shared their thoughts about the importance of the Second Amendment. Long-time Sheriff David Westrick is not seeking a ninth term, so Deputy Doug Engel and write-in candidate Steve Flory are battling one another, hoping to claim Westrick’s empty seat.
Both candidates think that protecting gun rights is very important. Both candidates said they would take a militant stand against attempts by liberals to take away guns or restrict their use. Todd Helberg, reporting for the Defiance Crescent-News, had this to say about the candidates (behind paywall):
A former sheriff’s deputy, Flory opened, quoting founding fathers George Washington and John Adams in defending the Second Amendment and its provision for allowing the citizenry to bear arms. Specifically, he noted Adams’ remark that the amendment assures the “private self-defense” of citizens.
“How often do we run into someone who doesn’t think private self-defense is part of (the Second Amendment)?, asked Flory. “Baloney. That’s exactly what it’s there for — for you and I to protect ourselves.”
While pledging “to stand with you guys,” on the Second Amendment, Flory mentioned the passage of a conceal carry law in Ohio some years ago, saying he’d like it to be a little less restrictive. And, he noted the misperceptions some apparently have with conceal carry laws across the country.
Flory explained that approximately 33,000 people are killed annually in traffic crashes nationally, then asked the audience how many have been killed by conceal carry permit holders during the past 10 years. According to a “very leftist” Internet website, he said the figure is 885, including suicides.
“We’re more dangerous to ourselves and others when we are just driving down the road everyday,” Flory said, adding that the conceal carry holder is there to protect himself, his family “and you.”
“… I think a lot of Second Amendment naysayers just are not educated enough to realize a good upstanding citizen … is doing (conceal carry) for their own purposes,” Flory said.
Engel, who is Westrick’s chief deputy, said “we in the sheriff’s office will always protect your Second Amendment rights.” …. “I will guarantee you … nobody — absolutely nobody — is going to enter your house and remove our firearms,” Engel said. “The only exception is if you have committed a crime with that firearm.”
In stating this, Engel suggested a militant stance if Second Amendment rights were changed by the U.S. Supreme Court. At present, he noted the court has been friendly to these rights with rulings in 2008 and 2010, but cautioned that this could change after the next presidential election.
“Our next president is going to have the ability to appoint three (Supreme Court) justices, maybe five,” Engel said. “… We need to get smart here. … The Supreme Court has been very protective, but if we make a mistake and don’t elect the right person, we’re in trouble — all of us.”
….
During a brief question period….another person asked what would happen if the Supreme Court made a decision that changed Second Amendment rights.
“No one’s going to take my guns, period,” said Engel. “They’re not going to take our guns. As sheriff I’m not going to get your guns … .”
“I’m telling you the same thing,” added Flory.
On one hand, the statements by both candidates are typical NRA-driven, the-liberals-are-coming-to-take-away-our-guns hysteria. Defiance County is awash in right-wing religious and political ideology. Making these statement played well with their target audience — white, right-wing, lock-and-load, Christian Republicans. Both Flory and Engel know that they don’t need votes from people such as myself. True liberals — those of us who want universal background checks, universal gun registration, banning of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, and the abolition of concealed carry permits — are as rare as the ivory-billed woodpecker. As a voting demographic, we don’t matter.
What troubles me is that both candidates advocate lawlessness. I thought the sheriff is the chief county law ENFORCEMENT officer? Yet both men said they would break the law IF the federal government or the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to alter the Second Amendment or restrict gun ownership.
Both candidates seem to want a wild, wild west of gun ownership. Both men fail to understand the difference between personal gun ownership and a well-regulated militia. What will future Sheriff Flory or Sheriff Engel do when tasked with enforcing laws that run contrary to their personal opinions? The sheriff doesn’t make law, neither is he tasked with interpreting the Constitution. His sole duty is to enforce the law, even those laws he personally disagrees with. What if the Ohio legislature and the U.S. Congress finally realize that the only way to put an end to mass shootings and gun violence is to limit gun ownership and use? What if these laws are upheld by the Supreme Court? Will future Sheriff Flory or Sheriff Engel enforce the law? Based on the aforementioned comments, I suspect both men would refuse to enforce the law. This fact should trouble Republicans and Democrats alike.
This is the one hundred and twenty-ninth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section. Let’s have some fun!
Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is video clip of Kenneth Copeland telling Christians why they MUST vote for Donald Trump. This video clearly shows that Copeland is endorsing Trump. In doing so, Copeland is in violation of Federal law. The IRS should, but won’t, strip Copeland’s “ministry” of its tax exempt status.
Donald Trump is a nearly perfect icon of carnality, an unspiritual man who can be reasonably seen as having spent his entire life striving with remarkable devotion and energy after the riches he cannot take with him when he dies (i.e., he bears the image of a fool), and flouting the divine laws which limit and control the pleasures he seeks in wealth and its indulgences, cynically using the laws God has set in the world, as well as his fellow human beings, for his own enlargement, so that the charge of narcissism leveled against him seems as reasonable as the conclusion that while he claims to be a Christian he is in fact only a Presbyterian.
….
Mrs. Clinton cannot be compared to Donald Trump simply as a person who will counter his more conservative policies with an opposing liberalism. She represents something dangerous to a geometrically higher degree than carnal depravity. America is in deep crisis, one of the signs of this being that its electors no longer enjoy the privilege of choosing between candidates who profess Christianity but have different ideas on how monies should be allocated or wars should be waged, but between carnal ambition and behavior on one hand, and on the other destruction of the created good of which Trump’s carnality is a mere perversion. Hillary operates in a far more spiritual sphere. Her familiars hate the incarnation of spirit in flesh (for they are pure spirit) pre-eminently the incarnation of God, and are intent on the degradation and destruction of the race in whom this image is found.
….
The new spiritual order, a form of religion itself, has better ways of defining human life, the family, and sexual being, better ways to define and administer justice, better ways to educate and better goals and materials for education, ever-improving ways to direct and control, for their own good, the lives of people who don’t share the opinions of those Thomas Sowell identifies as the self-congratulatory “anointed”–who consider themselves, despite their massive and continual failures in experimental manipulations of society, the best and brightest, the natural ruling class.
This class has well-planned ways, especially through its homosexual office, to rid the polis of the influence of uncooperative religion, and, along with this, to neutralize the danger represented by any society functioning independent of government control. During the Obama administration one has seen significant adumbrations of this party’s willingness to use its powers to oppress and suppress those it perceives as enemies of the religion of progressivism, looking as it does to the dawn of a new age of universal peace and prosperity, for which it does not hesitate, like every utopian tyranny, to break anything that gets in its way, truth being its greatest enemy and the necessary first victim of its ravages.
….
This is not only what may be expected from Hillary Clinton but is already operative in her and her colleagues in office, and to which her presidency will signal a further removal of restraint that will become most immediately evident in its control of a federal judiciary that operates according to party doctrine, and will for decades to come. Her party and her office may be expected to continue reflecting a deep hatred of the human race, desire to make it at least as lawless and miserable as life in the cities it has for decades controlled, to break every rule of faith or honor that opposes them, to weaken the country’s moral and physical ability to resist destructive forces, to the end of exterminating the nation both spiritually and materially.
….
In this scheme of things the merely carnal man, the man of weak and desire-wracked flesh, is still a man and as such a threat to beings who despise incarnate spirits above all things. A man who simply runs things according to his appetites is better, even if he is very bad indeed, than someone who is controlled by not by flesh and blood, but spiritual rulers of this present darkness, who have already shown copious evidence of hating the human race through the Party of Abortion. That is why I will vote for Donald Trump and hope for things that I could not reasonably hope for under Hillary Clinton.
— S.M Hutchens, Mere Comments, How I Will Vote and Why, October 17, 2016
My maternal grandfather, John, was a big believer in public praying. Every time we went out to eat with him, everyone within earshot knew we were Christians. John meant for his prayers to some sort of public masturbation — visible to all. I still remember how embarrassed I was when John went about establishing his Christian testimony. Once John was finished praying, permission was granted for us to begin eating. At least once during the meal, John would force our waitress to listen to his testimony and presentation of the Evangelical gospel. John was well-known for these verbal assaults — a man who loved Jesus so much that he just had to share him with everyone. (Please see Dear Ann.)
Tim Tebow, a former NFL player, is known for kneeling and praying during games. His behavior is popularly called tebowing. Evangelicals love the fact that Tebow would, on national TV before millions of people, pray to their God. Evidently, God wasn’t listening. Tebow washed out of the NFL and is now trying to continue his narcissistic dream as a baseball player. Other sports figures imitate Tebow on the field, giving the impression that their God is a former jock himself and a big sports fan.
Republicans are another group who is fond of public praying. Holding prayer rallies and offering up prayers at their convention, these members of the GOP — God’s Only Party — send their prayers to Jesus, asking for the destruction of Hillary Clinton, socialists, atheists, and any other group deemed to be unpatriotic, anti-American, and anti-God. Yet, despite all their prayers, it looks like Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Millions of prayers uttered, and the best that God could do is Donald Trump?
Evangelical churches and parachurch groups — who overwhelmingly support the Republican Party — are also fond of public displays of prayer. It is Evangelicals who are behind the National Day of Prayer and See You at Pole, annual events meant to show the numerical significance of conservative Christianity. Many government meetings are opened with prayers to the Christian God, a reminder to everyone that America is a Christian nation.
Untold millions of Evangelical prayers have been uttered to God, asking him to put a Republican in the Oval Office. Most Evangelicals wanted Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, or Mike Huckabee. These men proudly exposed their Jesus-approved genitals for all to see. Yet, when the primary dust settled, Donald Trump was the winner. Perhaps the Evangelical God has a wicked sense of humor, giving Evangelicals one of most unqualified candidates in American election history. Dear Lord, please help us elect a Christian president, Evangelicals prayed. What God gave them was a narcissistic psychopath who brags about sexually assaulting women and grabbing them by their pussies. Is Trump some sort of sick joke by God?
Perhaps it is time for Evangelicals to actually practice what Jesus said about public praying:
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. (Matthew 6:1-8)
Instead of focusing on the external forms of religion, Evangelicalism would be better served if its followers focused on good works. Thanks to Evangelical support of Donald Trump and thirty-five years of warring against American culture, Evangelicals are widely known for vitriol and hate. They love to say, we hate the sin but love the sinner, but it is now abundantly clear for all to see that Evangelicals hate sinners too. Drunk with political power, Evangelicals arrogantly think that their religion and divine text should be enshrined as the one, true American religion. Their arrogance has put them at odds with Christians and non-Christians alike,
In many ways, my grandfather John was a precursor of what Evangelicalism would one day become — in-your-face, my-God is-the-one-true-God, you-are-going-to-hell, I-have-a-right-to-harass-you-in-Jesus’-name Christianity. To those who only knew John as a devout, aggressive evangelizer, he was the epitome of what every Christian should be. However, many of his family members knew the other John — an angry, violent man who took out his aggression on his children and grandchildren, a man who lived a sordid violent life before Jesus, including sexually assaulting his young daughter (my mother). When confronted about his vile past, John pleaded the miracle sin-washed-away blood of Christ. Any sin before Jesus is forgotten by God, John said, expecting everyone else to forget too.
Most Evangelicals will ignore what I have written here, choosing instead to attack the messenger. In doing so, they show the world that their religion has little to do with the teachings of Jesus and everything to do with political power and cultural control. The moment Evangelicals said they planned to support Donald Trump regardless of his behavior, any hope of saving themselves was lost. Post-election, Evangelicals will lick their wounds, vowing to work harder to put God’s man in the White House in 2020. If Democrats regain control of the Senate and pick up seats in the House, Evangelicals will pray and preach harder, certain that God will hear them and grant their petitions. He won’t, of course, because the Evangelical God is a figment of Christian imaginations. The Evangelical God, as with all Gods, is of human origin. As is often (always?) the case, people craft God in their own images. Evangelicals have crafted a God that bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible. Does anyone seriously think Jesus, if he were alive today, would support the Republican Party and the orange-hair vagina grabber? Does anyone think Jesus would support Republican attacks on immigrants and the poor? Of course not.
It’s time for Evangelicals to reacquaint themselves with the Jesus they say they worship. Until they are willing to apologize for past sins and make restitution by concertedly helping those they previously marginalized, Republican Evangelicals can expect to continue losing elections and their grip on American culture.
