One of my son's high-school friends attempted to engage in debate with my son about Christianity. In that process, the friend sent a Facebook update primarily containing the text of Dan Barker's "Dear Believer" letter from his book Losing Faith In Faith, conflating it with some text from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Here is my response to that letter.
Dear Believer, You asked me to consider Christianity as the answer for my life. I have done that. I consider it untrue, repugnant, and harmful.
This seems like a good beginning. One gets the impression that the author has duly considered the Christian's claims as requested, honestly disagrees with the Christian, and is respectfully responding. Unfortunately, the next sentence dramatically shows that is not the case.
You expect me to believe Jesus was born of a virgin impregnated by a ghost?
In context, the clear implication of the question is that this is a statement of what Christians believe. However, virtually no Christians believe this statement. Anyone who was honestly, respectfully, and thoroughly investigating Christianity's claims would not ask this question.
Certainly, the vast majority of Christians believe the first part of it, that Jesus was born of a virgin. If the question had stopped at that point, we could take the question seriously. However, no Christian I know believes that Mary was "impregnated by a ghost". As the earliest creeds say, Jesus was conceived by God, the Holy Spirit. We may have an indication here of a methodological constraint of the author. We happen to know that the letter's author, Dan Barker, only quotes from the Authorized Version (King James) in his arguments against Christianity. Obviously, that translation does refer to the Holy Spirit as the "Holy Ghost", as do some of the version's derivatives. Still, it is outside the bounds of reasonable discussion to refer to the "Holy Ghost" simply as "a ghost", or spirit of a dead person. In addition, while the term "impregnate" is technically correct, no Christian believes that this process resembled the normal impregnation process in any way.
Do you believe all the crazy tales of ancient religions?
Moreover, here, in the second question, we further see that the author has no real intent to deal respectfully with the Christian's beliefs. He does not explain why he disbelieves in the doctrine of the virgin birth. He simply lumps it together with all other "crazy tales". However, when describing these tales, the author does not actually get the facts of those tales right, nor does he apparently make any effort to truly compare the qualities of these other tales with the story of the virgin birth as presented in the Bible.
Julius Caesar was reportedly born of a virgin;
This is technically true, but not in any meaningful way. No ancient biographer of Julius Caesar makes any mention of this. All of the "reports" of this I can find are from modern skeptics as they attempt to argue against Christianity. Certainly, there are claims that Julius Caesar had a divine ancestry. Suetonius reports of a time that Julius Caesar claimed that his family was descended from Venus. However, the only ambiguity about Caesar's birth in the ancient sources is whether he was born by Caesarean section. There is no controversy over the fact that his mother and father conceived him in the normal manner.
Roman historian Seutonius [sic] said Augustus bodily rose to heaven when he died;
This is simply false. In "The Divine Augustus", Suetonius reports that, "The body was then carried upon the shoulders of senators into the Campus Martius, and there burnt. A man of praetorian rank affirmed upon oath that he saw his spirit ascend from the funeral pile to heaven." In one short sentence, the author is incorrect on three counts:
Even if the letter had accurately represented Suetonius, the story is obviously quite different from the reports of Jesus' ascension, which was a true physical ascension of a living person who had previously been dead. In addition, many people witnessed and testified to Jesus' ascension, not just one. Finally, it is doubtful that "the man of praetorian rank" lost anything at all by his declaration, while many of the witnesses who proclaimed the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus faced persecution, imprisonment, and torture. There can be no significant parallel between a statement from a single man who risked nothing by his words and statements from many men and women who refused to recant their testimonies even as they died.
and Buddha was supposedly born speaking.
This statement is true, even though the earliest writings we have about Buddha's life do not include this story, and not all Buddhist traditions teach this. Even so, the statements about Julius and Augustus Caesar, false as they are, clearly parallel the predominant Christian beliefs about Jesus. There is no such parallel here. The only stories we have of Jesus speaking at birth are from non-canonical sources such as the "Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior". Most Christians are not even aware that such stories exist, let alone believe them or insist that anyone else believe them.
You don't believe all that, do you?No. Obviously, there's no reason to believe the given statements about Julius or Augustus, since no one in the ancient world actually told those stories. However, I have no trouble believing that Suetonius accurately reported what the "man of praetorian rank affirmed upon oath". While I don't believe that Augustus' spirit actually did rise to heaven, I have no good reason to doubt that the man truly believed he saw a spirit rise amidst the smoke of a funeral blaze. I don't believe that Buddha was born speaking, but neither do many Buddhists. Even if all Buddhists believed that particular story, it has no connection to Christian belief about Jesus.
Why do you expect me to swallow the fables of Christianity?
I don't. I don't expect anyone to believe any "fables" at all. What I expect is that non-Christians make an honest effort to determine what Christians actually believe and then judge Christianity according to its actual teachings. I expect them to follow the same process with any and every other religion they care to examine. When they have done so, I expect them to compare the teachings and beliefs of the religions they have studied and make a truly informed decision for one tradition or another. However, it is clear that the letter's author has done none of that or, at least, that he has no interest in helping the reader to do that.
What follows in the letter is a long list of "fables" taught by Christianity. While presenting the list in biblical order, it is unstated why the author singled out these particular "fables". The Bible describes many other more prominent and spectacular examples of supernatural events. In addition, the descriptions of some of the events are inaccurate, which I note in the following comments. Finally, in context, the presence of this list implies that Christians generally insist that it is necessary to believe all of these things actually happened in order to become a Christian or to remain a Christian, and this is simply not the case. The only item in the list that even approaches being a fundamental teaching of the faith is that only Christians will populate the new earth. Any honest examination would conclude that many modern Christians also do not believe many of these stories and that they are not necessary components of the Christian faith.
In fact, it is fascinating that the author does not mention the miracles that I think most Christians would say are necessary components of the faith. The oldest creeds refer to Jesus' conception by the Holy Spirit, his birth by the Virgin Mary, and his Resurrection. I think that many would say that those are indispensible beliefs for a Christian. However, there are biblical grounds for the position that the only miracle that it is truly necessary to believe to be a Christian is that Jesus was dead, wholly dead, and nothing but dead, but that he was alive again, and is still alive now. You'd think the idea that a person who was scourged, crucified, stabbed, and entombed in a sealed and guarded cave for two days could escape by himself and appear perfectly healthy would be an easy and telling target. If the author could convince people to disbelieve that particular miracle, the rest of the job is done because without the Resurrection, Christianity doesn't exist. One can only speculate that the author didn't want to remind the reader of that central truth, and so decided to pick around the edges, but if the author were being honest in this presentation, he would have included the Virgin Birth and Resurrection in his list of "fables".
I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days;
This would be a prime example of a statement that most modern Christians do not believe, and very few of those who do believe it would say it was necessary to believe this to become a Christian.
women come from a man's rib;
The Bible does not say that "women" come from a man's rib. The Bible says that God formed the first woman, Eve, by taking her from the first man's side. All other men and women came about in the natural way.
a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language;
I grant the snake and the donkey, but the biblical account is very clear that the bush did not speak. God was speaking from the bush. Actually, even the snake is questionable, in that many would say that the speaker was Satan in serpent form, not necessarily a natural serpent.
the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil;
Again, most modern Christians do not believe this literally happened. Many of those who believe in the flood story consider it a local flood, not a worldwide one.
all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat;
The Bible does not specify how many species were on the ark. The most common belief of flood literalists is that the species greatly multiplied after the flood, not before.
language variations stem from the tower of Babel;
This is not precisely true. Obviously, many language variations occurred subsequent to the destruction of the Tower. The number of languages spoken at the Tower is unknown.
Moses had a magic wand;
This is not an honest description of Moses' staff. The Bible clearly states that it is God's power, neither "magic" nor the staff itself, which is responsible for the associated miracles.
the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah;
This portion of the list is accurate.
men survived unaided in a fiery furnace;
The book of Daniel is very clear that the men did not survive "unaided". An angel (perhaps God himself) accompanied them and they survived through his power.
a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine;
This portion of the list is accurate.
mental illness is caused by demons;
The Bible does not anywhere say this. The Bible describes the behavior of some demon-possessed people. Some of those behaviors match some symptoms of some mental illnesses. Matthew 17:14-18 perhaps comes the closest to matching this claim, where the young boy is directly stated to be suffering from epilepsy attributed to a demon. However, epilepsy is not a mental illness. Several places in the New Testament refer to demon-possession and illness as separate conditions.
a "devil" with wings exists who causes evil;
The Bible does not describe the devil as having wings, nor does it describe him as one who "causes evil", in the sense of the devil being the true source of evil. The devil is a tempter and an accuser, but not the actual cause of evil.
people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels;
Most modern versions omit the passage describing this (John 5:3b-4), as the text is not present in the earliest manuscripts. Many Christians are not aware of this passage and, even if they were aware of it, they would not consider it authoritative.
disembodied voiced [sic] spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air;
This portion of the list is accurate.
people were healed by Peter's shadow;
The Bible does not say that Peter's shadow actually healed anyone. Acts 5:15 simply says that sick people were brought out into the streets in hopes that his shadow might fall on them. They did this because "by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people" (Acts 5:12, KJV).
angels broke people out of jail;
This is accurate.
a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth ... while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
The Bible does not give the location of the lake of fire as "under the earth", but that is a minor point. As noted, the Christians-only nature of heaven is the only item on this list that approaches a fundamental tenet of Christianity, but there are large numbers of Christians that would dispute even that. The majority of Christians consider the book of Revelation heavily symbolic, and many would not accept that there will be a literal lake of fire or heavenly city.
If you believe these stories, then you are the one with the problem, not me. These myths violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic. If you can't see that, then you can't separate truth from fantasy. It doesn't matter how many people accept delusions inflicted by "holy" men; a widely held lie is still a lie.
The author makes these statements as if Christians don't already know that the listed items violate natural law. This is preposterous. These are miracles! Of course, they violate natural law. If they didn't violate natural law, we wouldn't know that God was involved.
The larger issue here is the author's underlying presupposition that anything that violates natural law or contradicts science cannot possibly "correspond with reality or logic" and must be a "fantasy". The author doesn't attempt to show that any of the listed events is actually untrue, other than to say they violate natural law. He doesn't provide any actual evidence against them. He simply declares that they must be "delusions inflicted by 'holy' men" and nothing more than a "widely held lie".
I think I can call his last sentence into question, somewhat. I think it does matter how many people accept these kinds of "delusions", if not these particular events. At some point, it would seem the author would have to stop and consider that the vast majority of humanity, today and throughout history, has believed in the existence of the supernatural and the possibility of miracles. Apparently, however, the author deems himself better able to "separate truth from fantasy" than all of these billions of people. Maybe he's right, but the large number of errors in fact and in logic that are present in this letter tend to discredit him as a trustworthy source of wisdom. If he can't even accurately describe the contents of the Bible, why would we think he could accurately describe the nature of existence?
If you are so gullible, then you are like the child who believes the older brother who says there is a monster in the hallway. But there is nothing to be afraid of; go turn on the light and look for yourself.
Apparently, it's childish to believe one's older brother, yet this author is to be trusted when he says, "there is nothing to be afraid of". We have the assertion here that the only possible reason Christians could have for believing the biblical stories is that they are like gullible children. The author presents no evidence that the stories are untrue. He makes no argument against the existence of the supernatural or the possibility of miracles. He simply dismisses them and expects us to accept what he says unquestioningly. He does not seem to consider it possible that many, many people have looked at these stories critically, even skeptically, but eventually concluded that they could be true, that there wasn't enough evidence to positively say that they weren't true, and that there is sufficient reason to trust the Bible enough to say that the stories are true. There are many others who would agree with the author that most of these stories are not literally true, but that does not stop them from being a Christian.
If Christianity were simply untrue I would not be too concerned. Santa is untrue, but it is a harmless myth which people outgrow. But Christianity, besides being false, is also abhorrent. It amazes me that you claim to love the god of the bible, a hateful, arrogant, sexist, cruel being who can't tolerate criticism. I would not want to live in the same neighborhood with such a creature!
Now we get a catalog of the "sins" of God. This list also has several problems:
The biblical god is a macho male warrior.
This would be one place where the author may be "psychologizing". Certainly, the Bible often describes God as a warrior, or uses military imagery in describing God and his acts. However, instead of examining the biblical text and discussing what God's actual motivations might be, it seems that the author is suggesting that God takes certain actions simply because he's "macho", or aggressively masculine.
Though he said "Thou shalt not kill," he ordered death for all opposition, wholesale drowning and mass exterminations;
Here, again, we see that the author is stuck on the language of the King James Version. We would assert that God originally wrote the commandment in ancient Hebrew, which can be transliterated into our alphabet as "Lo' tirtsaach". Most modern translations use the word "murder" here, and most interpreters do not consider this a prohibition against all killing whatsoever. Nor is it true that God "ordered death for all opposition", unless the author means us to take that statement in light of the fact that all people oppose God (by sinning) and eventually die. The Bible often refers to individuals and nations that are opposed to God, but that prosper for lengthy periods of time, often many generations.
punishes offspring to the fourth generation (Ex. 20:5);
This is an extremely simplistic statement and does not convey the nuance present in the original text. This is part of the commandment against idolatry given to the newly rescued Israelites. The critical verb is quite difficult to translate, and doesn't necessarily mean, "to punish". In addition, it is a specific statement within the context of idolatry and the giving of the Law to the Israelites directly from the hand of God. God is informing the Israelites that there will be consequences for following after other gods and those consequences will affect several generations. This is not a general statement that God punishes all sin to the fourth generation.
ordered pregnant women and children to be ripped up (Hos. 13:16);
Hosea is a prophetic book. In context, this is not an order or command for these things to happen. This is a prediction that these things will happen. In many of his writings, this author frequently interprets the words "shall" or "will" (often not present in the original language) as orders and commands, rather than simply as indicators of the future tense.
demands animal and human blood to appease his angry vanity;
This statement is obviously false. First, of course, God explicitly condemns human sacrifice. There is only one instance of him accepting human blood as a sacrifice, and that was his own blood, which he freely gave. Second, "angry vanity" is not his motivation. This would be an example of the author "psychologizing" God. Sin does anger God, but vanity does not enter into the picture.
is partial to one race of people;
While there certainly are various verses in the Bible that might give this impression, this statement ignores the many other verses in which God declares his love for all people. It also ignores the clear statements that God arbitrarily chose a particular people through which to demonstrate his power. This was not because he considered them to be better than he considered any other peoples. In fact, whatever partiality God showed to Abraham and his descendants was conditional. Every time the descendants of Abraham acted like the Gentiles around them, God judged them and treated them exactly the same way as he treated the Gentiles. In fact, God often treated them worse than he treated the Gentiles, since they supposedly knew better.
judges women to be inferior to men;
It would have been helpful for the author to give some example of this. Certainly, there are places in the legal codes where women are treated differently than men, and often subordinately to men, but that does not mean that God "judges" them as "inferior".
is a sadist who created a hell to torture unbelievers;
Again, we have a cheap psychologization of God as a "sadist". While it is true that God created Hell, there is no statement anywhere that he did so "to torture unbelievers". If God were a sadist, that is, one who enjoyed inflicting pain on others, he wouldn't have created a Heaven at all. In addition, God does not sentence people to Hell because they are "unbelievers". He sentences them to Hell because they are sinners. That sentence applies to everyone, whether a believer or not. All people are guilty of sin, and God's holiness demands that he punish all sin. However, his love found a way to avoid punishing all sinners. He took on a human nature, lived a sinless life, willingly died on the cross as the punishment for our sins, and rose again to show that we could all have eternal life and be rescued from Hell by trusting in him.
created evil (Is. 45:7);
This would be another case where the author was stuck on the wording of the King James Version. It is widely recognized that the Hebrew word used here has a range of meanings. In context, the "evil" here is the opposite of "peace", not the opposite of "good". "Calamity", "disaster", or "woe" are better translations. Virtually every commentator throughout history makes this point. This would seem to indicate that the author has not truly attempted to understand the biblical text.
discriminated against the handicapped (Lev. 21:18-23);
I have to say that one could reasonably consider this statement as true. God does say that only those without physical defect or flaw can approach the altar and make offerings. However, the author might well have added "discriminated against anyone not of the tribe of Levi" or, in relation to the high priesthood, "discriminated against anyone not descended from Aaron". He also might as well have said that the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA discriminate against the handicapped. While it is not obvious to us in the present day where physical handicaps do not normally interfere with one's eligibility for ministry, God's priests under the Old Testament Law needed to be physically, ritually, even sartorially perfect. The only people allowed near God's perfect holiness in the temple were people who were in good health, thoroughly cleansed from all ritual impurity, and dressed in the proper garments made from the proper materials. Any imperfection in any aspect was symbolic of sin and treated very seriously.
ordered virgins to be kept as spoils of war (Num. 31:15-18, Deut. 21:11-14);
Neither of the cited passages shows God to have done this. In Numbers, the Israelites had just won a battle against the Midianites and killed all the adult males. All the rest of the people and their property were "spoils of war". Because the Midianites had been the ones who led the Israelites into idolatry, Moses (not God) ordered the married women and the male children to be killed, but the virgins to be spared. It is odd that the author would raise an objection to the survival of the virgin women rather than the killing of everyone else. In Deuteronomy, the law did not order men to keep virgins, but allowed men to take any woman who caught their fancy to their home to marry them. The passage goes on to prescribe a waiting period of a month before actually getting married, and states that these men could not sell these women nor take advantage of them. If the husband changed his mind and did not want to marry the woman, he simply had to let her go free.
spread dung on people's faces (Mal. 2:3);
In context, this is clearly figurative language stating that priests who have dishonored God will also face dishonor. It is simply bad interpretive practice to take these statements from a prophetic book literally.
sent bears to devour 42 children who teased a prophet (II Kings 2:23-24);
This does seem like a punishment that is far beyond the offence but, again, the author is stuck on the language of the King James Version, and so misidentifies the target and misinterprets the cause of this particular judgment. He doesn't even get the action of the two she-bears correct. This large gang of young men (not "children") was not simply teasing Elisha for a receding hairline. The "Go up" portion of their taunt referred to the translation of Elijah that occurred in verse 11, and essentially meant that they were wishing good riddance to both Elijah and Elisha. The "bald-head" portion does seem rather mild to us, but was not so in those days. The term may be a reference to skin disease, as someone so afflicted would often lose their hair in the course of their disease or have to cut it off before they could engage in temple worship. In other words, these gang members were telling an approved prophet of God that he was an outcast and unacceptable to God, and should just disappear as his master had. Finally, the Bible does not say that the she-bears "devoured" the young men, merely tore them to bits. That's not much of an improvement on their fate, I admit, but it is another example that shows the author is careless with his words and that you should not trust his interpretation of Biblical passages.
punishes people with snakes, dogs, dragons, drunkenness, swords, arrows, axes, fire, famine, and infanticide
One may lodge a minor complaint here that even in the King James Version, there is no mention of God punishing people with "dragons". "Dragons" are usually only mentioned in the sense that dragons will occupy the land left vacant due to God's judgment. In other words, God doesn't use dragons to punish anyone. Their presence is sign of a punishment already suffered by the people. Most English versions translate the word as "jackal", or even "monster", but not "dragon", another indication that the author considers a 17th Century translation to speak authoritatively for all Christians for all time. In addition, the author provides no discussion as to who is being punished or why they're being punished. The Bible makes a number of statements that God inflicts punishments such as these on people who have committed the same or worse crimes against others.
and said fathers should eat their sons (Ez. 5:10).
God does not give some sort of universal command here to take up cannibalism. As mentioned before, this author often interprets the words "shall" or "will" as orders and commands, rather than simply as indicators of the future tense. This prophetic passage has no general application to fathers or their diet. This is part of a description of a judgment against Israel, indicating a famine so severe that people will have to eat each other's bodies to survive.
Is that nice? Would you want to live next door to such a person?
These are ridiculous questions. It is simply nonsensical to attempt to evaluate God in the same way you would evaluate a potential neighbor. I certainly would not want to live next door to any human being who thought they were in charge of the universe, thought they were always right, and would attempt to discipline or punish me for my "sins". However, I would want to worship a God who actually did create the universe, who is actually perfectly holy, who expects me to love and serve others, and who justly punishes those who take advantage of the poor and defenseless.
And Jesus is a chip off the old block. He said, "I and my father are one," and he upheld "every jot and tittle" of the Old Testament law. Mt. 5:18 He preached the same old judgment: vengeance and death, wrath and distress, hell and torture for all nonconformists.
Aside from the last few words, this is actually a very good theological statement. Jesus did talk about judgment far more than any one else in the New Testament and certainly far more than many Christians realize. Again, though, to say that Hell is a place where "all nonconformists" are tortured is simply false, except possibly in the sense that all people are "nonconformists" by way of committing sin. As such, all people are doomed to Hell. However, Jesus came to save those "nonconformists" who understand that their sin separates them from God, who repent, and who trust in Jesus to save them.
He believed in demons, angels and spirits.
This, of course, puts Jesus in the same category as the vast majority of all human beings through all of human history including the present moment. The unspoken supposition here is that these beings don't actually exist, but the author makes absolutely no effort to show that they don't.
He never denounced the subjugation of slaves or women.
There is no way for the author to know that this statement is true. A much more honest statement is that the New Testament never reports Jesus to have made any such denouncement. It would be ridiculous to assert that the Bible records every word that Jesus ever spoke.
Women were excluded as disciples and as guests at his heavenly table.
It is false to assert that there were no women among the disciples. Certainly, the "Twelve" were all men, but there were women who traveled with them, learned with them (Luke 10:39), and supported them (Luke 8: 1-3). I'm not sure where the author got the idea that no women would be guests at "his heavenly table". In other writings, this author states that Jesus excluded women from the Last Supper, but we don't really know that, either. If these are the strongest arguments concerning Jesus and women, we have little to criticize. Jesus uniformly treated women with a respect and compassion far beyond normal social custom. In Jesus' time, it was not socially acceptable for an unmarried man to speak directly to a woman in public, yet Jesus regularly did so, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, "clean" and "unclean". He healed them, counseled them, defended them, and taught them. The first witnesses to his resurrection were women. While there are many people in the Bible who mistreated women, Jesus is clearly not one of them.
Except for hell he introduced nothing new to ethics or philosophy.
This statement is false in that Hell was a well-developed concept long before Jesus' time. In fact, many commentators believe that Jesus' statements in Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10 are a response to a Pharisaic saying that there was rejoicing in Heaven over every sinner destroyed by God in Hell. To say that he introduced nothing new to ethics may be true as a general statement, but that was not his intent. The moral and ethical statements he made reminded people that morality was from God and based on love for God and love for others. He did this by quoting and clarifying statements from the Old Testament. In doing so, however, he was introducing something new to the ethics of his time and place. Certainly, no one else was saying, "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors", or "Turn the other cheek". Much of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 shows Jesus to be correcting the common morality of the day.
He was disrespectful of his mother and brothers;
In other writings, this author says that Jesus was being disrespectful of his mother in John 2:4 in the story of the wedding in Cana. If one simply reads the entire verse, it becomes clear that Jesus is not trying to just brush off his mother or be rude to her. He's telling her that it's too early to start his miraculous ministry. Reading the whole story (v. 1-11) shows Jesus attending a wedding party with his mother, granting her request despite his initial reluctance, and performing a miraculous feat so that the celebration isn't spoiled. It is difficult to see how this event shows some sort of anti-family sentiment.
However, since the brothers are mentioned, I expect that the author is referring more specifically to the story told in three of the gospels (Matthew 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21, and Mark 3:31-35), where his mother and brothers come to him and want to see him, but his response is "Who are my mother and my brothers?" (Mark 3:33). Again, context is the key to interpreting the passage. Mark 3:21 tells us why his family was there:
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (NIV)
Given the intent of his family at this point, I don't see that it's disrespectful to take the opportunity to point out that those who obey God's law and do God's will are more like family to the Son of God than those who are opposed to him, even if the "opposition" is composed of close relatives.
he said we should hate our parents and desert our families. Mt. 10:35-36, Lk. 14:26 (So much for "Christian family life.")
Though couched in familial terms, neither of the cited passages refers to "Christian family life". To refer to them in support of an argument that Jesus was anti-family is misleading, and can only be accomplished by removing them completely from their context.
The context of the Matthew passage really includes the whole of chapter 10. Jesus is sending out his twelve disciples and giving them instructions. The disciples are being warned that the message they are to preach, "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (v. 7), will be so divisive that the words of Micah 7:6 will happen. The author doesn't mention that Jesus didn't make up these words, but appropriated them to the circumstance. That is, Jesus simply used a known Scripture passage as a metaphor for the strife that would occur.
In Luke 14, the full passage includes verses 25-35. Jesus is using exaggerated language, well within the understanding of his listeners, to show that devotion to God is the first duty. A true follower must love Jesus so much that compared to that "God-love", normal "family-love", or even self-love, could be likened to hate. Jesus uses several examples to illustrate the cost of being a disciple. He goes on to say that, anyone not willing to pay that cost is like salt without savor, worthless and not fit for use in the kingdom. In a way, this verse actually shows that Jesus valued family very highly, using it as a standard to measure one's love of God.
He denounced anger, but was often angry himself. Mt. 5:22, Mk. 3:5
"Often" is an exaggeration, I think, as Mark 3:5 is the only verse in the Bible that actually uses the word "anger" in association with Jesus. It is reasonable to infer Jesus' anger in other passages, but these are not typical. In addition, what angered Jesus here and elsewhere would anger almost anyone. In Mark 3:5, the Pharisees were looking for a way to accuse Jesus of Sabbath-breaking (v. 2) so they could take some action against him. The Pharisee's rules only allowed physicians to keep patients alive on the Sabbath, not make them better. Jesus' angry look at the Pharisees is due to the "hardness of their hearts" (v. 5). After Jesus heals the man's withered hand, the Pharisees respond by conspiring with their political enemies, the Herodians, to kill Jesus (v. 6). Anger, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is simply an emotion, albeit a dangerous one, and Jesus rightly warned people against it. However, there are appropriate causes of anger and appropriate ways to respond to the emotion of anger. Jesus displayed an understandable and laudable anger at legalistic hypocrites who declared healing wrong but murder right, but he did not let that anger cause him to lose control or lash out at anyone.
He called people "fools" (Mt. 23:17,19), "serpents," and "white sepulchers," though he warned that such language puts you in danger of hellfire. Mt. 5:22
The context of Matthew 5:22 is set up in the first part of the verse: "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause". It is true that the italicized qualifier is not present in all versions, but even where it is absent, virtually all commentators agree that is the gist of Jesus' words. One can also see from v. 23 and 24 that this situation is such that the "brother" is the offended party, and that "you" are required to make reconciliation. The "brother" has apparently done nothing to earn the title of "fool", or the contempt it implies. This is not the case in Matthew 23:17. Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and teachers of the law for leading people directly away from God and not even knowing it. Again, anger can be dangerous if not handled appropriately, but Jesus was expressing what we call "righteous indignation" in a perfectly accurate and appropriate manner.
He said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword." Mt. 10:34 (So much for "Peace on Earth.")
The "peace" to which the angels refer in Luke 2:14 is not in opposition to the "peace" of Matthew 10:34. In Greek, the word translated as "peace" has a number of different meanings. The angels told of the Messiah's peace, the peace between God and humanity, the way of salvation. Jesus spoke of harmony between individuals, specifically in the context of sending the disciples out among the towns and villages of Judea. Jesus came to bring spiritual peace between God and humanity. However, he did not flinch from stating the unpleasant truth that many people would not react peacefully. Non-believers perpetrated practically all of the violence recorded in the New Testament and early church history. Jesus simply and compassionately warned his disciples of the resistance they would meet as they travelled.
He irrationally cursed and withered a fig tree for being barren out of season. Mt. 21:19
Jesus cursed a fig tree for being fruitless, even though it was not fig season, but was not acting "irrationally". It is, in fact, irrational to believe that Matthew, who is attempting to convince people that Jesus is the promised Messiah, would include an episode that showed Jesus did things for no reason. It is even more irrational to believe that Mark, who wanted to show that Jesus was the Son of God, would do the same thing in chapter 11 of his gospel. There are two common interpretations of this incident. The simplest explanation is that this was an object lesson in the power of faith, as indicated by the verses that follow in each Gospel. The less obvious, but no less reasonable, interpretation is that the fruitlessness, cursing, and withering of the fig tree were intended to be symbolic of the state of the religious elite, as indicated by the proximity of this story to that of the clearing of the temple, again, in both Gospels.
He mandated burning unbelievers. Jn. 15:6 (The Church has complied with relish.)
Jesus is clearly using a metaphor to explain that complete dependence on him is necessary for a believer to "bear fruit", and that those who are not obedient or dependent are no more fruitful than branches that have fallen off the vine and been burned. At most, this is an allusion to Hell. The parenthetical comment is also ridiculous, as it gives the impression that "the Church" is some eternally monolithic entity that has always cheerfully interpreted this passage as a "mandate" for violence. It is true that there was a relatively short period of history where people also misinterpreted and misapplied this verse as the letter's author has done. However, one cannot blame Jesus for that.
He stole a horse. Lk. 19:30-33
Reading the entire passage from 19:29-38, and the parallel passages in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-10, and John 12:12-15, it is clear that no one stole anything. The people nearby questioned the disciples, but did not stop them, which they surely would have if the disciples were not authorized to take the animals. Moreover, the author does not even correctly identify the animals, which are a female donkey and her new foal, not a horse.
He told people to cut off hands, feet, eyes and sexual organs. Mt. 5:29-30, 19:12
While it is true that some believers have taken these verses quite literally, that does not mean that Jesus intended them to do so. These are well-understood examples of hyperbolic language intended to show that sin is a serious problem that may require radical changes to remove from one's life.
You want me to accept Jesus, but I think I'll pick my own friend, thank you.
I want you to accept Jesus, true, and I'm perfectly willing for you to make up your own mind. However, I also want you to make the decision based on an accurate picture of Jesus, not the caricature presented in this letter.
One of Jesus's many contradictions was saying good works should be seen, and not seen. Mt. 5:16, 6:1-4
Even if we were to ignore the accusation that Jesus was guilty of "many contradictions", which has not successfully been shown by anyone, ever, it seems incredible that one could accuse Jesus of contradicting himself so completely within the same speech. Examining the different injunctions in their specific context, we see that 5:16 is telling us to do good works for God's glory, while 6:1-4 (actually 1-18) is telling us not to engage in religious activities for our own glory, as the hypocrites do. It's not about what we do, or who sees what we do. It's about doing the good works for the right reasons.
One of his mistakes was saying that the mustard plant has the smallest seed. Mt. 13:31-32
The mustard seed was the smallest seed used in people's gardens at the time of Jesus. Its smallness was proverbial, and Jesus referred to it proverbially, if hyperbolically. That is not a "mistake"; that is an effective teaching technique.
The writers of Matthew and Luke could not even get his genealogy straight, contradicting the Old Testament, and giving Jesus two discrepant lines through Joseph, his non-father!
I'm not exactly sure how this criticism of Matthew and Luke fits into the list of criticisms of Jesus. However, the supposed conflict between Matthew and Luke's genealogies is probably one of the most cited and best known "mistakes" in the Bible. In our connected world, it takes virtually no time to find many, many responses to this objection. Jewish genealogies were not like modern genealogies. They did not share the modern concern with the strict recording of biological ancestry. They were concerned primarily about legal ancestry. Therefore, Jewish genealogies could follow a line of descent through adoption. A common reason for adoption was a man marrying into a family with no sons. The maternal grandfather could adopt his son-in-law or any children of this marriage. In the end, these children could legitimately present divergent genealogies through the biological father or through the adopted father. For this and other reasons, Jewish genealogies often skipped biological generations, which could lead to what the author calls "contradicting the Old Testament", as Matthew's line does not include all of the fathers and sons we read about there. Again, there is no basis for an accusation against Jesus himself. This is merely another example of the author's lack of adequate research.
I also find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The concepts of original sin, depravity, substitutionary forgiveness, intolerance, eternal punishment, and humble worship are all beneath the dignity of intelligent human beings and conflict with the values of kindness and reason. They are barbaric ideas for primitive cultures cowering in fear and ignorance.
Without God, or an absolute standard of morality and accountability, we have no more reason to accept this author's evaluation of these concepts than we have to accept his verdict on whether pineapple belongs on a pizza. How do these Christian concepts conflict with the values of "kindness and reason"? How do any of the author's statements here relate to whether these concepts are actually true? And, if these concepts are actually true, how can they be beneath the dignity of intelligent beings?
Finally, Christianity is harmful. More people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason.
Note that the author has now just attacked every religion, not just Christianity, and seems to see no difference between Christianity and any other religion. The accusation about the number of people killed in religious wars is a common one, but the accusers rarely back the statement up with actual statistics. They also never seem to mention that, just in the previous century, people who espoused no God (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) killed far more people for believing in the God of the Bible than were killed in all of the battles of all of the major wars of the century, none of which were religious in nature.
The Church has a shameful, bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, heresy trials, American colonial intolerance, disrespect of indigenous traditions (such as American Indians), support of slavery, and oppression of women.
I agree. These episodes are shameful. However, one would hope that the author is aware that the Church itself has acknowledged the shamefulness of this history and has always been the primary agent of its own change. Certainly, not every member of the Church supported or participated in any of these activities and the majority of Christians never supported some of them. I also hope the author is aware that these types of events are not unique to the Christian church or even to religion in general. They all have parallels in the behavior and practices of atheistic organizations and governments that have been, without exception, totalitarian and devoid of any respect for human rights.
Modern "fruits" of religion include the Jonestown massacre, the callous fraud of "faith healers," recent wars and ethnic cleansing, and fighting in Northern Ireland.
Here the author has again mixed Christianity together with other religions, and again has glossed over the fact that non-religionists have been guilty of the same crimes, and often on a larger scale.
Religion also poses a danger to mental health, damaging self-respect, personal responsibility, and clarity of thought.
It may surprise you that I agree with this statement, to a degree. I think that bad religion poses a danger in all of these areas. However, there is plenty of good religion out there. All the most recent studies conclude that, in general, religious people live longer, are more healthy (both mentally and physically), more responsible, and perform better in school and the rest of life than non-religious people.
Do you see why I do not respect the biblical message?
I certainly wouldn't want to be a Christian if the things that this letter said about the "biblical message" were true. However, as shown above, very little of what the letter has to say is true. Even where the statements are true, the author does not show that the statements are relevant to whether God exists or is worthy of worship. Certainly, the author does a very poor job of showing that there is truly any benefit to not being a Christian. He accuses Christians of many crimes here, but non-religionists are no less guilty of those same crimes. One could easily ask the author, "Do you see why I do not respect the non-biblical message?"
The letter that my son's friend sent now veers off from the text of the Dan Barker letter. As mentioned, the end of the letter as presented by my son's friend is actually a slight revision of a quote from Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. Here is the text from the original Facebook update:
It is an insulting bag of nonsense, that does nothing more than offer credence to one of the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully whom we know today as god.
Dan Barker's letter actually concludes at this point with the following:
It is an insulting bag of nonsense. You have every right to torment yourself with such insanity - but leave me out of it. I have better things to do with my life.
The following is the actual quote from Dawkins:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Of course, this quote suffers from one of the same basic faults as Dan Barker's presentation. The author assigns motives and negative aspects to actions he doesn't like. All of the colorful adjectives and epithets used here boil down to this author's personal opinion. That opinion is based on the idea that the God of the Old Testament is nothing more than a fictional character who may be reasonably compared to any other human fictional character. I absolutely agree that any human being who made the same statements or took the same actions as the biblical God does would be a superlative villain. However, I absolutely disagree that anyone should judge God in those terms, even as a fictional character. In the biblical context, he's not a human being. He really is the center and foundation of the universe, and has the right to judge and punish people for disobedience and disrespect. Beyond that, none of this has any relevance to the question of whether God actually exists. Even if God were this extravagant monster, how does it follow that he isn't actually there? If God really were a "malevolent bully", wouldn't that actually be a good reason to do what he says?
Of course, I do not believe that God is fictional, or that he is a villain. I base that belief on the testimony of many believers throughout history and to the present day. I base it on the evidence of changed lives, including my own. I worship the God of the Bible because he is holy and I am not, because he is angry over the mistreatment and exploitation of the poor and powerless, because he loves me and took the punishment for my sins upon himself. It is my hope that non-Christians judge Christianity and other religions on the basis of their actual teachings, not on "letters" full of lies, distortions, and irrational, emotional appeals.