Forwarded a copy of my “The Atheist and the Good Christian”

(http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/)

to the local state senator (D) representing my congressional district yesterday.

 Hope to heck it helps.

Still breathin’. Still alive. Still trapped out here on the outskirts of town.

With all the suffering that is presently going on in this country - primarily financial – I can hardly expect to receive any appreciable sympathy or genuine help out here. That’s well understood. Besides, what can an individual atheist, or the atheist organizations nation-wide do if state politicians refuse to put a stop to what I’ve been, and continue to be, subjected to? Especially seeing how difficult it may be for some to believe what’s been going on out here has actually been going on.

It all comes down to my word versus that of county officials and certain Wisconsin politicians in regards to my plight. And it’s rather obvious who is going to be believed more so than the other. Not a thing I can do about it but try and supply documented evidence buttressing my position and hope the politicians who have permitted what has happened pay for it, at at least politically, somewhere down the road. What they’ve permitted is unconscionable. (So too in regards to those accomodating locals choosing to go along with all this!) How sad.

The “loon” is talking “loony”, one might tend or like to surmise. But without an honest examination of some supra-critical documents not being given the rightful scrutiny they deserve, there’s virtually nothing I can do to counter the notion – no matter how true the facts of my case may be. There’s simply nothing I can do about it.

This country is in the pitiful state it is presently in precisely because of the type of individuals who contol my county. They have their way with virtual impunity – thanks to the unscrupulous politicians who aid and abet them. They seem to live in a parallel universe partly disassociated from the rest of us, and yet in a world in which they simultaneously misuse and abuse us to satisfy their own self-serving selfish needs to the detriment of ours. And all with astounding ease. It’s a problem more systemic than many an American realizes.

And so I sit in virtual isolation and confined to a structure unfit to live in, under truly appalling conditions.

Still, I’m quite the proud atheist who has successfully resisted every effort on the part of some rather intense, sanctimonious Christian locals (and others) trying either to convert me, or else have me kowtow to the big-wigs who really run Marinette County - along with the subordinates who rule over my home town.

The behavior of these people illuminates Christianity at its ugliest; the lack of honesty and integrity, the lack of moral backbone on the part of certain politicians in my congressional district - particularly in regards to my plight – just absolutely pathetic. Shame on them.

The solution to their dilemna? Why leave me out here to endure this fiendish ordeal indefinitely, of course! (Quite the antithesis of Jesus’s ”Golden Rule”, they’d have to admit. Wouldn’t they? The principle of treating others in the same manner we would like to be treated being extolled in both religion and philosophy, I might add.)

I am painfully aware I have fought a losing fight in the most lop-sided manner imaginable.

Far too many Americans in this present economic, culture-ravaged, period in our history are suffering as well – albeit in other ways. So, I suppose, virtually no one can be expected to care all that much about what’s going on out here. And all things considered, I can’t really blame the outsider for that. That’s life, unfortunately.

Let’s face it: the “bad guys” have the upper-hand presently. They simply have too many “friends” in government seeing to their prosperity. They form a cancer that is bringing our beloved country to it’s knees. Our politicians, in far too many instances – but certainly not all - have become a huge part of the problem instead of the solution to our woes.

At this stage of things I fully realize that what I am attempting to do is utterly futile, utterly hopeless. But to just cease and desist isn’t going to change things for the better, will it? And so on it goes.

Note: I would like to continue composing bible-related and theological articles from an atheist perspective, but am hamstrung to do so satisfactorily enough due to the ever deteriorating conditions just depleting the heck out of me out here. Wish it were otherwise.

To be continued . . .

The Atheist Observer is on hiatus.

This atheist is involved in a hellacious life and death struggle for his very existence out here in Marinette County, Wisconsin . . . and I’m clearly losing the battle. Actually, I have decidedly lost it already. It’s just a matter of time now. No cavalry to the rescue for this non-believer, it appears.

The evil ”religious” man can do to his fellow man just numbs the mind . . . and all the while projecting an utterly false and hypocritical image of noble piety while perpetrating it.

In “punishing” the atheist holding an extremely reasoned difference of opinion forming his non-belief, religious man violently violates some of the most noble precepts of his religion; the “Golden Rule” of his faith. What, then, is the point of his religious upbringing, his religious stance? Just disgusting

Virulent politically-related corruption and anti-atheist sentiment on the part of the powers that be rule with an iron-fist out my way, while otherwise “good” men and women in my community (and elsewhere) stand idly by continuing to do not a thing about it, unfortunately.

And religious man is morally superior to the atheist?

I am in desperate need of help. But to my deep disappointment I find that none is coming from any quarter – at least none that I’m aware of.

What is going on out here is unspeakably cruel and heinous. Words not said lightly. They are based on fact.

We human beings must be better than this. We have to be. That this could happen in my America grieves me to no end.

I fervently hope no one else reading these words is suffering a similar fate.

I’ll leave this Richard Dawkins.net-based promotion up through May, 2010.

http://richarddawkins.net/thegreatestshowonearth

Good Friday

The gospel evidence overwhelmingly points to Jesus being crucified on “Good Friday” of Passover week. All four gospel writers report that it was the day of Preparation that Jesus underwent his trial before Pilate and was subsequently executed on. This day of “preparation,” or paraskeuē (παρασκευή) in New Testament Greek, refers to “Friday,” the day Jews set aside to prepare for their holiest day of the week, the Sabbath, or “Saturday”:

“And when evening had already come, because it was the preparation day [paraskeuē], that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42 RSV) 

Two important items of information need to be stressed at this point: first, every Friday is the “day of Preparation” because every Saturday is the Jewish day of Sabbath; and second, Mark is technically incorrect when he says, “when evening had already come …”. This cannot be literally true; for if evening had already come, Mark would be indicating that Saturday, or the “Sabbath” had already begun when it is clear this is not the case. He was, of course, referring to the period of time between Jesus’ death at around 3 o’ clock in the afternoon (“the ninth hour”) and sunset as the text that follows, “it was the the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (προσάββατον) points to it still being Friday.

Or is it just possible that Mark is actually referring to Thursday here?

A Possible Thursday Crucifixion – Revisited

I previously dismissed as nonsensical the belief that Jesus was actually crucified on Thursday of Holy Week. But perhaps I was a bit too hasty in doing so. For as previously indicated, when one is dealing with the bible, every thing is not nearly as cut-and-dried as one would imagine.

For example, it is clear from the gospel record that Jesus died during a week in which the Jewish feast of Passover was being observed. All four evangelists attest to this in unison. The testimony of Luke, Chapter 22 (along with Mark 14:12-16) even points to Jesus’ “Last Supper” being the traditional Passover Seder meal:

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it …and they prepared the passover … and when when the hour came, he [Jesus] sat at table, and the apostles with him.” (Luke 22:7-14; RSV)

But here’s the “rub”: The fourth gospel gives us every reason to believe that Jesus did not live long enough to eat the Passover Seder meal; that he was crucified the very day and at the very hour the paschal lambs that were to form part of the Seder meal were being slaughtered, or “sacrificed”.

Passover is celebrated on the 15th day of the Jewish month, Nisan. It so happens that Passover fell on a Friday the week of Jesus’ death. So when John reports that:

“They [the Jewish Authorities] led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium [to undergo trial before Pilate], and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium in order that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover [Seder meal]“. (John 18:28)

he was effectively revealing it was Thursday (14 Nisan) of Holy Week—sunset that evening (the onset of Friday, 15 Nisan) being analogous to the stroke of midnight Christmas Eve for Christians preparing to celebrate Christmas Day.

Further proof that Jesus was crucified on Thursday instead of Friday is found in John 19:14 where we read, “Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour.”

Conclusion

So which is it? Was Jesus crucified at around twelve noon on Thursday of Holy Week as John maintains, or was it at nine o’ clock Friday morning according to Mark’s report?

We should perhaps briefly examine one more exegetical explanation offered by Christian apologists frantically trying to harmonize John with Mark (along with Matthew and Luke) in regards to the day and time of Jesus’ death: the Lunar/Solar Observational Argument. The argument here being that while Mark, Matthew, and Luke were following the normal Jewish lunar calendar in observing the Passover, John may have possibly followed an Essene, Galilean, or a local Greek liturgical sectarian calendar; one that differed from the lunar calendar by 24 hours and that began counting the hours from midnight.

But why would this be the case? Were not all the reports regarding the last week of Jesus’ life based on the testimony of fellow Galileans all observing Passover in a like, customary manner and in accordance with the rest of the Jewish population at-large? And if not, would we not expect “God” to have divinely inspired his evangelists to reveal that at least one or more of His gospel writers was utilizing an alternate calendar so as not to confuse the faithful (and we skeptics)?

No, the answer to why there is such contradictory information being supplied us in regards to the time and day of Jesus’ death is because at least one gospel writer employed a liberal amount of “artistic license” in making up certain elements of the Passion narrative for his/their own theologically-motivated reasons. In the case of John, to portray Jesus as God’s sacrificial “lamb” being sacrificed for the redemption of mankind’s “sins”; Jesus being the ultimate paschal sacrifice, if you will.

Think artistic license was not being liberally employed in the gospel Passion narratives? Read Matthew 27:52-53 and think things over anew.

Greywolf’s 1st Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of Evil. (Assuming such a Creature actually exists, of course.) The conscious, deliberate, act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil. End of story.

Greywolf’s 2nd Dictum: If if happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. (Assuming such a Creature actually exists, of course.) Note: This would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? - A sobering conclusion that needs to be honestly addressed by every brave, uncompromising, individual in their quest for the truth.

In a stark, straight-forward statement, the earliest gospel writer, Mark, declares:

“And it was the third hour when they crucified him.”

Since scholars generally agree that the ancient Jews reckoned their daylight hours from dawn to sunset we can be reasonably sure that by “the third hour” Mark (15:25) meant three hours from dawn (= 6 a.m.), or roughly 9 o’ clock in the morning; thus providing us with a remarkably precise chronological record of the time of day Jesus underwent crucifixion.

However, when it comes to the bible, things are often not as dry and clear-cut as they initially seem. The time of Jesus’ crucifixion provides us with just such an example; for if we turn to John 19:14 we learn from that evangelist that Jesus was still undergoing his trial before Pontius Pilate at “about the sixth hour” (or “noon”). Obviously, something isn’t quite right here. What John’s statement does, is not only put into question the time of day the crucifixion took place, but now, even the day of the week it occurred on; and need I add, the accuracy of Scripture itself? 

Before we go on to explore these issues in greater depth, however, one more gospel element needs to be inserted into the passion narrative equation to round things out: Jesus’ prophecy of Matthew 12:38-40 and his (alleged) stay in the heart of the earth for “three days and three nights”. It goes to the heart of why some Christians hold fast to the belief that Jesus’ crucifixion actully took place on Wednesday of Holy Week rather than on “Good Friday”.

The Wednesday Crucifixion Date

The origin of the belief that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday stems from a literal interpretation of a prophecy uttered by Jesus recorded in Matthew 12:38-40.

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [RSV]

The Wednesday crucifixion advocates take Jesus’ words “three days and three nights” to mean three literal 24-hour periods of time totaling 72 hours. Thus, working backwards from just before the crack of dawn and before Sunday proper—the last moments of Jesus’ three days and three nights, if you will—we find the first 24 hours ending up being just before dawn on Friday; the next 24 hour mark ending up just before dawn on Thursday (here 48 hours prior to Sunday); and the 72-hour mark occurring just before dawn on Wednesday. Incorporating Mark 15:25 leads to Jesus having undergone crucifixion at nine o’ clock Wednesday morning. Jesus’ prophecy thus comes out being extremely accurate and fulfulled in the minds of the faithful. And, in the end, does not Jesus’ actual words take precedence over what others had to say in regards to the resurrection?

But wait. What about John 19:14 and that report that Jesus was still on trial at about the “sixth” hour?

The Roman-Time Argument

Perhaps the most popular and appealing explanation used by Christian apologists to account for the contradiction between Mark and John’s chronology concerning the time of the crucifixion is the “Roman-Time Argument”. This explanation argues that John used the Roman method of calculating time instead of the Jewish way. The Romans, say Christian apologists, reckoned their hours from midnight instead of the Jewish method of reckoning them from dawn.

Seems plausible at first blush, doesn’t it? Using this “Roman” method of determining time would lead to Jesus being on trial before Pilate at six o’ clock in the morning (“the sixth hour” working from midnight forward) rather than noon. By incorporating Mark 15:25 into the picture, we then have Jesus being crucified three hours later at nine a.m. The discrepancy between John and Mark is removed and the gospels stand harmonious.

But there are several fatal problems with this solution. First, there is no evidence whatever that the Romans counted their daytime hours any differently than did the Jews. In fact, the evidence points to the Romans having divided their “days” into two 12-hour periods: the daytime being divided into twelve individual hours ranging from dawn to sunset (and varying in length depending on the season of the year) while the night hours were divided into four 3-hour watches extending from sunset until just before dawn. The first hour of the Roman day was precisely the same as the Jewish one: from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. And the twelfth lasted from 5 p.m to 6 p.m.; the hours after sunset then began the aforementioned so-called watches rather than “hours” per se. So there is no difficulty in seeing the gospel writers refer to the “tenth hour” as a daylight hour in the report of John 1:39, for example, yet refer to a nighttime hour as part of a “watch” or “watches” as in Mark 6:48 and Luke 12:38 respectively.  No, having two different methods of determining time simultaneously would have sown an unacceptable level of confusion. And there is a further problem with the Roman-time explanation: Why would a native Jew opt to employ a Roman method of calculating time that differed from the Jewish method and then fail to explain to his readers that he had done so?

The Bundled-Time Argument

There exists a variant of the Roman-time argument that has the ancient Jews bundling their hours into three-hour segments so that, say, nine a.m to the noon hour constituted one time segment, the noon hour to three p.m. a second, and three p.m. to six p.m. a third. Since time measurement was extremely loose in Jesus’ day–or so some Christian apologists would have us believe–certain events can be said to have occurred at either the beginning or towards the end of one of these three-hour time segments and still be held to be reasonably accurate as far as ancient time measurement was concerned. So say the apologists. Adding seeming credibility to this method of computing time is the argument that the ancients didn’t have pocket or wrist-band watches to keep pin-point precision when marking time.

This skeptic’s reply is to remind theists that the bible is supposed to be the words of the most supreme force in the universe imparted divinely to the writers of Scripture. So one would expect rather precise time being recorded. But on a more practical level, the Jews in Jesus’ day utilized the sundial—among other methods—to keep tab of the hour. And an indication of this can be found in John’s gospel itself where the evangelist makes reference to the “tenth hour” in Chapter One, verse 39, and the “seventh hour” in Chapter Four, verse 52. Rather the opposite of what one would expect if the bundled-time theory had any validity. Then too, there are the recent discoveries of Jewish sundials amid the ruins of Qumran and even Herod’s temple itself. 

 Herodian sundial discovered amid Temple ruins; its base below

A Thursday Crucifixion? 

In an attempt to harmonize John 19:14 with Mark 15:25, some Christian scholars have concluded that too many events are packed into a six a.m. to 9 a.m. “Good Friday” time-frame to be credible. So they maintain that Jesus was tried on Thursday and not executed until nine a.m. the following morning. Problem solved. Mark and John are in perfect agreement.

A rather obvious problem develops in accepting this chronology, however: John states plainly that it was the Preparation of the Passover, meaning it was “Thursday” of passover week alright. (More on this passage and its relevance in Part II.) But does the natural reading of the subsequent passages in John allow for an interval of some 21 hours between noon Thursday and Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday morning in keeping with Mark’s account? What could possibly account for John not informing his readers that nearly an entire day had elapsed before the crucifixion proper is a question Thursday crucifixion advocates trying to harmonize events with Mark’s gospel have failed utterly to explain.

The conclusion, next time in Part II of this commentary.

Greywolf’s* Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. End of Story. 

*Your’s Truly

 Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that “God” actually exists.

Let us, then, go back in time; to the dawn of time; on a hypothetical journey to the time before time even began; to that time referred to in Scripture as “In the beginning”. 

At a certain point during our imaginary journey into preexistence, we will come across God deep in thought mulling over the idea of creating the very universe in which we humans now reside.

A blink of an eye later and we will witness God begin the process of devising and creating the material and immaterial substances that will comprise the theist view of a super-Intelligently designed, perfectly engineered, and lovingly-created cosmos.  

At an intensely critical juncture during this process, and armed with the supernatural foreknowledge of the catastrophic results that the creation of evil will bring about, God, nevertheless, will proceed to use his own free-will to not only conceive, design, and create a perfect form of evil in all its vulgar manifestations, but deliberately do so, and then move on to unleash it upon hapless, defenseless, man without mercy—when he had the option not to.

Now what could possibly be more evil?

The answer? There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. End of story. _Greywolf’s* 1st Dictum

*Your’s Truly

 Mainstream Christianity’s Viewpoint

In the preceding section we took an imaginary excursion into preexistence from the viewpoint of an atheist watching a supposed God “invent” evil. But that is not how most Christians surmise evil came into being. 

By chance, I came across an editorial titled The Origin of Evil and Suffering in a mainstream evangelical magazine recently.** The author asks, then answers, the question of where evil and suffering originated. His response is very typical of Christian publications dealing with this issue. Let us, then, explore the author’s analysis and see from where mainstream Christians are led to believe evil originated.

In a subsection titled “Where and how did evil begin.” the author immediately begins by quoting Jesus; citing John 8:44:

“[He was] a murderer from the beginning” adding that “[He is] a liar and the father of lies.” The author then goes on to say, “Here Jesus identifies the origin of evil and suffering, a being who initiated lying, deceit, hatred and murder—the enemy, the adversary of mankind, the devil” [Lucifer].

And in his summation the author concludes with the words: “He [Lucifer the Devil]] was the first criminal, a being whose mind and thinking grew corrupt, twisted and perverse. He introduced evil into the world. Humanity has struggled against evil ever since.” 

“He introduced evil into the world,” this editorial writer categorically says of Lucifer, that he was perfect until iniquity arose from within him. But from where, dare we ask, did this iniquity originate? And how could it enter into a being created “perfect” by a God? From where did Lucifer derive the substance that makes up evil? And how could Lucifer have possibly “introduced” evil anywhere without God’s “blessing”? Just how would that have been accomplished within the confines of God’s perfectly created existence?

Is this not effectively declaring that God created one astoundingly imperfect “perfect” being?

Fact is, the author’s conclusion can hardly be correct if viewed from a biblical perspective. For Isaiah 45:7 states directly that God creates/created evil! John 1:3 declares that God made everything in existence that exists. And Colossians 1:16 proclaims this includes everything both seen and unseen. These are ultra-critical scriptural passages dealing with the origin of evil that the writer simply ignores. And not only he, but countless other Christian exegetes struggling in their attempts to pinpoint the origin of evil; apparently finding God being the author of evil too unpalatable to even contemplate: hence the placing of blame squarely on Lucifer. 

The bible cannot make it more plain, however: God created evil. And using the vehicle of our imaginary journey into preexistence made in the first half of this article, we find God did so deliberately; with the free-will not to. There is no escaping this conclusion if one is going to insist the bible is inerrant. And there is no exonerating God from obvious malfeasance and “sinful” conduct simply because He is “God” either. For even God believes evil to be abhorently “evil” if one accepts that the bible is truly the divine word of God.

 The Free-Will Argument

There are those within the Christian community, of course, who readily accept God created evil. But they insist that He did so as part of a divine plan we humans have no right to moralize over or contest. These God-created-evil believing Christians maintain that God did not want to simply create mindless human robots or zombies with no capacity for freedom of choice. So he bestowed a “gift” to mankind; that gift being “free-will”; the ability to say “No” to evil and, thus, the gift to be truly human.

There are, however, inherent problems with this “gift” to mankind:

● The very act of creating evil is, in itself, a malevolently evil act. It is an evil endeavor to deliberately create evil and thus impossible for a being perfect in love, mercy, and goodness to undertake.

●  God had the ability to endow mankind with the free-will, the freedom of choice to do anything — excepting just two choices: the ability to think or do evil.

● God had the ability to instantly destroy evil once He recognized it for what it was but chose not to do so. What does that tell one about the moral character of God?

I bring up this last point because it has been, and continues to be, the ultimate aim of every single Christian who has ever taken a breath of air on planet earth to end up in God’s heaven in the hereafter. And what is the singular most attractive draw about entering God’s heaven apart from eternal life and happiness? That’s right! The absence of evil. God is set to eradicate every trace of evil once and for all at some future date, we are told. But does that not then beg the question why God created evil in the first place? For does that not mean that heaven will be comprised of nothing but mindless robots, mindless zombies, traipsing all over perfectly created billowy clouds and worshipping God in incomprehensible bliss for all eternity? Or are all of God’s people “upstairs” going to still “enjoy” having the free-will to think and do evil?

Why create Evil in the first place? I’d ask his Godness if he were real. Why not truly have heaven here on earth minus all the agony, anguish, suffering, and misery evil entails? “Why put your “children” though such unspeakable torture when you didn’t have to?” I’d ask his ”Holy” Almightiness. Why be so mean? 

We are not to question God on such matters, say the Christians. Okay. Then explain why anyone in their right mind would love, worship, and adore such a fiendish creature with all their heart and soul? I respectfully ask. We atheists are all ears. Well, at least this one is.

So does that mean that I believe in the existence of a God that is evil? Hardly. There is no more proof that an evil God exists than an infinitely good one does. (But if I were forced to pick which one has the closest chance to being “real”, I think the reader can guess which God I think has a distinct edge.)

Greywolf’s 1st Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of Evil. (Assuming such a Creature actually exists, of course.) The conscious, deliberate, act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil. End of story. Most  theists, then, actually worship and adore the Creator of evil – albeit in a roundabout, unwitting way. Ironic, to say the very least, I submit. Or am I off-base here?

Greywolf’s 2nd Dictum: If if happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened.(Assuming such a Creature actually exists, of course.) Note: This would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? - A sobering conclusion that needs to be honestly addressed byevery  brave, uncompromising, free thinking  mind in search of the truth.

** Ashley, Scott. “The Origin of Evil and Suffering” The Good News: A Magazine of Understanding Vol. 4, 3May/June 1999 Web.3 Jul 2009. <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn22/editorialorigin.htm>.

It is a glaring “error” that should make even the most rabid religious right Christian fundamentalist wince with discomfort. Moreover, it illustrates yet another example of a New Testament writer failing to give full thought to what he is writing. In other words, failing to see things through to their logical conclusion. Due to the uncritical, unquestioning mind-set of Christian fundamentalists, however, this glaring incongruity continually fails to be held up to the rigid scrutiny it so rightly deserves.  

I am referring here to the text of Matthew 19:28.

To set the scene: Jesus has just advised an individual—dubbed “the rich young man” by NT commentators—that if he truly wanted to feel “complete,” or, “perfect” in his bid to enter the kingdom of God on the best possible footing, he would need to sell his worldly possessions and give the proceeds to the poor (Matthew 19:16-22). Then in private discussion with his disciples, Jesus goes and reinforces that sentiment by sounding the now famous line: “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24).

Hearing this causes consternation among his disciples and prompts the rather oddball question: Who, then, is able to be saved?—as though the Jewish population was comprised of nothing but rich fat-cats! 

Peter then goes on to point out that he and his fellow apostles left everything to follow Jesus and wonders aloud what rewards they are to expect in the future kingdom? Jesus replies that once he—if Jesus and the “Son of Man” are to be regarded as one and the same being—is seated on his throne of Glory next to God, each of the Twelve will also be also seated on thrones: each one judging over one of the twelve tribes of Israel!

Jesus said to them, “I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; ISV)

Does the reader now detect what constitutes the glaring error alluded to in this article?

That’s right! Judas Iscariot is among those Jesus just said will be ruling over one of the twelve tribes of Israel while seated atop a heavenly throne!

Mark, the earliest written gospel, and used as an exemplar by both Matthew and Luke in composing their gospels, omits this discussion altogether. It would appear, then, that Matthew had a separate source—common to both he and Luke—for this particular discourse. Luke transfers the passage to a much later portion of his gospel and places it an altogether different setting—shortly after declaring that the Twelve have a traitor in their midst (Luke 22:21-23).

Here is the Lukan equivalent of Matthew 19:28:

You are the ones who have always stood by me in my trials. And I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred a kingdom on me. So that you may eat and drink at my table in My kingdom and sit down on thrones to govern the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30; ISV)

In deviating from the text of Matthew 19:28 ever so slightly, Luke is able to avoid having Jesus say that all twelve present apostles will govern over the twelve tribes of Israel. (Still, when you think about it, Luke doesn’t have Jesus officially exclude Judas here either, does he?)

The Theist Response 

Remarkably, a vast survey of Matthean commentaries reveals that most commentators simply fail to deal with the issue at all. Whether this is due to a self-imposed silence or simply the lack of awareness of what Jesus’ words actually signify is a question only those NT commentators can answer.

One explanation, however, I have come across suggests that when referring to the “twelve” Jesus had in mind the office of Apostle and not necessarily those apostles in his immediate presence! But is this not really special pleading? Is this truly the natural understanding of what was said? Or is this another example of His Almightiness working in a “mysterious way” we humans are just too stupid to fathom? If so, I’d love to learn precisely which lost tribe Judas Iscariot is going to reign supreme over perched atop that heavenly throne of his.

The Fundamentalist Viewpoint

In the preceding subsection of this series we pointed out that if “God” truly exists and created every single thing in existence—both seen and unseen—then it necessarily follows that He created evil too. We also pointed out previously that Christians need only turn to Isaiah. 45:7; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:16 in their bible to see who Scripture ascribes the creation of evil to, prima facie.

Yet so many Christians—primarily those of the fundamentalist variety—remain astonishingly untroubled by the existence of evil. To them evil is just a temporary depravity being employed by God for reasons we humans cannot even begin to ascertain. The fundamentalists maintain that this is due to the very nature of God and man’s inherent incapacity to fully comprehend Him. I call this bit of exegesis the “incomprehensibility” argument.

The incomprehensibility argument takes the tack of likening man trying to fathom God to an ant’s ability to fully comprehend we humans—only magnified a thousand or more times over! Try as it might, the ant will find it impossible to see we humans in the same light as we are able to see ourselves. Though the ant will have some awareness of certain facets of our existence—like our physical presence when we trod on its ant mound, to cite one example—it can never fully understand our make up. But it can comprehend that we are real and part of its world.

Man, on the other hand, has so little comprehension of what God is all about, say Christian fundamentalists, that it is futile to even try and attempt to fathom his all-encompassing nature. Unlike the ant who can at least physically sense we humans, God is so beyond our understanding that we don’t have the ability to even detect Him in any truly measurable way–excepting faith. (A stellar reason for maintaining God is, in fact, non-existent; that His Almightiness is simply a product of man’s fertile imagination! But I digress.) So we humans should just be content to love, worship, and adore God, and not be distracted by things we cannot even begin to understand. Just let God remain wondrous and “mysterious,’ so these fundamentalists insist.

The main difficulty with the incomprehensibility argument is that it blithely ignores the evil that the willful and malevolent act of actually creating evil embodies. Put simply, it is an evil endeavor to deliberately create evil. Period! The admonishment by Paul to Christians in Romans 12:9—a directive claimed to have originated with God himself—is that the good Christian is to, “abhor what is evil, [and] cling to what is good”? Good advice. Advice God himself should have heeded at the moment he conceived, then created evil! 

But God is “God”! Therefore, He can do whatever he so pleases, charge the fundamentalists. And if God created evil it is impossible to deem it an evil act for it is impossible for God to “sin”, plead the fundamentalists. 

Who says? Brainwashed believers who cannot recognize theological contradictions when they see one?

Let’s take “Noah’s Flood” as an example. If accepted as an actual historical event, (but one which scientists insist never happened) it would mean that God went and murdered every single infant baby, toddler, and pregnant woman on planet earth. Yes, “murdered”—through the agony of drowning. A truly evil act.

The fundamentalist will argue, however, that it needed to be done and that God had every right to do what he did. Since he created life, He had every right to take it away, goes the argument. Much like Michelangelo sculpting a stunningly beautiful statue yet having every right to destroy it because he is unhappy with how it turned out.

True. But a statue made of clay or marble is not a living, breathing baby or a woman with child. Those Christian fundamentalists who feel God had every right to drown every infant baby in the world fail to appreciate the fact that what God did was still “murder”. Sugar-coat it, camouflage it, any way possible. It still remains cold-blooded murder—however justified Christian fundamentalists may feel the barbarous act was. There are moral aspects to the murder of a world-full of living, breathing, infant babies by a being declared to be love and goodness incarnate that cannot be rightfully ignored. Something is profoundly wrong with this picture!

Same goes for the creation of evil. Evil is the greatest imperfection in existence. So how does a being declared perfect in love and goodness turn around and create the greatest imperfection imaginable, yet continue to be worshiped and adored as love, goodness, and perfection personified? Only by having slavish, uncritical-thinking believers deeply immerse themselves in denial and delusion, then charm others into belief with the very charm of their deluded belief. That’s how! Simply saying something is this or that doesn’t necessarily make it so. You can call a geometric circle a “square” all day long; at the end of the day it still remains a “circle”. A Creator who would concieve of, and then actually go out of His way to create evil, is . . . well, He’s not Perfection itself personified, now is He?

The foregoing, admittedly, is very tough going. I don’t think anyone can be faulted for feeling a tad discomforted, both physically and emotionally, after plowing through it. But in trying to determine the true origin of evil, whether it be objective or subjective, we must insist on being brutally honest with ourselves. We should also strive to work in general harmony and without excessive reproach, we theists and non-theists.

We have to. We share the same planet. The alternative is simply too gruesome to even contemplate.

We must try and lessen the tension and divisions between us and show more open-mindedness and sensitivity towards one another—far more than I’ve exhibited in this series, that’s for sure! That is, if we expect to get at the real truth that underlies evil.

Or could it just be that we humans don’t really want to know the truth about it all, after all?

Greywolf’s Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. (Assuming that there is such a creature.) The conscious, deliberate act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil and malevolent Is it not? – A sobering question that is in need of a truly honest answer for those seeking the honest truth.

Greywolf’s Dictum #2: If it happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. End of story. (Assuming that there is such a Creature, of course.) That would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? – A sobering qestion that is in need of a truly honest answer for those seeking the honest truth.

The Origin of Evil

Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?”_Epicurus

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that God actually exists.

Let us, then, go back in time; to the dawn of time; on a hypothetical journey to the time before “time” even began; to that time referred to in Scripture as “In the beginning”. 

At a certain point during our imaginary journey into preexistence we will come across God deep in thought mulling over the idea of creating the very universe in which we humans now reside. A blink of an eye later and we will witness God begin the process of devising and creating the material and immaterial substances that will comprise what theists now maintain is a super-Intelligently designed, perfectly engineered, and lovingly-created cosmos.  

At an intensely critical juncture during this process, and armed with the supernatural foreknowledge of the catastrophic results that the creation of evil will bring about, God, nevertheless, will proceed to use his own free-will to not only conceive, design, and create a perfect form of evil in all its vulgar manifestations, but deliberately do so and then move on to consciously unleash it upon hapless, defenseless, man without mercy.

When Epicurus asked: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? The answer is not only was He unwilling, but evil is a substance He went out of his way to devise and create! That is to say, He actually “invented” evil (along with suffering and death)—and at a time when He had the free-will not to! Again, assuming here that the creature “God” actually exists.

In light of the foregoing we must, once again, ask the theist: Who or what could possibly be more evil than the Creator of “Evil”? And correspondingly: Why on earth would anyone wish to worship and adore such a fiendish creature?! Yet man does - even passionately so! Go figure.

Greywolf’s 1st Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. The conscious, deliberate act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil. End of story

Greywolf’s 2nd Dictum: If it happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. (Assuming that the Creature actually exists, of course.) Note: This would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? - A sobering conclusion that needs to be honestly addressed by brave, uncompromising individuals in their quest for the truth.

End of Part II

[Part III will deal with the Christian fundamentalist's response to Epicurus, and more. Stay tuned!]

 Part III:  http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/

Part I: http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/