 |
|
|
|
Unoriginal Nonsense
Or, a Long, Hard Look
James Patrick Holding
Given the ease with which one may self-publish these days (as I know by experience), it's not surprising to see every apostate with a psychological problem having the temerity to believe that they, now, can publish THE book which will destroy Christianity. To these swelling ranks of those "incompetent and unaware of it," we now add one "Dr." Jason Long, author of the work Biblical Nonsense.
The doctorate is put in quotes for a reason. It is not because Long does not have a doctorate; he does -- in pharmacy -- but because Long is evidently under the illusion that by making note of this doctorate, it somehow lends him credibility as a commentator. It does not. If anything, that he "attended Church weekly for sixteen years" is a more relevant credential (though in the same way that a hearing aid is more useful than an ear trumpet at a silent movie, we might say).
Drum roll, please. We are assured that this work "utilizes scientific scrutiny, sound logic, and enlightened rationalism to present a remarkably compelling case against the legitimacy of the Bible" but for all the credible sources that were used (to wit, none -- there are no footnotes) it may as well have claimed the same sort of case provided by saying that it "utilizes a knife, a fork, and a soup spoon." We'll get right to that after a note -- an epigraph is given, "I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs." This is attributed to Frederick Douglass, but like so many quotes fundy atheists like to throw around, is not cited with a source. Based on a search, it is possible that Douglass did say this at a talk that had to do with religion -- but the number of atheist sites that use it and admit it is unattributed offers grave concern that another Pope Leo X fiasco is in the offing. Let's hope not. If we discover otherwise, we will let you know.
And now, to Biblical Nonsense. Some of the chapters and points are beyond our scope (creation/evolution, Flood, archaeology, etc) and we will bypass these, as usual. Veteran readers will find little new here, and this should be considered useful as a guide if you have Biblical Nonsense in front of you, or being thrown at you.
Chapter 1
This brief chapter is not so much about the Bible as it is Long's rather primitive psychoanalysis of why Christianity was successful. There's not one footnote here to any credible source; not even Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity or any work by a credible church historian or sociological scholar like Malina, Schaff or Pelikan.
That said, it needs no arguing that, as Long says, specific events were pivotal in Christianity's success. No doubt the same could be said for any religious, social, or political movement. As a fan of the sci-fi writer Harry Turtledove, I might cite one his recent works in which the survival of a single person in the first century Roman political machine is said to produce an alternate history in which, two thousand years later, Rome is still around as a backwards "gunpowder empire" and their main rival is the Lithuanians, another gunpowder empire. To make an issue of this as Long does is, frankly, asinine, and is the same as John Cleese asking what if beans were peas.
In terms of more specific comment, Long's armchair analysis is that the God of the Jews was too mean to be much more successful:
Before the purported arrival of Jesus Christ, the original Hebrew religion, as found in the Old Testament, was an unfathomably harsh one. If you’ve taken the time to read the Old Testament in its entirety, you’ve probably noticed that God was consistently angry and vengeful for what appear to be petty reasons. He even threatened to kill people for excuses most of us would consider insane if offered by an ordinary earthly individual. Records made shortly before the Common Era (otherwise known as the BC period) indicate that the support for this deity had about run out of steam.
What "records" show this is not explained; much less are we given any sort of documentation to any credible, scholarly work referring to such records. Not that it is clear what is meant in the first place. In the time in question, Judaism was doing just fine, thank you; it had not "run out of steam" in any sense of the word, as it continued to be perpetuated by loyal Jews all over the Roman Empire, had gained special privileges from the Empire to not perform pagan worship rites to the Emperor, and was begrudgingly respected for its antiquity even as its people were hated. There was no sign of any "fizzle" and where Long gets such a kooky notion is not fathomable, though perhaps it made for a good polemical introduction. In later chapters we will see his charges about "petty reasons" and "excuses" and such explained (though no better than usual), so we will move on rather with his continued "analysis":
Paul, however, was convinced that the idea of Christ renovated the old religion. Thus, he altered the formerly distant and spiteful God into a loving and fair ruler. In fact, the makeover was so drastic that some virtually extinct sects of the new religion believe the god of the New Testament is an entirely different god than the one depicted in the Old Testament.
Long perhaps has Marcion in thought of here for the "sects" he has on his mind, but of course, the rub of this is that Marcion did his work by severely editing the documents that would comprise the New Testament. God no longer distant? Bad news: Paul and Jesus alike portray God in terms of a quite distant patron, who has Jesus as His assigned broker; Long I suspect is not educated enough to grasp what it means to refer to God as a patron, but what it boils down to is that He was, as He was in the OT, a ruling king and not Your Very Best Friend in the Whole Wide World as Long no doubt learned while he spent 16 years in church. Indeed such personability would have been practically unthinkable in this day and age when people did not get to know each other as individual persons. God loving and fair? Yes, we say so, but Long would not still: Perhaps he missed those portions of the Gospels in which Jesus threatens eternal punishment; and perhaps he missed passages like 2 Thess. 1:9 and Phil. 3:19 where Paul affirms the same doctrine. The point being, by Long's skewered standards, the God of the NT is no less "distant and spiteful" than the God of the OT. So apparently Long lost his cardboard Jesus, and that is why he suffered dissonance in the first place.
Further lack of scholarship is found in this:
Paul also dropped an array of incorrigible requirements for converting to this new persuasion, including the most deterring one of all: circumcision.
In fact, Judaism of Paul's day had a place for so-called "God fearers" -- persons who did not wish to undergo the circumcision ritual, but still wished to worship the God of Judaism. Thus circumcision was no deterrent at all to entering the congregation of YHWH; you were not of the upper crust, to be sure, but you got everything else that was at the table and enjoyed it. So Long's misinformed social analysis once again falls flat.
In order to garner a larger following, he also emphasized the aspects of Christianity possessing universal appeal. The most notable of his addendums, the gift of an afterlife, may have been essential for the conversion to be successful.
"Addendum"? The Jewish faith had a very clear "gift of an afterlife", one that was highly developed and detailed in the critical century, complete with resurrection (a Jewish and Christianity novelty, incidentally, that made BOTH faiths repulsive to the average pagan). In addition, the contemporary "mystery religions" offered the same gift (and without the horrible embodiment of resurrection), so Long's amateurish social analysis is doubly in error. Make that triply so, as he says:
Furthermore, Paul took an additional step toward creating a more accessible belief system by proclaiming that anyone could get into this afterlife regardless of any immoral behavior previously exhibited by the new believer.
That's nice. However, Judaism, as well as pagan mystery religions, were equally unconcerned with behavior you previously exhibited when it came to accepting their covenant offers of salvation. Obviously all of them had some concern for what came after, but the point is that Long errs in thinking that Paul was the only one "offering a gift of eternal life." That gift was offered from several sources. So what does this do to Long's amateurish analysis, again, but dismantle it?
Long makes the incredible and undocumented statement that, the "traditional Roman and Greek religions were rapidly falling out of favor with the citizens of the Empire. Zeus, Jupiter, and company were scarcely observed in religious ceremonies." Were they? They may have been (I find no consensus on the point), but there was hardly an unfilled void. Long shows no awareness of the influx of Eastern cults into the Empire, and their popularity; or of the growing popularity of Greek philosophy or the mystery religions. Perhaps he wishes to intimate that Christianity fell into a hole that Roman religion had dug for itself. There may have been such a hole indeed (there's plenty of discussion and scholarship on that, which Long's meager paragraph or two won't address) but Christianity would have come along to find that hole already filled.
Quite laughable is Long's implication that Christianity was a success because what was sought was "a novel way of thought to remodel their society." Clearly he is unfamiliar with the ancient suspicion of anything new and the clinging to that which had been done before. This (and other factors) meant, indeed, that the "citizens of Rome...would have quickly rejected Christianity on the grounds of having no practical use for it" -- especially since mystery religions were a much more favorable option. Doubtful is his claim that Christianity succeeded because it was "the first [religion] with intricate detail and organization to reach this region of the globe." Even if we assume that "intricate detail and organization" was somehow preferable to simplicity in presentation and organization, the simple fact is that Christianity's details were not "intricate" (though to one as unschooled as Long, they may be), and certainly no more so than what any pagan or Jew would have known already. That's assuming it is ever clear what Long means by "detail and organization," which is not explained in the first place.
It is said, "A large collection of recorded events and stories from which potential members could gain the religion’s essential lessons also accompanied the movement. Such inclusions were great new concepts for the Romans who previously had religions founded on abstract ideas." Excuse me? Someone here apparently missed out on the "large collection of recorded events and stories" that Jews and pagans alike had -- the latter, with their collection of myths of the gods and their adventures, and with their sacred history which was crowned by Homer and Romulus, were hardly "abstract ideas".
Before Christianity, the closest thing to an afterlife that previously established religions ever offered the Romans was the concept of Hades. While this mysterious idea permitted their souls to be saved, it wasn’t clear exactly what transpired after their deaths.
Well, it's not "clear exactly what transpired" after the death of a Christian either; Long's peculiar idea that heaven "was a remarkable refuge where they would sit alongside their god and savior while singing praises to them" seems to have come more from his religious delusions discovered while in church, or from popular music, than from a Bible. And once again, those darned mystery religions offered their own version of "heaven", and Rome itself had quote detailed idea of the Elysian Fields and The Plain of Asphodel, of crossing the River Sytx, of meeting the gods and giving an account, and -- hold on a moment -- no belief in eternal damnation. You'd get some just desserts in Tartarus if you were bad, but you wouldn't stay there forever. It was quite clear what happened after death: You were either blessed in the Elysian fields, bored and forgetful at Asphodel, or punished in Tartarus. What this paragraph makes clear is that Long's knowledge of Roman religion came off of a cereal box -- or else he drank from the stream of Lethe after reading about it. (If he doesn't know what that means, it just proves my point.)
Furthermore, this wonderful gift had only one prerequisite: accept Jesus as a personal savior. Such coherent simplicity was obviously a vast improvement over the older vague religions.
Simple? Yes, it was: As simple as pledging yourself to one the pagan deities as their client. Long no doubt had his mind thoroughly washed in the Protestant tradition of simplicity here, but the fact is that "accept Jesus as a personal savior" meant something no less simple to an ancient than what he experienced in daily life: covenant obligation, grace, service. This too was not unusual, despite Long:
While Christianity did have strict guidelines, the followers were seemingly immune from God’s post mortem punishments if they had received forgiveness for their sins. Even though Christians are adamant about living what they consider a respectable and moral life, they cannot deny that God also admits rapists and murderers into Heaven under the provided guidelines.
That is so, and they also say that God delivers rewards in accordance with acts as well -- though this is not as much emphasized in an atmosphere of cheap grace as it needs to be. And in that respect, the ancient person received the same idea from their own patrons, and within the circle dance of grace and obligation, where loyalty was rewarded with loyalty, and disobedience with sanction. Heaven as shown in the parables of Jesus is no different; and if Long thinks otherwise, he might consider the parable of the talents for once in his life.
Following this Long cites "great psychological factors" in Christianity's favor, but he is wrong on both. The first is said to be that "Jesus prophesied his own return within the lifetime of certain individuals" and that this threat encouraged the Romans to "act quickly before it was too late." Of course, since the Romans had a way out to a sufficient place as it stood, any such Christian "offer" would have been met with all the joy of a commercial for a George Foreman Lean Mean Grilling Machine at 10% off for a limited time only. But beyond that, Long errs anyway, since he concludes that it was taught that "[o]nce Jesus returned, the offer was seemingly void." No such thing is said anywhere at all in the New Testament, and indeed, since the "return" was not the dispensational nonsense Long thinks it is, but rather a formal enthronement in heaven, there was nothing particularly about it that would have been of any use as an "act now or pay later" device. (And there was also no need to "alter the predictions" into ambiguity when Jesus' prophecies failed, since they did not fail -- but succeeded between 67-73 AD -- and are not even ambiguous to anyone but the ignorant anyway. But that's just more homework Long failed to do before apostasizing.)
Oh, and psych factor 2: "the initial ban of Christianity from practice and observance within Rome. As we all know, when you can’t have something, you want it even more." Um hm. As we here know, this kind of "psychology" is a characteristic of a society ordered by the individual; when it comes to the ancient world and its mentality favoring the collective, within which what the majority wants is what drives you, the exact opposite is true: When you can't have something, you want it even less, because getting it means that you will be sanctioned as a deviant and subjected to public shame, which is the worst thing in the world, worse even than George Foreman. So Long's apparent schooling in psychology didn't teach him that no, the whole world didn't think like Americans -- and aside from that, there was no official, sanctioned "ban" on Christianity for many years after its inception.
The rest of Long's chapter offer brief summations of reaction to Christianity in Eastern Asia and through the Middle Ages and into America. We have no interest in these areas, since they have nothing to do with the initial spread of Christianity in the critical formative years.
Chapter 2
This one is titled, "The Psychology Hidden Behind Christianity" and it really requires no comment, because it's just an expanded version of the old "you believe what your parents taught you" canard, which also ends up proving as much about communism being the best or worst political system as does the child born in Havana and being taught that Castro is the world's political savior. In other words, it's just a red herring argument that proves and says nothing about the validity or truth of the system, and in any event, has no application to someone like me who was raised in an environment essentially hostile or indifferent to Christianity, and who grew up thinking Christians were arrogant fools. It would be just as easy (and just as fallacious) for us to "psychoanalyze" Long and make up stories about the reasons for his apostasy -- but they wouldn't in the least serve to validate or invalidate his beliefs. Indeed, we could just as easily say that he included this superfluous chapter on psychology as an expression of his own insecurities with his presentation of the facts. Why not? It proves as much as his whole chapter here does.
Chapter 3
No, still no actual, relevant arguments yet. Long now offers a chapter titled, "Christianity’s Imminent Downfall" in which he makes issue with the drop of the number of Christians in America. What this has to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity itself isn't clear, and what Long's personal anecdotes about who he has met online say about the same subject is also far from obvious, but Long needs to expand his horizons a bit, and take in the book The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity by religious scholar Philip Jenkins. America isn't all there is to the universe, Long's provincialism notwithstanding.
Chapter 4
This one, titled "Poor Christian Reasoning," you might suppose offered some hope for some real arguments from Long, but in summation it's only a chapter on faulty reasoning processes used by Christians (ones Long has encountered) and which by his own admission and warning, "freethinkers" are not immune to either. I won't assume that Long has not encountered Christians who argue such ridiculous things as, "the crucifixion is a historical fact because no one has found any documents conspiring to invent the story." The way to argue for the crucifixion as a historical fact is to appeal to positive testimony from sources (Gospels, Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc -- and defend as needed against arguments to the contrary), and he won't need to assume that I have not dealt with "freethinkers" who say such things as, "you can't prove that the Gospels were not corrupted more than the evidence shows." He won't have to assume that I have not encountered "freethinkers" who use the argumentum ad nauseam (Doug Krueger, Acharya S, Farrell Till) or the argumentum ad antiquitatem ("people have been fooling themselves with religion for thousands of years"), and so on. I have never run across any of the arguments Long attributes to Christians, but perhaps that's because he ran in the wrong circles as a Christian.
Chapters 5 and 6 are on subjects beyond our scope, so we move to:
Chapter 7
Titled, "The Flat Earth Society," this chapter attempts to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth, and also alludes to the idea that it teaches a solid sky. These concepts we have refuted here and we find that Long has provided but one new argument: A reference to Isaiah 24:1, "Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof." But the word used here is 'erets, a word used over 2500 times in the OT and used commonly of a limited area of land (Gen. 12:10, "And there was a famine in the land") so that there is no quality here against a spherical earth and no place for Long's displaced remark that "it’s impossible to orient our planet in such a fashion and erroneous for Isaiah to use this absurd brand of diction." Long should have had the decency to consult a Hebrew lexicon, at least, before making such a wild argument. It does bespeak Long's desperation that he takes the usual tack of criticizing the text for referring to the movement of the sun, all the while ignoring our modern, continued use of words like "sunset" -- Long is unwilling to grant the Bible the use of phenomenological language.
Also amusing is Long's appeal to the alleged catastrophe that would have accompanied Joshua's long day and Isaiah's sunlight reversal. The complaints he rears out are addressed in the item here (though he admits begrudgingly, in an effort to have his cake and eat it too, "...I suppose that if a power existed to stop the planet from moving, the same power could withhold such consequences from taking place.")
Finally, Long is oblivious to the genre of apocalyptic, as he accuses Joel of using eclipses as a way of frightening people. In actuality, Joel is using a figure of speech within which the sun and moon are symbols for governmental entities of his time (just like Japan's "rising sun" on its flag) and so this is in no way a reference to "a supernatural force...as manipulating these heavenly bodies in order to foreshadow some imminent spectacle of anger."
Chapter 8 is about subjects beyond our scope.
Chapter 9
It is with this chapter that Long enters headfirst into the realm of "argument by outrage". As usual from this sort of source, there is no actual effort to show that any given act by God was indeed unjust or unfair in context. It is by far the longest chapter (at least of ones in our scope, from what I checked) and time and time again uses emotion and a stamping of petulant feet as "argument" as though by merely being outraged and describing what happened, the injustice of the matter is thereby settled. In rare cases some defense is made, but where that happens, Long invariably fails once again on some matter such as social-cultural context.
Here are the points, and they're mostly the usual canards:
The reason that God decides to drown the entire world, killing nearly every living person and animal on earth, is his belief that people are evil and unworthy of existence (Genesis 6:5). So what if they were evil? As Lenny Bruce once exclaimed, “The fault lies with the manufacturer!” It's rather remarkable that with so many philosophers of ethics with published works out there, Long thinks a mere snippet from a comedian is some kind of worthwhile insight. The blaming of God for our decisions and flaws is the retort of the spoiled child unwilling and unable to accept personal responsibility. But if Long wants to deal with some actual arguments in this area, we have this series from a sister site, which he may have trouble with since it quotes authors and scholarly philosophers like Alvin Plantinga instead of comedians like George Carlin.
Even if we suppose the adults deserved to die slow and torturous deaths, what association could we conceivably make between their decisions and the adolescent victims of the flood? Couldn’t God have just placed the innocent children and animals aside for a while so that they wouldn’t drown? Wonderful idea! Why not also suggest that God create ex nihilo, after the Flood, a whole squadron of nannies to take care of all of those innocent children? Indeed, why not ask God to change the channel for us so we don't have to get up or even pick up a remote? The irony of this from Long is astounding, as we will see later he replies to certain of OT morals laws with the answer, "why doesn't God mind His own business," yet utterly contradictorily, asks God to step in again and again whenever he thinks it is convenient. The God Jason Long wanted came with a key on its back and did what it was told; and when he didn't get it, he threw a temper tantrum.
Long seems to have a peculiar definition of "genocide". He says that Sodom and Gomorrah was a "genocidal operation" but "genocide" means, "deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group," and since Sodom and Gomorrah were not any of these things, it is clear that Long doesn't know how to use the word, other than for rhetorical effect.
Appeal to Ex. 4:10-11. The word "make" here carries the meaning of appoint, preserve, or even reward and has nothing to do with "taking credit" for making people deaf, dumb or blind as Long believes.
The usual diatribe about how unfair it was to punish all of Egypt; see here.
The usual diatribe about unfairness to the firstborn of Egypt; see here.
Long makes outrageous excuses in whatever way he can: God revisits the plague concept when he dishes one out on his chosen people for following Aaron’s orders to worship a golden calf (Exodus 32:35). Recall, however, that Aaron was one of the two men to whom they owed their freedom. Why would God punish his people for actions that they didn’t realize were “wrong,” especially when they had implicitly learned to trust the person giving the orders? No, Aaron was NOT someone they "owed their freedom" to -- Moses and Aaron clearly acted as brokers for God, who they knew very well was the one to whom their freedom was owed, and who have them explicit instructions to make no graven image (meaning, a point of presence for the manifestation of deity), and this prior to the golden calf incident. Long here is again behaving and making excuses like a spoiled child.
This debacle seems to have shifted Aaron over to God’s bad side because God later kills his two sons for building a “strange fire” (most likely meaning that they let a forbidden item burn) (Leviticus 10:1-2). No matter how many times I read passages like this, I’m always amazed how God kills people because they do something silly like build a displeasing campfire... Silly! These two men also came to the party DRUNK (note that drinking is cited as a problem immediately after this, Lev. 10:9) and treated the sacred like toilet paper. To do this was to undermine the very basis for social coherence and security for the Israelites by treating it as trivial and unimportant. Long, like most modern impatient individualists, sees only the moment of two deaths and harps obsessively on them, oblivious to the long-term considerations of what such an impious act would imply if left unpunished or under-penalized.
On the subject of fire, God later sets some of the desert wanderers ablaze for complaining about their difficulties (Numbers 11:1). Keep in mind that they were now wandering around the desert for decades doing absolutely nothing after having been slaves in Egypt for centuries. False! They were showing an incomprehensible ingratitude in a situation where they were sufficiently provided for, and like Long, reacted like spoiled children demanding that God hand them the remote. We once again remind the reader that the perpetuation of such ingratitude would, in the context of an ancient society with no social safety nets and with limited resources, lead to further consequences that entailed the suffering and death of far more than these few people. Long is again too short-sighted and uneducated to see more than the immediate acts and results. But worse, he presumes that their expressed desire to return to Egypt as slaves actually means that they really had it better there! (Long ignorantly claims that they were "increasingly irritated over being homeless" -- that is an absurdity, for a pastoral lifestyle was nothing atypical for the day, and indeed, was regarded by many as desirable.)
When they complain about having no meat for nourishment, God provides them with a circle of quail three feet high and a day’s journey wide... Not true -- see here.
God opens the ground under Korah’s household and sucks everything he has, family and all, into the depths of the earth (Numbers 16:31-33). The remaining council of 250 are burned alive (Numbers 16:35). Does the punishment fit the so-called crime? Does God have any compassion for their situation? Obviously not, on both accounts. Obviously, Long's mere declarative say-so that it doesn't fit the crime isn't an argument of any sort. It bears repeating again that he does not live in the Ancient Near East, in a life and culture constantly on the brink of anarchy, where deviance of any sort readily snowballed into death and suffering for many more who followed the same lead. Would Long rather kill 250 now, or watch 250,000 die later because he failed to punish the 250? (The answer no doubt is that he'd act like he could opt out of doing either, by having God hand him everything on a silver platter.)
The usual diatribe about Jepthah.
The usual diatribe about the death of 70K from the census (see 2/3 of the way down)
The usual diatribe about David's infant son -- it speaks for itself that Long regards David's crime here as "petty". This is again the excuse of the spoiled child who wishes to justify not getting a deserved punishment.
At one point, God sends a famine upon David’s followers. When he makes an inquiry to God for a justification, he’s told, “It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites” (2 Samuel 21:1). Saul died years ago, yet God just now decides to punish people who had nothing to do with the decisions of their former leader. And who (ahem) have not yet delivered the proper restitution for the crimes of their former leader, and have thereby implicitly endorsed and supported them. Or does Long not approve of "Good Samaritan" laws as well?
David’s new son, Solomon, turns away from the Hebrew god and decides to worship other deities. Solomon’s decision infuriates God, but he isn’t punished because God recently came to like David. Instead, he punishes Solomon’s son by taking away part of his land when he comes to power (1 Kings 11:9-13). Once again, we see the impossibility of being free from God’s anger even when living in total obedience to him. In essence, Solomon’s son was divinely punished before he was ever born. And of course, Solomon's son was a perfectly innocent choir boy who never did a thing wrong. But a few points from this. First of all, Long is ignorant of the fact that this WAS a punishment for Solomon, for the collectivist mentality of the ancient person, and the association of honor with the prestige of the entire family, meant that whatever punishment fell on Solomon's son, detracted from Solomon as well. Second, Solomon's son did indeed not live in "total obedience" but was a wretched slavedriver. Finally, it was more than simply, "God recently came to like David" but that David, by his overall honor rating and loyalty to God, had come to earn the right to have punishment on his descendant (remember to look at family honor collectively, so the punishment goes on David too) withheld for a time.
The old diatribe about Josiah, who in fact did not receive any punishment at all.
Instead of directly murdering people or using his followers to execute similar commands, the apparently insatiable God begins sending animals to kill those who displease him. On one occasion, he has a lion kill a man because he refuses to hit someone (1 Kings 20:35). Someone in other words who disobeyed a direct order from a recognized prophet of God, and thereby placed himself as God's superior. That's no offense at all, is it!
God sends his lions out again to kill a group of people who were new to Samaria. The reason for this atrocity is their lack of worship, even though they were never informed of the proper worship methods (2 Kings 17:24-26). Not so fast! The ancient person knew, as we know that clouds cause rain, that if you lived in land, you had to get to know and do service to the deity of the land. Thus their "ignorance" was a matter of intentional neglect of their duties, and in this case, outright arrogance, for they assumed that the defeat of Israel meant that their god was defeated also. This is another example of Long making uninformed judgments about a cultural setting he knows nothing about.
The usual diatribe about Elisha and the bears. We get a clue here as to Long's background: He says, "Christians never have to justify such passages because, of course, they never read them!" He didn't. We did. And we also read up on the scholarship. And we're not the ones who are apostate.
Whining is offered over Abraham and Sarah, and the plague on Pharaoh's house. The background here dispels Long's declaration of injustice: What was enacted here was a sort of "diplomatic marriage" custom -- a mutual agreement in which, in order to gain the protection of the king, along with water and grazing rights, the patriarchs, having no daughters to present for such an exchange, resorted to the ruse with their wives. In this kind of situation, the ruling king, if he were indeed an honorable man, would not have sexual relations with the woman in question, nor have taken her into his house like one of his own wives. Long fails to read Pharaoh's retort as a face-saving excuse which it is.
The usual diatribe about Onan.
The usual diatribe about 50,070 people being killed for looking into the Ark (Long has not found out yet that textual criticism puts the number at 70, not 50,070) and the usual diatribe about Uzzah (about 2/3 down). Long's plea that Uzzah was using "pure reflex" is a mere contrived excuse -- who privied him as to how close Uzzah was to the Ark, and what he was doing at the time? --but even if true, the offense had started long before Uzzah laid his hands on anything.)
A potpourri of complaints, many of which object to God killing people in war (! -- so does Long disapprove of ALL war, and should we assume that, or should he have provided more than just a "whoops, there it is!" soundbite for each of these?); the usual diatribe about Nabal; and: [God] plagues Azariah, a man labeled as a good King, with leprosy for the remainder of his life because he allows people to burn incense in a location displeasing to God (2 Kings 15:1-5). This is another great example of an overbearing punishment for breaking an asinine law. No, it's example of Long being asinine when it comes to not understanding either the punishment or the crime in their cultural contexts. First of all, "leprosy" as we know it (Hansen's disease) is not what is in view here; the word used referred to any number of skin disorders, and could refer to something as small as a nickel. Second, the punishment fits the crime perfectly: Azariah violated ritual purity and cleanness laws by allowing this incense to be burned, so he is given a skin disorder which makes him ritually unclean.
A further potpourri of complaints about unfair punishment for things like picking up sticks on the Sabbath, etc.; all of these, we will compress under a single heading of "unjustified and unexplained 'argument by outrage'" by Long. Unless he shows that the society in question did not need this level of penalty (and by the way, he needs to know that law codes in the ancient world were didactic, and that lesser punishments were permitted to be offered), his "arguments" are non-arguments.
He is to cast any menstruating or leprous person out of the camp because God doesn’t want to be around those “dirty” people when he descends for a visit (Numbers 5:1-3). In other words, God wants no association with those who are more likely to need assistance, medical or otherwise. The last I checked, menstruation wasn't cause for needing assistance, but maybe Long thinks less of the vitality of women than we do. That said, Long is oblivious to the concept of ritual purity that governs these rules. It is not "dirty" in the sense that he believes.
The usual diatribe about the Canaanites. Does Long even realize that the Canaanites themselves were squatters who had destroyed a prior, valuable culture?
The usual diatribe about Judges 20:18; presumably, Long is a military genius who can assure us that he could have done a better job.
The usual diatribe about the Amalekites.
The usual diatribes against animal sacrifice, which leads us to assume that Long will tomorrow be found protesting outside the local McDonald's because of the "aromas emitted by burnt flesh" performed by that "fiendish character" Ronald McDonald and by the butchers who knew what organs to extract. Quite frankly, if Lev. 1-9 makes Long "weak of stomach" one wonders how in the world he handled going through pharmacy school, or if he'd survive sitting down to a burger, which he probably thinks grows on a tree. It might help him to know that Leviticus was never intended to be read by the people at large but was a manual for priests. I am sure if he picked up a book like Field Dressing and Butchering Rabbits, Squirrels, and Other Small Game he'd just faint.
I have asked if Long will ever justify his complaints against prescribed Biblical punishments in their contexts, but we never get more than this kind of politically correct circular reasoning:
Let’s begin by considering the adultery law. While cheating on a spouse is certainly one of the most selfish acts a person can commit, being unfaithful is nothing deserving of death. Some couples even encourage each other to commit adultery. If that’s what they want, their sex lives should remain their own business. Suggesting that this would upset a supernatural entity, one wise enough to create the universe in a week, only demonstrates the unenlightened beliefs held by that party. Since researchers have estimated that 50% of Americans commit adultery, does this mean that God really want us to stone 50% of America’s population to death?
This is apparently supposed to be an "argument": 1) "It doesn't deserve it, because I say it doesn't"; 2) "It's my own business what I do" [except when I petulantly demand that God step in]; 3) "People do it all the time." No, there's no warrant for stoning people today (see here) but this is no argument at all, merely posturing. It gets no better from Long with same-sex relations, either. Long can't even see that with all three answers, he declares himself God's superior and explains why God doesn't step in and kiss his boo-boo every time he stubs his toe.
Likewise, about 25% of men are uncircumcised. For what possible reason would God ever care what a man’s penis looks like? Since there’s no conclusively proven health benefit from the procedure, one can only assume that God finds it aesthetically pleasing. One would be better off "assuming" that it is chosen as a mark of covenant relationship precisely because it is so serious and personal (who but one truly loyal would submit to it, or submit his sons to it?), and keeping in mind that a refusal to do it amounts to declaring God's covenant trash -- thus warranting the punishment (exile from the covenant people).
The usual diatribe about stoning rebellious sons.
And it gets so wacky, that Long says, "We shouldn’t needlessly kill animals because some wacko has sex with them. The helpless creatures obviously lack the capacity to make an informed choice in the matter." The mind of Jason Long has been so besotted by misplaced empathy that he is out hugging horses. Come to think of it, the cow that made the burger he ate didn't have any informed choice in the matter either, and nor did the millions of microbes he's killing every time he breathes.
We have already seen that Long has no wherewithal to say, Of all the worthwhile messages that God could have included in the Bible to help us through life, he settles on a number of nonsense rules and regulations that he knew hardly anyone would still follow a short while later. Excuse me? The rules and regulations so offered would be applicable to pastoral and nomadic societies for a thousand or more years, and would still be applicable in some parts of the world today; and the principles that underlaid them, as a whole, remain to the point today. This is merely Long's ethnocentric bigotry at work.
The usual diatribe about God being "jealous" although it is misplaced. The word for "jealousy" in Joshua 24:19, which Long uses, is used less than half a dozen times in the OT, and always is used to describe God. Nowhere is this word described as a sin. A related word is used to describe a husband who worries that his wife is walking out on him (Numbers 5). Sarna (Exodus commentary, 110) notes that the root of the word means "to become intensely red" and that it can refer to ardor, zeal, rage, or jealosuly. Paul knows of a godly jealousy (2 Cor. 11:2), so is this a sin as we understand it? Jealousy is part of God's nature because it is demanded by who He is -- He is the only being who can indeed say He has a right to be jealous, since He is the only one who truly deserves utter respect and devotion. Malina in The New Testament World [126-7] adds that in the context of an honor-based world, jealousy was "a form of protectiveness that would ward off the envious and their machinations." It is a behavior that an honorable person is expected to "exhibit towards that which he or she is perceived to possess exclusive access." Thus for God to be jealous here is not a vice in context, but a supreme virtue and demonstration of His concern for Israel.
The usual diatribe about the sins of the fathers.
The usual whinge about 2 Thess. 2:8-12.
More crybaby antics, as it is said: We also understand that God wants Christians to suffer through life (1 Peter 4:12-19). Why doesn’t he make it less painful to follow him in order for more of us to understand the “true” way of being saved? A better question is, "Why doesn't Jason Long just grow up and stop crying?" A personality like this is unwilling to make any sacrifice in the end, because it is "painful" or even "inconvenient" and we are back to asking God to hand us the remote. It's a good thing Long has not been recruited for political activism; he'd demand that someone bring the White House, etc. to his door so he can protest in front of it without being inconvenienced.
God goes so far as to place equivalent monetary values on human life for an offering that he requires everyone to provide (Leviticus 27:1-8). This is another prime example of the total disregard God reserves for his creations. We may not be omnipotent and omniscient, but most of us would never attempt to place a specific price on the value of a human life. Long has misplaced his sentiments yet again; the value in question is essentially a service tax for the Temple cultus. One may as well say that local fire and police departments and sanitation services place a "value on human life" when millage rates are set.
The usual whining about God allowing Job to suffer by Satan; Long of course would not recognize Satan's "honor challenge" to God, or that 98% of all people who ever lived (in their agonistic settings) would have regarded a refusal by God tantamount to God admitting that Satan was superior. But of course to Long, in his air-conditioned office and in a society dominated by the isolated individual, it's a case of "God's ego" and not public honor.
The usual diatribe about ancient modes of expression (see end paragraph). Please don't make Long the ambassador to a Middle Eastern country; he'll offend them with his bigotry and start an international war just because he is afraid of words.
Long presumes to speak for the justice of eternal punishment for "a radical Muslim who has had the exact opposite notion [of Christianity] drilled into his head since birth" and does so by assuming that the Muslim is never shown the error of his ways. Of course since he is in no one's head but Jason Long's, this is nothing but an emotion-charged burning hunk of straw.
Once again we look for actual explanations and find little other than "I say so": Let’s look at a few Old Testament examples and determine if his retaliations are justifiable. The first of which would be to not harass any widows or orphans because God will kill you with a sword (Exodus 22:24). As in the previous section, we see a continuity of God administering unfit punishments for minor crimes. Oh, really? Preying on the most vulnerable members of that society, and leaving them in situations where their lives were at stake, doesn't deserve the death penalty? Long lives in a fatasy world where all these widows and orphans had to do was run down to the local social services office and get their next welfare check, when the fact is, a "harrasser" is someone who will leave that widow and orphan DEAD by slow death in a society where resources are heavily limited.
If you try to rebuild Jericho, your oldest and youngest son will die (Joshua 6:26). While such an extreme measure of revenge could hardly be warranted, God affords everyone ample opportunity to avoid his insane wrath in this instance. Revenge? No such thing is said; it is merely a prediction of what will happen to the rebuilder.
If you don’t worship God, he’ll sever your arm, revoke your eyesight, and curse you with a premature death (1 Samuel 2:31-33). Similarly, he’ll wipe you off the earth if you observe other gods (Deuteronomy 6:14-15). If you take it as far as hating God, he’ll totally destroy you (Deuteronomy 7:10). I think these punishments are starting to creep over that arbitrary boundary known as “fairness.” I think Jason Long is merely posturing in outrage and providing absolutely no argument showing any actual unfairness in the context of the social world within which they are made. That he has no conception of the harm done to widows and orphans done by what he calls mere "harrassers" shows that he is viewing these texts through the rose-colored glasses of his 21st-century comfort zone.
The usual blatter about the punishments being "scare tactics", which we assume is also the case for sentencing guidelines provided by modern states, which are "exposing the childish behavior" of the state "by listing a long series of punishments for failing to follow its laws and not paying it enough attention."
The usual whinge about "[God] threatens to torture us for eternity" which we have blindsided here.
That pretty well sums up Chapter 9, with Long ironically comparing God to "a spoiled child" even as he himself blames God for condemning those who have years upon years to make the right choice, but don't.
Chapter 10
Yes, it's the canard-filled diatribe you expect, in a chapter titled, "Why Women And The Bible Don’t Mix." There is nothing new here; it's the same stuff we and our sister site answered, mainly in this series. For reference:
The "rule over you" canard
The "pain in childbirth" canard, as well as on menstruation -- Long is insensate to the idea that deeming a woman "unclean" does not mean "dirty" (as noted in a link above) but is essentially a declared vacation at a time when it would be needed most!
The Exodus 21:7-11 canard (see about 1/3 down)
The Deut. 22:13-21 canard -- Long is truly ignorant if he thinks that a "woman who accidentally tears her hymen due to an injury or other non-sexual act is simply out of luck"; like any case in the ancient world, the matter would be brought before judges and elders to be decided upon, not merely slavishly followed like a pedantic manual of instruction.
Long's whining complaint that sons are favored in inheritance ignores the fact that such sons would be responsible for the care of any unmarried daughters, and that husbands would be responsible for their welfare once they were married. He also is oblivious to the point that in the ancient world, no woman would consider herself "forced" to marry her deceased husband's brother but would rather find it desirable to remain within the same family ingroup.
The "childbirth is foul, especially of a girl" canard -- 1/2 way down; also more on the subject of menstruation
The Deut. 22:28-29 canard
The Deut. 22:24 "too frightened to scream" canard, about 1/3 down. Long is as usual oblivious to the collective orientation of the ancient family; a pound of silver paid to the husband is for the sake of his entire household, which is injured by the attack.
The Midianite "sex slaves" canard
Long whines that there is nothing in the OT of "explicit impermissibility of sexual relations between fathers and daughters." He excuses the quite obvious condemnation implicit in the story of Lot as not good enough because of it "using disturbingly tranquil commentary" (perhaps Long ought to consider his desire for a more explicit, bang-on-the-head condemnation as a sign of his own moral turpitude, rather than the Bible's -- or maybe he wanted a more in-depth description to satisfy some inner desire; who knows?). He also objects that this particular is not found in Leviticus 20:10-21, but frankly, "mother and son" is not on the list either, so the problem is more likely Long's lack of moral clarity than anything else. Only outright paranoia leads him to the conclusion that the ommission means "it was permissible, or at least somewhat condonable, for a father to rape his daughters." As one of the linked articles above noted, pedophilia was simply not a problem in Israelite society.
A potpourri of incidences in which women are mistreated or harmed, although all are merely reported without endorsement (Long's vague claim that "God looks upon these men favorably", unsupported with texts or for these particulars, notwithstanding).
The standard canard that Proverbs is full of advice to men on women, as though commentary from a father to his son is going to explain to him how he can find a good man.
The standard Pauline canards about Eph. 5:22-24, 1 Cor. 11:3-9, 1 Cor. 14, and 1 Timothy, and the "jewelry" and "weaker vessel" phrases in 1 Peter. Long is oblivious to the point as well that in the New Testament world, women did indeed have a right to institute divorce proceedings. Lot is likewise condemned as "unrighteous" for a mistake made in a high-pressure situatiom surrounded by a mob; I am sure Long would be much more perfect.
The usual oversexed reading of 1 Cor. 7
Long's paranoid reading of Romans 1:27 as meaning, "the natural use of a woman is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for a man" may well reflects his own bigoted past-fundy reading, but it is not found in Paul.
Chapter 11 -- there is nothing here but the same old arguments about slavery and the Bible that are answered by the two articles on our sister site here.
Chapter 12 is an insufficient summary in which Long endorses the JEDP theory (oblivious to the cracks in that thesis). Long certainly has never heard of a chiasm in his days of rifling through popular texts. In addition, we find some of the usual other canards lifted uncritically from various sources:
Appeal to the usual issues of anachronism such as Dan, Chaldeans, Edom, the Philistines, etc etc -- replies to all found at link.
The usual canard, lifted uncritically from Finkelstein (though I'd guess Long didn't read that, but got this junk third-hand), about balm and myrrh (about 1/8 down). Long ever hauls up the idiotic "no camels" canard.
There is a large section on the historicity of the Exodus which is beyond our scope, but I will note a few points: Long is oblivious to the point that ancient kings seldom if ever recorded their failures; there are the usual diatribes about logistics (maybe Long can step up to the plate with evidence for those millions of everyday Scythians on the steppes of Asia, and also explain how they ate, bathed, etc. and where evidence for all of their encampments are); and we see how Long deals with arguments that fudge him, and it is likely exemplary of his ostrich approach as a Christian, and why he is now working out some much guilt. He notes the answer that "thousand" (eleph) might mean "clan". He dispenses with this by claiming that 1) reading eleph as "clan" is done in only "a couple of the five hundred or so instances in which the Old Testament authors utilize the term" -- actually, Long is merely reading in English and announcing his opinion; there are innumerable cases where eleph would be a satisfactory reading as either "thousands" or as "clan" (eg, Ex. 20:6, 34:7, 1 Sam. 17:18, 18:7-8, 18:13, etc.) so given his irresponsible lack of a word study, this is obviously a makeshift, wave-off retort to call this a "highly unusual" interpretation (and we'll see how clear that this Long's typical method, at the end); 2) calling the argument names (a "convenience"). That's all he does.
In light of the record of human stupidity, it is galling that Long even raises as a problem the "Israelites’ total lack of faith in their god’s abilities." After being a bump on a log in church for 16 years, by his own present account living a deluded life, how can Long have the temerity to even raise such a question? (He could stand, however, to understand some of the Israelites' complaints as demands for action rather than a sign of lack of belief in the power of God!)
The conquest issue with reference to archaeology is beyond our scope, but we do refer here for a lesson Long could stand to learn.
Long hoists the old canard about the OT laws being "patterned after the Code of Hammurabi" (bottom third).
The standard "Sargon and Moses" canard rounds things out for this chapter.
Chapter 13
This one offers Long's 40 favorite Biblical contradictions, and they're all the same old canards.
The creation accounts (link above).
Ark animals canard
Genesis 10:5 canard
Long fails to recognize Hosea 8:4 ("They made princes: and I knew it not") as well-placed sarcasm by the omniscient; as if indeed it required omniscence to keep abreast of simple political events.
Long hoists a new version of "Can God make a rock so heavy" canard, but he prefers burritos; even so, he is just as ignorant as any who propose this canard, and don't understand that omnipotence doesn't relate to logical impossibility. Indeed that he uses this childish canard simply shows how backwards Long is.
Chasing himself in a circle, Long criticizes God for having "human qualities" of fury (why is this not a divine quality that we also possess?), and also offers the standard canard here and from here.
The call on the name of the Lord canard
The oath swearing canard
Long places Psalms against Proverbs, oblivious to genre considerations.
The 1 Tim. 2:8 prayer canard (see entry). Long admits the reason Jesus gives, "to be seen of men" but still insists that this is "violating a direct order given by Jesus" even though he does not explain why this is so if the intent is not to be seen of men.
The usual canard about wealth
The usual canard about faith and words
The usual canard about Luke 14:26 -- Long is missing the answer with his bare-bones literalist reading of miseo, and it speaks for his ignorance and paranoia that he refers to apologists who "try to find ways to alter the meanings in order for the Christian Jesus blueprint to remain unbroken."
The usual canard about Matt. 15:17-19, and the usual false claim that the NT covenant "overhauls" the law --
--with as well, the expected canard about Hebrews 8:6-7
The usual the genealogies of Jesus (also here). Long seems amazed that both Heli and Mary are descendants of David. I wonder if he has any conception of population demographics; there is nothing peculiar about two people descended from the same person hundreds of years before. So what's the insult to the intelligence? Or is it only to those of limited intelligence?
The old birth narrative canard, and Long is way behind on the scholarship if he thinks the "two Quirinius" answer is what is offered these days.
The usual crowing rooster canard, as well as a few of the usual Gospel differences canards. Yes, Jason, you need to read it all if you're going to answer. Get out of your La-Z-Boy.
Long is no better than Sigal at understanding the difference between Pilate and Jesus' accusers.
The usual carry the cross canard (item 43). Long shows his provincialism by declaring for the ancients what their rules of composition ought to be and says that the Synoptics "foul up" by not including details he thinks are needed to satisfy his annoyances.
Also the usual canards about the sign on the cross (apparenlty Long missed that the sign had words in three languages on it), and Jesus' last words, and the standard resurrection story canards (see link above). Long shows his ignorance yet again by comparing oral transmision to "playing the telephone game" and blames God for not meeting his predetermined, arbitrary, provincial, "what do I care how ancient people did it" standards of what constitutes a properly insprired composition.
The usual seeing God canard
The old age of Ahaziah canard (see entry for 8:26). Long is obviously little better educated than he was as a Christian, for he doesn't even know about the idea of textual criticism, though he does accuse some NIV translation of "deceitfully alter[ing] Ahaziah’s age from forty-two to twenty-two with only a minor footnote" without telling us what the footnote said, or why it is deceit.
Yes, Long is so dumb he includes the "who killed Saul" canard.
The usual death of Judas canard, with Long answering one typical harmonization only by saying he thinks it is funny, which I suppose means I can refute his entire book the same way.
The usual staff canard (more here)
The Elijah/Jesus ascent canard, the use of which shows that Long is especially ignorant
This is a new one, and it is no surprise that it is: “And one kid of the goats for a sin offering: to make an atonement for you” (Numbers 29:5) versus “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4) -- here's a hint: The word "atonement" in Numbers means, "covering" -- whule the word in Hebrews means, "cut off" or "remove." Now try again, Jason.
The usual abuse of 1 Cor. 11:14 (see entry)
The Eccl. 1:4/Matt. 24:35 canard
The census of David canard
Another new one, and no surprise: “Walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes” (Ecclesiastes 11:9) versus “Seek not after your own heart and your own eyes” (Numbers 15:39), for it escapes Long that Ecclesiastes is a dialogue between two points of view (see link two entries above)
Long is too miseducated to know that Lazarus was not resurrected as Jesus was -- he doesn't know the difference between a resurrection and a resuscitation
The standard timing of the fig tree canard
And the 2 Kin. 24:8 Jehoachin canard (see entry)
If Long ever finds himself bored, he can answer all of these.
Chapter 14
In this one Long says he is going to talk about Bible absurdities. These fall into the following simple categories:
"It's a miracle and mircales are absurd."
"I, Jason Long, think this is weird, so it is."
"I, Jason Long, still do not understand how ancient Eastern peoples used artistic hyperbole, metaphors, and figures of speech."
There's no reason to dignify most of these points with answers, since Long is not adept at actually explaining why this or that is absurd, weird, etc. but here are a few points to show merely in brief how little he knows:
Long needs education about ritual purity to cover his "asinine" (to use his word for the laws) lack of knowledge about the nature and purpose of the OT laws
There's no need to whine about Goliath's height being absurd; textual criticism reveals that Goliath ought to be listed as FOUR cubits and a span, not six (6 foot 9). This evidence is found in Josephus (Antiquities 6.171) DSS fragment 4QSama, and certain editions of the Septuagint. By the way, this would be a large person in an era when most people were under 6 feet tall.
Long still does not know that James 5:17 refers to a limited area of land not getting rain, not the entire planet.
Long does not know that laws like not boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk have to do with ancient, pagan occult practices, and thus his evaluation of "trivial and outdated matters" merely reflects his provincialism.
Long has not learned that "cockatrice" in the OT needs to be translated "viper".
Long has not learned to appreciate the genres of apocalyptic or proverbial literature.
Long is still behind the times on Balaam and the donkey
Long blames the Bible for noting that Asa "sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians" as though physicians in this time, with their recipes for putting dung on wounds, were actually the right people to go to.
Long blames 1 Tim. 5:23 for counseling the use of wine over water, being ignorant of the fact that water was so unsanitary in this day that wine -- which was extremely weak compared to the modern potions -- was a far better option, and no threat at all to the liver unless it was all you ever had.
Long actually thinks that Rev. 10:10 could be used as literal advice to go around eating books.
Long even thinks Colossians 2:8 means, "blindly follow whatever the Bible says even when overwhelming evidence arises to the contrary."
Long is not up to date on Elijah and the ravens
Long suffers from pathological bigotry with respect to things like Ezeekiel lying on his side; more intelligent Skeptics read this rightly as an ancient form of "performance art".
Long's literalism is so pathological that he reas John 10:8 to mean that Jesus is saying that there was "a world without a single person who didn’t steal something prior to Jesus’ arrival."
Long offers the standard "fools" canard
Long twists a series of Jesus' teachings after the fashion of Barker's "a masochist could misuse the Golden Rule" fantasy, and of course decontextualizes pathologically (example: Luke 6:29-30)
Long offers ths standard canards against prayer
Long offers the standard Judges 1:19 canard (see entry)
To sum it up, Long offers a potpurri of unexegeted evaluations that commit such contextual crimes as thinking that Romans 14:2 condemns all vegetarianism and Rev. 2:16 means Jesus really has a sword in his mouth. I think the scale of ignorance speaks for itself.
Chapter 15
This part of about prophecy, and a good portion is dispensed with at once, that having to do with Jesus' parousia. Others are dispensed with by recognition of the ancient genre of "trash talk" (see example here, which takes care of Long's silly analyses about how hard it is to believe that the Nile really will dry up. A few leftovers:
He has not learned that "dragons" (Jer. 49:33) needs to be read as "jackals" and that the Hazor mentioned is not the city he thinks it is (see entry here)
He needs to read Jer. 17:8-10 as an answer to his misguided perplexity over Jonah and Nineveh.
He needs to learn to connect prophecies of the success of God's covenant people (like Is. 19:23-5) to the church age, the new and supplemented Israel.
He needs to learn that the "day of the Lord" in OT prophets is not "the day of reckoning" in an eschatological sense.
He needs to learn about first century Jewish exegetical methods
He needs to do his homework on almah and parthenos as well as "Immanuel" at the same link, and "Bethlehem Ephatah" at this one
He needs to stop listening to Gerald Sigal about Is. 53 (link above).
Chapter 16
And now the best (worst) for last, as Long commits himself to the ultimate embarrassment, an endorsement of the Christ-myth. He does sum up with a somewhat agnostic tenor: "At the present, it’s honestly impossible to verify or dismiss Jesus as a real person because we lack evidence and crucial eyewitness testimony." But he also confuses the case for Jesus as a person who existed with a case for Jesus as divnity. There's nothing new here, as usual:
Major appeal to the alleged silence of Paul; in essence, Earl Doherty in miniature, with the same dismissals of 1 Tim. 6:13, 1 Cor. 11:23, and 1 Thes. 2:13-16 and the same asnine appeal to Paul's "silence" to people who were already convinced Christians, and lived in a high-context society, at that.
Regular appeal to lack of "eyewitness" accounts, as though this were actually a problem. Long has not learned that the vast majority of recorded history does not involve "eyewitness" accounts, and his argument essentially trashes almost all of recorded history as unverified.
Standard appeal to the silence of Philo and Justus, as well as Pliny the Edler (see entries here) as well as use of the standard canards against Josephus (with the added idiotic implication that Josephus would come to his writing agreeing that Jesus was indeed "the most important man to ever live [sic]"). There are also single-sentence dismissals of other sources (see here for more on the secular ones).
Standard canards about Gospel dates and authorship.
Vague blatter is offered about the NT canonizing process with some of the usual canards, like Ireaneus' "winds" comment and the mere hoisting of the existence of other gospels and epistles, with no critical analysis of any of them.
This seems to be the depth of Long's use of scholarship: "Scholars agree that the original Gospel of John started at 1:19 and ended at 20:31. Furthermore, they’ve determined that the remainder of the book seems heavily edited and reworked." And that's all we get for argument. Check the item on John at the above link for a much better discussion of why John does not include things like exorcisms, etc.
A standard, two-paragraph endorsement of Q and Markan priority, which shows very well that Long has made the transition from being a Christian who gullibly and uncritcally accepted everything he heard to being a "freethinker" who gullibly and uncritically accepts everything he hears. We will not make unique reference to each silly argument Long derives from this belief; the answers are all found in this series, but here are a few of the lowlights for those in a hurry --
The usual Mark 1:2 canard.
The usual "Jews did hold that other men could forgive sins" canard (see 2/3 down)
The standard location of the Gadarnes canard
The standard rulers of the synagogue canard -- you'll find several of Long's other canards answered in this article as well
Long dates the Gospel of Thomas as early as John!
There is a brief endorsement of various "pagan copycat" figures; see here and pick your name; Long has evidently been reading Acharya S to get such idiotic ideas as that Atum, Horus and Ra were a "trinity" (he has no idea what a hypostasis is) and actually thinks there mere fact that Tacitus and Jesus mention Hercules (in what context???) makes their references to him just as verifiying as their records of Jesus.
Finally, Long caps the idiocy with these claims:
The crucifixion legend has many problems in addition to the previously covered contradictions. Although the Romans rarely crucified thieves, we see them executing one on each side of Jesus. Even though Romans never performed executions so close to the Passover, they ignore tradition and carry out the crucifixions on the day before this sacred observance. While the Romans were meticulous in their documentation, they have no record of Jesus or his crucifixion. The whole idea of this Roman procession should be disconcerting if you consider that Rome, the undeniable democratic leader of the planet, didn’t offer Jesus due process.
Long's errors here are evidence of how gullible he has indeed become. The "thieves" were not mere pickpockets; the word used refers to bandits of the Robin Hood variety, political subversives who were precisely the sort Rome would crucify; there is no evidence that Rome gave a flick about crucifying near or on a Passover; there are indeed no records of Jesus' crucifixion, because we have NO RECORDS AT ALL that survive from the office of any provicial Roman governor; and "due process" as Rome saw it was done on Jesus to a T.
And so comes to a close our "field guide" to Biblical Nonsense, ending with another apostate above our fireplace. In close, if you have any hope of Long reforming and learning anything, you may abandon it at once. Note this from his FAQ page, in answer to the question, "Haven’t you read anything by Author X? He/she explains all of the so-called 'problems' you mention":
Whomever Author X happens to be at the moment, a few things almost always remain true:
1. X began with the conclusion that the Bible is true and worked backwards to find only supportive evidence.
2. X is not interested in the most likely conclusion, only the most likely conclusion that doesn’t invalidate the Bible.
3. If X was born with religion Y instead of Christianity, X would be just as confident that religion Y was correct.
4. There are countless Xs in every religion who claim to be able to prove that each of their belief systems is true.
5. X is skillful at making an argument seem valid but eventually looks foolish if you just do some unbiased research.
People who study a concept in which they have no emotional investment are going to offer more reliable conclusions than those who want the concept to turn out a certain way. If you wanted safety information on a used car, would it be wiser to trust the used car salesman or a consumer report? Similarly, if you wanted information on the historicity and veracity of Islam, would you ask an Islamic scholar who was born into Islam – or would you ask an agnostic scholar with no emotional investment in Islam? If you choose the unbiased scholar, why make an exception only for your religion? You may want to begin your quest for enlightenment here.
Behold again, the spectre of those "incompetent and unaware of it," who retreat into the canard of "bias" (of which, they have their own, denials notwithstanding) and the spectre of diversity ("please don't make me work!") as an excuse for making themselves look foolish.
Jim: Your Mom's a prostitute.
Bob: No she isn't.
Jim: Yes she is, you just have an emotional investment so your conclusions are unreliable because you WANT your Mom not to be a prostitute. I, on the other hand, don't care about your Mom at all, therefore I am more reliable than you are on the subject of your mother's whoredom.
Bob: Isn't that fallacious reasoning?
Jim: You're just saying it's fallacious because you don't want your Mom to be a prostitute.
"Duh, what?" That would be a perfect way to sum up Long's "response" to the above detailed thrumming; you'd never expect someone so backwards to do much more, and to do little more than resort to the same canards as always, to wit, as he introduces my response thusly: I’m sure that had this society compelled him to believe a different religion, he would achieve similar results in its defense as well. No, Long can't seem to escape that genetic fallacy; it's too precious to give up, nor can he seem to apply it right, since "society" didn't "compel" me to believe Christianity, and if anything, the "society" I kept taught me that it was intolerant and undesirable.
Long begins with the standard whipped-puppy routine we know from this camp, uncritically quacking out the usual vague and non-substantiated charges made against us here ("redacting and editing his debates, mispresenting his opponents," etc. -- proof, as if more were needed, that Long isn't the independent thinker he professes to be, but merely follows nose to tail whatever he sucks up from whatever he can). When it gets to addressing points we make against him, however, Long resorts to what you'd expect -- the bombast of the lost in space, to wit:
Holding has been engaged in apologetics for such a long period of time that he has the advantage of a vast library of self-written articles that would literally take months for a single person, such as me, to provide adequate responses for. Fortunately, the majority of Holding’s arguments have been thoroughly researched and refuted by those who have far more expertise than I. You can find most of these by following the links already provided or by following the links within those. Many are general arguments with sufficient responses that can be found at a number of reputable scholarly sites. For instance, Holding’s prophecy claims (and prophecy claims in general) have been sufficiently covered here. I will take the time to tackle about ten or so of his other complaints. If, by chance, you find one of Holding’s arguments to be particularly compelling and cannot find a rebuttal online, email me so that I can help you locate one, draft one of my own, or issue a correction if Holding is likely correct.
Actually, Long clearly wouldn't know where to find a single source or website that refutes anything I say (or in a few bare cases, has not been in turn answered). He links his readers to material by Farrell Till (!) who is so far behind in responding to me that he will probably check in to a hospital soon just to have an excuse to ignore me. The appeal to email him personally bespeaks Long's cowardice, and refusal to put his own neck on the block publicly and defend his views. A mere selection of ten out of hundreds only emphazies the point.
But no, Long won't get there just yet. He next offers a litany of excuses for his incompetence in presentation: He only meant to offer a "brief introduction" and "by no means did I intend for this manuscript to be an exclusively novel, methodically referenced, meticulously comprehensive volume of perplexities plaguing the Bible" -- which is in essence his own admission that he did a botch-up job and he knows he did one. Anyone taking pills from Long's pharamcy had best be careful for excuses like these: "I only gave you these pills as a 'brief introduction' and 'by no means did I intend for these pills to be an exclusively novel, meticulously comprehensive cure for your disease'. My goal was to have you 'investigate the symptoms raised by your taking of the medication and review some of the recommended drugs in the PDR, and subsequently considering the arguments offered by both sides.'" As usual, Long is one of these sorts deluded into thinking all it takes to write an authoritative piece on the Bible is sixteen years of picking your fingernails in a church pew, and believes that it is acceptable to produce incomprehensive, amateusih works under the guide of "making you think." Yet thought is precisely what was sacrificed in Long's cheap, "oh, that's good enough" approach. Let the intellectual laziness of Long, and how he projects it on others, speak for itself: I can simply think of no way of writing an all-inclusive work that can be kept to a length that wouldn’t discourage target readers (i.e. common doubting Christians). In other words, let's encourage people to read by producing a poor performance!
And so after a little more bombast, Long descends to "random" treatment in which he boasts that "even the most novice of those in biblical studies can spot the errors when taking the time to do the research and analyzing the obvious evidence."
- Regarding the miracle of the sun in Joshua, and the alleged consequences of such an event in terms fo cows flying off, etc. we linked to Miller's treatment of the subject. Long staggers back like a drunk hit by a sledgehammer from Miller's detailed treatment, and resorts to childishly charging Miller with being biased ("Miller’s explanations are perfect examples of a biased researcher beginning with the premise that the Bible cannot be wrong, using this premise as a conclusion that cannot be invalidated by further evidence, and concluding that the most likely explanation not invalidating this premise is probably the correct one." -- that does sound like something said after consuming a gallon of whiskey!) and then offers his "own summation" of Miller's points, and then, drawing upon his every ounce of expertise in Biblical languages, society, and culture, claims "key problems that exist with [Miller's] proposal":
- Miller contends that the last part of verse 13, which reads, “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day,” should have been translated to read that it was hidden, inactive, and/or silent – and not in a hurry to go down. There are obviously alternative renditions of the Hebrew daman and ‘amad, but why would the author even mention the second tidbit (that the sun was not in a hurry to set) if the actual speed and circuit of the sun were never altered to begin with? If God simply hid the sun, silenced the sun, or inactivated the sun, why did the author mention anything about the speed of the sun? There is absolutely no congruity between the two translations that Miller proposes. There is congruity, however, in saying that the sun slowed or stopped and wasn’t in a hurry to go down. Long simply ignores Miller's quite clear answer on this point, no doubt because the technicalities of Hebrew (which Miller DOES know) went over his head: In Louw-Nida, in the semantic domain of 'attitudes and emotions', they list this meaning of 'uts: be eager, energetic, willing, engage in an activity with prudent vigor and excitement (Pr 28:20; Jer 17:16 For the sun NOT to be 'energetic' and with 'vigor' would poetically match the scenario quite well; the sun was 'quiet' and subdued as it traversed the sky behind the clouds. In other words, it never broke through the clouds in 'energetic' sunshine until 'the nation had avenged itself on its enemies'. That this is a poetic statement and not a simple prose observation can be seen from the actual presence of the word 'uts--it is not present in normal narrative descriptions of the sun going down (cf. Judg 14.18; 19.14). The text does not say 'it did not GO down for about a whole day' but that 'it did not HASTEN to go down...' Thus this is evidence that Miller's explanations go far over Long's poor, addled head.
- Long adds, Miller also does not deal with the fact that the author is aware of how incredible the story actually is. Directly after the most incredible statement in the story, the author rhetorically asks, “Is not this written in the book of Jasher?” as if the story might be too incredible to take at face value. Where Long gets the ridiculous idea that the author is, by this statement, attesting to the "incredible" nature of the story is unknown. The book of Kings is full of statements like, "And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? " (1 Kings 11:41) which are not offered as a "need to corroborate his story" but as clear references to a source used, and to where the reader can find a fuller acccount. Long's Biblical ignorance catches him with his pants down once again.
- Finally, Long says, Miller also does not mention why Joshua would be crying for the moon to be silent. He conjectures that Joshua wants the sun to be silent (i.e. inactive, according to Miller) because of the extreme heat of the day, but why does he ask the moon to do the same? It is true that Miller does not do this -- none is really needed, because the verbs are the same -- but even so, Long here only shows his ignorance of ancient conditions of battle. A full moon offers light by which Israel's enemies could see their army coming. Perhaps Long should reevaluate his decision to see some problem in why the moon would be asked to "be silent" until he familiarizies himself with life in the ancient world. So much for the "most novice" doing "research" based on "obvious evidence".
- Long's next random choice has to do with the issue of prayer in public. I noted that Jesus' words in Matthew 6:5-6 are an instruction against public prayer, done for the purpose of being noticed ("that they may be seen of men") while 1 Timothy 2:8 has nothing to do with modes or positions of prayer. Long huffs that despite the clear words, "this is obviously not the case" and rambles on pointlessly:
Holding doesn’t even attempt to address the issue raised. Jesus was quite clear that he wanted people to pray in private. The whole notion of praying in public did not sit well with him because that’s how the people who wanted to be seen chose to pray. Jesus wanted his believers to be nothing like them, therefore he ordered them to go into a state of privacy when they wanted to pray. It does not matter whether or not your prayers are genuine when praying in public, it is the act of praying in public that Jesus forbids in this passage. It should be clear to readers that Holding has misinterpreted this passage when he states that it is “an instruction against public prayer, done for the purpose of being noticed.”
So one of two things is apparent: Either "that they may be seen of men" is missing from Long's Bible; or else he thinks that extended pointless rambling will cover his error. None of this negates the presence of the clear qualifier of why: "to be seen of men." Thus public prayer for an altruistic purpose is not forbidden, no matter how much Long wishes to pretend that the qualifying phrase is not present. Long then offers this fundy retort on 1 Tim. 2:8:
It is also Holding’s position that 1 Timothy 2:8 is not a direct instruction for prayer. While this much is true, the author nevertheless expresses his hope that men pray everywhere. That would include him wanting men to pray in public.
Um, right. Like this means Paul envisions people stopping while climbing down ladders, or doing surgery, or skiing down a slope, to pray! Long merely tries to strain "everywhere" into a physical location for the act of prayer, when the clearest meaning is that "everywhere" modifies "men" and that men are to then follow some mode not specified in Timothy. It speaks for itself that Long is compelled to admit that this is "not a typical cut-and-dry example of a contradiction" -- it is one, rather, where he has to add his own suppositions to the text in order to create a problem, to say nothing of merely pretending that part of another text does not exist.
In close for this one, Long whines of how this one is not a "big deal," yet if it is not, why did he include it in Biblical Nonsense and why does he defend it now? His own use and defense of it bespeaks who the one with the obsession really is. ;-)
- Next Long runs face first into my comments on individualism verses collectivism:
Oh, and psych factor 2: "the initial ban of Christianity from practice and observance within Rome. As we all know, when you can’t have something, you want it even more." Um hm. As we here know, this kind of "psychology" is a characteristic of a society ordered by the individual; when it comes to the ancient world and its mentality favoring the collective, within which what the majority wants is what drives you, the exact opposite is true: When you can't have something, you want it even less, because getting it means that you will be sanctioned as a deviant and subjected to public shame, which is the worst thing in the world, worse even than George Foreman. So Long's apparent schooling in psychology didn't teach him that no, the whole world didn't think like Americans -- and aside from that, there was no official, sanctioned "ban" on Christianity for many years after its inception.
Long obviously would know the difference between an honor culture and a guilt culture to begin with, so not surprisingly, we have more babbling as a reply:
This passage pretty much speaks for itself. Holding is apparently under the impression that not being able to have something makes a person want it less if the public consensus is against it. I’m sure that if I took the time, I could come up with dozens of scenarios and dozens of articles published in psychology journals that would invalidate his reasoning.
I'm just as sure that Long would have about as much grasp of "articles published in psychology journals" (much less ones that have to do with group-oriented societies) as he would of quantum physics. Long offers a "hypothetical scenario" which doesn't even address the critical issue I noted, which is, again, that Long's argument falsely ascribes individualist values to a collectivist culture. But his "scenario" is misplaced anyway, for it says:
Freedom of religion has been banned in a certain ancient country. Over 75% of the country no longer wants freedom of religion. As the majority against them grows, are those in the minority less likely or more likely to want their freedom back? Holding believes that the minority will not want freedom of religion because the public will punish them for their opinions. I believe that the minority will secretly hold to their desires and one day rise up to fight for their rights.
But Long's original argument was the people OUTSIDE Christianity would want it because it was banned. His argument here only addresses a minority that already believes -- not new converts! So perhaps Long can make up his mind one day what he actually wants to argue. The simple fact is that Long's "scenarios" are simple-minded obstructionism. That he refuses to deal in specifics and resorts to "hypothetical scenarios" shows that his own knowledge of history is dismal.
- Next up, on where I noted Long's fallacious use of the "you believe what your parents taught you" canard. Long refuses to recognize the fallacy of this sort of appeal, and offers an excuse that I "misunderstand the purpose of the chapter". Allegedly Long's "purpose" was to "demonstrate that the belief system is being observed with virtually zero independent thought." The answer remains the same: So what? To point this out at all is simply idiotic. It supports no real argument and has no effect on the objective truth. It's just wasted bombast, and Long's inclusion of it as a point merely illustrates the bankruptcy of his skills as an arguer. To answer further:
Does it come as any surprise, however, that Holding just happened to pick the one religion out of hundreds that was widely practiced and accepted in his society? Is there any reasonable doubt that if Holding had been born in, say, Iraq under similar conditions, he would have chosen Islam and been just as confident about the Qur’an (through the use of equally effective self-convincing apologetics) as he is now about the Bible?
What in the world the point is here is hard to say. The first sentence makes no sense, since atheism/skepticism amounts to a worldview that could be chosen from as well. The "born in Iraq" question is just the same fallacy again, no better a question than mine about the child born in Cuba, and merely begs the question of the effectiveness of the apologetic in objective terms. The sad news for Long is that he was not born in Iraq, and he is not limited in his choices, and the information is not hidden from him. Thus his excuse to avoid making responsible choices is moot. He is not the child in Iraq and nor am I. His waving of the white flag ("there are religious scholars of every belief system who contend that they can prove the veracity of each respective religion") is not an excuse -- if so, let him "prove the veracity" of at least five varied faiths right now as he claims can be done. No, it can't be done -- Long is just using a simple excuse of, "It's too hard, I can't do it"!
- Next to where I said:
Wonderful idea! Why not also suggest that God create ex nihilo, after the Flood, a whole squadron of nannies to take care of all of those innocent children? Indeed, why not ask God to change the channel for us so we don't have to get up or even pick up a remote? The irony of this from Long is astounding, as we will see later he replies to certain of OT morals laws with the answer, "why doesn't God mind His own business," yet utterly contradictorily, asks God to step in again and again whenever he thinks it is convenient. The God Jason Long wanted came with a key on its back and did what it was told; and when he didn't get it, he threw a temper tantrum.
I have caught atheists in this sort of inconsistent view time and time again. Long has no real answer to any of this, other than more whining and crying: "Is this too much to ask from an omnipotent being? Holding apparently believes so, but I do not. This is where we disagree." So why does Long disagree? He does not explain, and cannot, because his "argument" is nothing more than an emotional tempter tantrum and an exposition of ribald inconsistency.
Long asks as well, "why does Holding not deal with the fact that God realizes the flood was in vain due to humanity’s evil ways?" The simple answer is that Long didn't raise the question, as if I am expected to anticipate what other strained canard he will scratch out once the first one is refuted. But as to that, one may as well say that execution of persons on death row is "in vain" because people still commit murders, so we should stop executing people who deserve it. If this is Long's way of doing "common sense" then I don't want him filling my prescriptions. Then we are back to crying again:
Holding – very disturbingly – suggests that it would make just as much sense for us to expect that God should change the channels on our televisions as it would for him to not murder innocent people. He believes I contradict myself when I say that God should not have any business in what same sex couples do in their bedroom but that God should take an active role in explaining to us which religion is correct since we’ve already sent millions to their deaths over this very argument and will continue to do so. I hope the reader will take careful notice of how my position and Holding’s position contrast.
Indeed: Long's view is openly contradictory and self-centered; mine is consistent. If Long wants God to erect Wham-o Force Fields during the Flood, how can he refuse the person who says God ought to help him fix his leaky roof? If he wants God to feed people directly, how can he refuse the person who wants God to change the channel? He cannot, for there is no place that one can warrant a stop. God is omnipotent! And since that means nothing is beyond God, nothing is "too much to ask". Long's further blatter about, "we should not respect him if he is able to kill innocent children and hide when we are most in need of a simple explanation" is itself answered in further points, and that is like one we next get to:
- I noted, Long seems to have a peculiar definition of "genocide". He says that Sodom and Gomorrah was a "genocidal operation" but "genocide" means, "deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group," and since Sodom and Gomorrah were not any of these things, it is clear that Long doesn't know how to use the word, other than for rhetorical effect. Long embarks on a skein of excuses for why his use of "genocide" is actually OK; but all of the dictionaries he appeals to offer the same definition as the one I did; Long apparently does not understand the collective use of "people". But Long persists and analyzes each part of the definition I gave in turn. Let's save him so much needed study time: In particular, he is wrong on the point of "racial, political, or cultural group." There is no evidence, and it would be very peculiar to suggest, that Sodom and Gomorrah were home to a distinct racial, political or cultural group that did not exist elsewhere. Cities would be far too small to house such a group in full, and it would be absurd, and require a substantial burden of proof, to suggest that there was some group that was small enough to fit into two cities. So we skip over Long's defensses of "deliberate" and "systematic" (those words could describe exceution of criminals as well) to what he rightly sees as the point of dispute -- and the defense is itself laughable:
How would Holding justify the notion that neither of two distinct cities has its own unique culture? Culture, after all, is the set of patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population. Does every city not have its own unique culture? Does Holding believe that there was nothing special about Sodom and Gomorrah that could not be found anywhere else?
The strain required here to batter the word "cultural" into submission is a patent absurdity. Long has now turned the killing of even a single person into "genocide" by this wacky reasoning! After all, every person has their own unique "patterns, traits, and products" (ie, we each have our own sets of fingerprints -- or maybe you can NOT commit genocide by killing only one in a pair of identical twins!). No, Long simply made a tremendous bungle in his use of the word "genocide" and is now trying to stretch the dictionary to make it fit his misuse.
- Next we get to where I corrected Long's bigoted views of ancient society with my note:
Long is truly ignorant if he thinks that a "woman who accidentally tears her hymen due to an injury or other non-sexual act is simply out of luck"; like any case in the ancient world, the matter would be brought before judges and elders to be decided upon, not merely slavishly followed like a pedantic manual of instruction.
In response, Long provides no answer but merely retreats behind his veil of fundamentalism:
This is clearly another example of sidestepping the issue at hand. Even assuming they go before a panel of judges, what are the judges going to rule upon if there is no evidence? The passage (Deut 22:13-21) clearly indicates that if the woman cannot produce evidence of her innocence, she is to be stoned to death.
Well gee, what about her own testimony that she had some sort of accident? What about family members who would remember the accident? Is Long this much of a fundamentalist? What this boils down to is that Long is completely ignorant of the workings of ANE justice, as expressed in Hillers' Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea:
..(T)here is no evidence that any collection of Near Eastern laws functioned as a written code that was applied by a strict method of exegesis to individual cases. As far as we can tell, these bodies of laws served educational purposes and gave expression to what was regarded as just in typical cases, but they left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them
Long does no more than re-assert his pedantic, decontextualized reading of the text, as though it were written in a complete vacuum of understanding.
- We then get to where I noted (readers will note how few "hard data" issues Long actually confronts):
In light of the record of human stupidity, it is galling that Long even raises as a problem the "Israelites’ total lack of faith in their god’s abilities." After being a bump on a log in church for 16 years, by his own present account living a deluded life, how can Long have the temerity to even raise such a question? (He could stand, however, to understand some of the Israelites' complaints as demands for action rather than a sign of lack of belief in the power of God!)
Long offers no direct answer to this, but merely insists that in the Bible God "makes consistent interventions in their lives through a series of regularly occurring patterns" and that this ought to be enough to raise a question. It isn't. There is no such pattern at all; miracles and intervention were rare and far between. It doesn't matter, as well, that "no supernatural being has ever made an unquestionable and verifiable interjection into the life of a single individual" in Long's lifetime. Long's own admission of self-delusion says all that needs to be said. He admits to his own experience of (alleged) persistent deception. He thinks miracles make a difference? I have before me a work by another professed apostate, who says that he experienced what he thought was a miracle when rain stopped at his prayer, and stayed away. Yet he still apostasized and now views what happened as a coincidence. Perhaps Long ought to read the work of Christian-turned-apostate-turned-Christian-again Austin Miles, who claims that he experienced miracles before he became an atheist for a time. Lee Strobel also tells of a time when he experienced a miracle in his life, while a non-believer, but it did not convert him. No, Israel was just as capable of failure; indeed, they had more options, which fit in with what happened -- allowing for the miracles, but then treating YHWH as though he were a local deity on the level with Molech. That is also Long's mistake: He argues as though the Israelites turned to whole disbelief in YHWH, when what they actually did was minimize Him.
- Next, Long's Mexican food version of the "rock so heavy" routine, to which I said:
Long hoists a new version of "Can God make a rock so heavy" canard, but he prefers burritos; even so, he is just as ignorant as any who propose this canard, and don't understand that omnipotence doesn’t relate to logical impossibility. Indeed that he uses this childish canard simply shows how backwards Long is.
In response, Long once again merely repeats and clarifies his error, arguing that "infinite power...would certainly include having the power to do the logically impossible and the self-contradictory." It would not include this in the least; no more than one can change 2 + 2 so that it equals 6 by applying infinite amounts of electricity to it. Long is merely offering a definition of "omnipotence" that is false.
And so Long closes, ignoring 99% of all that is set against him (though to keep his 16 fans afloat, he says, "perhaps one day I’ll have the time and/or desire to go through point by point to every detail raised in the articles to which he appeals" -- and maybe someday a flea will build a new World Trade Center) and commenting rather on the illustration at the end between Jim and Bob, which was actually a satire produced by a member of TheologyWeb. Long insists that the analogy is wrong, because after all, he has evidence quitable to having a "picture I found of her working as a prostitute." But as we have shown, Long has no such evidence. As this "reply" of his has shown, he is incapable of defending his own claims of "evidence". Long is, as we expected, a writer overwhelmed by the demonstration of his incompetence.
Go Home! |
|
|
