From the Mailbag FROM THE MAILBAG A lifelong friend of the editor wrote to complain that o

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From the Mailbag FROM THE MAILBAG A lifelong friend of the editor wrote to complain that our standing offer of space for rebuttals is hypocritical, because he has written letters that haven't been published. The following excerpt from his latest letter (three pages), which attempted to answer every article in the spring issue of TSR, illustrates what he considers "rebuttals": Your article about the flood was stupid! What do you or anyone know about the "fountains of the deep"? Do you find it strange that the "great deluge" is mentioned by so many writers of God's word? Genesis, Joshua, Psalms, Matthew, Luke, 2 Peter, etc. The "Reader Reaction" page was one-sided! Why not publish some of the negative letters you receive? The "Virgin Birth Prophecy" was a farce! [ref001]Matthew 1:16 : "And _Jacob_ begat _Joseph_, the husband of Mary, of whom was born _Jesus_, who is called Christ." "To a VIRGIN espoused to a man whose name was JOSEPH, of the house of DAVID; and the virgin's name was Mary" ([ref002]Lk. 1:27 ). _Where_ is the problem! In the complete genealogy as given ([ref003]Lk. 3:23-28 ), there is just a more detailed list, but no contradiction! I wonder why our scribe did not expound [ref004]Isaiah 53 , also [ref005]Acts 8:32-33 ! _(John_R._Owens,_Route_2,_Box_437A,_Wardell,_MO_63879.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: I was born and grew up in Wardell, Missouri. My parents' farm and the Owens farm were adjoining properties, so I have known Mr. Owens all my life. He once served as my moderator when I debated as a Bible-believing preacher. I regret that TSR has so obviously upset him, but as rational readers can easily see, he offers no response to the materials we publish. Like most fundamentalists, he believes that a scripture quotation should be sufficient to settle any issue in dispute. We will gladly publish any article he submits that takes a logical rather than the-Bible-says approach to rebutting our arguments against the inerrancy doctrine. Dear Farrell: I pray you shall come to your senses before it is too late. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" ([ref006]Psalm 14:1 ). (This is a complete letter from Bobby Liddell, 4850 Saufley Road, Pensacola, FL 32526 written in "response" to our rebuttal of his article on prophecy fulfillment reprinted in the summer issue from his paper _Defender_.) Thanks for publishing Gleason L. Archer's wonderful letter declining to debate you on the grounds that you are not a "seeker after truth" and "not really open to reason." Are these not remarkable statements from a man notorious for inventing (or at least promoting) falsehoods and fallacies with which to defend the Bible? In addition to Archer's insufferable arrogance, note the characteristic "thinking in tongues." He asserts that "you have nothing to offer your public but disillusionment and despair...." That is nonsense, but suppose it were not? Would that constitute a refutation? Is a message that is genuinely disillusioning and depressing necessarily false? Think about that, for it is the key. Secretly, the Archers of the world believe they control reality, that what they want to believe is necessarily true. They rarely say it in so many words, but they continually betray themselves to the careful listener or reader. ("Well, if you really want to believe we came from apes.... I'd rather believe....") They equate their hopes, fears, and prejudices with absolute truth and blindly attack objective reality when it rears its (to them) ugly head. Please consider the preceding paragraph for publication. More and more, I've come to believe that my point therein about controlling reality is the key to understanding the fundamentalist mind. _(Robert_J._Schadewald,_13204_Parkwood_Drive,_Burnsville,_MN 55337._Until_recently,_Mr._Schadewald_was_the_president_of_The National_Center_for_Science_Education.)_ It was a pleasure to meet in Portland, where I was able to attend the last sessions of your debate with Mr. Dobbs. Of the debate itself, I can't say it was much of a pleasure; it was about what I expected. Your opponent used just about every dodge in the book, and the audience was preconditioned to preaching and could not distinguish such from a formal debate, as evidenced by the outbursts of "amens." Well, I guess my purpose in going was to see if there was any difference from the perspective of being there as opposed to reading a transcript of such a debate later. It came off just about the same to me. It was the first exposure for this recovered Baptist to your old denomination the "Church of Christ," and it had a few surprises. In particular, a book in their bookstore was subtitled a "Debate between a Christian and a Lutheran." And here I'd thought Lutherans counted as Christians too. Your debate opponent must have thought so when he quoted the World Almanac's figures on total Christian population. This led me to research the denomination a bit. My biggest encyclopedia was not much help. It told of Campbell's Presbyterian and Baptist background and of his and his father's efforts to unite Christians. This hardly seems consistent with the "we're the only true Christians" attitude I experienced there. A better resource turned out to be one that your opponent used, the World Almanac. However, its entries in the categories of Doctrine and Authority were rather surprising in light of the experience in Portland. These are respectively stated: "Simple New Testament faith; avoids any elaboration not firmly based on scripture" and "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." Perhaps they are talking about another "Church of Christ"? It seems to me that the whole four-day seminar was nothing more than a series of such elaborations on remarkably unfirm passages. Seeing Rome in [ref007]Daniel 2 is extremely far-fetched; equating Nazarene with the insults to the "suffering servant" of Second Isaiah is simply astounding. From what little I saw of the other lectures and of the preprinted book, this appears to be the modus operandi for the entire event. _(From_Earle_C._Beach,_whose_address_is_printed_at_the_end_of his_article_on_page_8_of_this_issue.)_ EDITOR'S NOTE: Although Mr. Beach seemed unable to believe what he discovered from browsing through the books on display at the debate site, members of the Church of Christ do believe that they are the only true Christians. Perhaps Mr. Beach noticed a popular book by Thomas B. Warren on display: _The_Bible_Only_Makes Christians_Only_and_the_Only_Christians_. Those "only" Christians, of course, are in the Church of Christ. "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent" is indeed the rallying cry of the Church of Christ, but Mr. Beach heard me chiding my opponent several times on this point for his resort to speaking just about anything that would provide him with a semblance of a response to nonexistent, fabricated prophecies that I challenged him to give the book, chapter, and verse for in the Old Testament. Of course, he never did, because they simply do not exist. I agree that [ref008]Romans 3:5-6 begs the question, but Paul makes _three_ assumptions unsupported by evidence, not just one: (1) the world will be judged; (2) the world will be judged justly; and (3) God, and no one else, will do the judging. When people beg a question with a package, I like to look at the pieces. Your analysis of [ref009]Romans 7:1-6 , based on Hyam Maccoby, is beautiful! No wonder Christians' brains get scrambled if they study the Bible too much! _(William_Lindley,_Associate_Editor,_Truth_Seeker,_P._O._Box 2872,_San_Diego,_CA_92112-2872.)_ Mr. Till: I was particularly impressed with your article "There's a Living in It" (Spring 1992), which identifies the economic motive for keeping the Bible and the local church together. Another motive is what I call "credibility." It is difficult to have to retract some of the things adhered to in the beginning of a ministerial career and say, "I was wrong." It reminds me of the story of the preacher who had in his sermon margin "weak point here--yell like hell." Look at the cost involved--loss of face with the congregation who pays the salary, loss of face with parents who are proud of their preacher son and are now ashamed of his rebellion, loss of face with professors who taught him, and loss of face with his peers in surrounding churches. It is a heavy cost, and I am sure that you have experienced some or all of it. But my real motivation with this letter is to offer you some words of encouragement. We both know that even though there is an outward, negative reaction to your newsletter from the inerrantists, much of what you say will be retained in the archives of their minds for some later reflection. I can still remember some of the doubts express by my laymen some 25 years ago that caused me later to say, "Right on!" So it may take some time on the part of some inerrantists, but the seed is planted for future harvesting. I know that sometimes you must feel as if you are beating your head against a wall. Your weapon of logic is frowned upon by inerrantists. God's reasoning and faith are above logic, they say. So it is difficult to communicate with them on common ground. Somehow, they feel, this is superior to logic. So you have a tough battle to fight. But sooner or later, they will tire of what I call "do-si-do-ing" with words. I can still hear the pastor of my youth encouraging me not to think so deeply about the text of the Bible; rather I should have the faith of a little child. I have personally concluded that most of the clergy I know are either dishonest or dumb. During my ministerial career, I was "dumb." And for a while, I was dishonest--until I was able to resolve the economic problem and get on with an honest living. _(Rene_Corcoran,_ex-Lutheran_minister,_1489_West_Decatur_Street, Decatur,_IL_62522.)_ [ref001] [ref002] [ref003] [ref004] [ref005] [ref006] [ref007] [ref008] [ref009]


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank