HM Department of Vague Paranoia

...In an effort to worry the public and convince them to vote for us again next year, and because George Bush asked us to, this website includes the common sense advice found in the Preparing for Emergencies booklet, and information on what the government is doing to protect the country as a whole. (Hint: we're praying really, really hard.) National editions of the booklet will be available here when we can be arsed to get translators to put them into your crazy moon languages.

From 2nd August, translations of the booklet into 16 languages will be available on this website. They will be in : Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, English, Farsi, French, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Kurdish, Punjabi, Somali, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese and Welsh. In the meantime, just assume that we don't care about you...

[More]

A great parody, with a genuine response from the UK Government...

"Public safety is the Government's number one ten priority (the top three are reelection, kissing George Bush's arse, and stopping Gordon Brown becoming PM). We must be prepared to deal with any emergency, whatever it is or wherever it comes from. And that includes zombie attacks! And zombie pirate attacks! And killer robots! And both at the same time! Are YOU ready?"

Miss O'Hara on F*911

Miss O'Hara writes: "...Keep in mind that Iraq is part of the overall War on Terror. Bush has done a really, really crappy job of pointing that out. And you seem to have forgotten that Saddam was, indeed, a direct threat to us, because he funded and assisted terrorists - including Al Quaeda - for years, and he was indeed actively seeking nukes. I don't think he wanted them so he could warm his coffee. ;)"

Miss O'Hara

Much of your argument is contradicted by the words of the Bush administration and the 9/11 report published last week - never mind Michael Moore's film.

• Of course we know that Saddam *had* WMDs. As Bill Hicks put it, 'we looked at the receipt'. The US, UK, Russia and other countries all sold weapons to Saddam in the 80s. We also know that Saddam used WMDs against his own people. We stood by and watched while it happened
  
• F*911 shows Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice saying repeatedly in 2000/2001 that there was *no* evidence that Saddam had WMDs or posed an imminent threat *at that time*
  
• Even Bill O'Reilly of Fox News has admitted that he was wrong in saying that Saddam posed an imminent threat after 9/11 - the main reason cited for going to war
  
• The Sept 11 Commission only last week published its report saying that there was "no collaborative operational relationship" between Saddam and Al Qeada. Sure, people from Saddam's regime & people from Al Qeada had contact in the past... But then People from the UK and US governments had contact with Saddam in the past too... And if they'd been in the slightest bit prepared for a terrorist attack, the US intelligence agencies would have had "contacts" (spies, intelligence, etc.) with Al Qeada too. They didn't
  
• Let me say it again. There is no evidence that Saddam funded Al Qeada. There is no evidence that Saddam had WMDs or was "actively seeking nukes" from 2000 onwards
  
• Iraqi insurgents are "patriots" to many Iraqis. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. Last year Bush declared that combat operations in Iraq were over. Moore said that this was wrong, because many Iraqis wanted rid of the Americans. Bush was wrong. Moore was right. Have you seen the footage of American soldiers wandering around Iraq saying with stunned disbelief that they have not been welcomed as "liberators" by the Iraqi people? They were told by people like Fox News that this would happen. It didn't. US soldiers were *lied* to about the attitude ordinary Iraqis would have to American troops. This doesn't seem to bother you
  
• Most of the 9/11 hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia provided practical banking and business support to Bin Laden for years. Saudi Arabian citizens are known to actively support Al Qeada financially. But the US let Bin Laden's family return to Saudi Arabia unchecked. It also failed to persuade the Saudi's to freeze Bin Laden family assets. Why haven't we gone against Saudi Arabia?
  
• A central trust of F*911 is that the Bush Administration ignored credible intelligence that Al Qeada posed a direct and immediate threat to the USA from 2000 until September 2001
  
• F*911 shows Bush sitting reading a children's book for seven minutes after hearing about the second Twin Tower plane crash. You can see his eyes. His advisors are standing waiting for him to act. He does nothing. He looks lost. After that, it took *two months* for US Special Forces to begin looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Two months
  
• After 9/11, the Bush administration went to its counter terrorism chiefs and *told* them to find a link between Saddam and Al Qeada. The Bush administration planned to go to war with Iraq *before* it had any credible evidence that Saddam was a threat. But they also told the world that Saddam *was* a threat. They lied. American soldiers died. They are still dying, a year after Bush declared that combat operations in Iraq were over

But still you go on repeating arguments that even Fox News is embarrassed with, and still you go on bearing false witness and vitriol towards Michael Moore when you haven't even seen his film.



Follow the discussion at Miss O'Hara's Blog.

Peace On Earth For Believers Only?
I came across this fascinating snippet from Richard Carrier's excellent article on The Formation of the New Testament Canon:

"Scribal errors are also a problem little dealt-with by any church authority... Perhaps one of my favorite examples... is the famous King James line 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men' (Luke 2:14), which even still gets repeated in nativity plays, 'peace on earth, and good will toward men,' and is treated as an example of the ultimate moral nobility of Christianity. But not until recent times was it discovered that a scribe long ago had failed to record a single letter (a sigma, 's') at the end of this line. The Latin Vulgate Bible, translated late in the 4th century, copied from a correct edition and thus has also preserved the original meaning, which is now correctly reconstructed in more recent Bible translations: 'peace on earth toward men of goodwill,' which is not as noble--since it does not wish peace on anyone else--and it is perhaps even less noble still, since the same phrase more likely means 'peace on earth toward men [who enjoy God's] goodwill,' in other words peace only for those whom God likes. All from a single mistake of one letter. "

My experience from talking to Fundamentalists is most certainly that they treat "believers" differently from non-believers. The problem is deeper than mere prejudice, however. Fundamentalists exhibit a seemingly pathological disregard for evidence, facts and opinions which contradict their own pre-conceptions, as I've expored in previous posts...

Update: On this point, check out this fascinating article on The End of Christian Apologetics on freechristians.com.

Miracle on Probability Street
Michael Shermer has a great piece in this month's Scientific American on probability and "miracles":

"Because I am often introduced as a 'professional skeptic,' people feel compelled to challenge me with stories about highly improbable events. The implication is that if I cannot offer a satisfactory natural explanation for that particular event, the general principle of supernaturalism is preserved. A common story is the one about having a dream or thought about the death of a friend or relative and then receiving a phone call five minutes later about the unexpected death of that very person.

I cannot always explain such specific incidents, but a principle of probability called the Law of Large Numbers shows that an event with a low probability of occurrence in a small number of trials has a high probability of occurrence in a large number of trials. Events with million-to-one odds happen 295 times a day in America.

In their delightful book Debunked! (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), CERN physicist Georges Charpak and University of Nice physicist Henri Broch show how the application of probability theory to such events is enlightening. In the case of death premonitions, suppose that you know of 10 people a year who die and that you think about each of those people once a year. One year contains 105,120 five-minute intervals during which you might think about each of the 10 people, a probability of one out of 10,512--certainly an improbable event. Yet there are 295 million Americans. Assume, for the sake of our calculation, that they think like you. That makes 1/10,512 X 295,000,000 = 28,063 people a year, or 77 people a day for whom this improbable premonition becomes probable. With the well-known cognitive phenomenon of confirmation bias firmly in force (where we notice the hits and ignore the misses in support of our favorite beliefs), if just a couple of these people recount their miraculous tales in a public forum (next on Oprah!), the paranormal seems vindicated. In fact, they are merely demonstrating the laws of probability writ large..."

People believe in miracles because they want to believe in miracles...

Fahrenheit 9/11
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. It is a truly remarkable film. There are valid criticisms of Michael Moore... But forget the mindless vitriol. See the film for yourselves.

Update: Michael Moore appeared on Fox Network's show "The O'Reilly Factor" yesterday. See the transcript here. I've also been discussing the movie on Miss O'Hara's blog.

Quote Of the Day
Eros writes in a Talk.Origins thread:

"God made the universe, that much is clear. Unfortunately, He not only failed to provide any sort of design manual... He apparently found it necessary to hide the fact that He designed the universe, so cleverly... that only a handful of fundamentalist Biblical scholars can detect the subtle truth!"

Poll: God is real, but some believe in witches, ghosts
Sunday, July 25, 2004
By SEAN REILLY
Staff Reporter, Mobile Register

In this self-described 'Buckle of the Bible Belt,' it will come as no surprise to learn that 90 percent or more of Alabamians believe in the existence of God, heaven, hell, miracles, angels and the devil, according to the results of a new statewide survey. But what to make of the fact that one in four also believes in witches, and one in three thinks that ghosts are real?

'They might believe in God, but not to the point that they have accepted him,' was the explanation of Richard Blaine, pastor of Lott Road Bible Church just outside the Mobile city limits. 'So many people say they believe in God, but where are they when it comes to attending church?'

To former Samford University professor Bill Leonard, the seemingly contradictory findings reflect a tension as old as organized Christianity in America. The New England Puritans clearly believed in the witches they burned at Salem, and Quakers used to hold seances, said Leonard, now dean of the Wake Forest University divinity school in North Carolina.

Setting the boundaries of orthodoxy, he said, is 'always tricky and always shaky.' "

Full article

Time To Take Sides?

Darkstar218 writes:

"I remember a day when Democrats could be pro-life and still wear a Donkeyin with pride (I LOVE that, by the way.) I can remember a day when Republicans could be anti-Guns and not marked for life. My point is I'm actually glad that lines are being drawn in the sand and people are forced to THINK about what they believe... this US vs THEM mentality, I believe, has merit. Yes, it can turn nasty at times and alienate many people. Call me crazy, but my Bible tells me to either be Hot or Cold - the worst thing to be is apathetic or lukewarm. (see the Church in Laodicea.) Don't have an opinion about Abortion yet? My claim is if you are not 100% on one side or the other about this issue - YOU HAVE NO DIRECTION IN ANY PART OF YOUR LIFE ABOUT ANYTHING.

...What we need to shake things up is some good ol’ fashioned Persecution. See, it doesn’t COST most Christians anything to say they are followers of Christ. Most people think “hey, whatever. You do your thing, I’ll do mine.” At worst, we might get a few mocking emails or fingers pointed at us. Mostly it’s just people WAITING for you to slip so they can jump on you and say “SEE, SEE. You call yourself a Christian? You’re as bad as us!”

But when the church starts to come under persecution, and you’ll have to Count the Cost of calling yourself a Christian – we’ll see a GREAT REVOLUTION in the church. I’m certainly excited and can’t wait for it to happen. Now, I’m not a sadist or anything like that, but when that happens – MAN will it be exciting to see REAL Christians stand up and stand out."

He "100%" opposes abortion, but also opposes full sex education because he fears it promotes promiscuity - even though this means a substantially higher abortion rate. He then hopes that this higher abortion rate will hot up the debate on abortion leading to greater strife within the church and within society. "How lovely".

Perhaps if Dartstar218 did "THINK about what" he believes, he wouldn't be quite so strident. That's the interesting point, as I've explored in my earlier posts today. How do you argue with someone who is adamant that they are right no matter what evidence, opinions, facts and contradictions are shown to oppose their beliefs?

Follow the discussion - if there is one - on Darkstar218's weblog.

Conservatism FAQ
I've just come across an excellent Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) written by Jim Kalb at/of Yale University. He writes:

1.1 What is distinctive about conservatism as a political view?

Its emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated.

The problem is, of course, that much of what passes for "conservatism" seems (to me) to entirely contradict what can be "demonstrated or even explicity stated". Similar criticisms, of course, can be levied at "liberalism" or any other political, social or religious viewpoint. In many cases, people treat evidence which contradicts their pre-conceived notions as either not existing, or somehow as inherently biased as their own opinions. And how can we deal with this cognative dissonence? That's the big question...

That's Just Your Opinion...
Hiero5ant offers some useful advice on arguing with people who say "that's just your opinion", in this Talk.Origins POTM nominated post (emphasis added):

"There is no response to 'just your opinion', any more than there is empirical evidence that 'shut the hell up' is false. That's just not the kind of argument they're making. This really does strike pretty close to the heart of the intractability of many (but not all) creationists. Some of them are, to be sure, bone-stupid, though most are not. Some of them are pig-ignorant, but most are not. Some of them are malicious and wicked, but most are not. Some of them are quite insane, but most are not. The english language doesn't quite have the vocabulary to make subtle distinctions between insanity and certain... let's call them pathological structures of the intellect. I think the driving force behind (most) creationist fear of science and your relatives' 'just your opinion' remarks is that science really does challenge people's beliefs, and most people are cognitively incapable of making the distinction between a challenge to a belief and an attack on the person. I have many friends of both the atheist and theist variety, and I find what separates the latter category from the theists for whom I have a real animosity is that underlying psychological respect for truth and curiosity about the world."

It's a long post - but it's worth the read...

Thoughts On Christianity
Just some thoughts.

• The Bible is not inerrant, because it is historically and scientifically inaccurate. (Only those who insist that the Bible is inerrant to begin with say otherwise)
  
• Faith cannot confirm that the Bible is "divinely inspired", because belief without evidence cannot confirm any one given interpretation of the Bible over any other
  
• There is no confirmation of "the Resurrection" of Jesus outside of the Bible. Therefore to doubt the Bible is to doubt the Resurrection
  
• The Resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity. To doubt the Resurrection is to doubt Christianity
  
• The Bible itself states that those who witnessed Jesus's miracles (Matthew 11:20-24) and even the Resurrection (John 20:24-29) doubted their veracity
  
• Belief in the Resurrection depends upon faith - evidence without reason. It can only be reasonable therefore to doubt the Resurrection & the divinity of Christ
  
• Since non-belief in the Resurrection is reasonable, it is unreasonable for humanity to be punished for such non-belief as taught by the Bible

Christians have two strategies for coping with this problem.

Fundamentalist churches teach that there is no excuse for not believing in Christianity, because the evidence is overwhelmingly in its favour. This is plainly dishonest.

Mainstream churches teach that "hell" or damnation is not a real punishment - it is merely separation from God. This is odd. If "hell" as described in the Bible is metaphorical, then why should we accept visions of "Heaven" or indeed any form of afterlife as non-metaphorical? Any is it not logically inconsistent for an omnipotent and omnipresent being to "require" anything?

The Poverty of Theistic Morality

I'd guess that Darkstar218 has no interest in continuing our discussions, but I did come across this interesting piece which is in point:

"..comparison of the crime statistics in the predominantly theist U.S.A. with the largely irreligious countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia resoundingly discredits the recurring claim that the moral conduct of theists is statistically superior to that of secularists, let alone of secular humanists. A fortiori, these statistics belie the smug thesis that the fear or love of God is motivationally necessary, in point of psychological fact, to assure such adherence to moral standards and good citizenship as there is in society at large.

Thus, the U.S.A. has by far the highest percentage of religious worshippers in its population of any Western nation, and presidents from Nixon to Clinton recurrently give prayer breakfasts. In Great Britain, for example, which has the Anglican state church, only about 3 percent of its citizens attend a place of worship, whereas in the U.S., the figure is approximately 33 percent, i.e., greater by a factor of eleven! In the U.S., about 90 percent of the population profess belief in God, whereas in Western Europe and Scandinavia the percentage is very considerably below 50 percent. Nor is the black population in the U.S., in which the crime rate is high, at all predominantly irreligious. Yet the percentage incidence of homicides and other crimes in the God-fearing U.S. is much higher than in the heavily secularized Western countries. And a corresponding disparity exists between the respective percentages of the prison populations in these societies. But the inveterate clamor for permitting prayer in the public schools of this country invokes the supposed efficacy of such devotionals in fostering 'family values.'..."

The Poverty of Theistic Morality, Adolf Grünbaum, University of Pittsburgh

The problem is, of course, that Fundamentalists don't let contrary facts get in the way of their beliefs.

On that point, I've added to my main links SpinSanity, a great website which takes aim at distortions of fact from all sides of the political spectrum.

Abstinence Only At Any Cost?
Darkstar218 writes:

"...go ahead and have promiscuous sex. And yes, blame Christians when your condoms don't protect you from your diseases. (And send us the bill for cleaning up the mess while you're at it. Hey, we make so much money over here in the States, us Yanks should have enough leftover to find the cures to all the diseases the world throws on our doorstep. No charge to you, of course.) And when your empty lives are in ruin because your are looking for satisfaction and love and meaning in a casual sex Russian roulette game, and families lie in ruin, and the cornerstone of society crumbles, and we are running wild in the street fulfilling every urge and notion we have in a reckless disregard for order and civility -- burn in hell? Wait, it would BE hell. Well, don't say I didn't warn ya. And all the technology and drugs and latex in the world isn’t going to save you... My soul is prepared. How’s yours?"

Now you are just being dishonest.

No-one says that condoms always "work". But properly used they are a cheap and highly effective public health measure. You wrote earlier: "You can read your charts and say that Abstinence is not working; I will see the same data and come to the conclusion that money and programs are not the solution to the problem. It’s teaching values and morals." That is admission that "abstinence only" programs are a failure.

Campaign against "promiscuity" all you want. Remove sex from our televisions and magazines. Ban abortion. Make sex outside out marriage illegal. Do what you want. But for now, people are having sex, and "abstinence only" programmes are substantially increasing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

If you cared about the health of US teens and wanted to reduce the abortion rate, you'd be honest enough to tell them that if they did for whatever reason have sex that you disapprove of, that they should take care of themselves. (If one of your children did have sex outside of marriage, would you *really* rather that they didn't know how to be responsible about it?)

If you cared about your precious tax dollars, you'd accept the marginal cost of proper sexual health policies rather than paying for after-the-fact AIDS treatment.

But as you've shown with your beliefs on the Bible and "absolute morality", facts, evidence, history, science, humanity, reason and logic play no part in your decision making.



Darkstar's ony response: "Right, keep those sandbags coming."

See the full discussion at Darkstar's Weblog

Abstinence Only At What Cost?
Darkstar218 writes:

"Nice try, but no cigar for you here. Your deep-set distain for righteousness and morality prevents you from even seeing the real problem at the source... You believe that the cause of the dam breaking is not sandbagging... I believe the dam needs to be addressed first."

A huge number of people in Africa wouldn't be affected by HIV if your 'righteousness and morality' didn't lead to them catching it in the first place. The same goes for US teens facing massively increased rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs because of the pig-headedness of Fundamentalist Christian policy makers. Fine, blame people for having sex you don't approve of. They'll burn in hell for it no doubt. But it is astounding that you can defend a policy of sexual health education which shows an utter disregard for the welfare of living people and unborn children purely out of righteous malice.


See the full discussion at Darkstar's Weblog

Making marriage religious
Some surfing around led me to a fabulous piece in the Boston Pheonix from 2003 by Mary-Ann Greanier on Biblical attitudes to marriage. She points out the the Bible condones:

• Polygamy (II Sam. 3:2-5; Gen. 29:17-28)
  
• Stoning to death non-virgin brides (Deut. 22:13-21)
  
• Keeping concubines (I Kings 11:3; II Sam. 5:13; II Chron. 11:21)
  
• Forbidding marriages between believers & non-believers (Gen. 24:3; Neh. 10:30)
  
• Forbidding divorce (Deut. 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
  
• Forcing childless widows to marry their brother-in-laws (Deut. 25:5-10; Gen. 38:6-10)
  
• Incest, if there are no suitable men to marry (Gen. 19:31-36)

Her piece has been re-written as a nice anonymous "amendment" which Bush might like to make to the US Constitution...

Can an atheist be a loyal American citizen?

Can an atheist be a loyal American citizen? Clearly not! And it's high time to take alarm about it.

Fourteen percent of the US population says they have no religion. You might be living next to one right this very moment and never even know it! But, after we're done weeding out the godless heathens among us, let's keep rolling:

• Can a Catholic be a loyal American citizen? This one was a matter of serious debate for over a hundred years, and it still seems like the Pope is calling the shots for some of them.
  
• Can a recent immigrant from India be a loyal American citizen? Oh sure, he took the citizenship test, but he's still got family back there, and he speaks English funny.
  
• Can someone who was drafted into the US military be a loyal American citizen? Forced to perform unpleasant tasks against their will, they're likely to carry a grudge, you know.
  
• Can someone from the South be a loyal American citizen? Their ancestors weren't, and the acorn doesn't fall far from the oak!
  
• Can a quadriplegic be a loyal American citizen? I've never seen one hold his hand over his heart as the flag went by.

In short, we're completely surrounded by potential subversives and traitors. But don't despair. Hang right here. I'll be back in just a moment after I pick up all the torches and pitchforks I've been storing in my basement.

'Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.' -- Voltaire

Richard S. Russell, Madison, WI
Letter to the Illionois Leader, Tuesday, July 13, 2004

The False Teaching of "Abstinence Only"

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" [Matthew 7:15-16]

The net result of 'abstinence only' policies has been to substantially *increase* the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. 'Abstinence only' policies have only added to human misery.

Preach abstinence all you want. Teach it is a moral ideal. But by making abstinence the be-an-end-all of sexual education policy, you are making the world an unhappier, unhealthier place. You are creating AIDS orphans and widows. You are creating a sexual health time bomb for the next generation.

Tim writes: "You can read your charts and say that Abstinence is not working; I will see the same data and come to the conclusion that money and programs are not the solution to the problem. It's teaching values and morals."

No, they don't have the same music, radio, television, magazines in much of Africa as they do in America. HIV rates in parts of Africa are as high as 60%. And yes, they do have much the same media in western Europe where full sexual education policies have resulted in much lower STD and unwanted pregnancy rates.

You don't care two figs if people are infected with STDs or unwanted pregnancies. It's their own fault if they don't have the same 'morals and values' as you.

You rage against abortion, but you don't care that abortion rates are higher as a result of 'abstinence only' programmes.

As I grew up, I was told that Christianity taught compassion, integrity and leadership by example. The more I talk to Fundamentalists, the more I despair.

Darstar218 On "Abstinence Only" Sexual Education

Hi Tim

Thanks for your extremely interesting post...

Congresswoman Lee did not say that it is not an option to abstain from sex. Re-read the report of her words in context. She said that it is irresponsible to insist that abstinence is the *only* option.

The facts are that STD and teen/unwanted pregnancy rates are *substantially* higher in areas where sexual education is based on "abstinence only" policies compared to where it contains instruction on proper condom use. HIV rates in parts of Africa, for example, are utterly horrific.

"Abstinence Only" places the "evil" of people not abstaining for sex as the be-all-and-end-all of policy over the "evil" of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

"Abstinence Only" policies are based *solely* on religious dogma. They ignore the realities (a) that people have sex whether policy makers like it or not; and that (b) *proper* condom use substantially reduces the risks associated with sex - even sex that you might not approve of.

That is why "Abstinence Only" policies are immoral and *wrong*.

If you wish to promote "Abstinence" in sexual education, then fair enough, but it is ludicrous to suggest that abstinence is the *only* option.



You write: "The reason abstinence only programs have not been entirely effective is because we are not teaching them exclusively." Well, until or unless you can not only (a) remove "sex" from our culture; but also (b) prove that such a removal does indeed lead to increased rates of abstinence; abstinence only programs remain outrageously irresponsible.

You write: "I think [Lee] believes we’re a bunch of animals driven by our instincts and urges and have completely lost all self control. I give human beings more credit than she does." The reality of the statistics resulting from abstinence only programs show that your assessment is incorrect.

I totally agree that it is best for children to be brought up by two parents... But remember the USA has a huge divorce rate, with Born Again Christian being especially likely to get divorced. What would you do? Ban sex from our culture? Ban divorce?

For the record, I do not consider that (properly regulated) abortion is that much of an "evil". As many as one in two pregnancies end in miscarriages naturally. I personally think that public policy should be aimed at reducing the number of abortions through proper sexual education... (And we in the UK don't worship the Queen ;>)

Best wishes




See this discussion in full on Darkstar218's weblog

Hank Hanegraaff
In my discussions with Darkstar218, he has referred to the work of Hank Hanegraaff, an Evangelist who claims to be able to support a rational belief in the truth of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I hadn't heard of this guy, so I tried a Google search on him. To my surprise, it seems he's quite a controversial figure. It seems that in the past he's been accused of plagiarism and even fraud. Further, it seems that there are calls for him to be removed from his leading role at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) by various former and current members. Dan R. Schlesinger of the Institute for Biblical Apologetics Inc writes:

"Hank Hanegraaff is not an apologist, theologian, nor an expert on the cults or the occult. Hank Hanegraaff, in my opinion, is a lay evangelist pretending to be what he is not. He should be exercising those gifts God has bestowed on him in his respective field of ministry."

"Hank Hanegraaff needs to be removed from the ministry of CRI . He should not be allowed to 'pontificate' on matters of faith or doctrine as he is clearly unqualified to do so. Neither should he be allowed to perpetuate the wrongdoing he has brought on many others since my departure [from the CRI]."

Strong words.

Dialogue with Darkstar218 - A Summary

Dear Tim

My response to your last post was quite lengthy. I thought it might be helpful to attempt to summarise our respective positions (and please correct me as needed).


1. You argue that the God of the Bible is the basis of what you term "Absolute Morality".

2. You support your beliefs by referring to authorities who support the historical validity of the Bible and in particular its account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. You claim that those "opposing" the historical validity of the Bible appeal what you call "the 'science' of evolution and the Big Bang Theory".

4. You state that God's apparent incitation of immoral acts as narrated in the Bible does not detract from your concept of "Absolute Morality", because God's motives are to "reconcile and restore to fullness".


I say in response:

1. Not all Born Again Christians believe in Absolute Morality; and morality certainly exists in non-Christian cultures. It is for you to establish that both the God of the Bible and "Absolute Morality" exist.

2. Your authorities are dishonest in reporting to you what most historians, archaeologists and Biblical scholars say about the historical validity of the Bible. Most *Christian* authorities recognise that the Bible is not wholly inerrant in all matters. They recognise that the Bible is a human work, although many or most of course believe that it is divinely inspired. It is therefore simply not true to say that science, archaeology and Biblical scholarship on the whole support your arguments regarding the nature of the Bible.

3. Most scientists who are professing Christians support the idea that life has evolved over billions of years through common descent (whether or not God was directly involved in the process). Therefore it is simply not true to say that "evolution" or the concept of the "Big Bang" are somehow opposite to Christianity. Challenges to the prevailing scientific consensus on such matters do not and cannot help the validity of your claims. If you wish to prove that the Bible is scientifically accurate, it is for you to do so using logic and reason. This you have not done.

4. The Bible is clear that the punishments dealt out by God are primarily for disobedience. I say that it is immoral for humans to punish the crimes of wrong-doers by punishing uninvolved bystanders or inciting immoral behaviour in third-parties. God as described in the Bible does these very things (e.g. the Flood, where babes in arms were killed; or 2 Samuel 12:11, where God incites adultery). If it is "moral" for God to do these things; but "immoral" for humans to do the same, then I say that your notion of "Absolute Morality" cannot be used as a basis for human behaviour or morality.

Kind regards





LINKS: Updated Discussion Index | Darkstar218 Weblog | Full text of my last response