God’s Truth
Objections
Abstract
© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Sunday, July 25, 1999
Pornography
Beginning the next phase of his argument Phibber tells us, “In Russia today [1972] the bible is strictly banned”. As a proponent of God’s Truth no doubt he was right, but, nevertheless, it was not true, and it does not matter that communism was wrong or how much everyone hated it, it simply was not true that the bible was “strictly banned”. Religion was discouraged in no uncertain terms but Communist Russia had priests and seminaries and published bibles. Whether anyone could get hold of them easily or not is another matter. The truth is they were not banned. Phibber could have changed his sentence by substituting a word like “effectively” for “strictly” and few could then have disagreed. As it is, it serves to show his utter carelessness of expression or his disregard for the truth as opposed to God’s Truth.
Anyway, to back up his claim, he sets up one of his Aunt Sallys, saying the reason it was banned was because the Russians said it was pornography. It is not anything that I have heard and I think it is likely to be false. Even fully paid up apparatchiks would find a better reason to ban it than that. Indeed, one would have thought that, as Communists, they needed no other reason than Marx’s dictum that religion is the opium of the people. Nevertheless, Phibber feels it necessary to point out that this is a “ridiculous accusation” which shows how far “people will go in their attacks on the bible”.
It is a ridiculous accusation but it is one which at a lesser level is true. I mean at the level of sexual morality—the patriarchs were not noted for their sexual mores. They kept several wives, had sex with their serving wenches, murdered for sex, and so on. These were stories about primitive people where such behaviour was normal and so fully understandable in historical context, but it is not acceptable behaviour by our modern standards. Still, we are rather anticipating Phibber here, because he is about to clean up some of this “mud” that people “throw” at the bible.
First we get Jesus’s cursing to death of a fig tree (Mt 21:18-19)—apparently the action of a spoilt child. “Not so”, says Phibber, it was “to teach the Jews a vital lesson”. The reason, he tells us, is that the fig tree was a symbol of the Jewish nation. Authority for this is Jesus himself and the books of Joel and Hosea. Checking these Old Testament references, we find that fruiting fig trees are a symbol of God’s blessing whereas barren ones are a symbol of God’s wrath. Jesus in Luke 13:6 relates a parable about a fig tree which has been barren for three years and which the landowner wants to cut down. But the vine dresser persuades him to let it be manured and given another year.
Phibber, in typical God’s Truth fashion, gives his own version putting it in quotation marks as if it were an actual quotation of Jesus’s from the bible.
Israel is like a barren fig tree. The Good Gardener is going to manure it and nurse it for one more year to see if He can at last coax some fruit out of it. If that last effort fails the tree must be cut down.
It is not a biblical quotation and in the bible Jesus does not explicitly say that “Israel is like a fig tree”. In the context of the verses which precede it, Jesus is actually saying that anyone who does not repent will perish. Not only does Phibber ignore the context he misleads his readers into believing that Jesus explicitly stated that Israel had had its last chance, they were now “arranging to crucify him”, and “must be cut down”. Now if that is not a justification for the Nazi holocaust of the Jews of Europe I really doubt that there could be a better one. Phibber claims that the proof is that in Matthew the barren tree is withered unto death by Jesus’s curse.
Fig Tree
Now Jesus’s fig trees are problematical but it seems likely that there was only one parable of the fig tree and it was the withering of it in Mark—copied by other gospel writers. But the fig tree, far from representing Israel, stood for Rome—Rome having been founded by the twins Romulus and Remus who were sheltered by a fig tree.
In Matthew, Jesus continues the lesson by saying that those with faith could even throw “this mountain” into the sea. “This mountain” could not have referred to Israel, it could only have referred to Rome. Jesus was encouraging his followers to take heart against Rome and if they had sufficient faith God would answer their prayers and cast Rome into the sea. The later version in Luke has been deliberately watered down so as not to offend the Romans. In Mark, the first gospel the fig tree parable is split into three parts also to attenuate its effect on Romans who might more easily recognise the implication.
Phibber now takes us into a discussion of the meaning of marriage in the bible. There is little that can be disagreed with. It is not the words of the bible about marriage, adultery and so on, as the attitude taken by Christians towards these things in spite of the bible or because they read it selectively. Most people surely would agree that the ideal state for humans is to have a man and a woman bonded for life. In this way the welfare of children and elderly dependents is secured. It is for the sake of others that a man and a woman, having chosen marriage, should remain together. But when there is no need for such security because of wealth or state provision, or when men are brutal or women irresponsible, the one-to-one ideal marriage will inevitably break down.
However, Phibber ends this discussion by claiming that the edict of Ezra that foreign wives should be divorced “though stern, was necessary”, a curious attitude for a Christian since these women and their children must have been left destitute.
Now we get from Phibber an explanation of why God seems to be bad-tempered in the Old Testament and loving in the New Testament—it’s not true! The only difference is that, in the Old Testament, God meted out his justice on the spot whereas, in the New Testament, He is ready to wait until Judgement Day to do it. Why there is this difference no one knows because God has “not chosen to tell us!”
Furthermore, “we have no alternative” but to accept that God has inspired some pretty bloodthirsty psalms—written, of course, by king David, who was not allowed to build God’s temple because he had been “a man of war and had spilt blood” according to 1 Chronicles 28:3. Yet these same psalms prophesy God’s judgement on Judas who betrayed Christ, so they are especially inspired. That doesn’t mean that God approves of David’s anger when he wrote them. Oh no! That is simply proof that the author’s own character shows through, even though he is writing under inspiration. Phibber assures us that God could even use a murderer for inspired prophesy—he quotes Caiaphas.
Yehouah Not Just A Tribal God
Now Dr Phibber feels the need to explain that Yehouah was not just the tribal god of the Israelites in the same way that Baal, Dagon and Chemosh were respectively tribal gods of the Caananites, Philistines and Moabites. The bible tells us that Yehouah created the firmament not any other god, that the bible condemns idolatry and that the bible says, “I am the Lord and there is none else” (Isa 45:5). What devastating arguments! You can tell the man is an analytically-brained scientist! Oh, and what a pity about the Trinity.
Here we have ancient writings allegedly inspired by Yehouah and we are to be amazed that it does not provide for other gods! Nevertheless there is still the odd problem. In Judges 11:24, Chemosh is apparently recognised. Phibber explains what the bible meant to say was, “Let us for the sake of argument suppose that your god, Chemosh, really exists…” Uh? Oh, right…!
Similarly, when stones listen (Josh 24:27), trees talk (Judg 9:8-15) and corpses have chats with each other (Isa 14:9-11), we shouldn’t take the bible too literally! So, God’s Truth is literally true, but should not be taken too literally. Eh? Say again!
Phibber explains to us next why God made things happen then punished those responsible for them—specifically Pharaoh and Judas. Pharaoh had his heart hardened by God according to Paul (Romans 9:17-18) then was punished for abusing the Israelites. Well not really! Phibber tells us it was not that God hardened his heart but that God knew Pharaoh would have a hard heart and would allow it to so be. Justification for this Phibber maintains is that in Isaiah 10:5-7 God used the Assyrians for his own ends even though the Assyrians regarded Yehouah, the Israelite god, with contempt.
Phibber wants us to believe that God only allowed the Assyrians to besiege Jerusalem not that he made them do it. So when God says in Isaiah 10:6, “I will send him [the Assyrian] against a profane nation”. He did not really mean he would send him but merely that He knew he [the Assyrian] would go anyway and He would let him. Like Pharaoh the Assyrian had free will but God already knew they would do what He wanted. When God said the Assyrian was the “rod of mine anger”, he didn’t mean He was going to bash the Israelites with it but merely that it would conveniently fall upon them of its own accord thereby giving them the necessary bashing!
So God did not actually harden Pharaoh against the Israelites even though, in Exodus 4:21, God says to Moses, “I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart”. It was simply that he happened to be that way and it suited God. And so it was also with Judas! He wasn’t made to participate in God’s plan by betraying Jesus but did it of his own free will. God knew all this, and prophesied it.
Phibber sees a problem here. If Judas had free will how could anyone including God know what he would do. The answer is simply that God did know, and the bible tells us we have free will, so both must be true. It is simply humans who are too small to understand.
All I can say is that God also gave us a brain and must therefore have expected us to use it. Using mine I freely declare all of this baloney. If God expected us to take things on trust, he would not have given us powers of analysis and judgement to enable us to reject what seems too unreasonable. That must be the answer. God didn’t give Phibber any powers of analysis and judgement, and for that reason has to take his biblical readings on trust. Yet, so as not to appear too gullible, he has to keep telling us he is a highly analytical scientist. That’s it!
God Does Not Break His Promises
Meanwhile, he seeks to persuade us that God does not break his promises. Sometimes, Phibber insists, the bible speaks symbolically. So, it is not literally true, now! When Jesus says (Jn 6:54): “Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life” he is speaking symbolically, Phibber bleats. No doubt you, like me, will accept that it is symbolic, but why should this good God in his brief incarnation as a man even want to conjure up such a gruesome image? Phibber does not answer this.
It is not difficult, however, to find rituals such as that described by Jesus. There were a lot of pagan religions about at the time and the successful ones all promulgated the idea of a “communion” with the relevant god. Often this was done through eating or drinking. The ritual which Jesus appears to be advocating and which has become the main ritual of Christianity was a pagan communion. The followers of Dionysos ate raw meat and drank wine in what was essentially the same ritual. Jesus called himself “the true vine” and the god of the vine was Dionysos!
Anyway, what of the unfulfilled promises? Curious that one! Though Phibber says a couple of atheists have listed 34 he chooses not to refute any of them merely telling us that one only offered him any trouble and that was the prophecy of desolation in Egypt in Ezekiel 29. Phibber considers we shall have to wait for the solution of the problem, no doubt the nuking of the Nile Delta.
Such replies are just like Paul’s in the passage in Romans we started this section with. If God has made people like Pharaoh behave in a certain way how can we find fault in them. Plainly, Paul should have had Phibber beside him but he did not and has to round upon the hypothetical questioner saying, “Who do you think you are to question God?” In the end it always comes back to some such reply. Christians like Paul and Phibber will persist in trying to prove their beliefs. But plainly that is impossible.
If I believe that my central heating system is full of kindly beings who talk to me by telepathy and birdsong, and bring me luck, how can I prove it is true? How can you prove it is false?!
