SLAVERY---Our history and the Bible don't match

THE "S" WORD?

When it comes to Bible apologetics, few words make grown men tremble like the "S" word, you know...SLAVERY. A quick shift into the realm of the uncomfortable surely follows this term. Things get awkward, and we search quickly for a backdoor.

But this discussion must not be avoided, indeed, it would do all of us a great deal of good to take an objective look into it, minus the emotional and presuppositional baggage.

Skeptics of all shapes and sizes love to threaten "Bible-thumpers" with what (they think) will surely be an embarrassing investigation, an "easy" way to score big negative points in the relentless quest to discredit theism in general, and Christianity specifically. Usually it will follow the form of something within the ballpark of:

"You know, of course, that your Bible promotes slavery!"

They imagine, of course, all sorts of things that do not exist, claiming that the Bible has statements tantamount to COMMANDING slavery. Most of them have never even read the relevant portions, confident that their good-and-objective friends over at infidels.org or The Skeptics Annotated Bible have done their "thorough" homework in their own scathing attacks.

THE REAL PROBLEM(s)

Unfortunately, history and language have made these baseless challenges all too easy. The horrific misdeeds and evil of many on either side of the Atlantic slave trade of the 16th through the 19th centuries have created the perfect storm to foment this controversy. But it is not just the actual historical events of the slave-trade-triangle, but also the equivocation of terms, such as servant, or slave, and the linking of these terms with ungodly, barbaric actions that has led to this modern full-frontal assault on the scriptures.

ALL THINGS NOT BEING EQUAL


"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..."
(Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996)

To have the proper foundation to accurately discuss this highly-charged issue, there are at least three things to consider:

(1) (Traditional) Forms of Slavery down through history

(2) Biblical passages on Slavery

(3) "American" Slavery (16th-19th century)

There have been many types of slavery over the millennia, but it is more than unfortunate that all of the various modes are lumped together loosely and simply called SLAVERY. Basically, there are 3 types that fall under this catch-all term:

(1) Spoils-of-war Slavery

(2) Voluntary Servanthood (Indentured Servant)

(3) Kidnap-Slavery

The first,  Spoils-of-war Slavery, is easy enough to grasp. Nations, kingdoms, cities even, go to war, and, well, to the victor goes the spoils. Goods, property, and even people are taken back by the victors. Some of these people meet horrible futures, such as forced slavery in mass construction or mining projects, others end up in the homes of wealthy and powerful people. This latter group also experienced a wide range of conditions, some enduring abject poverty, and some eventually elevated nearly to family-status. Eventually, this led to multi-generational slavery as well.

The second category, Voluntary/Indentured Servanthood, is little understood, and this is exceedingly unfortunate, as related to the issue of Biblical "slavery." Just as is common today with our quick credit and wallets full of plastic money, people historically have found it all too easy to get into serious debt. In the distant past, they did not have the escape hatch of "filing for bankruptcy."

So, what did they do? Many times they would voluntarily present themselves to a wealthy(ier) landowner in exchange for a contracted amount of money, paid UP-FRONT. They would use this money to pay off their debt, and then work for a specified period of time in exchange for that money. Often, if the money was owed to one individual in particular, the person could offer to trade their services for the canceling of the debt.

Similar to this arrangement is the Indentured Servant model. Typically, in exchange for perhaps travel fare and room and board, a person would agree to work for another for a fixed period of time. At the end of the allotted time, the person was liberated from their debt, and often had gained a new set of skills or trade. Many of these would stay "on" with their "master" and continue working with them.

In today's socio-economic model, it is similar, but the timing is different. Nowadays, we first WORK, then, at a specified time, receive MONEY in exchange. We use different terms in modern times, and we usually don't live AT our employer's address, but it is essentially the same: trade work for money. This arrangement, though a far cry from the abuses experienced in this hemisphere over the past 400 years, is also called "slavery," though few would consider it as such.

The final category, Kidnap-Slavery is old, and very evil. It involves, pure and simple, human trafficking. Slave traders would ensnare, kidnap individuals, even entire communities, and then sell or trade people. This type of cruel activity has occurred all over the globe, in every major civilization.

This is what tragically happened in Africa, first under the Muslim invaders since the 9th century, and then, very heavily in the 16th to the 19th century in the infamous Atlantic Slave Triangle. This barbarism decimated entire regions. 

Here is an excerpt by the Manikongo, Nzinga Mbemba Afonso, to the King João III of Portugal:

"Each day the traders are kidnapping our people—children of this country, sons of our nobles and vassals, even people of our own family. This corruption and depravity are so widespread that our land is entirely depopulated...It is our wish that this Kingdom not be a place for the trade or transport of slaves."

This African holocaust, leading to the severe abuses in the Western Hemisphere (incidentally, there were more slaves shipped to Central and South American plantations) is about the only frame of reference that people have when the word SLAVE or SLAVERY is used in modern dialogue.  They are not even aware of the wide practice of Voluntary Servanthood (cash up-front work contract) that also existed for many thousands of years. 

To further illustrate the differences between our Western view of "slavery" and the daily reality of a near-caste system in the Near/Middle East, a short quote will suffice:

"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge."
(A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003.)

THE BIBLE'S VERY DIFFERENT PICTURE

The detractors of Christianity count on two things, and they forget one very important thing. They count on the fact that of: (1) the average person's ignorance of different types of servants/slavery (2) the Bible's actual passages about servants/slavery. They also forget one other crucial issue: the Bible is not just a book of theology, it is also a book of history, in other words, it discusses many subjects, including war, conquest, greed, wickedness, and yes, even different types of slavery that has been practiced.

There is a fundamental difference between mentioning slavery and promoting slavery. The Declaration of Independence mentions, in great detail, various despotic abuses practiced by the King of England, but it was not PROMOTING or CONDONING those activities, obviously.

Not only does the Bible mention the historical context of slavery/servanthood, it also contains many prohibitions and regulations about it's practice. But remember, not all slavery is slavery---in other words, there is Spoils-Slavery, Voluntary Servanthood, and Kidnap-Slavery (the kind practiced in the 16th to 19th century).

Words matter, especially in this heated topic. But what about the Hebrew word(s) most often rendered SLAVE or SLAVERY in the Old Testament? Do they mean the type of deplorable situation we had in America over a century ago? Hardly. Scholar Kyle Butts, M.A. offers this:

"The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.”

The purpose of including this brief description of the two most common terms for a slave is to show that our modern use of the word slave generally evokes mental images of cruelty, injustice, and bondage against a person’s will. While such ideas could be included in the biblical usage, they do not necessarily fit every time the words are used. Instead, the picture that we often see when the biblical words for “slave” are employed is a mutually beneficial arrangement similar to an employer/employee relationship."

Here's a little nugget for the skeptics of Christianity to consider: the type of Kidnap-Slavery that was endemic to "American" slavery is PROHIBITED (under the penalty of death) in the Bible. In just one verse, the Bible itself eliminates nearly the entire case for those who wish to malign and smear the Word of God, and who ultimately desire to cast moral doubts upon the character of God Himself.

Exodus 21:16
“Whoever kidnaps a person and sells him (as a slave), or if he is found in his hand (as a slave), shall surely be put to death. "

Far from an isolated verse, this prohibition and deadly-indictment is repeated in the Book of Deutoronomy as well. Understand this one thing---the type of "slavery" practiced in America over 150 years ago was an immoral, Bible-condemned sin, punishable by death (for either the kidnapper or the buyer). You cannot equivocate what was done in the Americas (or elsewhere) and use the Bible to support it. Period.

REGULATING SERVANTHOOD

Most of the passages in the Bible that speak of, even regulate "slavery" (improper term if narrowly defined as similar to what was done in the Americas), they actually refer to Voluntary Servanthood. God allowed the Israelites to contract with people for services-rendered-cash-up-front arrangements. There are many and varied provisions to regulate this business model, no less legitimate, even if some of these parameters seem odd to us in the 21st century.

Just as we have modern legislation which define rights and delineate the boundaries of acceptable behavior in the workplace, the Lord was the first to legislate a well-defined set of employee-employer laws.

"So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave". (LINK)

There was also the issue of dealing with defeated survivors of wars, those often left destitute when their husbands, fathers, or other primary providers had been severely wounded or killed. Should they be left to starve, or taken in and placed into some type of mutually beneficial prisoner of war or adoption scenario?

In a famous debate about the existence of God, theist Kyle Butt, M.A., was pressed by his atheist opponent about many topics, including slavery. His entire answer is found HERE, but I would like to quote, at length, a key issue worth noting at this juncture:

"Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God."

He continues...

"However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would. However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered. Therefore, one fact that must be conceded by anyone dealing with the Bible and its position on slavery is the fact that, under some conditions, slavery is not necessarily a morally deplorable institution."

Shocking...most people have never considered all of the various types of "slavery" (servanthood) that are not morally wrong, indeed, some are necessary for the good of society, and of individuals. They have not been exposed to this list, including:

(1) slavery experienced by incarcerated criminals 
(2) voluntary servanthood (to pay debts)
(3) indentured servanthood (trading services for pay and skills)
(4) adoption of war survivors
(5) modern day employer-employee relationship (which would clearly be defined as slavery/servanthood under both Old Testament and New Testament usage).

The above are 5 examples of moral and necessary types of "slavery" (servanthood). None of these are what typically come to mind when the modern skeptic thinks about "slavery".  Remember, when it comes to what occurred in the Americas from the 16th to the 17th century, the Bible is VERY clear:

Exodus 21:16
“Whoever kidnaps a person and sells him (as a slave), or if he is found in his hand (as a slave), shall surely be put to death. "

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Lord commanded the release of certain categories of slaves (servants) on the seventh year.

" (the slave) shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him."  (Deut. 15:12-18)

Some would object, and claim that: "Well, if there were a god, and He wrote the Bible, then I would expect that He would have stopped all slavery in whatever form!"

Really? Are we willing to deny people free will to achieve a single objective such as you request? There is, of course, multiple problems with this approach, as one apologist notes:

"This...runs up against a philosophical problem known as 'supererogation'. It’s a common scenario one considers: "given some situation X, couldn't God have improved it incrementally by at least 1% more? And if He could and didn't, doesn’t this say something negative about God?" The supererogation problem arises in such an argument when it becomes obvious that that statement may be too vacuous/vague to stand as an argument. For example, if X humans are good (in the biblical system), can't God improve the universe incrementally by making just one more person (one more instance of goodness), giving an even better X+1 persons? And then, if X+1 persons are good, couldn't He make X+2, etc, etc, etc…you see the problem? Some goodness-sets are not bounded in themselves but only by other constraints (e.g., resources to sustain population, overcrowding psychological problems). But, one might ask, why can't God also make the Earth bigger, and make the resources more abundant? He could, and then the infinite regress would continue--increase the population by 10% more, inflate the earth by 10% more, increase the natural resources by 10%…and on and on and on and on…"  (LINK)

FINAL CHALLENGE

As we finish this brief overview of the "challenge" of slavery/servanthood in the Bible, it would be important to turn the tables, so to speak, and ask the atheist/agnostic skeptic the following question:

"What is wrong with slavery?"

You see, those who deny the reality of God, who appeal to meaningless laws of nature as our true origin, have neither foundation nor ammunition from which to cast stones at Bible-believing Christians. If there is no god, then there is ultimately no "right" or "wrong", evil, injustice, or immorality.

So, returning to our question, ask the skeptic: "What is WRONG with slavery?" They cannot logically answer that question, for there can be no WRONG in an atheistic worldview, let alone an "evil" of "slavery." They cannot appeal to some type of "right of freedom" for that implies a transcendent rights-giver (sorry, not allowed).

Furthermore, since we can show moral reasons, indeed socially necessary reasons for slavery (incarceration, voluntary servanthood, indentured servants, employer/employee relationship, etc.) where then does this leave the supposed "high-ground" of the skeptical challenger? Has it not completely eroded beneath their castle built upon sand?




A FINAL THOUGHT


In the Old Testament, the Lord allowed the Jewish people to purchase servants (slaves) from the nations around them. Once again, we have to put aside our modern American notion of "slavery," especially when you read of the families of the patriarchs, where their servants were elevated to the status of family.  There is even a famous account of Abraham giving a whole arsenal of weapons to 300 of his servants in a rescue attempt of his kidnapped nephew, Lot. Of course, if these were abused, unhappy, disgruntled, only-there-by-the-chains-and-irons-around-their-legs types of "slaves"---do you think that: (1) Abraham would load them down with weapons, (2) that they would actually have returned after leaving the region, (3) they would not have killed their "masters"?

This was clearly not the case. Once again, we have rid ourselves of the presuppositions and emotional responses that American abuses have added to our understanding of "slavery."

But, what about the Lord allowing Israelis to buy slaves from the nations around them?

Here is a perspective that is almost never considered, let alone offered up for discussion. Israel was the only nation that truly possessed and preserved the truth about the one true, creator God. They were the one nation that God would use to bring us the scriptures, and ultimately, the Savior, Jesus Christ. Think about all of those "slaves" that were acquired by Jews. If those "slaves" had been left at home, or sold as slaves to other nations, what would be the chances that they would have heard the truth of the Lord, and to ultimately come into a saving knowledge of Him? Pretty slim.

If one considers the incredible opportunity of entering a relationship with God by way of a less-than-perfect Earthly relationship of servanthood, then clearly that single benefit outweighs all objections. It's like a lost sailor, adrift in the ocean, who by chance comes to a remote alcove and there discovers treasures untold. The unfortunate situation of being lost is outweighed by the discovery of something truly valuable.

Many of those servants purchased by Jewish families could have come to a saving knowledge of the Lord, and then, after their freedom was regained, returned home to be witnesses for Him as well. Only eternity will tell of the countless multitudes who were saved in the spiritual by an arrangement that was primarily physical.

Atheism: Shooting itself in the foot

I'm not a trendy individual, and I don't rush to get in line to follow the latest fads, but there are some pop culture issues I try to keep a finger on the pulses of. The gaining-volume-by-the-moment militant atheism movement has, once again, picked up a tired argument, and is attempting to make it fresh, relevant, and damning (when, in actuality, it is: old, ancillary, and only damaging to their own cause).

What are they dusting off and repeating? They are attempting to resurrect the old:

"The God of the Old Testament is evil / immoral challenge."

The form and (lack of) substance of the tirade usually follows the pattern of picking a particular verse from the Bible, typically from Exodus, Leviticus, or even Deuteronomy, which involve punishments for various acts, and then saying something to the effect of: "See, that's just not fair!" or "Well, that is obviously not right!" or "This proves that God is cruel and arbitrary."

This type of shallow argument falls flat on it's proverbial face for at least two obvious reasons:

1. SELF-CONTRADICTION
In an atheistic worldview, with no god, no higher power, no transcendent authority, the concept of right and wrong, good or bad, moral evil or injustice, DOES NOT EXIST. Sorry Sam Harris, no amount of evolutionary fairy tales arriving at a "moral compass" can be tolerated.

Even if one were to be extemely generous and allow the naturalistic explanation of "ethics" or "morality" the evolutionist is still forced to admit that injustice, good, and evil do not actually exist, they are merely an imaginary feeling imposed upon us due to genetic mutation and selection.

In the naturalistic worldview, morality is no more than a freak of natural selection, a by-product of higher-functioning mammals to increase survival among communal species. In reality, this view is little more than a just-so type story, a self-fulfilling prophecy that must be true since god cannot exist. To the atheist, it is true, not because of any evidence or discovery, but because it HAS to be...because everything in life MUST HAVE an evolutionary explanation. Fairy tales for adults.

Where am I going with this look into the pseudo-scientific explanations for morality? It is quite simple: an atheist CANNOT claim that God is "immoral, unjust, evil, or arbitrary." If they will think about it logically, they are contradicting their own "faith" when attacking ours with that potshot. They risk shooting themselves in the proverbial foot as they take cheap shots against the Bible.

An atheist saying that God is immoral, is like a prostitute claiming that pornography is wrong. Both of them lack the necessary credibility when it comes to making moral pronouncements.

2. LOGICAL FALLACY:
For an atheist to claim that God is somehow "wrong" when handing out physical punishments for criminals on Earth, they are commiting a serious logical fallacy...and one that is so  Sesame Street simple, it's a wonder that they even go there.

Ask an atheist: (assuming that God exists)
"Does God have the right to govern His own creation?"

This is a very tricky question for them to answer, they are in a catch-22, so to speak. (some of you are starting to see the predicament they are in)

If they say "YES" then their entire argument fails---game over. If God has the right to govern His own creation, then He has the right to say what the ramifications and punishments are for various sins against Him, and for crimes against humanity.

If they say "No," then they have to give a logical defense for an answer that defies normal experience. Ask them on what basis God does not have the right to govern what He has created.

There will be much mental squirming, mumblings, and then, often, a string of verbal tirades against you, and "your stupid Bible," and "your ignorant religion!"

Often they will react with an EMOTIONAL argument, such as "Well, I don't understand why God would do that!" or "What could be the possible reason God would command that!?"

This only deepens their logical hole. Why? Because emotional arguments are baseless, and one's lack of understanding, in no way, affects the reasonablesness of a claim. A parent understands this all too well. Oftentimes we tell our children to do things, things of which their young, inexperienced, and immature minds do not fully grasp or understand. But their lack of understanding does not invalidate the request, command, or expectation.

There are purposes and reasons for the requests and commands of a transcendent creator that are much higher above us than we are above the understanding level of a child. Just because a punishment or a statement is puzzling to us, does not de facto invalidate the Bible as divinely inspired.

When atheists or skeptics parade these type of self-contradictory and illogical arguments, yell out as the child in the story of old: "Look---the emperor has no clothes!"

Hopefully, they will look, and eventually see the truth.

Are Science and Faith in CONFLICT?

There is an oft-repeated mantra that there is some type of fundamental conflict between theism and natural science.

They posit that there must be forever a "wall of separation" betwixt "faith" and "science".

But does that statement stand up to scrutiny?

Most of the evangelists of this logically-invalid "separation gospel" rely on anecdotal and emotionally-charged arguments, devoid of a true grasp of the historical development of modern science and the scientific method.

They usually appeal to worn-out and tired examples of supposed obstruction by "faith", which typically have nothing to do with a conflict between Creation and science, but rather between religious interpretation and scientific theory.

Usually the only example they can give is Galileo and the Catholic Church.

Concerning the historically-documented fact that modern science emerged from a Christianized West, Ian H. Hutchinson (Head of Department of Nuclear Energy, Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) observes:

 "...the question arises, why did modern science grow up almost entirely in the West, where Christian thinking held sway? There were civilizations of comparable stability, prosperity, and in many cases technology, in China, Japan, and India. Why did they not develop science? It is acknowledged that arabic countries around the end of the first millenium were more advanced in mathematics, and their libraries kept safe eventually for Christendom much of the Greek wisdom of the ancients. Why did not their learning blossom into the science we now know? More particularly, if Andrew White's portrait of history, that the church dogmatically opposed all the "dangerous innovations" of science, and thereby stunted scientific development for hundreds of years, why didn't science rapidly evolve in these other cultures?"

Science and "faith" are in conflict? Absurd. Even a simple perusal of a short list of some of the greatest minds in the development of modern science reveal that these thinkers were theists, and most were Christians. Nearly every major branch of science was founded by a theist, usually a Christian theist.

Dr. Loren Eiseley, Professor of Anthropology, a science history writer and EVOLUTIONIST, admitted that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders:

"It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

Let's consider this simple list of theists/Christians, and their scientific contributions:

Nicholas Copernicus--Astronomy
Sir Francis Bacon--Scientific Method
Johannes Kepler--Light theory/Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei--Heliocentrism/Dynamics
Rene Descartes--Mathematics/Scientific method
Blaise Pascal--Mathematics/Physics/Probability theory

Isaac Newton--Physics
Robert Boyle--Gas theory/Chemistry
Michael Faraday--Electrical theory/Magnetism
Gregor Mendel--Biology/Genetics
William Thomson Kelvin--Physics
Max Planck--Quantum theory/Physics
Albert Einstein--Mathematics/Physics
Neils Bohr--Atomic theory
Louis Pasteur--Medicine/Germ theory
Werner Heisenberg--Quantum theory
Erwin Schrodinger--Wave mechanics
Enrico Fermi--Atomic theory
Anton van Leeuwenhoek--Microscope
Theodosius Dobzhansky--Modern synthesis

Dr. Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, Director of the Human Genome Project,  Member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences.

"I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views."

Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. (Physical Organic Chemistry), Dr. es Science (Chemotherapy), D. Sc.(Natural Sciences), a former Oxford atheist, made this observation concerning the larger issue of accounting for the complexity of life without the logically-mandated appeal to an intelligent designer:

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Most of the challenges against including larger issues of logic and reasoning into scientific discussions, especially concerning origin theory, are based upon a flawed premise. Their objections are founded upon a baseless fear of religious dogma superimposed atop scientific discovery.

While there may be some who desire to do this, just as there are secularists who desire to expunge all free inquiry into Creation thinking, this is not the primary aim of the modern intelligent design movement. As one philosopher noted:

"You never judge a philosophy by it's abuse." 

Intelligent design is not an attempt to force religion or religious views upon an unwilling populace, but rather the desire to be honest intellectually concerning the findings of modern investigation into the foundational issue of ultimate origins.

The larger discussion of the question of origins and origin theory must, by necessity, rely upon deductive and inductive logic, and must obey the same principles that guide modern investigation, including the Law of Cause and Effect, Thermodynamics, Hyper-inflation ("Big Bang") Cosmology, and Information Theory (DNA).

It is within these fundamental laws and principles that a model of Intelligent Design is not only inferred, it is logically mandated.

To deny this conclusion of sound logic betrays either an ignorance of modern scientific discovery, or more likely reveals an irrational and emotional bias against allowing "a divine foot in the door."

Is God Dead?

In the mid 19th century, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche made a surprising announcement in his work: Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, though it was most popularized by his classic work: Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

What did he announce? Believe it or not...he said that

"God is dead."

I'm not joking. That's what he said, in fact, several times.

He said that God was dead, and that ludicrous and morbid thought slowly sank into the fabric of modern consciousness. In April of 1966, the concept had become so "mainstream" that even famed Time magazine made it their cover story, in stark, red, unforgettable letters.

But, really, c'mon...I mean, God is dead? Though the German philosopher/skeptic did not mean the statement in a literal sense, there are many modern skeptic-wannabees who have taken it much farther than he ever intended. 

It's time to put this silly statement to rest-in-peace (no pun intended...well, mostly not). Let's dissect it and consider the illogical ramifications for these deiciders (God killers).

To be able to accurately pronounce God's death would require a level of intelligence, consciousness, and understanding that transcends the physical universe. In short, to be able to say that God is dead would require a degree and perfection of knowledge that is godlike itself in proportion.

So there we have it---to be able to say that God is dead would require you to actually be God Himself. But wait..uh, oh---Houston, we have a problem.


If God is dead, and it takes God to be able to truly say that, then we are in a paradox. 

Dead persons don't speak, not even dead gods. So then who can reveal the pronouncement of the death of God, except for God Himself, yet it is maintained that He is dead?

(and the loop goes round and round---motion sickness pills, anyone?)

The only place that this concept can exist then, is in the manuscripts of madmen and in the minds of those with an anti-god agenda that can barely be concealed beneath their mantle of divine contempt. 

Atheist Bias Exposed by Fossils

Satanisms Tempting Yet Fatal Flaws

The decade of the 1960s saw a real up-tick in the pursuit of "all-things-spiritual". It mattered not if it was through meditation, open drug use, or through music and "free-love," it was a time of spiritual exploration....umm...somewhat.


Not only the music industry, but even Hollywood took note, and spiritually themed films followed, including dark ones like the famous "Rosemary's Baby." Occult studies skyrocketed.


Riding on this surge of new interest (and according to his own daughter's account-- a desire to make a lot of money) Anton LaVey wrote and published his:

The Satanic Bible

LaVey promoted a type of secular Satanism, almost an atheistic-Satanism, if you will. You have to separate it from any older concept of "Devil worship" with goats-blood-spattered pentagrams and the like.

Though there are remnants of the former inculcated into his NEW Satanism, it is more about the worship of the SELF. You are your own god, therefore, do whatever you want, whenever you want, and place yourself first whenever and wherever possible.

Wouldn't that be a great world (read: sarcasm)...wait a minute, if you look at the news, maybe we are already there.

But, I digress.



A Battle of the Wills

As you read and study about LaVey's version of modern Satanism (which even denies the concept of real, personal "devil" anyway) you will see that it has one golden rule:

"My will, not Thy will...be done!" It appears that LaVey understood that it is a battle of the wills.

In other words, the highest achievement in life, is to do YOUR WILL, whatever makes YOU the happiest, whatever is BEST for YOU. Sin is anything that prevents you from doing what satisfies you the most. Self-deification, self-worship, that is the key.

In this blog article, I would like to cover two different fallacies of this "NEW" Satanism. First--the concept of "MY will, not THY will be done" is logically flawed, and secondly, that "NEW" Satanism is not new at all, rather it is a re-packaging, a modern recycling of the original false religion at the outset of human history.


Will the Real Will Stand Up?


Though the "new" Satanists will not readily admit the idea of a Creator (some will), yet their central mantra of "MY will, not THY will be done" is targeted at rejecting the concept of man's highest purpose being following the will of our Creator (God). It is so easy to demonstrate why this is illogical, it amazes me that few ever bring it up in discussions about this topic.

Recently I had a discussion with someone who was dabbling with this "new" Satanism. They very proudly declared to me that the best thing about this "new" Satanism was that it was all about "MY WILL" be done...throwing off the "chains" of any "obedience" to God or the like. Really? Interesting.

Getting the Lead Out

One simple analogy will demolish the entire basis or foundation of this type of ill-founded reasoning. My daughter, who is now a thriving teen, was not doing so well as a toddler years ago. After blood work and medical evaluations, the cause was found to be LEAD POISONING.

She had, unfortunately, taken a real liking to the bits of lead-laden paint chips found throughout our (then) older home. Flaking window sills and thick carpet provided sumptuous daily fares of this dangerous delight.


We had to break her of this habit, and she did not like it one bit. She enjoyed her brain-damaging tidbits, and we had to really watch her and "modify" her eating trends. It was a real battle of wills.

She WANTED those paint chips so bad, but, as her parents, knowing that they would harm her, we did not allow her to eat them.

Her will was dangerous...demonstrably so.

Now, think about it logically---what is the difference in the level of understanding of a toddler and a mature adult? It is nearly an infinite gap--larger than the Lilliputians ever dreamed. As adults we know that the things that attract and "make kids happy" are often dangerous, destructive, and can harm them, not just in the short term, but in the long term as well. THEIR WILL (to engage in those destructive behaviors) and OUR WILL are in opposition. Which WILL is better for them ultimately? Answer: (hands down) OUR WILL.


So, it is relatively easy to point out that one's own will can actually be completely wrong, uninformed, destructive, and immature. One doesn't need a road sign to point out something that obvious. Now, think about the difference between GOD'S understanding of us and life, and our OWN understanding of ourselves and life.

Which is a greater level of understanding? Obviously: God's. He alone knows the future, our present, our past, and about everything that is involved in our needs and wants.

Who Loves Ya, Baby?

Next, a surprising question: Who loves YOU more----you or God? Seriously. I'm asking. According the God Himself, He loves you even more than you love yourself. He even proved it completely by becoming a man (Jesus Christ) and giving His life for you on a cruel Roman cross so that you could be forgiven of your sins.

 If someone would suffer and die for you, they probably care about you a great deal.

Now, let's logically combine the last two observations:
(1) God knows and understands us better than we do ourselves
(2) God loves us more than we even love ourselves.

Now, whose WILL would be it better for us to follow--our own limited, flawed, often uninformed, short-sighted, will, or God's will (perfect, informed, loving)? It is NO-CONTEST. Since God created me, knows me perfectly, loves me, and only seeks the best for me, why wouldn't I want to follow that WILL, rather than my own extremely limited and often-misguided will?

Image is Everything!

I think the underlying problem with most people is in their concept of God's character. Now, if I perceive (or imagine) God to be a vindictive, selfish, demanding task master, then perhaps my own will seems a bit more attractive. But, if we would stop our own projected image of God, and let Him speak for Himself, we will gather a much different picture. As we think, just about the cross alone, and what love and humility and forgiveness was displayed there---all those hard thoughts of God would vanish into the thin air where they belong.

The Bible says that "God is love." Jesus says that He is "meek and lowly in heart." Imagine that--the Creator of the Universe expressing His compassion and humility. We are so used to tyrants who grab power at every opportunity, that we SUPPOSE that God must somehow be just like that.

We project our own greediness, our own selfishness, onto God--instead of letting Him be who He really is. We really get a glimpse of our loving Creator--it is much easier to say "NOT my will, but THY will be done!" (because it will be in our own best interest!)

What's Old is New Again!


My second area of contention with the "new" Satanism, is just that...it claims to be "NEW". I was watching in horror recently during a cable news show. The national program contained an interview with a high school student who represented the "new" Satanism. He was arrogant and over-confident, and he taunted the host saying that "it is isn't about old devil worship--it is about the new religion of serving MYSELF, of worshiping Me!"

I just shook my head for the poor sap---he thought he was espousing and promoting some cool, new thing---not realizing that he almost took the words right out of Satan's mouth several thousand years ago.

This deceived young man would have been mortified to learn that he was almost quoting the Bible (gasp!)

This "new" Satanism is nothing of the sort...it is a resurgence of the oldest lie ever told, recorded in one of the oldest books ever written.


At the dawn of human history, there was another battle of wills. The Creator had created mankind with a free will and given them only one prohibition, only one rule. The scriptures indicate that they were given another appeal, from Satan himself. Basically, he told our first parents that the key to happiness, that the secret to a fulfilled life is to NOT DO GOD's WILL, but rather to do YOUR OWN will. In fact, he said, if you do that, you will become your own "god." He said that disobeying God was the true path to enlightenment.

History is the Proof

Well, most of us know the rest of the story. They did distrust the Creator, they fell for the lie of Satan, and worshiped themselves and their own understanding. They disobeyed their loving Creator, and look at the millennia of sin, greed, sorrow, selfishness, and evil that has cascaded down through history.

Instead of a perfect world, we daily deal with hatred, mistrust, self-centeredness, and an appalling evil that manifests itself out of the fallen human heart.

History proves that the formula "MY will be done" is a personal and societal NIGHTMARE.


Anton LaVey and those who have chosen the path of destructive personal "enlightenment" (which deifies our own desires and minimizes the benevolence of our Creator) have willingly subjected themselves to a worldview that is not only logically flawed--- it has the entire weight of history stacked against it.