Coming This Fall, “The Exodus Conspiracy” — Dr. Lennart Moller resurrects Ron Wyatt's photograph of a gilded chariot wheel

Pharoah Chariot Wheel in Red Sea

Ron Wyattʼs photo of a “gilded chariot wheel” allegedly from the Egyptian army that chased the Hebrews as they fled during the Exodus.

An email has begun proliferating this year titled, “The Red Sea Crossing,” or, “Parting of the Red Sea,” or, “Chariot Wheels Found in Red Sea,” and it is being passed around so much with so little investigation that snopes.com has begun a page on the email and its claims. I suspect that the email is part of an advertising campaign for a film due out in Fall 2008, starring a creationist named Dr. Lennart Moller (not an archeologist, but a biologist) and titled, “The Exodus Conspiracy

A previous film made for TV by the same company has already popularized the alleged “golden/gilded chariot wheel” that the late Ron Wyatt (another non-archeologist) “discovered in the Red Sea,” where “Pharaohʼs” chariots were allegedly swallowed up when two huge walls of water slammed together on either sides of them. (See the Bibleʼs Exodus tale.)

The made for TV film also featured Dr. Lennart Moller and was titled, “The Exodus Revealed” and one portion of it featured not the actual “gilded wheel” photographed by Wyatt but a digital “recreation” of it

Announcer: “While most of the possible artifacts found off the coast of Nuweiba are covered with coral, one significant discovery was not.”

Dr. Lennart Moller: “There is one find at the Nuweiba location that is of great interest, and that is the gilded wheel. [digital ‘recreation’ appears on screen, based on photo taken by Ron Wyatt] It is a wooden basic structure of the wheel and it is covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold, and corals have not been able to grow on it. [really? why not? see questions below] Itʼs been very well preserved, although itʼs very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So I mean you could break it if you tried to remove it.”

Announcer: “After its discovery the fragile wheel-shaped veneer was photographed, then left in place on the sea floor. Later analysis revealed that its dimensions and design resembled four-spoked chariot wheels painted on an 18th Dynasty tomb wall near the biblical date of the Exodus.”

Note that Moller does not say he discovered this “gilded wheel,” nor that he saw it, photographed it, nor touched it. There is no undersea footage of the “gilded wheel” in the film but merely a digital “reconstruction” of a photograph taken by Wyatt in the 1970s. But note that although almost no coral is shown touching this bright shiny wheel, based on Wyattʼs photo, still there are plenty of thick corals growing on one another and seen all over the actual seabed of the Red Sea as shown in the film. Neither does Wyattʼs original photo provide clear evidence as to whether the small piece of coral seen on the wheel simply was placed there or not, it doesnʼt seem particularly well attached, not compared with the vast conglomerations of corals in the general area. And contra a statement made by Dr. Moller in the film, there does not appear to be any reason why coral should not be able to grow on an object made of gold, silver or a mixture of both, as any archeologist can demonstrate who has dug up objects made of all sorts of ancient precious metals from the sea with coral growing on them.

Even a Christian on the web has pointed out:

“Can coral grow on gold? Yes. Coral is not a plant, it is an animal, and it does not get its nutrients from the soil or rock it grows on. Instead, it eats zooplankton and other small marine bugs, and it gets its calcium, amino acids, etc. from the surrounding sea water. To structurally support themselves, corals grow next to each other and harden together, forming reefs. Thus they could grow on anything!! It doesnʼt matter. Coral also uses photosynthesis to make sugars out of sunlight. The only way they wouldnʼt grow on gold is if it were toxic to coral. I do not think this is the case, since gold has little or no affinity for binding oxygen, carbon, or nitrogen. The only thing it really has an affinity for is sulfur. So if sulfur is necessary for coral to live, then perhaps…. The only thing that my pharmacology book says gold inhibits is mycobacterium tuberculosis, nothing else. Besides the point, however, Iʼm all for historical evidence of the Bible, but this guyʼs argument is so ridiculously flawed that itʼs an embarrassment to believers.”

Also, after 3,500 years of water flowing into the Red Sea and carrying sand and silt along with it, thatʼs the deepest that such a wheel has become buried? It looks like itʼs barely beneath the sand. Why is this “gilded wheel” not covered by several feet of silt and sand after 3,500 years?

Neither do Wyattʼs and Mollerʼs separate tales add up concerning such a gilded wheel. On the one hand Wyatt claimed in the 1970s to have photographed such a wheel and then “presented it” to Nassif Mohammed Hassan who worked at the Cairo museum whom Wyatt has on tape saying that it “resembled an ancient Egyptian chariot wheel.” (However what studies did Hassan made of the wheel if any? Did he actually handle it? What evidence is there that Hassan was “presented with” anything more than just a photograph of the wheel?) Then Hassan died a few years later. So heʼs no longer available for questioning. Now compare Mollerʼs story in his video which speaks about the “gilded chariot wheel” as if it were extremely fragile, made of 3,500 year old “wood covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver and gold. And itʼs very fragile. It seems like the wooden content has been dissolved. So you could break it if you tried to remove it,” and the announcer described it as nothing more than a “fragile wheel-shaped veneer.” So if Moller is right, how did Wyatt “remove” such a “fragile wheel-shaped veneer” and “present” it to the person at the museum without breaking it?*

*Maybe Moller interprets Wyattʼs story as merely the story of a photograph “presented” to Hassan, not “the wheel” itself?

Even the few photographs taken by Wyatt are not explicitly stated to be of just one wheel or of two different gilded chariot wheels. But even if there was one 3,500 year old gilded wheel solid enough to be lifted out of the sea and presented to Hassan, and a second gilded wheel in the Red Sea yet undiscovered and too fragile to excavate -- then in either case Godʼs providence or chance seems to have made it impossible to investigate either “wheel” story via direct investigation of the alleged “wheels,” nor via interviewing Wyatt or Hassan.

In fact there is no evidence other than Wyattʼs photograph of how large the alleged “gilded wheel” was, and so it could have been smaller than a chariot wheel because it is difficult to judge an objects size in a photograph unless you place something right next to the object like a yardstick, coin, or other object of known size. Also how do we know for sure that the object was made of gold? It might have been made merely of shiny brass and be a far younger object that recently was tossed into the water, so young that it lay near the surface, was still shiny enough to catch Wyattʼs eye, and also young enough such that coral had not had time to cement itself on it. (See the other modern day wheel shaped objects pictured further below.)

Below are links to another portion of the made-for-TV-film that features footage of coral formations and focuses only on those that one might imagine might have been formed around decaying chariot wheels:
Mt. Sinai, Moses & the Exodus - Part 8 of 10

Even in a conservative Christian news source like Worldnetdaily.com, Wyattʼs own wife is reported as urging "caution" before jumping to conclusions, and admits a lot of coral looks like “wheels” or other alleged chariot parts. The article, titled, “Pharaohʼs chariots found in Red Sea?” also admits that the one “golden chariot wheel” that Wyatt allegedly discovered cannot be found anywhere.

SEVEN Criticisms of Wyattʼs Claim that he discovered and photographed a 3,500 year old “Egyptian Chariot Wheel”

  1. While the image could be better, the above photo doesnʼt show any of the type of segmenting that the chariot in the earlier museum photo exhibits. Nor does it seem to have the types of joins shown in drawings of Egyptian chariot wheels. Someone else has already mentioned that the hub of the ocean “wheel” is greatly different then the one in the museum. The style seems more modern and looks as if the edges are milled to be beveled.

  2. As to the coral formations. I donʼt think anyone has brought up that coral often is spherical and or radial. I havenʼt seen any convincing arguments that the formations arenʼt natural. Keep in mind that different types of coral grow on top of each other. So given enough coral, time, and space all sorts of shapes are possible.

  3. Cnidarians are simple, radially symmetrical, animals. Radial symmetry means that the body is a hub, like a bicycle wheel, and tentacles are spokes coming out of it.

  4. Iʼm at a loss as to how a Saudi Law prevents anyone on the Egypt side of the sea from bringing up objects [am I missing something here?]. If they do not bring up items out of respect/fear for Saudi Law, then how did they bring up the bone?

  5. Even if it turns out that the formations arenʼt natural it doesnʼt mean theyʼre chariot wheels. There is certainly more than one ship that has been lost in the Red Sea. Google: shipwreck “red sea” 5,790 matches.

  6. The film features an examination of the “spokes” of various wheel-shaped coral formations and the discovery of positive metal detector readings and rust being associated with the coral. But 1446 BC is too early for extensive use of iron and Egyptian chariots didnʼt use much metal. The spokes were wooden. Small amounts of iron had been available to the Egyptians for a long time but we should not be seeing much, if any, at an 18th Dynasty site. We really do need better evidence for the Exodus than counting the number of spokes a coral formation appears to have. Iron Age I starts at 1200 BCE See also this and this about the history of metal usage. “Iron was first employed as a technology of war about 1300 B.C. by the Hittites. Within a hundred years the secret of iron making and cold forging had spread at least to Palestine and Egypt and, perhaps, to Mesopotamia as well.”

  7. Comparison of Wyattʼs golden chariot wheel…

…with some modern day objects found on ships and other machines.

Review Of Dr. Mollerʼs Book, The Exodus Case, which was published in 2002 and inspired the made-for-TV-film, and the move to be released Fall 2008:

Lennart Moller specializes in the earth hazards of air pollutants and the damage to DNA that they cause. Since 2001, he has been a professor of environmental medicine in the department of bioscience at Karolinska Institutet, one of Europeʼs largest medical universities and Swedenʼs main center for medical training and research. Beside his academic duties, Moller is an active member of Evangeliska Fosterlands-Stiftelsen, founded in 1856, a missionary organization within the Church of Sweden. He has edited and authored books on ethics and Gospel exegesis and recently a volume on biblical archaeology, The Exodus Case.

This book is the fruit of extensive travels in the Near East and Egypt. Its stated main purpose is to test a hypothesis: that the biblical texts of Genesis 11:27 through Exodus 40:38 are historically correct. A secondary purpose is to evaluate and expand upon the works of the late Ron Wyatt (1933-1999)… There are disturbing signs already in the hookʼs introduction. First, it is naive to judge these long texts, preserved through thousands of years of oral and written traditions, as either true or false in their entirety. Academic historians evaluate discrete factual statements, not entire books at one go. But Moller emphasizes that he is neither a theologian, a historian, nor an archaeologist. In fact, he underlines that he does not know what these disciplines believe regarding the questions he takes on. Moller feels that he can thereby offer a fresh perspective.

Then there are the references to Ron Wyatt. If ever there was a true native of Daniken Laird, it was Wyatt. His writings on biblical archaeology are such extreme flights of fancy that even many creationist debaters dismiss them as wild imaginings.

While ostensibly scientific, Mollerʼs perspective is at the same time explicitly anti rational (p. 15). We should not be too sure of ourselves and our powers of reasoning. Only God is perfect, says Moller, and humankind is frail and weak…

Moller sets out on his biblical trek through time and space from Abraham in Ur to Moses on Mount Sinai.. He searches intensively for anything that fits with it. The idea that the selected texts are historically true is not a hypothesis for Moller, it is the basic axiom of his investigation. To the extent that he takes his pseudo-Popperian philosophy of science seriously at all, Moller appears to feel that the task of disproving the hypothesis is the readerʼs job, not his.

Moller stomps in brandishing revealed truth… The book interfoliates a Bible summary with absolutely vertiginous speculations in archaeology, history, geology, and onomastics (the study of the origins and forms of words). Gomorrah was located on the plain between the hilltop stronghold of Masada and the Dead Sea. The reason that there is now only a gypsum formation to be seen there is that the wicked city was built of limestone and destroyed in a rain of burning sulphur: limestone + sulphur = gypsum! Joseph, son of Jacob, is identical with Imhotep, the architect of the Stepped Pyramid at Saqqara. This identification moves the Third Dynasty a thousand years forward in time from its accepted date. This does not appear to trouble Moller, as he feels that the dynastic chronology of Egypt contains serious uncertainties. Moses is identical with Pharaoh Tutmosis II, as indicated by, among other things, the fact that the Pharaoh is depicted with a hooked nose, suggesting a Hebrew heritage! And so on. Wherever Moller goes, what he sees turns out to be relevant to his search. He finally finds Mount Sinai…

Author Of The Above Review: Martin Rundkvist, review, is an archaeologist specializing in the pre- and protohistory of Scandinavia. He is a member of the board of the Swedish skeptic organization, Vetenskap och Folkbildning, and co-editor of the associationʼs quarterly, Folkvett. He lives in the suburbs of Stockholm, Sweden, 400 meters from a Viking-period cemetery.


Detailed Documentation Of Wyattʼs Questionable And Fraudulent Claims And Activities

A Review of The Exodus Revealed
Summary: The Exodus Revealed video, directed by Lad Allen and funded by Discovery (Institute?) Media Productions, is based on The Exodus Case book by Lennart Moller, which is based on the “discoveries” of Ron Wyatt. Both the video and the book include photos of a gold wheel supposedly found in the Gulf of Aqaba, presented as proof that the Bibleʼs Red Sea crossing story is true. But a TV producerʼs wife “was told by one of Ron Wyattʼs sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron.” Also, John Baumgardner, who is a Christian and initially believed Wyatt and inspected Wyattʼs Noahʼs ark “discovery”, later wrote that “I am almost 100% certain that Ron ‘planted’ them [rivets on the Ark].” Despite this and much more evidence that Ron Wyatt was a crazy liar, both Lennart Moller and Lad Allen were insidiously dishonest in promoting Wyattʼs “findings” without disclosing Wyattʼs history of fraud. [See the link below for more on Wyatt, much more.]

(I know the fellow who wrote the investigative review above, and even met some of relatives who live in Greenville, S.C. The family was home-schooled and taught young-earth creationist arguments. Two or three of the sisters attended Bob Jones University. Today half of the authorʼs siblings have left the fold.)

Wyatt Archaeological Research: Too “Good” To Be True? Yes!

Letter from Joe Zias on the “discoveries of Ron Wyatt,” including mention of the alleged chariot wheel (Zias is Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology, Israel Antiquities Authority, POB 586, Jerusalem, Tel. 972-2-292624)

Lastly, I exchanged a few emails with Pinkowski who runs the Wyatt museum, and who informed me that, “In the 22 years that Ron Wyatt performed this wonderful work for the Lord, he always maintained a very humble personality. It would have been very easy for him to become proud or boastful, but Ron did not do that. Both Moses and Ron Wyatt were extremely humble men. When asked “why” he was chosen to do this work, Ron replied: ‘If 10 different people found 10 different major archaeological finds, people could say, ‘Well, they were lucky, or smart, etc.,’ but for one person to find all of these things is not humanly possible. Not even the most brilliant and celebrated. But God uses ‘The simple things to confound the wise.’ In choosing a simple, average person, He leaves no room for doubt as to ‘who’ is actually doing these things. Perhaps He chose me because I was willing — I really donʼt know. But I can say that there is no one on earth who could be more grateful than I to be allowed to work with these things.’”

What faith Pinkowski has in the alleged authenticity of every one of Wyattʼs alleged “discoveries,” none of which have ever been verified by legitimate archaeologists. Wyatt always seemed to get a glimpse of something and then it promptly vanishes, like the gilded wheel, or the Phoenician style column found on the Saudi coastline and which contained in Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew) the words: Mizraim (Egypt ); Solomon; Edom; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh; or “the Blood of Christ” on the “Judgment Seat” beneath the Temple site in Jerusalem which only Wyatt saw. Other evidence/claims of Wyatt likewise vanish after closer examination. Even those who at first supported his claims to have found Noahʼs ark no longer believed him after examining the evidence at the site further, including young-earth creationists belonging to major young-earth organizations.

The Above Quotations Arranged And Edited By Edward T. Babinski

Chimp's Awe Inspired by Waterfall & Some of the Best Things Ever Said in Favor of Human Evolution

Chimp Awe Waterfall

Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Then thereʼs the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired.

In June 2006, Jane Goodall and I visited the Mona Chimpanzee Sanctuary near Girona in Spain. There we met Marco, a rescued chimp, who dances during thunderstorms with such abandon that he appears to be in a trance. Goodall and others have witnessed chimps, usually adult males, perform a similar ritual at waterfalls. She described a chimpanzee approaching one of these falls with slightly bristled hair, a sign of heightened arousal. “As he gets closer, and the roar of the falling water gets louder, his pace quickens, his hair becomes fully erect, and upon reaching the stream he may perform a magnificent display close to the foot of the falls,” she describes. “Standing upright, he sways rhythmically from foot to foot, stamping in the shallow, rushing water, picking up and hurling great rocks. Sometimes he climbs up the slender vines that hang down from the trees high above and swings out into the spray of the falling water. This ‘waterfall dance’ may last 10 or 15 minutes.”

Perhaps numerous animals engage in similar rituals but we havenʼt been lucky enough to see them. Is it possible that they are marveling at their surroundings - that they feel a sense of awe? “Do Animals Have Emotions?” New Scientist magazine, 23 May 2007

“A chimpanzee comes to a stunning sight in the midst of a tropical forest: A twenty-five foot waterfall sends water thundering into a pool below, which casts up mist some seventy feet. Apparently lost in contemplation, the chimpanzee cries out, runs excitedly back and forth, and drums on trees with its fists. Here we see the dawn of awe and wonder in animals.

“Famed heart surgeon, Dr. Christian Bernard, witnessed a chimpanzee weeping bitterly and becoming inconsolable for days after his companion was taken away for research. Bernard then vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures.”
A. J. Mattill, Jr., The Seven Mighty Blows To Traditional Beliefs

“When Washoe [the chimpanzee] was about seven or eight years old, I witnessed an event that told about Washoe as a person, as well as causing me to reflect on human nature. [The account proceeds to describe the chimp island at the Institute for Primate Studies]…One day a young female by the name of Cindy could not resist the temptation of the mainland and jumped over the electric fence in an attempt to leap the moat. She hit the water with a great splash which caught my attention. I started running toward the moat intent on diving in to save her. [Chimps cannot swim.] As I approached I saw Washoe running toward the electric fence. Cindy had come to the surface, thrashing and submerging again. Then I witnessed Washoe jumping the electric fence and landing next to the fence on about a foot of bank. She then held on to the long grass at the waterʼs edge and stepped out onto the slippery mud underneath the waterʼs surface. With the reach of her long arm, she grasped one of Cindyʼs flailing arms as she resurfaced and pulled her to the safety of the bank…Washoeʼs act gave me a new perspective on chimpanzees. I was impressed with her heroism in risking her life on the slippery banks. She cared about someone in trouble; someone she didnʼt even know that well.”
Roger Fouts, “Friends Of Washoe” Newsletter

Gorilla Talk — “Koko the gorilla has learned the hand signs to over 600 words, and uses them regularly and spontaneously to communicate with others (including another gorilla she lives with, Michael). She also invents her own unique signs. A ring is called a ‘finger bracelet.’ A cigarette lighter is a ‘bottle match.’ Hand signs in Kokoʼs repertoire of abstractions include: bad, imagine, understand, curious, idea, gentle, stupid, boring, and damn. She also understands over a thousand spoken English words and short sentences. She recognizes words that end with similar sounds or start with the same letter, and can ‘talk’ via an auditory keyboard which produces spoken words when appropriate keys are pressed.

“When Koko was 3 1/2 to 4 years old she took several I.Q. tests designed for human children. In her case the tests were administered via sign language, and Kokoʼs scores on three separate tests over a one year period were 84, 95, 85 (which is not an uncommon fluctuation among human children). The scoring even took into account the cultural bias that favored the responses of human children, which was built into the tests, and without which Kokoʼs scores would have been higher. For instance, one question in the test was ‘Point to the two things that are good to eat.’ The depicted objects were a block, an apple, a shoe, a flower, and an ice-cream sundae. Koko, with her gorilla tastes, picked, ‘apple and flower.’ Another asked ‘Where you would run to shelter from the rain.’ The choices were a hat, a spoon, a tree, and a house. Koko picked ‘tree’ instead of ‘house.’ Rules for the scoring required that Kokoʼs responses be recorded as ‘wrong.’

“Koko ‘purrs’ and makes laughing and chuckling sounds to express happiness. Her laugh is a sort of voiceless human guffaw which she expresses at her own jokes and those made by others. She finds incongruity funny, the way a young child might. Asked ‘whatʼs funny,’ she put a toy key on her head and said it was a hat, pointed to a puppetʼs nose and said it was a mouth, and signed, ‘That red,’ showing me a green plastic frog.

“Barbara Hiller saw Koko signing, ‘That red,’ as she built a nest out of a white towel. Barbara said, ‘You know better, Koko. What color is it?’ Koko insisted that it was red — ‘red, Red, RED” and finally held up a minute speck of red lint that had been clinging to the towel. Koko was grinning.

“Another time, after persistent efforts on Barbaraʼs part to get Koko to sign, ‘Drink,’ Koko just leaned back and executed a perfect drink sign — in her ear. Again she was grinning.

“She even tells lies, once blaming a broken sink on a human volunteer. Another time, while I [Patterson] was busy writing, Koko snatched up a red crayon and began chewing on it. A moment later I noticed and said, ‘Youʼre not eating that crayon, are you?’ Koko signed, ‘Lip,’ and began moving the crayon first across her upper, then her lower lip as if applying lipstick.

“Koko also cries, a sort of heart- rending wooo-wooo, when sheʼs sad [like when her pet kitten, ‘All Ball’ died], or when sheʼs lonesome. And sheʼs thought about where gorillas go when they die: ‘Comfortable hole bye.’

“When one of Kokoʼs visitors asked her, ‘Are you an animal or a person?’ Koko answered, ‘Fine animal gorilla.’”

The Above Quotations Have Been Condensed And Edited From “Conversations With a Gorilla” by Francine Patterson (National Geographic, Oct. 1978); “‘Fear, Humor, Commitment, Sorrow’ — Apes Feel Them All” (U.S. News and World Report, July 22, 1985); “Talk to the Animals” by Don Kaplan (Instructor, Aug. 1985); “Sex and the Single Gorilla” by Judith Stone (Discover, Aug. 1988); One of the most careful and thoughtful reports on primate communication is “Language Comprehension in Ape and Child,” ed., E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Number 23 (1993). Savage-Rumbaughʼs work is based on rigorous tests and does not rely on anecdotal evidence, yet it supports some of the same claims made above.

“Apes and monkeys have drawn and painted pictures, displaying intense concentration, and appearing to gain satisfaction in the process. Artistically, a chimpanzee makes the same progress, by the same steps, as a human child does, though none have ever been known to get beyond the ‘simple circle dotted with marks resembling facial features,’ i.e., they do not add arms, legs, a body, etc. Still, ape and monkey art takes a lead ahead of children in placing its forms in the center of the page — they balance their compositions. Apes have also been seen tracing their shadows with their finger, and even using their breath to wet a window pane so they could draw upon it. One famous monkey artist, a Capuchin, began to draw with rough objects in her cage even before anyone showed her how. With most other monkeys and chimps all that human trainers had to do was put a pencil in their hand and paper in front of them. They discovered how to use it soon enough, and even how to hold the writing implement properly. The primates that were tested also knew when their pictures were finished, and enjoyed looking at them afterwards…

“Wild chimpanzees have been observed dancing round an object, employing unique modes of rhythm. They also make drinking cups out of folded leaves, and they pluck a stick clean of leaves to make a feeding-tool they use to extract ants and termites from holes in the ground or wood.”
Sally Carrighar, Wild Heritage [quotations have been condensed and edited]

“Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates…Reconciliation behavior [is thus] a shared heritage of the primate order.

“When social animals are involved… antagonists do more than estimate their chances of winning before they engage in a fight; they also take into account how much they need their opponent. The contested resource often is simply not worth putting a valuable relationship at risk. And if aggression does occur, both parties may hurry to repair the damage. Victory is rarely absolute among interdependent competitors, whether animal or human.”
Frans De Waal, Peacemaking Among Primates (see also, Morton Hunt, The Compassionate Beast: What Science is Discovering About the Humane Side of Humankind; and, Alfie Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life)

“Studies of food sharing by chimps at Atlantaʼs Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center [show that]…chimps most often get food from individuals whom they have groomed that day. Dominant males are among the most generous with their food. Fights occur rarely and usually stem from attempts either to take food without having performed grooming services or to withhold food after receiving grooming. Chimps usually kiss, hug, or otherwise make peace after a fight, especially if they need help and cooperation from one another in the future, according to Dr. Frans de Waal.”
“Chimps Reap What They Groom,” Science News, Vol. 146, Dec. 17, 1994

Sharing the Good Nudes, and Bad Neuters, of Christianity (& God's love for harp playing male virgins)

Adamites

Abstract

Everything You Wanted To Know About Nude, Virginal, Castrated Men in the Bible, and Men “Undefiled by Women.” And Mosesʼs command not to “come at your wives” before meeting God. (Though I donʼt know if that applies to Southern Baptists heading for their annual convention.) Includes mention of the Adamites and the Skoptzie, along with Augustineʼs answer to the question, “What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?” All that and more below.

Sixty residents of the Seminole Health Club nudist camp near Miami comprise a Christian mission that worships twice a week in the nude. According to leader Elijah Jackson, “Weʼre not trying to start a cult here, but I think nudity adds something to Christianity.” — News of the Weird, “Weird Clergy”

In the past another group of Christians worshiped in the nude called “Adamites.” They believed that Jesusʼs grace allowed them to draw closer to God in their nakedness, unlike Adam and Eve who were ashamed and withdrew from God in the garden because of their nakedness. They also cited the verse in which Job reminded his listeners that we all entered and exited life naked, and used that to argue that we will all face God naked. Besides which King David lost his robe in a religious dancing frenzy and danced naked for the Lord. The only trouble I can see with worshiping naked in church is having to set the temperature neither too hot nor too cold and keeping the seats from getting sticky.

Christians who worship naked, and the Bible verses they focus upon, are not to be confused with Russian Skoptzie Christians who focused on Jesusʼs words, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat. 19:12) The Skoptzie avoided the “lust of the eyes” and “of the flesh,” via the use of a knife. All for the kingdom. (Another example of a Christian who made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven was the early church father Origin. Incidentally, he believed in the restoration of all things, except perhaps for the thing he cut off.) Will we behold in heaven naked dancing genital-less men — made eunuchs either on earth by their own hand, or transformed into genital-less angel-like beings after death by God?

The author of Revelation mentions “144,000 men… not defiled with women; for they are virgins,” who are granted a prominent place in front of Godʼs throne to play their harps. Thatʼs what God likes most I guess, harp playing male virgins. (Revelation 14: 2-4)

Old Testament authors seem to concur with at least the necessity of celibacy in the presence of Yahweh, since Exodus 19:15,17 taught that Israelite men must “NOT to come at your wives” prior to “meeting the Lord.”

Paul likewise hailed celibacy as a holy virtue, but added, concerning those who could not rise to practice such a virtue, “it is better to marry than to burn” (a verse not often heard at Christian marriage ceremonies today, I wonder why, itʼs biblical):

“It is good for a man NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. For I would that all men were even as I myself. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. [i.e., celibate] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn… I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none… He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit, that you may attend upon the Lord WITHOUT DISTRACTION.” (1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35)

But Augustineʼs commentary on Paulʼs verses is especially ripe:

“In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage. chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship. they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, ‘What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?’ Would that all would. Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, ‘I would that all were as myself;’ or in that passage, ‘But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.’” (Saint Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10)


The Latest “Nudes” On the Christian Nudist Experience

Christian Nudist Convocation, Planning their Summer 2008 conference:

The periodic Christian Nudist Convocation took place in July at the Cherokee Lodge nudist camp in Tennessee, and according to a dispatch in Nashville Scene, the group evokes skepticism not only from most Christians (who dislike the flaunting of naked bodies, even if innocently done) but from most Cherokee Lodge members, who see them as too intense for naturismʼs laid-back attitude. One CNC attendee acknowledged that many Christians would not approve of Cherokee Lodge, but to him “Itʼs Jerusalem.” Another compared his work at nudist camps to missionary work: “Some people get sent to Africa, some people get sent to South America and the Lord was like, ‘I want you to go to nudist resorts.’ And Iʼm like, ‘Wow, what an assignment.’”
SOURCE: News of the Weird

“Christian nudists to build village in Florida”
by Phil Barnoti Wahba (Columbia News Service Dec. 6, 2005), www.azcentral.com

Jonathan Palmiter was enjoying a recent Sunday morning stroll through a lush yard full of trees and Spanish moss—naked as was Adam in the Garden of Eden. A 59-year-old born-again Christian, Palmiter was visiting Natura, a development 40 miles north of Tampa, Fla., that, when it opens up next summer, will become the first nudist community for devout Christians in North America.

Natura is being developed over five years and will house as many as 200 people in 50 family houses on 100 acres of land, with room for up to 100 recreational vehicles, according to Daniel Bellows, chief executive of the development. He even envisions a self-contained village with home-schooling and a strip mall.

Christian nudism might sound like an oxymoron, but for thousands of devout followers, living and worshipping naked is at the core of their faith. No one knows how many Christian nudists there are in North America, but the advent of Natura will increase their visibility.

Nathan Powers, a 50-year-old Texan, begins his day praying naked in his backyard. Nakedness intensifies his dialogue with God, he said. “I feel closer to God. Itʼs an act of humility. It is absolutely spiritual.” To reconcile being a good Christian with their need to be nude, many of the faithful turn to prayer and follow their own spiritual path. Some are led away from their particular denominations. Parker, who organizes the annual “Christian Nudist Convocation” in Virginia, a coming-out event for closeted nudists, was raised a Southern Baptist. He is now independent, turned off by Sunday sermons he said were “too hypocritical for one afternoon.”

The lifestyle of these Christians doesnʼt necessarily make them lefties of the 1960s free-love, live-and-let-live mold. They tend to be deeply conservative on issues like homosexuality and premarital sex, and Republican, differing only from other Christians in their need and desire to be naked whenever possible.

Naked Before God,” cover story in Nashville Scene. Christian nudists hit the church-and the hot tub-for three days of wet and wild worship in the backwoods of Tennessee by Elizabeth Ulrich

The compatibility of Christianity and nudism is detailed in “Nakedness and the Bible,” a self-published book by Canadian author Paul Bowman. The book cites key biblical events, including Godʼs order to the prophet Isaiah to go naked for three years, and states that, contrary to popular belief, Jesus was naked when he washed the feet of his disciples, when he was baptized and when he was crucified and resurrected. “Nakedness and the Bible” states that nothing forbids nonsexual nudity and that misinterpretations of the Bible stem from faulty translations of ancient Hebrew words for nudity. For example, Jim T., Naturaʼs spiritual adviser, and his wife, Shirley, believe the apostle Paulʼs call for modesty targeted ostentation, not nudity. Besides, said Shirley, 55, women in church wearing “designer clothes and $90 haircuts” are the immodest ones.

Christian nudists have long organized their own services and prayer groups. Carolyn Hawkins of the American Association for Nude Recreation, which was founded in 1931, said most of its 270-member clubs offer Sunday services, including one in North Carolina where they are led by a member who is a Baptist minister. Nathan Powers, a 50-year-old Texan, begins his day praying naked in his backyard. Nakedness intensifies his dialogue with God, he said. “I feel closer to God. Itʼs an act of humility. It is absolutely spiritual.”

Jonathan Palmiter was enjoying a recent Sunday morning stroll through a lush yard full of trees and Spanish moss—naked as was Adam in the Garden of Eden. A 59-year-old born-again Christian, Palmiter was visiting Natura, a development 40 miles north of Tampa, Fla., that, when it opens up next summer, will become the first nudist community for devout Christians in North America.


Transgender Televangelist: Sister Paula Nielsen the worldʼs first and only transgender televangelist. Unfortunately, Sister Paulaʼs show is only available on the cable system of — you guessed it — West Hollywood.

“No Stomach” for N.T. Wright (and the questions that raises concerning the life of the world to come)

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright on page 290 of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be admitting the obviousness of a biblical contradiction that many conservative Christians seem loathe to admit. Before reading the passage from N.T. Wright one needs to know which verses he is referring to. They are from a Pauline letter and one of the earliest New Testament discussions concerning what “resurrection” meant, i.e., Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6:13 & 15:50, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” and, “Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them.” About such teachings N.T. Wright wrote:

“There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life.”

To comment on Wrightʼs comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paulʼs earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus “ate fish” and declared himself “not a spirit,” but one “having flesh and bone.” Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus “heretical” had Paul lived long enough to read them.

Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how “PG-rated!” Finally, a “family friendly creation!”) Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if itʼs to be of no use?

On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be “sex” in the afterlife. Of course some might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one genderʼs sexuality. And what about people born in the “old creation” with a bit of both sexual organs, the “inter-sexed?” Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)

And speaking of a “family friendly” cosmos, how “family friendly” will it be if you canʼt raise families in it? If “new creation” resurrected bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? Will there be “post-resurrection new creation babies?” Such babies wouldnʼt be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a “new creation” — all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage Iʼd say over all the damned in hell born into the “old creation” after Adamʼs fall. Doesnʼt sound very fair.

Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the “new creation,” then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny considering all the sermons some Christians keep preaching here on earth that sterilization is wrong.)

Conversation Of A Semi-Rebellious Questioning Christian With God After Being Resurrected In The New Creation:

“Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey whereʼs my? (Hands rummaging deeply in pants pockets.) Thanks be to God itʼs still there! (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But Iʼm shooting blanks for eternity? I canʼt make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and fill the earth, which you probably didnʼt have to make a ‘command’ after all, our pleasure really, until environmental decline and water shortages started happening as a result. Maybe you ought to have added a word or two about the dangers of ‘overfilling’ the earth? You also told us children were a great blessing, though you wound up having to toss yours into a lake of fire whose smoke rises forever. Now in the ‘new creation’ you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or ‘spouses’ if weʼd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? But maybe I ought to thank you for resurrecting us all with sterile gonads here in the ‘new creation,’ since the only children that I was able to conceive never ‘came to Jesus,’ and the thought of them in their damned state only reminds me how risky it might be for any of us to risk conceiving any more souls to fill hell. We donʼt want to overfill it like we did the earth! Or overfill heaven too for that matter, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering forever.” Then Adam, who was listening to my conversation with God, walks up to my ear and whispers, “Tell me about it.”

Tertullian's Paradox; Why Protestants and Catholics, Calvinists and Armenians, will never see eye to eye

Tertullian's Paradox

CATHOLICISM critiques the sufficiency of Scripture alone, while PROTESTANTISM critiques Catholic claims that their traditions and miracle stories are true.

First, letʼs hear a bit of the Catholic argument…

Is Scripture Alone Sufficient?

Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical [Protestant] Theological Society converted to Catholicism after recognizing that Scripture alone is insufficient. Judging by his conversion (as well as that of Newmanʼs during the Victorian era when the latter quit Anglicanism for Catholicism, which stunned England) critiques of the Reformation principle of sola scriptura can be quite successful. Introducing oneʼs Protestant friends to Catholic criticisms of sola scriptura may help them question their previous ideas of biblical authority without having to introduce them to books by agnostic or atheist scholars. See this piece for instance:

Ecclesiastical Authority in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition by James Roger Black (Ph.D. in “Ancient Religions of the Eastern Mediterranean”). Headings in Dr. Blackʼs paper include:

  • “Scripture alone is not a sufficient guide to faith and practice…
  • “Scripture is not self-defining…
  • “Scripture is not self-authenticating…
  • “Scripture is not self-interpreting…

“The Reformation principle of ‘sola scriptura’—i.e., reliance on ‘Scripture alone’—is not taught in Scripture itself, was not held by the early Church…

“The commonly cited biblical proofs of sola scriptura do not actually teach what they are alleged to teach…

“Both Jesus and the Apostles made use of—and even appealed to the authority of—the oral traditions, deuterocanonical and extracanonical writings, and varying textual recensions of their day.”

See Dr. Blackʼs article for the examples he cites beneath each heading.

There is also a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism, named Dave Armstrong who has written some concise pieces on the same topic, but one can find any number of Catholic scholars who likewise have written on the topic probably going back to Lutherʼs day:

Catholics imagine that after the Reformation principle of sola scriptura is undermined then Protestantʼs will be forced to recognize or at least look into Catholic claims of divinely-directed growth of dogma and traditions, not to mention centuries of miraculous and visionary experiences.

But hereʼs where it becomes PROTESTANTISMʼS turn to aid in leading more people toward deism, atheism, or at least agnosticism.

Are Miracle Tales True?

Protestants over the centuries have examined Catholic miracle tales and found them wanting. On the miracles reported to have taken place in the early church Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton (18th century British Anglican clergyman, Cambridge graduate and author) says, regarding the early church fathers who reported them:

“I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient fathers, by whose authority that delusion was originally imposed (that miracles existed in the early church), and has ever since been supported, were extremely credulous and superstitious; possessed with strong prejudices and enthusiastic zeal, in favour, not only of Christianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild imagination could ingraft upon it; and scrupling no art or means, by which they might propagate the same principles. In short; they they were of a character, from which nothing could be expected, that was candid and impartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply, towards confirming those prejudices, with which they happened to be possessed; especially where religion was the subject, which above all other motives, strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the human mind.” [Conyers Middleton (1749), A Free Inquiry Into The Miraculous Powers Which Are Supposed To Have Subsisted In The Christian Church From The Earliest Ages Through Several Successive Centuries. Reprinted (1967). New York: Garland Publishing. Preface, pp. 21-22.]

Then in the 19th century one can read the Protestant theologian (and father of modern inerrancy), B. B. Warfield, to see how he debunked Catholic miracles and resurrection stories in his famous work, COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES. Which just goes to show, as Dr. Robert M. Price (an ex-fundamentalist Protestant), wrote, “The zeal and ingenuity of conservative evangelical scholars in dismantling the miracles of rival Christian groups (and exploding rival interpretations of Scripture used to support such miracles), is worthy of the most skeptical gospel critic.”

In the 20th century after the worldwide rise of Pentecostalism, the conservative Protestant, George W. Peters, dismantled stories of “resurrections” that allegedly took place in the 1970s during the Pentecostal revival in the Phillipines. His book was titled, Indonesia Revival: Focus On Timor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), Chapter 4, “The Miracle Phenomena of the Revival,” pp. 57-85. Other conservative Protestants have dismantled claims of miracles allegedly performed by Pentecostal televangelist Benny Hinn, including his claim, now withdrawn, that he had “raised someone to life.”

This brings us to a Catholic book by Father Albert J. Hebert S.M., Raised From The Dead: True Stories Of 400 Resurrection Miracles. Father Hebert claims many resurrection miracles have been performed by Roman Catholic saints. Naturally Protestants like Middleton, Warfield, and Peters are not going to simply allow Catholics to believe that their Church has a preponderance of resurrection miracles vouchsafed by God. They are going to question whether any such myriad of miracles ever took place, using every possible reason, rationalization or inkling of doubt in their minds.

But then one must ask how those same Protestants, so willing to employ every reason and rationalization at their disposal to deny Catholic miracles—chalking them up to gullibility, blindness, folk tales, myths, legends, or the result of living in ignorant and superstitious times—expect modern day people to believe every last miracle in the Bible instead?

On what historical grounds can the miracles of Protestantismʼs “enemy,” the Catholic Church, be rejected without also rejecting or at least questioning heartily those found in the New Testament? If Father Hebert is correct then the miracles he enumerates serve as evidence of Godʼs approval of the Roman Catholic Churchʼs status as true church of God. And the miracles Father Hebert documents happened much more recently than those reported in the Gospels, and they are reported by people about whom we know more than is known about the Gospel writers. So what do we really know of the anonymous writers of the Gospels that assures us that they would not make use of whatever stories or pious legends were being spread about by others living in such a superstitious era?

Hence, CATHOLICISM critiques the sufficiency of Scripture alone, while PROTESTANTISM critiques Catholic claims that their traditions and miracles stories are true.

So what must one believe?

Is God speaking especially clearly on either matter? See also this post on Miracles of All Religions. What a mixed bag they are. How can God or “Whatever is Out There” expect us all to make the same sense out of such a mixed bag of miracle stories?


Arminianism Versus Calvinism

The C.S. Lewis-ian/Arminian, Victor Reppert (of the blog Dangerous Idea) and the Calvinist, Paul Manata (of the blog Triablogue) went back and forth on one of the most heavily discussed and unresolved debates throughout centuries of Christian theology and philosophy, tossing at each other grandiose concepts and words that have a core of incomprehensibility not only in and of themselves, but also in the different ways different thinkers have conceived of them relating to one another — words such as “God,” “nature,” “omniscience,” “predestination,” “free will,” “divine goodness,” “human goodness” (or lack thereof w/ the exception of “common grace”).

Vic and Paul remain “certain” that whatever core of incomprehensibility may exist in such words, their use of them makes far greater sense, and adds up to a far more imposing and necessarily true system than that of their opponent.

All of which reminded me of something Bernard Williams, a Christian philosopher, wrote in his essay, “Tertullianʼs Paradox”:

“If the Christian faith is true, it must be partly incomprehensible. But if it is partly incomprehensible, it is difficult to see what it is for it to be true…”

He continued…

“It follows further… that it is difficult to characterize the difference between belief and unbelief”

Especially, I might add, in the sense of believing or not believing in explanatory systems propounded by other Christians.

In fact, one can see how incessant debates between Catholic and Protestant thinkers seem to have led almost naturally to a rise in deism and atheism, or at least agnosticism.

There have been (and still are) so many differences between Christians in matters of theology, philosophy, liturgy, spiritual regimes, buzz words, and other practices, that Christianity ought to be called “Christianities.” A spectrum of systems exist for interpreting the Bible and for determining its authority on various matters. How does one “find Godʼs will?”

No doubt the hunt for “Godʼs will” via interpreting holy books, dogmas, and traditions is endless and exhausting which explains why so many Christians feel relieved to leave such a hunt up to their pastor, or up to the Sunday School lessons their church receives in booklets sent from their parent institution, or up to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, or up to the living patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church, or up to the guy with the weird haircut hawking “holy hankies” on TV.

I know itʼs exhausting because I tried and sought and prayed and read and continue to read up on the topic. So letʼs pour more oil on the fire of Vic and Paulʼs dialogue, and start by asking them both why they arenʼt Catholic? Itʼs the single biggest Christian Church in the world. Nearly as big as all Protestant denominations combined. And it has what it calls “apostolic authority” going back to an apostle whom Jesus himself picked as a rock of faith to whom things on heaven and earth would be loosed, and they say that apostle picked others, etc. And hereʼs the kicker, Catholics continue to use every reasonable, rational and historical argument in order to deny something near and dear to every Protestant, the sufficiency and perspicacity of Scripture.

The story of my journey
If It Wasnʼt For Agnosticism I Would Know WHAT to Believe,
and,
Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity