Christians admit that difficult questions arise when one attempts to reconcile Christianity and Evolution

From Pete Enns:

‘Evolution is a serious challenge to how Christians have traditionally understood at least three central issues of the faith: the origin of humanity, of sin, and of death.’

“Evolution claims that the cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, is not viable. That leaves open the questions of where sin and death come from. More than that, the very nature of what sin is and why people die is turned on its head. Some behaviors Christians have thought of as sinful are understood in an evolutionary scheme as means of ensuring survival—for example, the aggression and dominance associated with ‘survival of the fittest’ and sexual promiscuity to perpetuate oneʼs gene pool.

Sorry Creationists, Death Existed Since “The Beginning”

I used to be a young-earth creationist, but realized I could not defend the idea of “no death before the Fall of Adam and Eve.” For instance, plants are alive, their cells have the same basic structures as those in animals, like a nucleus, cytoplasm and cell wall, and they died per Genesis 1, not because of sin, but because they were given as food. And the mere fact that ‘food’ had to be given implies that death by ‘starvation’ was also

The Discovery Institute Endorses a Literal Adam and Eve, And It's Easy to See Why Once You “Follow the Money”

The pro-Intelligent Design book, Science and Human Origins, Endorses a Literal Adam and Eve.

Including responses from ID advocates

“Darwinist hero of the hour”: the ID crowd sort of respond

Intelligent Designʼs leading institution published a book advocating a literal “Adam and Eve”

• “Here ends the review of the Discovery Instituteʼs Science and Human Origins, a Discovery Institute publication that is intended to challenge—amongst other things—the notion that humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and that we couldnʼt have had descended from a literal Adam and Eve.”

• In Chapter 1, Gauger introduces human evolution in the context of lamenting that Christians are losing faith in a literal Adam and Eve.

• But Gauger needs to explain where all the variation in modern human populations came from in the time since the alleged Adam and Eve bottleneck [what time exactly does she place this bottleneck?]. Failing that she has nothing more than some hyper-selective skepticism. She certainly doesnʼt have Adam and Eve.

  “Ann Gauger on population genetics”

Gauger argues that there are five major haplotypes but only three of the haplotypes are “ancient.” Since up to four haplotypes could be inherited from two people, this leaves the door open for a bottleneck involving a single pair of humans. But even if we accept all parts of her argument up to here, the IDist book is not internally consistent, because Gauger does not dispute mainstream opinion that the last two major haplotypes out of the five arose five 4 to 6 million years ago. But this means that all five haplotypes arose in pre-humans, since Luskin in his chapter denies that true humans existed 4 to 6 million years ago (he says that true humans began with H. erectus, 1.8 million yrs ago). Therefore 4 million years ago when the last of the HLA-DR haplotypes originated, our closest relatives were still non-humans, i.e., Australopithecines. So ALL FIVE major haplotypes of HLA-DR pre-date human-ness by the IDistsʼ own admissions, which looks like added evidence of a continuity between Australopithecines and later hominids including modern day humans. Also, if Adam and Eve with their five major halotypes arose over 1.8 million years ago they were non-human.

IDʼist authors in the book criticize fields in which they lack expertise. A lawyer challenges the worldʼs palaeoanthropologists and geneticists. Should he be trying to take them all on at once? Accusations that the entire field of palaeoanthropology is driven by personal disputes and that Francis Collins is a bad Christian are simply not compelling reading in a book that is putatively about scientific argument. In reality the overwhelming majority of scientists in each of the fields addressed in this book share a broad consensus that is at odds with what the authors claim. And, despite the breathless accusations of a Darwinian conspiracy, mainstream scientists are a diverse bunch. Like Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala, who are both singled out in this book, many are themselves Christian yet accept the balance of evidence for our evolutionary past.

The problem for IDʼist like Luskin is that there is a progression in the fossil record between us and early Homo. There is no evidence of a major discontinuity at the point where humans are most likely to have acquired our truly modern humanness… A paper by Schultz, Nelson and Dunbar elegantly summarizes the evidence for cognitive evolution, showing a series of changes that culminate in the emergence of modern human language within the last 100,000 years. Brain size/cranial evolution over more than 3 million years also shows a progression from the cranium sizes of ancient apes and hominids to more modern species of homo.

• Luskin should address the issue of human evolution in this context.

The thrust of the ID book is to claim human exceptionalism, disprove our common descent with apes, and search for a real-life Adam and Eve. None of this is part of a program to genuinely investigate the world. This is particularly clear because the authors are happy to create doubt about what they call Darwinism, rather than create positive cases for an alternative to it.

Comments

I have heard quite a few people now asking for an honest and frank discussion between, for example, Casey Luskin and Behe on common descent. If they were undertaking a real scientific program, there would be no need for people to request it - open comment and debate are a normal part of science, and it seems to me that common descent under ID should be a non-trivial matter for such discussion.
—Paul McBride July 14, 2012

Michael Behe told us his hypothesis a few years ago. We both took part in a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate at Hillsdale College. After Michael Beheʼs lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how “irreducibly complex” mechanisms arose—mechanisms that cannot, according to Behe, be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking he finally answered: “A puff of smoke!” A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Not very persuasive as a scientific answer.
—RBH July 9, 2012

Reminds me of what Berlinski wrote: “Before the Cambrian era, a brief 600 million years ago, very little is inscribed in the fossil record; but then, signaled by what I imagine as a spectral puff of smoke and a deafening ta-da!, an astonishing number of novel biological structures come into creation, and they come into creation at once.— [Berlinski, “The Deniable Darwin” (June 1996), Commentary magazine.]

Berlinski added to Beheʼs explanation by adding the word “Ta da.”

---

The Discovery Institute Produced A Book That Advocates a Literal “Adam and Eve”, and Continues to Leave the Door Wide Open to Young-Earth Creationism Because Thatʼs Where the Majority of their Money Comes From

Extremism

Stephen Meyer tutored Howard Ahmanson, Jr. son in science and was asked by Ahmanson, “What could you do if you had some financial backing?” In the 1970s multimillionaire Howard Ahmanson became a Calvinist and joined Rushdoonyʼs Christian Reconstructionist movement. Ahmanson served as a board member of Rushdoonyʼs Chalcedon Foundation for approximately 15 years before resigning in 1996. Ahmanson said he had left the Chalcedon board and “does not embrace all of Rushdoonyʼs teachings” which include young-earth creationism, biblical inerrancy, abandoning the Constitution and placing the US directly under “Biblical law” — including state punishment for religious offenses such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, and the use of Biblical forms of punishment such as stoning.

The same year Ahmanson lost interest in working with Chalcedon he seems to have gained interest in supporting “intelligent design.” In 1996 a representative of Ahmanson promised $750,000 over three years to fund the Instituteʼs Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture which went on to form the motive force behind the intelligent design movement. By far the biggest backers of the intelligent design efforts continue to be the Ahmansons, who have provided 35 percent of the science centerʼs $9.3 million since its inception and now underwrite A quarter of its $1.3 million annual operations. Mr. Ahmanson sits on Discoveryʼs board. In 2002 some politicians returned money given them by Ahmanson after learning how far right his views were, so Ahmanson opened himself up to some interviews, but could not bring himself to repudiate his former Chalcedonian views, stating for instance, “I think what upsets people is that Rushdoony seemed to think - and Iʼm not sure about this - that a godly society would stone people. I no longer consider that essential. It would still be a little hard to say that if one stumbled on a country that was doing that, that it is inherently immoral, to stone people for these things.”

• “Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America,” By Lenny Flank

The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture also recʼd a founding grant of $450,000 from the conservative Maclellan Foundation (Calvinist, reconstructionist, dominionist, and most probably YECʼs) “We give for religious purposes,” said Thomas H. McCallie III, executive director of the Maclellan Foundation. “This is not about science, and Darwin wasnʼt about science. Darwin was about a metaphysical view of the world.”

The Discovery Institute supports more than one issue or project and has gained support from some secular groups like the Verizon Foundation and the Gates Foundation, which gave $1 million in 2000 and pledged $9.35 million over 10 years in 2003. But Greg Shaw, a grant maker at the Gates Foundation, said the money was “exclusive to the Cascadia project” on regional transportation which has nothing to do with the Discovery Instituteʼs views on “intelligent design.”

But the Discovery Instituteʼs science branch has cost it the support of the Bullitt Foundation, which gave $10,000 in 2001 for transportation related projects, as well as cost it the support of the John Templeton Foundation in Pennsylvania which supports “new insights between theology and science,” but found the DI to be less focused on interacting with modern science and scientists and more interested in public persuasion. Denis Hayes, director of the Bullitt Foundation, described Discovery in an e-mail message as “the institutional love child of Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell,” saying, “I can think of no circumstances in which the Bullitt Foundation would fund anything at Discovery today.” Charles L. Harper Jr., the senior vice president of the Templeton Foundation, said he had rejected the instituteʼs entreaties since providing $75,000 in 1999 for a conference in which intelligent design proponents confronted critics. “Theyʼre political - that for us is problematic,” Mr. Harper said. While the DI has “always claimed to be focused on the science,” he added, “what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth.”

Not surprisingly, the Discovery Institute defended the right of Bryan College trustees to fire any professors who question or doubt that “Adam and Eve” were directly created.

And the DI book, Science and Human Origins, seems to have been composed in order to argue that we all descended from a literal first couple, “Adam and Eve,” starting with chapter 1 in which Ann Gauger introduces human evolution in the context of Christians losing faith in a literal Adam and Eve, lamenting Christians who accept the scientific evidence for evolution.

Meanwhile, Phil Johnson dedicated his book “Defeating Darwinism” to “Howard and Roberta” —Ahmanson and his wife. I donʼt know if Ahmnson had a direct hand in funding the publication of Johnsonʼs book, but it is not impossible, since his fellow Reconstructionist guru, Rushdooney, helped fund the publication of Henry Morrisʼs first book, The Genesis Flood, that advocates young-earth creationism. Johnson has also admitted that his distaste for evolutionary biology is based on religious convictions.

Johnson, adds, “I have consistently said that I take no position on the age of the earth, and that I regard the issue as not ripe for debate yet… When developments make it appropriate for me to clarify or adjust my position, I will not hesitate to do so.”

One wonders just what developments could possibly make Johnson make up his mind about the age of the Earth. Is he holding out for some new and improved radiometric dating technique? Waiting for new ice core results? I doubt it. Heʼs probably referring to political, not scientific, developments. The scientific case for an old Earth is overwhelming. But Johnsonʼs “Big Tent” strategy requires him to do the exact opposite of what he pretentiously claims to be doing, which is following the evidence wherever it leads. Instead, he simply sweeps the evidence for something as firmly supported as the age of the earth under the rug in favor of far more nebulous topics like the precise means by which this or that feature evolved or not.

Many D.I. members are like Johnson, saying “it doesnʼt matter how old or how young the earth is,” so it doesnʼt matter whether animals popped into existence whole a couple thousand years ago, or whether they share a common ancestry billions of years in the making. I guess astronomers, geologists, physicists, and biologists have no idea how old the earth is, or whether organisms are related via common ancestry. But if one was to arrange the following scientific propositions based on how relatively secure each proposition is, the worldʼs scientists would agree that an old age of the earth and cosmos is most secure, common ancestry second, and the question of the precise mechanisms that lay behind each evolutionary change, third. But the DI is funded by many who would like to challenge all three propositions but realize that the third is the only one in which they can currently hope to muddy the waters.

The ID movement is more extreme than say, “fine-tuners,” who see the view the “design” as front-loaded at the Big Bang (via six cosmological constants), and view everything that as naturally unfolding since then.

The Discovery Institute is naturally hesitant to reveal its creationist and extremist roots.

Look up the CVs of its members. We already discussed Ahmanson, who now says, as of 2014, “I am not a young-earth creationist,” though I bet he once was if he was ever on the board of the Chalcedon Foundation. I wonder when and why he changed his mind, or even if he did really change it and is claiming he is old-earth to add a bit more luster to the Institute he founded? And I wonder what he might say if asked about Adam and Eve?

• Howard Ahmanson on the Discoveroidsʼ Blog

Stephen C. Meyerʼs info on the DI site does not include Meyerʼs time at Palm Beach Atlantic University. Instead they only mention Meyer working at Whitworth, which they say Meyer left in 2002 to work full time on DI related projects.

But in Meyerʼs CV it says says that he surrendered his tenured (!) position at Whitworth in 2002 so he could work from 2002-2005 at a creationist Christian college whose “Guiding Principles,” include, “All those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God;…”

Dembski worked for a young-earth creationist Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from 2005-2013, where YECʼism is de rigeur, and Dembskiʼs boss forced him to restate his views on the age of the earth the the Flood of Noah to make them more amenable to the universityʼs views.

Dembski now works full time for DI.

Paul Nelson is a young-earth creationist, and Jonathan Wells, like Johnson, wonʼt say how old the earth is. For instance at the Kansas Evolution Hearings, Wells was asked,

Q. Doctor Wells, do you have a personal opinion as to how old the earth is?

A. I think the earth is probably four-and-a-half billion or so years old. But Iʼll tell you this, I used to— I would have said, a few years ago, Iʼm convinced itʼs four-and-a-half billion years old. But the truth is I have not looked at the evidence. And I have become increasingly suspicious of the evidence that is presented to me and thatʼs why at this point I would say probably itʼs four-and-a-half billion years old, but I havenʼt looked at the evidence.

The Unification Church of which Wells is a member has a website that says, “Scientists calculate the age of the earth to be some thousand million years,” or one billion years old, (reference) but on a different page they say, “The age of the earth is calculated to be several billion years.”

The pretension that these IDʼists support, that the age of the earth isnʼt really an issue, ignores the fact that it is, because one broad definition of evolution is change over time, and species change and spread out over time, leaving many of those offshoot species to die out in the process, such countless deaths are the price paid until some branch of a species spreads into places where it flourishes or where it can survive with some degree of greater stability and adaptability than before.

The DI reminds me of the Christian Coalitionʼs advice to all their “stealth” candidates try and pass “under the radar” but never telling people they are Evangelical Christians who believe in creationism and that the Lord is coming soon, or never let on that they are Calvinist supporters of biblical law, nor let on how extreme their personal opinions might be on a range of issues.

Serpent in Genesis = Satan? (Part 1)

Christian theologian Peter Enns recently wrote an interesting article on Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: A Crafty Serpent

Itʼs a fascinating read, along with the comments section, to which Iʼd like to add:

1. Genesis says God created the serpent (“the wisest beast of the field that the Lord God had made”) and cursed the serpent (not Satan) “to go on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life.” SO, NO “SATAN” IN GENESIS.

2. The serpent was first identified with SATAN in the INTERTESTAMENTAL writings that Enns mentioned in his article. But such writings never became part of the canon of recognized inspired literature in either the OT nor the NT.

3. Serpents have no vocal apparatus to “speak” with. No voice box, no muscular tongue, cheeks and larynx.

4. The “curse” to “eat dust” is not a “curse” scientifically speaking. The serpent uses its damp tongue to capture air borne molecules and drag them back to the roof of its mouth where its smelling aparatus is located, pressing its tongue with those molecules against the roof of its mouth so it can “smell.” And its sense of smell is essential when it comes to tracking prey, finding mates, learning about its environment, etc., which are all blessings, not curses.

5. The idea that humankind once lived in paradise is as untrue as stories invented to explain how we “left” that “paradise.” The past contains evidence of mass extinctions, including the suffering & extinctions of our upright primate ancestors and ancient human species, none of whose lives were “paradisical.”

6. The Bible begins and ends with myths. (What about the middle?)

The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman, Christian Objections (with Responses)

Three objections that Iʼve heard concerning Pullmanʼs “Golden Compass” (the movie), and “His Dark Materials” trilogy:

Objection #1: Catholics object to the authorʼs use of the phrase, “The Magisterium”

Objection #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with “children” being “killed.”

Objection #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way “Original Sin” is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

Objection #1: Catholics object to the authorʼs use of the phrase, “The Magisterium” to depict the governing body on his alternate earth. According to Catholics using such a term is an affront to “The Magisterium” which is defined today as the living teaching authority of the Catholic church. So using such a term to depict the controlling forces of a totalitarian society in Pullmanʼs fiction is a form of bigotry and prejudice.

Response to Objection #1: Even the late Pope John Paul II admitted that the Catholic church had a lot to apologize for over the centuries, including a thirst for political influence, wealth, power, totalitarian-like teachings and activities. Hence the late Pope John Paul II set up a commission to tally up the churchʼs questionable teachings and misdeeds over the centuries, though it remains doubtful that they will ever formally complete such a task. But if anyone wishes to study the question of totalitarianism and the Bible and the church fathers, then a prime example of the type of reasoning employed can be found in/

De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmineʼs Treatise on Civil Government by Saint Robert Bellarmine Doctor of the Universal Church.

Just read chapters 18-22:
The Defense of Religion Pertains to the Political Magistracy
It is not Possible for Catholics to be Reconciled with Heretics
The Books of Heretics Should Be Abolished
Can Heretics Condemned by the Church Be Punished with Temporal Penalties and even with Death
The Solution of Difficulties

Bellarmine covers a host of questions any Christian might ask pertaining to how one can interpret the Bible and the church fathers and arrive at something akin to totalitarianism.

Objection #2: Protestants object to the way John Calvin is portrayed in the novels as being connected with “children” being “killed.”

Response to Objection #2: True, the historical John Calvin in our cosmos was not known for killing children willy nilly. And even in Pullmanʼs fiction there is a reason or threat that the Magisterium finds compelling enough to make them conduct experiments on children that lead sometimes to a their deaths—though killing the children is not the object of such experiments which are attempts to find a way to avoid people attracting “dust.”

On the other hand, the historical John Calvin did teach that the disciplining of unruly children was necessary, even unto death. Some modern day Calvinists agree, even unto the death penalty for disobedient children in their mid-teens. See the materials below, beginning with verses from the O.T. that Calvin himself is known to have cited and expounded upon:

He that strikes his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:15

He that curses his father or his mother shall die the death.
-Exodus 21:17

If any man has a son that is stubborn and disobedient, which will not hearken unto the voice of his father, nor the voice of his mother, and they have chastened him [The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”], and he would not obey them, Then shall his father and his mother take him, and bring him out unto the Elders of his city, and unto the gate of the place where he dwells, And shall say unto the Elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and disobedient, and he will not obey our admonition; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him with stones unto death: so thou shalt take away evil from among you, that all Israel may hear and fear.
-Deuteronomy 21:18-21

How Children Were Treated At The Height Of Calvinism In Geneva

In 1563, a girl named Genon Bougy, who had insulted her mother by calling her “japa,” was condemned to three days in prison on bread and water, and she had to make a public apology after worship services. In 1566, Damian Mesnier, a child from the village of Genthod, for insulting his mother by calling her “diablesse, hérège, larronne” and by throwing stones at her, was whipped in public and then hanged from the gallows with the rope passed under his arms, as a sign of the death he had deserved, but which was spared him because of his youth. Philippe Deville was beheaded in1568 for having beaten his father and step-mother. Four years later, a 16-year-old child tried to strike his mother, and was also condemned to death; but the sentence was reduced in light of his young age, and he was only banished, after being whipped in public with a rope around his neck. [SOURCE: Jean Picot [Professeur dʼhistoire dans la faculte des lettres de lʼAcademie de cette ville] Histoire de Geneve, Tome Second (Published in Geneva, i.e., A Geneve, Chez Manget et Cherbuliez, Impreimeurs-Libr. 1811) p. 264]

“Girl” (?) Beheaded

A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil (diabless). A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment. [SOURCE: Philip Schaff [Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York] Modern Christianity: The Swiss Reformation = Vol. VIII of History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, third edition revised, 1910) — Schaff does not footnote the “beheading” incident, though he does provide on that page and the next a few footnotes regarding other incidents of prohibitions and their penalties in Geneva. He also lists the sources he consulted when writing his book (sources are listed at the beginning of each section). In this case, judging by nearby footnotes and by his source list for that particular section, he most likely obtained his information from either the Registers of the Council of Geneva, or, “Amedee Roget: Lʼeglise et lʼetat a Geneve du vivant de Calvin. Etude dʼhistoire politico-ecclesiastique, published in Geneve, 1867 (pp. 92). Compare also his Histoire du people de Geneve depuis la reforme jusquʼa lʼescalade (1536-1602), 1870-1883, 7 vols.”]

[Picot and Schaff do not agree on the gender of the beheaded child, and my first source, Dr. Henry, only mentions that it was a “child,” not specifying its gender. Picotʼs History of Geneva provides the most complete information concerning the incident, including the childʼs name and the date of the beheading. The archives of Geneva are vast and include not only the Registers of the Council and the Registers of the Consistory, but many other records as well (that the Calvin scholar, Robert Kingdon, lists by category in Vol. 1 of his English translation of the Registers of the Consistory). Though massive, the Genevan archives could probably be searched by focusing on the year of the beheading and the childʼs name that Picot has given, and they could probably supply more information, such as the childʼs age when s/he was beheaded. — E.T.B.]

Calvinʼs Teaching On The Execution Of Rebellious Children From Calvinʼs Day To Our Own

The same year that the Libertines were overthrown (1555) and pro-Calvinists ruled Geneva, Calvin preached on the execution of rebellious children in a sermon that advocated it (in order to “remove the evil from among you” as it stated in Deuteronomy). The sermon was recorded (by a secretary in shorthand) and later published and is even available today in English on the internet at a site run by Theonomist Evangelical Christians who are some of Calvinʼs biggest modern day admirers. In his sermon Calvin cited verses from the Bible that taught that parents should both love and discipline their children, advice that you would normally hear in any sermon or read in a Parenting magazine today, with one crucial difference of course, the added Biblical necessity of having some disobedient, parent-dishonoring, rebellious children executed “to remove the evil from among you.”

Also during the 1550s many editions of French Bibles were printed in Geneva that contained notes based on Calvinʼs teachings. In 1560 an English translation of the Bible was published in Geneva, the famous “Geneva Bible.” Like the earlier French Bibles it featured notes that reflected the teachings of Calvin and Calvinism. Each book in the Geneva Bible was preceded by an opening “argument” — for instance the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy were preceded by “arguments” that said the laws revealed to Moses were “temporal and civil ordinances,” “necessary for a commonweal,” and to “govern” His “Church.” And a note in the Geneva Bible, concerning the command in Deuteronomy to execute rebellious children, added: “Which death was also appointed for blasphemers and idolaters: so that to disobey the parents is most horrible.”

Robert Kingdon [a modern day Calvin scholar who not only edited the Registers of the Consistory of Geneva, but also wrote a book about Adultery in Calvinʼs Geneva], noted that during the early 1560s: “We find in the surviving dossiers of Genevan criminal trials a cluster of several cases of adultery punished with the death penalty in 1560 and 1561. That was when the Calvinist Reformation was at its peak… Calvin too, was at the peak of his career, with a new and definitive edition of his masterwork, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, just off the [Genevan] press.”

In 1563, Calvinʼs Commentary on the Five Books of Moses was also published in Geneva and it reiterated what he had previously taught in his sermons in 1555 concerning the necessity of following Godʼs rules of discipline and the necessity of magistrates to obey and enforce Biblical laws, including the execution of rebellious children. It was soon after that when the harsh public disciplinary actions toward children took place. Moreover, during those same years, a string of witches were killed (not a one was banished, all executed, one right on the spot), several adulterers were executed, and a few people even committed suicide rather than face the Consistory. It was Calvinism in its most heightened state of belief and triumph.

In January of 1998 the Rev. William Einwechter composed an article titled, “Stoning Disobedient Children,” that was published in Chalcedon Report. The Reverendʼs article raised some eyebrows in the world of “church and state news” since it advocated the execution of rebellious children who were “in their middle teens [15-17?] or older.” The Reverend responded to his critics in a second article. Both of his articles can be googled easily since they are posted at various websites. I emailed the Reverend, asking him why he chose the “mid-teens” as a cut off point for execution when Exodus mentions executing children twice, once for “cursing” their parents, and once for “striking” their parents, but in neither case does it specify the “age” of “executable” children. In fact in some places the Bible says God himself killed, or commanded his people to execute, infants and pregnant women. Therefore, the “age” of a child does not appear to have played a very large factor when it came to the necessity of removing “evil” from the sight of God:

Their fruit shalt Thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men.
- Psalm 21:10

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born… let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
- Psalm 58:3,8

As for Israel, their glory shall fly away like a bird, and from the womb, and from the conception… Give them, O Lord: what will Thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… they shall bear no fruit…
- Hosea 9:11-16

Every living thing on the earth was drowned [which no doubt included pregnant women and babies]… Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
- Genesis 7:23

Thus saith the LORD… Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
- 1 Samuel 15:3

Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded.
- Joshua 10:40

The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones.
- Deuteronomy 2:33-34

Kill every male among the little ones.
- Numbers 31:17

The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and… Samaria shall become desolate… they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
- Hosea 13:15-16

With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid.
- Jeremiah 51:22

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
- Psalm 137:9

I added in my email to Rev. Einwechter that Calvinist Christians whose “fear of God” ran deep could cite scriptures like those above and argue for executing rebellious children of a far younger age than he suggested in his article. Apparently the Reverend did not wish to argue the question of “age” any further with me, since he never replied to the second email I sent him.

This subject also brings to mind the related question of the Bibleʼs rules for the disciplining of children:

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.
- Proverbs 19:18 (The Hebrew word for “chasten” means literally “chasten with blows.”)

The blueness of a wound cleanses away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.
- Proverbs 20:30 (The Hebrew word translated “stripes” means “beating.”)

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beats him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from Sheol.
- Proverbs 23:13-14

As a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee (with blows).
- Deuteronomy 8:5

For whom the Lord loves he chasteneth, and scourges every son whom he receives.
- Hebrews 12:6 (The Greek word translated “chasteneth,” also means “beating.”)

Objection #3: Protestants and Catholics both object to the way “Original Sin” is portrayed as somehow being connected with adolescent sexual awakening.

Reply to Objection #3: In Pullmanʼs trilogy (His Dark Materials) “dust” is a powerful force, which causes the alethiometer to operate, flows around the Aurora Borealis, passes between parallel universes, and adheres to adult humans (but not to animals and not to juveniles whose daemons have not yet settled into final form). And because it is intimately connected to the changes that take place at puberty, which in the eyes of the Church (in Lyraʼs world) are a manifestation of Original Sin, it is seen by the Church and its Oblation Board as evil; therefore they want to find a way to protect humans from its actions.

“Dust is the embodiment of either Original Sin or the creative energy of humankind, which may be the same thing in Pullmanʼs world.” (Jacobs)

“Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself.” (Pullman, The Subtle Knife)

In “His Dark Materials” trilogy Pullmanʼs interpretation of the garden of Eden tale is that after eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve were awakened to full consciousness, curiosity, including sexual curiosity. Pullmanʼs explanation in the story is that “dust” is drawn to humans at the point where childhood turns into early-adulthood/adolescence, and that the moment of awakening [which some Protestants might call the “age of accountability”] is a sort of replay of the awakening of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden when “their eyes were opened,” and they gained “knowledge.”

For instance In the Genesis story the immediate consequence of eating from the tree of “knowledge of good and evil” was their awareness of being “naked,” and the first action reported after the expulsion from the garden is Adamʼs “knowing“ Eve.
(Genesis 4:1).

[Explanatory note in case someone brings up the “be fruitful and multiply” command in Genesis chapter 1 and uses it to argue that Adam and Eve had sex in Eden before they sinned, and thus sexual awakening had nothing to do with original sin. Genesis 1 which contains the “be fruitful” command is a story that contains evidence of later concerns, even ideas absorbed during the Babylonian exile, and it is more fully monotheistic as well, a later development in Israelite religion. Thus Genesis 1 is a later tale, so whatever it may say about God commanding the first man and woman to “be fruitful and multiply” that appears to be a later embellishment. While the earlier creation story found in Genesis 2-4 has God walking naked in the garden with Adam and Eve who are like children running around naked and doing some gardening—though the garden watered itself it was said from rising mists—and then the couple ate of the forbidden fruit (attaining knowledge—a more adult and mature view of things for the first time) and their eyes were opened and they hide their nakedness in shame and begat children after leaving the garden. Of course even in the later tale of the creation of man and women in which they are commanded to “be fruitful” the metaphor of “fruit” is employed and hearkens back to ancient Near Eastern sexual metaphors, as pointed out by Dr. Ronald A. Veenker (Post-doctoral Fellow, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Rabbinic Literature (Tannaitic Midrash), Cantillation of Torah, Sumerian Grammar and Syntax, 1977), in his paper presented at The Society of Biblical Literature in 1993, Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors.

As for verses in the Bible and teachings of theologians and monks in the early church regarding celibacy as an extremely important means for attaining holiness, pleasing God and being in His presence, below are examples. Keep in mind while reading these examples that just because the author of the Song of Songs praised “well favored” women with “breasts like towers,” is no reason to think “the Lord” finds “favor” with them. Heʼs into virginity—into it deeper than any Protestant ever imagined. Take the following heavenly scene:

I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne [of the Lord]…and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.
-Revelation 14: 2-4

Why is it important that the 144,000 male harpists not be “defiled” with women? Likewise, why did Moses feel it was important for Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord?” (Exodus 19:15,17) What exactly is so bad about having a little nookie before meeting the Lord?

And why did Paul teach: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… 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.” (1 Cor. 7) And finally, why did Jesus say, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven?” (Mat. 19:12) Whatʼs the lesson behind all this?

There appears to have been some ancient taboo about a woman “spiritually defiling” a man by having sex with him. (I wonder if a single Protestant Christian still believes this or worries about any such biblical lessons? Do they “come not at their wives” before traveling to the annual Southern Baptist Convention? I doubt it.)

Further Teachings From Paul And Other Early Theologians And Monks

It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]… 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… 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

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.” (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 29-31) [SOURCE: Saint Augustine (c. 354-430), On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10]

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wifeʼs breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wifeʼs virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings. [SOURCE: Saint Augustine, The City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26]

Nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts that belong to the married state. [SOURCE: Augustine, De Trinitate]

I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked.
- Saint Jerome (c. 342-420)

Saint Jerome conquered his carnal visions of dancing maidens by throwing himself in tears before a crucifix, beating his breast with a stone, and fleeing into the desert.
- John Dollison, Pope-Pourri

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux threw himself into half-frozen ponds to free himself from sexual temptation. He also wrote lengthy commentaries on the Bibleʼs Song of Songs (also called “The Song of Solomon”) “to prove it was not about sex”

Edward T. Babinski 12/5/2007