Award Winning Christian Seminarian Leaves the Fold After Examining the So-Called OT “Prophecies of Jesus” in Detail: George Bethune English, The Grounds of Christianity Examined

George Bethune English (1787?-1828), wrote a book pointing out that if the Old Testament were true, CHRISTIANS WERE DISTORTING the divine revelation. It was titled, The Grounds of Christianity Examined (Boston, 1813) and it can be read free online today. Whatʼs interesting is that George Bethune English graduated from Harvard in 1807, received the highest academic award, the Bowdoin Prize for his dissertation, and was awarded a Masters in theology in 1811.

During his theological studies at Harvard he began to doubt the truth of the Christian religion which he critiqued in a book titled, The Grounds of Christianity Examined (Boston, 1813), a book that drew a great deal of attention at the time. One reader commented that his work would ‘pass like wild-fire through the country,’ On November 4, 1814, the Church of Christ in Cambridge excommunicated him for this work. But what would make a nineteenth-century Harvard Divinity School graduate turn his back on his deeply held religious beliefs and write an incisive attack on Christianity? Apparently it was an obscure sixteenth-century polemic called the Chizzuk Emunah, written by a scholar from an obscure Jewish group. Formerly a Congregationalist minister, George Bethune English had rejected challenges to his faith until he discovered Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Trokiʼs book.

Aware of the hostile response that he could expect from devoutly Christian Americans, English not only argued his case against Christianity, but also his right to argue his case

A quotation from the preface to The Grounds of Christianity Examined (Boston, 1813):

It is remarkable, that the ablest modern advocates for the truth and divine authority of the gospel, as if they knew of no certain, demonstrative proof which could be adduced in a case of so much importance, seem to content themselves, and expect their readers should be satisfied, with an accumulation of probable arguments in its favour; and it has been even said, that the case admits of no other kind of proof. If it be so, the author requests all so persuaded to consider, for a moment, whether it could be reconciled to any ideas of wisdom in an earthly potentate, if he should send an ambassador to a foreign state to mediate a negotiation of the greatest importance, without furnishing him with certain, indubitable credentials of the truth and authenticity of his mission? And to consider further, whether it be just or seemly, to attribute to the Omniscient, Omnipotent Deity, a degree of weakness and folly, which was never yet imputed to any of his creatures ? for unless men are hardy enough to pass so gross an affront upon the tremendous Majesty of Heaven, the improbability that God should delegate the Mediator of a most important covenant to be proposed to all mankind, without enabling him to give them clear and, in reason, indisputable proof of the divine authority of his mission, must ever infinitely outweigh the aggregate sum of all the probabilities which can be accumulated in the opposite scale of the balance. And to conclude, I presume it will not be denied, that the authenticity and celestial origin of any thing pretending to be a Divine Revelation, before it has any claims upon our faith, ought to be made clear beyond all reasonable doubt; otherwise, it can have no just claims to a right to influence our conduct.

Kitten-Handling Christians Open Church Across Street from Serpent-Handlers: Fang-Strokers Find Fuzzy-Cuddler Neighbors Irresistible And New Church Thrives!

A new sect of Christians has arisen in the West Virginian town of Bluestone, partly in response to the continued risk of needless death in nearby Serpent-Handling churches.

This church is different, they preach that besides Jesusʼ command to Love your Enemies, he might just as well have added, “Ye shall cuddle the cutest of kittens, and ye shall not harm them, and this shall be a sign unto the world of the truth of our Gospel.”

Nobody said trying to keep a kitten safe from harm in oneʼs bare hands was as easy as snake handling! Itʼs only by the power of god that one is able to keep the kittens that one handles safe from all harm, and undropped!

Pastor Eamon Smith

Pastorʼs Daughter Angelica

Angelicaʼs Friend Bobsy Jones

New parishoner joining the church, Marybeth Pomney, in the middle of her kitten-chism ceremony.

Three year anniversary of Martha Mayʼs church attendance, sheʼs never missed a service!

Four year anniversary of Hinton Gʼs church membership.

A powerful testimony delivered by Fred Eggleston!

Not one kitten harmed! Ever!

David Groves, ace cat juggler by trade is not a member of the church! (though he was invited by Pastor Smith to teach Sunday School last November just so he could share everything he knows about how not to drop cats or kittens. ever!)

Kitten Prayer Ceremony (no this kitten had not been dropped! this was part of the churchʼs normal worship service)

Handling kittens leads to raising cats, and juggling cats is not recommended, due to the possibility of harm coming to them, however, itʼs o.k. in this church if the cats are the ones doing the juggling! howl-a-leuya!

Cats with fairy-angel wings as seen in a vision and painted by Sister Margaret

A large “No Dogs Allowed” sign stands outside the church (for obvious reasons) Pastor Smith explains, “Weʼre not being discriminatory, we just arenʼt prepared for dogs yet. Weʼre heavily invested in litter and catnip and so weʼre focusing on kittens first. But so many of our members love puppies as well as kittens that as soon as we raise enough funds for an addition on the church weʼll become the ‘First Church of Kitten & Puppy-Handlers.’”

The Anti-Cat (two varieties as examples) Pastor Smith also talked to us about the “Anti-Cat.” “The Anti-Cat is what cats arenʼt supposed to be, itʼs two-faced, and not to be trusted, donʼt turn your back on it. Though itʼs hard to look away.”

“Rethinking Heaven,” cover story, Time magazine, April 16, 2012 by Jon Meacham (discusses the views of theologians on the afterlife, including N.T. Wright's view in Surprised by Hope)

Detail from The Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymus Bosch

There is however, much to question and/or satirize concerning Wrightʼs view, read for instance, No Stomach for N.T. Wright

(The title is a pun based on 1 Corinthians 6:13 and the afterlife as envisioned by N.T. Wright).

The Non-Historicity of Jesus' Conversation with Nicodemus in John 3 (the chapter with John 3:16, a key verse for many Evangelicals). Bart Ehrman's Question

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY A FAR MORE COMPLETE ONE, INCLUDING QUOTATIONS FROM AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR, CLICK HERE TO READ THE NEW UPDATED PIECE.

Years ago I posted Bart Ehrmanʼs question regarding the historicity of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a conversation that appears only in the third chapter of the Gospel of John and that includes one of the most cited passages among devout believers, John 3:16.

Ehrmanʼs point was that in that conversation Nicodemus showed confusion concerning the meaning of Jesusʼ speech about the necessity of being “born again,” and understood the phrase in an earthly fashion that involved being born “when old,” or, “entering a second time into oneʼs motherʼs womb to be born.” The confusion appears to have been due to Jesusʼ use of the Greek word, anothen, in conjunction with the notion of being born, and hence what Jesus said could be understood by Nicodemus to mean either born “from above,” or born “again,” since anothen has both of those meanings. But if the conversation was historical then Nicodemus and Jesus, being first century Jews, would not have been speaking in Greek at all, but in Aramaic, and in Aramaic there was no word that meant both “from above,” and “again,” and so Nicodemus would not have been confused. Therefore, the conversation was probably created by the author of the fourth Gospel.

At that time a comment was left that challenged Ehrmanʼs view:

Ehrman wrote “this conversation could not have happened” because the Aramaic “from above” cannot mean “again.” But what if the Aramaic word for “again” was used? The conversation with Nicodemus would make perfect sense, and the translation with Gk. anothen would make perfect sense. As it happens, that is exactly what we see in the Aramaic text of the Syriac Peshitta. NOT Ehrmanʼs “from above” in Aramaic, but “again.” The conversation makes perfect sense in the Peshitta, and the Gk. translation corresponds perfectly to the Peshitta. No problems whatsoever.

But the problem remains because the author of the conversation in Greek in John is playing on words with more than one meaning, and does it twice to his characters Jesus and Nicodemus, not just once. He does it with the Greek word anothen and does it right afterwards with another Greek word, pneuma. The author is attempting to draw distinctions between heavenly and earthly understanding, and he is using words to that effect. I will elaborate further below.

But first a bit of explanation so no further confusion takes place. The "Syriac Peshitta" mentioned above contains NT writings translated from Greek into Aramaic for churches that had sprung up in Syria, it is not older than the Greek text of the Gospel of John, itʼs a later translation. So, the Gospel of John was not originally composed in Aramaic. It was originally composed in Greek.

If the Gospel of John (chapter 3) did contain an actual historical conversation that took place in first century Palestine between two Jews like Jesus and Nicodemus (a Pharisee), it would have been in the native Jewish tongue, which was Aramaic, and there would have been no confusion in Nicodemusʼ understanding. The confusion only comes about in the Greek tongue since only in the Greek tongue is there a dual meaning of the Greek word used by the author of the fourth Gospel:

anothen
Outline of Biblical Usage as Given in Strongʼs Concordance

1. from above, from a higher place
   1. of things which come from heaven or God
2. from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3. anew, over again

When translating the Greek of the fourth Gospel into any language other than Greek you lose the double-meaning of anothen. There is a footnote in the NIV translation that admits:

John 3:3 The Greek for again also means from above; also in verse 7.

So any word you use in John 3:3,7 will have lost some of its meaning in translation. In English we have no word with a double-meaning of “from above” as well as “again.” Nor was there a word with such a double-meaning in Aramaic (the Bible produced for Syriac Churches in the third century CE). So when translating the original Greek text of John 3:3 and 3:7 into English (or Aramaic) the translators have to choose between the two Greek meanings of anothen, which are, “again,” or “from above.” They can add a footnote as the NIV did concerning the wordʼs other meaning. But they still have to make a choice. Will the text read like this:

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their motherʼs womb to be born!”

Or like this?

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their motherʼs womb to be born!”

Therefore, both English and Aramaic translators of the Greek fourth Gospel chose “again” as the word to use in their translation, and only modern translations add a footnote about the Greek word having another meaning. But that footnote holds a key to the conversationʼs lack of historicity.

There is further confusion to be avoided on this topic due to modern day Bible readers (such as the person who left the comment, above) who think the word “again” might be the primary term as it is in English and Aramaic translations from the Greek. They imagine that Nicodemus was merely confused because Jesus was using a metaphor. But it was more than that, instead the original Greek word itself (anothen) had two meanings, especially when you paired it with the word for “birth,” it had either an earthly meaning of being “born again,” or a heavenly meaning of being “born from above.” Johnʼs Gospel is filled with similar illustrations of the authorʼs dualistic thinking. The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus appears to have been composed to illustrate the difference between earthly and heavenly things, between flesh and spirit, darkness and light, truth and lies, eternal life and death, so it appears like the author of the fourth Gospel invented this conversation as one more of his dualistic sermons about things earthly and heavenly, and so he employed the Greek word anothen with its dual meaning, as well as the Greek word pneuma with its dual meaning since pneuma could refer to either “wind” or “spirit.” Now read John, chapter 3, below with new eyes:

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again/from above [a].” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their motherʼs womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again/from above.’ The wind [=pneuma, the same Greek word for spirit] blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit [=pneuma, the same Greek word for wind].”[b] “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

[Note: Nicodemus is confused a second time by the authorʼs use of a Greek word with a dual meaning that applies both to earthly and heavenly things, “wind” and “spirit,” but unlike the previous case the word pneuma had the same dual meaning in Greek as well as Aramaic and Hebrew, meaning both “wind” and “spirit” in all three languages, probably in even more than just those languages since the wind was invisible and mysterious/spiritual to all ancient cultures. Thatʼs why the first case of the authorʼs use of a Greek word with a dual meaning, anothen, is more telling, because the Aramaic word for “again” does not also mean “from above,” nor does the Aramaic word for “from above” also mean “again,” per Bart Ehrmanʼs email recʼd 9/4/11. In another email Ehrman further explained, “The conversation makes much better sense as hinging on a mistaken double entendre, as happens, in fact, in the very next chapter where the woman thinks that Jesusʼ reference to ‘living water’ means ‘running water’ (since that is how it is normally described in Greek), when in fact he means ‘water that gives life.’ Both conversations proceed by a double entendre, misunderstood, leading to a re-explanation. That works only if there is in fact a double entendre, possible in Greek but not Aramaic.”] “You are Israelʼs teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? [my emphasis] No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up [the same Greek word for lifted up also means exalted] the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up [the same Greek word for lifted up also means exalted, a third play on words] [c], that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” [end of John 3:3-15]

Notes

1. John 3:3 The Greek for again also means from above; also in verse 7.
2. John 3:8 The Greek for Spirit is the same as that for wind.
3. John 3:14 The Greek for lifted up also means exalted.

The author of the fourth gospel continues in dualistic fashion by teaching that you either “believe in the name of Godʼs one and only Son,” or you are “condemned already,” and that you either “love the light” or you “love the darkness.” This is not the Jesus of the synoptics who taught that oneʼs deeds mattered more than what one believed about Jesus, and who said people could be forgiven even if they blasphemed the son of man.

John 3:16-21, continued from above:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Godʼs one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

This conversation, found only in the Gospel of John appears to be a non-historical conversation, a fabrication by a Greek thinker and propagandist for Christianity (as he sought to define Christianity).

Just as in the third chapter that weʼve examined, the author of the Gospel of John attempts to make it appear like Jesusʼ identity and message were crystal clear right from the start. It starts with his lengthy prologue, not the words and claims of Jesus himself, but the words and claims of the author of that Gospel. Even after the prologue the author continues to try and stack up every accolade he can, as if everybody from John the Baptist to the earliest followers of Jesus were crystal clear on who Jesus was. In chapter one the author has John the Baptist announce that Jesus is “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and he has “[Andrew] hear what John [the Baptist] had said and followed Jesus. [And] the first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (that is, the Christ),” “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote,” and they say right from the start to Jesus, “you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” And Jesus says to them right from the start, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” And thatʼs just in the first chapter! Chapter three that weʼve discussed above continues to make it appear like Jesus spoke in crystal clear fashion about who he was and what his mission was about. This is not the Jesus of Mark, Matthew, Luke who spoke in parables so that people might not understand. This is the work of a single-minded theologian, putting words of his own understanding into Jesusʼ mouth and into the mouths of other characters in the Gospel as well.

Mary Midgley quotations

Mary Midgley, née Scrutton (born September 13, 1919), is an English moral philosopher. She was a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Newcastle University and is known for her work on science, ethics and animal rights. She wrote her first book, Beast And Man: The Roots of Human Nature (1978), when she was 59. She helped me to better understand the uncertainties involved in all forms of moral philosophizing. Below are some of my favorite quotations from her writings:

Quotations from her review of Iain McGilchirstʼs “The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World”, The Guardian, Friday 1 January 2010

This is a very remarkable book. It is not (as some reviewers seem to think) just one more glorification of feeling at the expense of thought. Rather, it points out the complexity, the divided nature of thought itself and asks about its connection with the structure of the brain.

McGilchrist, who is both an experienced psychiatrist and a shrewd philosopher, looks at the relation between our two brain-hemispheres in a new light, not just as an interesting neurological problem but as a crucial shaping factor in our culture. He questions the accepted doctrine that the left hemisphere (Left henceforward) is necessarily dominant, the practical partner, while the right more or less sits around writing poetry. He points out that this “left-hemisphere chauvinism” cannot be correct because it is always Rightʼs business to envisage what is going on as a whole, while Left provides precision on particular issues. Moreover, it is Right that is responsible for surveying the whole scene and channeling incoming data, so it is more directly in touch with the world. This means that Right usually knows what Left is doing, but Left may know nothing about concerns outside its own enclave and may even refuse to admit their existence.

Thus patients with right-brain strokes – but not with left-brain ones – tend to deny flatly that there is anything wrong with them. And even over language, which is Leftʼs specialty, Right is not helpless. It usually has quite adequate understanding of what is said, but Left (on its own) misses many crucial aspects of linguistic meaning. It cannot, for instance, grasp metaphors, jokes or unspoken implications, all of which are Rightʼs business. In fact, in todayʼs parlance, Left is decidedly autistic.

Quotations from “Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature”

Neither ecological nor social engineering will lead us to a conflict-free, simple path… Utilitarians and others who simply advise us to be happy are unhelpful, because we almost always have to make a choice either between different kinds of happiness—different things to be happy about—or between these and other things we want, which have nothing to do with happiness.

. . . Do we find ourselves a species naturally free from conflict? We do not. There has not, apparently, been in our evolution a kind of rationalization which might seem a possible solution to problems of conflict—namely, a takeover by some major motive, such as the desire for future pleasure, which would automatically rule out all competing desires. Instead, what has developed is our intelligence. And this in some ways makes matters worse, since it shows us many desirable things that we would not otherwise have thought of, as well as the quite sufficient number we knew about for a start. In compensation, however, it does help us to arbitrate. Rules and principles, standards and ideals emerge as part of a priority system by which we guide ourselves through the jungle. They never make the job easy—desires that we put low on our priority system do not merely vanish—but they make it possible. And it is in working out these concepts more fully, in trying to extend their usefulness, that moral philosophy begins. Were there no conflict, it [moral philosophy] could never have arisen.

The motivation of living creatures does got boil down to any single basic force, not even an “instinct of self-preservation.” It is a complex pattern of separate elements, balanced roughly in the constitution of the species, but always liable to need adjusting. Creatures really have divergent and conflicting desires. Their distinct motives are not (usually) wishes for survival or for means to survival, but for various particular things to be done and obtained while surviving. And these can always conflict. Motivation is fundamentally plural. . . An obsessive creature dominated constantly by one kind of motive, would not survive.

All moral doctrine, all practical suggestions about how we ought to live, depend on some belief about what human nature is like.

The traditional business of moral philosophy is attempting to understand, clarify, relate, and harmonize so far as possible the claims arising from different sides of our nature.

One motive does not necessarily replace another smoothly and unremarked. There is ambivalence, conflict behavior.

Quotations from “Wickedness: An Open Debate,” The Philosopherʼs Magazine, No. 14, Spring 2001

Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:

“Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection.… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man.”
[Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man]

That (he said) is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.

These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt — though of course usually an unsuccessful one — to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.

If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we — being creatures subject to gravitation — could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwinʼs idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.

Quotations from “Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears”

As Darwin pointed out in The Origin of Species (opening pages of chapter three), the “struggle for existence” can often be described just as well as a mutual dependence. And harmless coexistence as parts of the same eco-sphere is also a very common relation.… Among social creatures, positive gregariousness, a liking for each otherʼs company, is the steady, unnoticed background for the conflicts.

People in society [were held by some] not to have any motive in their interactions other than self-interest. If this bizarre story had been true, the notion of selfishness could never have arisen. Had regard for others really been impossible, there could have been no word for failing to have it.

Quotation from “The End of Anthropocentrism?”

The trouble with human beings is not really that they love themselves too much; they ought to love themselves more. The trouble is simply that they donʼt love others enough.

Quotation from “Sorting Out the Zeitgeist: The Moral Philosophy of Iris Murdoch”

[Mary Midgley discussing two lines from Iris Murdoch]:

“We are anxiety-ridden animals. Our minds are continually active, fabricating an anxious, self-pre-occupied, often falsifying veil which partially conceals the world.”

What chiefly pierces that veil is a sharp, direct perception of things which are no part of our own being. For instance:

“I am looking out of my window in an anxious and resentful state of mind, oblivious of my surroundings, brooding perhaps on some damage done to my prestige. Then suddenly I observe a hovering kestrel. In a moment everything is altered. The brooding self with its hurt vanity has disappeared. There is nothing now but kestrel. And when I return to thinking of the other matter it seems less important.”

The veil, however, is persistent and terribly hard to detect. In every age it subtly provides new, unnoticed ways of evading reality. Detecting those new forms is a prime business of philosophy, but of course philosophers often find it no easier than other people. (It is always a significant question to ask about any philosopher; “what are they afraid of?”)

Quotation from “Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature”

The world in which the kestrel moves, the world that it sees, is, and always will be, entirely beyond us. That there are such worlds all around us is an essential feature of our world.

Things Christians Have Been Against (At least some Christians have been against some of these things some of the time, sometimes a large percentage of Christians were/are against these things)

1. Other Christians (even violently so, from the

   • Early Church to the
   • Reformation (from the Thirty Years War to modern day disagreements among Christians) to the
   • Civil War (as theological crisis and "Holy War") to
   • World War 1 (the "Great and Holy War")
   • all the way to the ever popular game among Christians of pointing out what “only a true Christian would believe, say, or do”.

2. Pagans (a derogatory term invented by Christians that they used as a general insult to every Hellenistic teacher, philosopher, worshiper, etc.)

3. Native Americans

4. Jews

5. Witches, Divination

6. Feminists

7. Homosexuals

8. Miscellaneous additional things, Satan, Cats, Forks, Christmas and other Holidays, Plays, The Use of Musical Instruments in Church, The Abolition of Slavery, The Right of Females to Vote, Child Labor Laws, Educational Information About Sex and/or Birth Control, Condoms, Anesthesia & Anesthetics, Cures for Malaria and Syphilis, Gas Lighting and Railways, Beards vs. Bare Chins, Striped Clothes, Split-Breeches, Short Dresses, Long hair (on men), Short hair (on women), Drinking, Dancing, Rock and Roll Music, Playing Cards (or Billiards or Pool), Going to the Movies, Watching TV, Masturbating, Dishwashers, Democracy, Working or Playing on Sunday, Touching Women, and Sex

Interesting information concerning the “Miscellaneous” things:

Satan “And All of His Works”

That includes anything or anyone “connected” in the minds of churchgoers with “Satan,” be they family members, neighbors or foreigners whose beliefs, practices (including items they own, wear or read) are not deemed “Christian” enough. The long list of “doorways,” or entry points for demons, make daily life awkward for some Christians. Members of one North London Church have to avoid, among other things, Care Bears (because they do rituals for healing without invoking the name of Christ), the film E.T., Cabbage Patch Dolls (because they encourage people to treat toys as human), figurines of unicorns (mythological), and frogs (“And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, an out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet;” Rev.16:13). One woman owned a china tea set, passed down in the family as an heirloom; she was persuaded to smash it by another church member, who noticed there was a Chinese dragon in the pattern. A woman who looked after the church childcare was found to be teaching the children relaxation exercises; she was thrown out. All these things, the church elders suppose, might bring demonic influence into the congregationʼs lives.
--Gareth J. Medway, Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism (New York University Press, 2001) And see previous posts on Satan, and also, Exorcisms.

Cats “Emissaries of the Devil”

Cats came under suspicion for a variety of reasons. Unlike dogs, they did not behave subserviently toward humans. This was considered unnatural, because it violated the biblical view that humans should have dominion over animals. Also, cats were very active at night and engaged in loud, raucous mating rituals. Though cats had always behaved in this manner, to the superstitious minds of the Middle Ages, cats were practicing supernatural powers and witchcraft. Many accused witches were older peasant women who lived alone, often keeping cats as pets for companionship. This guilt by association meant that cats were burned at the stake, along with their owners, on suspicion of being witches. In the early thirteenth century Pope Gregory IX (1145–1241) declared that a sect in southern France had been caught worshiping the devil. He claimed the devil had appeared in the form of a black cat. Cats became the official symbol of heresy (or religious beliefs not advocated by the church). Anyone who showed any compassion or feeling for a cat came under the churchʼs suspicion. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, Europeʼs cat population had been severely depleted. Only semi-wild cats survived in many areas. [source]

Forks

Forks were in use in ancient Egypt, as well as Greece and Rome, but not for eating, just as long-handled cooking tools used for carving or lifting meats from a cauldron or the fire. Most diners ate with their fingers and a knife, which they brought with them to the table. Forks for dining only started to appear in the noble courts of the Middle East and the Byzantine Empire in about the 7th century and became common among wealthy families of the regions by the 10th century. Elsewhere, including Europe, where the favored implements were the knife and the hand, the fork was conspicuously absent. Imagine the astonishment in Europe when in 1004 Maria Argyropoulina, Greek niece of Byzantine Emperor Basil II, showed up in Venice for her marriage to Giovanni, son of the Pietro Orseolo II, the Doge of Venice, with a case of golden forks—and then proceeded to use them at the wedding feast. They werenʼt exactly a hit. She was roundly condemned by the local clergy for her decadence, with one going so far as to say, “God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks—his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to him to substitute artificial metal forks for them when eating.” When Argyropoulina died of the plague two years later, Saint Peter Damian, with ill-concealed satisfaction, suggested that it was Godʼs punishment for her lavish ways. “Nor did she deign to touch her food with her fingers, but would command her eunuchs to cut it up into small pieces, which she would impale on a certain golden instrument with two prongs and thus carry to her mouth. . . . this womanʼs vanity was hateful to Almighty God; and so, unmistakably, did He take his revenge. For He raised over her the sword of His divine justice, so that her whole body did putrefy and all her limbs began to wither.” Doomed by God for using a fork. Life was harsh in the 11th century. After this inauspicious debut, forks were understandably slow to catch on. But Mariaʼs Byzantine manners did make inroads. By the late Middle Ages the spread of forks can be tracked by their appearance in city inventories and as items of value bequeathed in wills. These suckett forks were used primarily for eating candied fruits in syrup or foods likely to stain the fingers. According to some sources, eating sweets with a fork was a practice common among courtesans, causing the Church to ban forks as immoral. -- Chad Ward, The Uncommon Origins of the Common Fork (See also Feeding Desire: Design and the Tools of the Table 1500-2005 (a book and an exhibit at the Smithsonian); and, Evil Tines: The fork, devilish and maligned, was the last of the utensils to arrive at the table.)

Christmas and other Holidays, Plays

Puritans of Britain and America banned the celebration of Christmas (and other holidays), along with the performances of plays.

The Use of Musical Instruments in Church

Although the Protestant Reformer John Calvin believed in the singing of hymns in church he was set against accompanying such singing with any kind of instrumental music (or of singing complex harmonies for that matter). There was no instrumental music in Strassburg or Geneva so long as Calvin controlled the services. The tubes of the organ in the Genevan church of St. Peterʼs were melted down in 1562 and turned into cups for holding communion wine. Calvin believed he was purifying the western church from recent musical innovations. In his opinion musical instruments and complex hymnody were all part of the corruptions introduced by the Roman Church. Calvin was concerned that love of instrumental music (and the human voice singing complex harmonies) were forms of idolatry and detracted from what was most important, namely to hear the Bible preached. Being Genevaʼs leading preacher (and the theologian with all the answers as he saw it) of course had nothing to do with Calvinʼs decision to ban instrumental music and complex hymnody in church, which he claimed was based purely on the teachings of Scripture (as he understood them):

If we now consider it to be necessary we shall return to our former darkness and obscure the light which appeared in the Son of God. The Papacy was guilty of foolish and ridiculous imitation when it decorated churches and thought to offer God a more worthy service by employing organs and other follies of that sort. By these the Word and worship of God are profaned, for the people interest themselves in these things more than in the Divine Word. Where there is no intelligence there is no edification . . . That which was useful under the Law has no place under the Gospel, and we must abstain from such things not only as superfluous, but as frivolous. All that is needed in the praise of God is a pure and simple modulation of the voice. Instrumental music was tolerated because of the condition of the people. They were, Scripture tells us, children who used childish toys which must be put away if we wish not to destroy evangelical perfection and quench the light we have received through Christ. [John Calvin, 66th Homily on 1 Samuel, as cited in Hugh Young Reyburn, John Calvin: His Life, Letters, and Work, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914, pp. 85-86]

But when they [believers] frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews . . . but we should always take care that no corruption creep in which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. [Commentary on Psalms, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 539]

. . . musical instruments were among the legal ceremonies which Christ at his coming abolished; and therefore we, under the Gospel, must maintain a greater simplicity. [Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, Vol .1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 263]

. . . We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue. [Commentary on Psalms, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 98]

Final three quotations from W. Robert Godfrey, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor, Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009, pp. 74-75.

The Abolition of Slavery

Right up till the Civil War, most American Christian denominations in both the North and the South agreed in frowning upon anyone who held strict anti-slavery views or who considered slavery to be a “sin,” since the Bible never declared slavery to be a “sin.”. See The Civil War as a Theological Crisis and Holy War, and A Rational Response to the film Amazing Grace.

The Right of Females to Vote

Many churchmen in the U.S. opposed the attempt by women to gain the right to vote.

Child labor laws

Many churchmen frowned on laws to keep children in school and instead argued strongly in favor of allowing children the freedom to earn pitiful wages in an unsafe mine or factory (or in a church-run work house linked to a nunnery or monastery).

Educational Information about Sex and/or Birth Control

During the last century in America people were fined or sent to prison for disobeying various laws made by Christians (viz., the Comstock Laws) against disseminating educational information about sex and/or birth control. Such information was even forbidden from being sent through the mail in plain brown envelopes when specifically requested.

Condoms

The Catholic Church continues to forbid the use of condoms (as well as coitus interruptus) no matter how many children a woman has borne, no matter the state of her health, and no matter how many children a family, city, country or planet can afford to safely sustain. (Though in late 2010 the Pope finally issued a statement making it possible to employ a condom not as a contraceptive, but to potentially save a life if the person wearing the condom or the person with whom one was having intercourse had a life-threatening illness such as AIDS.)

Anesthesia (putting a person to sleep during an operation) & Anesthetics (pain relievers of all sorts)

Some devout Christians have argued that God gave us pain to teach us spiritual lessons and we must not interfere with the Lordʼs lesson plan by alleviating that pain. Even Mother Teresa, who founded the Sisters of Charity in India in the late 20th century was averse to the use of anesthetics. She repeated the story of her meeting with a man who was suffering painfully with cancer. She told the man, “Jesus is kissing you,” and added that the man replied, “Then I wish he would stop.” Some Christians were against a womanʼs pain being relieved during childbirth (via anesthesia/anesthetics) because the Bible states in the book of Genesis that God cursed woman by “multiplying her pain during childbirth,” and who were we to defy the Lord?

Cures for Malaria and Syphilis

Protestants rejected early cures for malaria and syphilis because Catholics were the first to come up with them. [See Diarmaid MacCullochʼs The Reformation: A History]

Gas Lighting and Railways

Pope Gregory XVI (1765–1846) and Cardinal Lambruschini opposed basic technological innovations such as gas lighting and railways, believing that they would promote commerce and increase the power of the bourgeoisie, leading to demands for liberal reforms which would undermine the monarchical power of the Pope over central Italy. Gregory XVI in fact banned railways in the Papal States, calling them chemins dʼenfer (literally “road to hell,” a play on the French for railroad, chemin de fer, literally “iron road”).

Beards vs. Bare Chins

“Beards—especially among clergy—were once serious, symbolic matters. They separated East from West during the Great Schism, priests from laity during the Middle Ages, and Protestants from Catholics during the Reformation. Some church leaders required them; others banned them. To medieval theologians, they represented both holiness and sin,” from The Wars Over Christian Beards: Church Leaders Have Almost Always Faced Off Over Pastorsʼ Shaving Habits by Ted Olsen, Christianity Today, August 28, 2013.

Even today you can read about Christians arguing over the question with many conservative Christian seminaries still refusing to let students wear beards. See A Bewhiskered Believer Bewildered by Beard-Hating Brethren. But other Christians support beards so much that they see hints of Satanʼs influence in todayʼs tendency for men to remain clean shaven: “Satan is working overtime to blur the lines between a man and a woman... One way Satan has done this is to make society have a more negative view on beards, as well as other gender distinctions.” But the author adds, “Some men may not be able to grow a beard... Thatʼs understandable, and sometimes youʼve gotta do what youʼve gotta do,” but still, “The Bible makes a strong case that growing a beard is an honor for a man, and glory to God.”

Striped Clothes

See the book, The Devilʼs Cloth: A History of Stripes and Striped Fabric (Columbia U. Press) that begins with a medieval scandal. When the first Carmelites arrived in France from the Holy Land, the religious order required its members to wear striped habits, prompting turmoil and denunciations in the West that lasted fifty years until the order was forced to accept a quiet, solid color. The medieval eye found any surface in which a background could not be distinguished from a foreground disturbing. Thus, striped clothing was relegated to those on the margins or outside the social order—-jugglers and prostitutes, for example-—and in medieval paintings the devil himself is often depicted wearing stripes. The West has a long history of dressing its slaves and servants, its crewmen and convicts in stripes, thus “marking” marginalized members of society.

Split-Breeches

The Protestant leader, John Calvin, argued that a popular form of pants known as “split-breeches,” filled people with too much pride, so they were outlawed in Geneva, Switzerland.

Short Dresses, Long hair (on men), Short hair (on women), Dancing, Rock and Roll Music, Playing Cards, Billiards or Pool, Going to the Movies, Watching TV, Masturbating

Many Christians were against them.

Drinking

Ever heard of Prohibition?

Birth of the Dishwasher

Dishwashers

In the 1880s Josephine Cochrane invented the dishwashing machine... From 1913 on there was a dishwasher in every... (no, not even in every grand hotel--just some of them). The Victorian prejudice was strong against denying women the devotional labor to which God had called them. There were clergymen who actually called the dishwasher immoral. [Alistair Cooke, “A Giant Step for Womankind,” Letter from America section of BBC World News, Monday, 29 May, 2000]

Democracy

John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, called democracy “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.” In 1800 the Christian president of Yale University, Timothy Dwight, said: “The great object of democracy is to destroy every trace of civilization in the world and force mankind back into a savage state…We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves. [And after supplying some examples he added] Can the imagination paint anything more dreadful this side of Hell?” Pope Gregory XVI, the head of the Catholic Church from 1831-1846, said, “From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely, unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech… It is in no way lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing, or of religion, as if they were so many rights that nature has given man.” Todayʼs Reconstructionist Christians want America to become a “limited democracy under God [meaning under Old Testament Laws].”

Colonists in early America were divided over whether or not to join a War for Independence and democracy in defiance of Britainʼs rule by God and King. About 1/3rd of American colonists supported British rule, 1/3 supported a revolution, and 1/3rd attempted to stay neutral, because after all, St. Paul commanded that Christians ought to “obey the powers that be,” adding that such powers do not “bear the sword in vain.” Even members of The New England Clergy declared the Declaration of Independence “a wicked thing.” Christians remained bitterly divided on such matters, including the value of having a “democracy,” right up to the second war with Britain in 1812.

Working or Playing on Sunday

In the days of the first Roman Christian Emperor, Constantine, the Old Testament command forbidding “work on the Sabbath=Saturday,” was reinterpreted so as to forbid “work on the new “Christian” Sabbath=Sunday.” James I [who became king of England in 1603 and authorized the King James Bible] thumbed his nose at the wishes of Puritansʼ to keep Sunday a day of holy rest by issuing a Declaration to His Subjects, Concerning Lawful Sports to Be Used, otherwise know as The Book of Sports--a list of the sports and games one could lawfully engage in after church on Sunday. The controversy that followed was so volatile that a 17th-century historian cited it as one of the leading causes of the English Civil War, and modern day historian Alistair Dougall agrees, pointing out that the kingʼs declaration was a key factor in Englandʼs eventual descent into civil war because cultural divisions over traditional revelry played an important role in determining allegiances. [See, The Devilʼs Book: Charles I, The Book of Sports and Puritanism in Tudor and Early Stuart England]. Meanwhile in America (Puritan New England) the prohibition against working on Sunday was enforced with the utmost strictness. A public flogging was the penalty for violation. No food could be cooked, no beds were to be made, cutting hair and shaving were prohibited. A mother could not kiss her child on the Sabbath. Riding on this holy day or walking in the garden was prohibited. Even a sick relative or friend could not be visited if it were necessary to ride to his house. The only thing permitted was to walk “reverently to and from church.” Even as late as the early 1900s in America stores remained closed on Sunday, which was the working manʼs only day off. Also closed were parks, lakes, beaches, museums, theaters, even pharmacies (so you had best stock up on grandmaʼs heart medication the day before Sunday). If you went out sailing heaven forbid a storm should arise and your boat should capsize because there were even laws in America against rowing out to save drowning people on Sunday. [See KEEPING THE LORDʼS DAY “HOLY” IN AMERICA]

Touching Women

It is good for a man not to touch a woman [sexually]... For I would that all men were even as I myself [celibate]. 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. [Paul, 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) [Saint Augustine [354-430 CE], 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. [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. [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, 342-420 CE]

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”--a feat without equal in the history of Biblical interpretation… for its foolhardiness.

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. [The Bible, The Book of Revelation 14: 2-4]

Moses said it was important for Israelite men to “come not at their wives” before “meeting the Lord” (The Bible, The Book of Exodus 19:15,17)

Jesus said, “Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” (The Bible, The Gospel of Matthew 19:12)

Sex

Some Christians reject having sex for any reason, from Catholic priests, monks, and nuns, to Protestants like the Shakers (who only remained a viable sect for about 200 years via adopting children) to the Skoptze, a Russian Christian sect from the 1700 and 1800s and the most radical of all. Male Skoptzies cut off their testicles and scrotums. Female members mutilated their vulvas, breasts and nipples. (“For the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23:29) They taught that if you also removed your penis (or removed both breasts if you were female) you would be granted the highest honors in heaven. Apparently with the aid of a perfect holy book like the Bible and with the promise of the Holy Spirit to “lead believers into all truth,” this was the truth that the Skoptzies came up with. Bodily sexual temptations could lead to hell, so if mutilating the body aided a person in denying those temptations, it increased oneʼs chances of avoiding hell and attaining heaven. Some individual Christians even today have been known to cut off their “offending members.”

Quote of the Day by famed sociologist of religion Peter Berger

“Americans are geniuses at transforming originally grim religious doctrines and practices into something more optimistic, making the insertion of the ‘pursuit of happiness’ clause into the Declaration of Independence inadvertently prophetic.

“During the first Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards offered salvation to all comers at revival meetings, an invitation that stood in considerable tension with the carnivorous Calvinism to which he still adhered.

“Edwardsʼ ‘angry God’ became progressively more user-friendly through the ensuing centuries, culminating with Billy Graham, who could play amicable gold with people whom earlier revivalists would have threatened with fire and brimstone. Another Protestant stream led all the way to Norman Vincent Peale and his smiling God (though the denomination to which Peale belonged derives from the movement in the Dutch Reformation that rejected strict Calvinism).

“There are non-Protestant analogues. Psychoanalysis, a doctrine rooted in profound Viennese pessimism, morphed in America into a variety of cheerfully optimistic therapies of self-improvement and self-esteem.

“Buddhism (estimated to have 800,000 converts in the U.S.; and the fastest growing faith in the UK in the 1990s with over 500 Buddhist centres and meditation sites today) underwent a similarly benign transformation. Its historical roots are in the peculiarly Indian horror of reincarnation—misnamed the ‘wheel of life’ but better called the ‘wheel of death’—from which Buddha sought release. Lo and behold, for many Americans (and Brits) reincarnation is now understood as the cheering prospect of another chance.

“American culture has indeed been a drama of the pursuit of happiness, and American religion has been part of this drama. This cheerful way of looking at the world, which is part of the very structure of American culture, can be seen in the experience of all newcomers to the country of what the soiologist John Murray Cuddihy has aptly called the ‘ordeal of civility.’ Immigrants to American had to learn to be more mellow, less aggressive in their beliefs and values. It was characteristic of an America that was a remarkably open society [with more flexible class boundaries, a greater variety of beliefs, etc.].”

Source: Peter L. Berger, “Americaʼs Smiling God,” First Things, April 2012 [ed., ETB]

Another “Living Fossil,” the Platypus! God's Practical Joke, or, Evidence for Evolution? (Also, The Young-Earth Creationist's Long March Idea)

The platypus “almost single-handedly (or, perhaps better, single-web-footedly) overturned the earlier creationist classification of animals that followed a Great-Chain-of-Being model. With its hodgepodge of physical traits and behaviors it offered ‘an unexpected bridge between the categories of mammal/quadruped and reptiles and birds.’ That bridge helped set evolutionary theory on a new course. See Moyalʼs, Platypus: The Extraordinary Story of How a Curious Creature Baffled the World. The platypus played an explicit role in Charles Darwinʼs ideas on isolation, species diversity, and natural selection, and he branded it a prime example of a ‘living fossil’ that had managed to find an unoccupied ecological niche and live, relatively undisturbed, while fellow creatures marched toward extinction.

The monotremes, the group to which the Platypus belongs, are among the earliest forms of mammals. When the first monotreme, a platypus, was sent back to England scientists did not believe it was real, they thought it was an elaborate hoax. After all how could a mammal have a duckʼs bill, webbed feet, spurs on its hind legs and lay eggs? These mammals retain many reptilian characteristics in that they lay eggs, have a single genital opening, the cloaca. Even their limbs are attached to their body more like those of a reptile than a mammal. Also the male platypus is the only known venomous mammal, another reptilian trait.

Of the known living monotremes, two species, the platypus and echidna, lives in Australia while another echidna species lives in New Guinea. So they are all found in Australasia. The reason these species have survived is that when they were isolated on the Australian continent with the marsupials they adapted to very specific habitats allowing them to compete successfully with the marsupials. This specific adaptation has made them vulnerable to changes in their habitat and for this reason attention needs to be given to preserving their habitats to prevent extinction.

Until human beings brought modern day mammals to Australia it didnʼt have any true mammals, it just had marsupials and less than a handful of monotreme species that included the Platypus.

The Difference Between Monotremes, Mammals and Marsupials (Monotremes are the earliest of the three)

Sharing a common ancestry, marsupials and mammals evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions having a lot to do with changes in their reproduction systems. Marsupial species lack a womb with a placenta where the young live prior to birth, nor do they have mammary glands, instead the young are born early on and then have to climb into a pouch where they lick sweat off of hairs inside the pouch in which they continue to grow, eventually emerging from the pouch. Both marsupials and mammals feed their young via modified sweat glands. But mammals evolved in the direction of keeping their young in a watery womb with a placenta until birth, and after birth feeding them rich quantities of milk via mammary glands. But even earlier than marsupials and mammals in the fossil record are monotremes (such as the platypus which still laid eggs like a reptile).

Modern mammals (with placentas and mammary glands) spread and diversified all over the world, nudging out marsupials nearly everywhere, except in Australia, because Australia broke off from the Asian continent long before mammals evolved. Australia was the first landmass to be isolated from the supercontinent Pangaea. So Australia became an entire continent cut off from the evolutionary development of mammals. Thatʼs why Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials along with the only three known monotreme species (some of the most primitive of mammals, before they evolved placentas) which includes the platypus.

After the separation of Australia from the mainland of Asia it was isolated for a while but later formed a land bridge with Antarctica and then marsupials from South America crossed that land bridge and then that bridge was broken after Antarctica move away from Australia, leaving the marsupials to diversify and fill all the niches on the new continent, i.e., rodent-like marsupials, dog-like marsupials, gliding marsupials, digging mole-like marsupials, and kangaroos (including even tree kangaroos!). Interestingly, marsupials never evolved either a “bat” form, nor a “seal” form, nor a “porpoise/whale” form as mammals did.

Far fewer species of marsupial were able to survive in the mammal-dominated world of the other continents. For instance the marsupial known as the opossum inhabits the United States and another 80 or so species thrive in South America, but some 220 species are found only in the Australasian region.

The Young-Earth Creationistsʼ Long March of the Marsupials (and Monotremes)

Creationists at “Answers in Genesis” believe a hoard of marsupials and some monotremes disembarked from Noahʼs ark in Turkey and then promptly began a long march to Australia, the only continent where such a hoard of marsupial species are found today.

The marsupial population of Australia contains animals found nowhere else on earth—not even in fossil form. Are we to suppose that those marsupials managed to travel from the landing place of Noahʼs ark to… Australia? What a long perilous post-Flood journey. I guess God guided them. But you donʼt hear about that miracle in the Bible. Why not? Itʼs at least as good as the story about God herding the Israelites through the desert, only these marsupials were herded through a denuded post-Flood earth undergoing cataclysmic aftershocks. This menagerie of wombats and koalas, bandicoots and kangaroos (not to mention the flightless moa and kiwi birds of New Zealand) had to keep ahead of lions-ʼn-tigers-ʼn-bears all the way to Indonesia, and then—although the superior placental mammals could not manage it—reach the continent of Australia. As if this were not mind-boggling enough, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form an ensemble able to fill all the ecological niches available!

Thus, there were marsupial moles, marsupial ant-eaters, marsupial mice, marsupial grazers, marsupial carnivores, marsupial frugivores, etc.—not one of which can be found anywhere else in the world. If this highly diversified marsupial population evolved from one or a few primitive generalized marsupials that reached Australia millions of years before it separated from Indonesia (and before mammals had evolved on the mainland), then this peculiar situation is understandable. But if all these creatures had to journey from Turkey to Australia as an ensemble, it is incredible beyond computation. [Frank Zindler, “The Kiwi Question,” American Atheist, May 1988]

Molecular biology and anatomy both demonstrate that, of living marsupial groups, koalas are most closely related to wombats. And both the living species and fossilized remains of koalas and wombats are found only in Australia. In other words they evolved there from shared marsupial ancestors that had been living on that continent even before the land bridge that connected Australia with Antarctica had dissolved. Click here for a Video illustrating The Evolution Of Mammals And Their Dispersal as the continents shifted their positions over geologic time.

Such fragile creatures as the platypus and the blind marsupial mole raced across the land bridge to Australia quicker than the Malaysian tigers and other robust placentals? [Robert A. Moore, The Impossible Voyage of Noahʼs Ark]

A “Living Fossil”

Darwin was proven right concerning his suspicion that the platypus was a “living fossil.” Fossil evidence of a platypus-like jaw was discovered in Australia that dates back earlier than the fossils of any other known marsupial or modern mammalian fossil. And fossil evidence of a cousin of the platypus has even been found thatʼs dated earlier still, before Australia broke off from Antarctica.

More about Platypus genome sequencing, and evolution see Wikipedia.

Creationists Love to Talk About “Living Fossils” Like the Coelacanth, Shark, Horseshoe Crab, etc. So Long As Evolutionists Aren't Allowed A Word in Edgewise.

Living Fossils Aren't Really a Thing, video

Creation took six days. Evolution took billions of years. Hence it takes a bit longer to explain the Big History of the cosmos and planet earth than it does to read the creation story in Genesis chapter one. Likewise it takes a bit longer to discuss the evidence for evolution than it does to say, “God Did It.” Below is a typical “argument for creationism” that amounts to “Look a Living Fossil!” The “argument” is then followed by a discussion of the evidence for evolution.

Added comment by an ex-creationst:

Iʼve mentioned before that I went to a fundamentalist Baptist high school. My first introduction to the Coelacanth was through a heavily biased (and flawed) biology textbook from Bob Jones University, which (to the best of my memory) described the Coelacanth as a “living fossil” and took that description literally. Evolution couldnʼt possibly be real, I was told, because here was this Coelacanth, utterly unchanged 65 million years (air quotes implied) after it was supposed to be extinct. If evolution were real, why would it ignore the Coelacanth? [or the shark, the horseshoe crab, etc.?]
Source

Response

“Living Fossils” are the exceptions that prove the evolutionary rule. They stand out because the vast majority of species in the fossil record are NOT alive today. But as we will see such cases fit into a clear geological-evolutionary pattern.

Speaking of fish species, the most diverse and abundant species today are not the same as yesterday. The majority of fish species today are osteichthyes or bony fish, an extremely diverse and abundant group consisting of over 29,000 species—in fact they constitute the largest class of vertebrates (i.e., species with backbones) in existence today. But such was not the case in the past. There were times in the past when jawless fish filled the sea, then fish with armour, and then cartilaginous fish, in that order, before bony fish ruled the sea. There are only some cousins of the more ancient species alive today and in far less abundance than their ancestors were in the distant past.

Coelacanths

The most numerous species of fossilized coelacanth show up in the expected place in the evolutionary geological record, and also have anatomical features, that place them in the fish-to-tetrapod evolutionary bush.

The coelacanth is a type of Sarcopterygian (sometimes considered synonymous with Crossopterygian fish), an “actinist Sarcopterygii” to be exact. They used to be far more abundant in the distant past than they are today. Another group of Sarcopterygii was the “rhipidistian Sarcopterygii” which were the shallow-water group, and they are extinct, unless you count all of the land-lubbing tetrapods that evolved from them. (Therefore the Sarcopterygii didnʼt all remain the same. Far from it.)

As for “actinist Sarcopterygii” or coelacanths, not even all of them have remained the same. Living coelacanths found in Madagascar are neither the same type of coelacanth fossils that have been found in rocks that are 360 million years old, nor are they exactly the same type of coelacanth found in strata about 80 million years old; though the living species does resemble the younger fossil species more closely than it does the oldest known coelacanth fossil species. Hence differences are tracible through time as evolution would expect. The oldest known coelacanth species, the ones that are known from before 80 million years ago, were far more diverse (more than 120 different known fossil species) smaller, lacked certain internal structures found in modern coelacanths and belonged to a different genera and suborder. Modern coelacanths also belong to a different genera than the 80 million year genera. See the book, Coelacanth. W. W. Norton and Company, New York and London, 1991, page 78:

One point has to be emphasized; The living coelacanth is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that members of the species L. chaumnae itself have ever been found as a fossil. In fact, no other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a fossil either. Latimeria and the Cretaceous fossil Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we could possibly include them in the same family. Beyond that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order Coelacanthini. [Keith Littleton, New Orleans, LA]

Why No Coelacanth Fossils For 70 Million Years?

Don Lindsay explains:

You might well ask: is it really possible for a group of species to live for millions of years and yet leave no fossils? First, note that fossil hunts are done on dry land. Thatʼs partly because itʼs easier, and partly because watery environments are usually undergoing deposition, which covers everything up. On land, rocks are eroding, and fossils get revealed. So, where do dry-land rocks come from? Well, some were formed on land, and some in fresh water, and some in shallow sea water. But very few were formed in deep sea water. Plate tectonics makes it clear why this should be. The deep ocean floor is constantly being destroyed, sucked down into the earth at subduction zones. It is unlikely for a piece of deep ocean floor to wind up as a dry-land rock. Now, imagine a creature that lives only in the open ocean, and is unlikely to venture close to shore. (Perhaps it lives in the depths.) That creature will leave no fossils that we are likely to find. So, the answer is, yes. It is possible to leave no fossils. Does Latimeria live in the depths? Well, close. Theyʼve been seen in caves about 200 meters down, and they die from decompression when brought to the surface. Also, if a creature lives in a small geographic area, it is possible that no one ever looked in the right place. The first colony of Latimeria is off one single island (Grand Comoro) in the Indian Ocean. And, the whole population there is only a few hundred fish. The second colony hasnʼt been located yet, so it canʼt be large. Source

Living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae,and Latimeria menadoensis are possibly the sole remaining representatives of a once widespread family of Sarcopterygian (fleshy-finned) coelacanth fishes (more than 120 species are known from fossils). That dwindled down to only a single known fossilized Coelacanth species by the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. And likewise, only a single genus is known to still be alive today, and it more closely resembles the genus from 65 million years ago, not the over 120 different species know from 360 million years to 65 million years ago. SOURCE

Sharks

Sharks also once had their “golden age.” The evolutionary record of their ancestors shows that the earliest shark-like species started out fairly small, and only grew larger over time, till the “golden age” of sharks, and then their diversity declined.
(Source) Some of the variety of ancient shark species:

While the earliest fossil sharks superficially resembled modern sharks, later species from the ‘golden age of sharks’ appeared in all manner of curious shapes and sizes. Top, Cladoselache; middle, Helicoprion; bottom, Stethocanthus.

Horseshoe Crabs

Kasaoka City Horseshoe Crab (kabutogani) Museum (hakubutsukan) is the only horseshoe crab museum in the world. The museum opened March 16, 1990 with the purpose of protecting and promoting the breeding of this “living fossil.” This museum holds the worldʼs foremost collection of information on the evolution of this creature.

Evolution of the Horseshoe Crab

The ancestors of the modern horseshoe crab evolved from trilobite ancestors in the Early Cambrian period approximately 550 million years ago. It was not until the Carboniferous period (354 to 290 million years ago) that the horseshoe shape developed. True horseshoe crabs do not appear until the Late Jurassic period, with fossils discovered in the Solnhofen limestone of Bavaria. dsc.discovery.com

The trilobite is an arthropod that dates back to the Paleozoic Era, and preceded not only the horseshoe crab and the sea scorpion but all other arthropods, crustacea and insects in the fossil record. (So, not all trilobites stayed the same, they evolved. *smile*) For instance trilobites preceded sea scorpions that preceded both the the scorpion and the spider in the fossil record. So the horseshoe crabʼs closest living cousins include spiders and scorpions. (So as I said, not all trilobites stayed the same, some trilobites evolved. *smile*)

Horseshoe crab fossils have been found in Europe and North America. The horseshoe crab evolved on the Laurasian Continent during the Paleozoic Era. The horseshoe crab reached Asia parallel to the Thetis Sea (check an ancient geology map), when the Atlantic Ocean was formed near the end the Mesozoic Era.

There are four distinct species of horseshoe crabs living on earth now. One lives on the beaches of the East Coast of the USA. Three others live in Japan and on the southeastern shore of the Asian continent.

Today there are only 3 genera and 5 species of Xiphosura (Horseshoe crabs and their extinct relatives) left alive, but they were much more numerous and diverse during the Palaeozoic era.

Surviving horseshoe crabs

(Limulus) are ‘living fossils’, barely changed in some 250 million years (since early Triassic time)…The exoskeleton generally consists of three parts, the large, semicircular cephalothorax, or prosoma, the usually smaller, subtriangular and in earlier forms “trilobite”-like opisthosoma, and the long stout tail-spine or telson (which is actually the end part of the opisthosoma)…The compound eyes are small (and absent in some early forms), and there are six pairs of legs (in the living Limulus) but no antennae.

Paleomerus and Lemoneites are very early forms that were either Aglaspids or transitional between the Aglaspida and the Xiphosura.

The late Cambrian (Caerfai epoch) marine family Eolimulidae is generally considered a true Xiphosuran,but again more research needs to be done if more is to be known about the early history of this interesting group.

---

Further Creationist Questions

Question #1: In the billions of generations through the millions of years that fruit flies have had to evolve, why have they not become or at least spawned something else?

Reply: About 500 species of fruit flies are found only on the Hawaiian islands, a chain of islands whose oldest rose up from the sea approximately 8 million years ago. Concerning the evolution of new fruit fly genera. . .

Reading a book on Drosophilia, I discovered the answer to the question of why no new genera of fruit flies have evolved in Hawaii despite the hundreds of species. It is due simply to the classification approach used by Drosophilia workers. The Hawaiian lineage is apparently descended from within the genus Drosophilia, as presently defined. Based on cladistic terminology, one genus should not give rise to another genus. Rather than reclassifying the 2000 or so “Drosophilia” into multiple genera, fruit fly workers use a variety of subgenera and informal terms to group them. In fact, genus names have been proposed for some of the Hawaiian lineages. [Dr. David Campbell, Biology Department, Saint Maryʼs College of Maryland]

And in answer to the question, “How to test that all Hawaiian fruit flies descended from one common ancestral population that began with a founder event,” the answer is to “Select many characters of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian fruit flies, and use them to develop a phylogeny, using some related fly as an outgroup.” (Source) Such characters include the fact that Hawaiian fruit flies are larger and more brightly colored compared with the rest of the fruit flies on earth, and have even evolved a type of “song” that the mainland fruit flies never evolved. Obviously, some new morphologies and behaviors peculiar to certain species of fruit flies have evolved on the Hawaiian islands.

About 25% of all fruit fly species worldwide are found on those tiny Hawaiian islands. Ecologists believe Hawaii has so many kinds of fruit flies because the islands were isolated for millions of years and the environment varies greatly from beaches to tall mountains and lush green tropical valleys. When the first fruit flies arrived, they were able to evolve quickly because there were few competing species of flies. When people first arrived at the islands centuries ago they also found that there were thousands of unique species of birds, plants, and other life forms. While it is the fruit flies that are the best known, many other insect groups have diversified also. Hawaii boasts a carnivorous caterpillar, the happy face spider and a whole host of other fascinating endemic arthropods, many of which are brilliantly illustrated in the book, Hawaiian Insects and Their Kin by Francis Howarth and William Mull. Lush, and also in the book, Remains of a Rainbow; Rare Plants and Animals of Hawaiʼi by David Liittschwager and Susan Middleton. Published by National Geographic. See also Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution by Alan Ziegler. Published by University of Hawaii Press which traces the natural history of the Hawaiian Archipelago, such as island formation in a chain due to plate tectonics slowly moving over a lava spewing point in the ocean far below, as well as plant and animal evolution, flightless birds and their fossil sites.

Sadly, people have over time brought many new species with them to the islands, and the competition is driving most of the native species into extinction. Even the unique Hawaiian fruit flies are disappearing, replaced by flies from other parts of the world.

---

Question #2: Consider dogs. We have St. Bernards, Chihuahuas, Great Danes, poodles, and hundreds of other breeds of dogs. But not only are those animals all mammals, they are all dogs.

Reply: Then what were the “dog-bears” of the Miocene? Dogs or bears?

---

For further reading see this article by ex-creationist/geologist, Glenn Morton, Living Fossils: There Are None