Penn Jillette and the Abrahamic Dilemma:

"Would you kill your child if God told you to?  What is your response when you hear a criminal on trial say his reason was, 'God told me to do it'?  That's right, 'Coo-coo!' There is no jury in the world that would ever announce 'not guilty by reason of God told him to'."

This is a snippet of a string of Penn Jillette's comments regarding the absurdity of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac.  At first, this series of questions posed some difficulty to me.  Quite honestly, I didn't like it.  I found myself asking, "Would I?"  Since the question was fair enough, I figured I'd tackle it.  The more I pondered it over the past week, though, the less difficult it became to me.
Rather than try to skirt the issue, or even self-righteously say, "Yeah, I would" (because I probably wouldn't), I want to take a different approach.  It is a fact that human sacrifice -- especially of children -- is an ugly spot on human history.  And it's not even all that "historical", because it still happens in some parts of the modern world. 

"Human sacrifices have been recorded throughout history and occur still in many countries, including India, Indonesia, South Africa, Gabon and Tanzania. One traditional healer in Uganda, when asked about the phenomenon, pointed to the story told in the Bible's book of Genesis, when God asked Abraham to sacrifice a son." (Source)

You see, at the time in history when Abraham was asked by Yehweh-God to sacrifice his son Isaac, civilizations around him practiced the abhorrent ritual of child sacrifice in worship of their deities Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, etc.  It was commonplace.  Don't get me wrong, that child sacrifice was commonplace does not make it morally upright.  But it was, never-the-less, commonplace.  What was normal and commonplace at that time was for a worshiper to learn of his/her deity's expectation of the human-child sacrifice (or a virgin); what was normal and commonplace at the time was for a worshiper to make that sacrifice in hopes of assuaging his god's anger, or to invite its favor or protection; what was commonplace was the sure death of the sacrificial "lamb".

"Like prayer, sacrifice is a form of communication with a deity for similar purposes. The word itself means "to make holy." As distinct from prayer, sacrificial offerings include objects of value and symbolic significance that are given to the gods to earn their favor. The gifts can take many forms, becoming sacred themselves through ritual consecration. The gods might be offered the most desirable foods or provided with the finest vessels, carvings, tools, and weapons. Historians, however, have often regarded blood sacrifice as the most powerful way to appease the gods. It was not unusual for societies to engage in both animal and human sacrifice..."  (Source)

What was NOT normal, however, and what was not commonplace was for the deity to intervene in  order to rescue the child to be sacrificed, even in the "12th hour".  See, what was NOT normal was Yahweh-God's rescue of young Isaac from the savagery of Abraham's knife.  The request for Abraham's sacrifice fit hand-in-glove with the culture of child sacrifice, but it was done in order that Yahweh-God might tell a much more important story -- the story of Jesus, His Son.

The Abrahamic sacrifice was a foreshadowing of the ultimate redemption that was to come.  What was normal was for deities to demand a child sacrifice from the lowly human sinner, but was was completely out of the norm was for the exalted deity to offer its own child on behalf of the sinner.  And that is just what Yahweh-God has done in this situation: He rescued the human child Isaac from slaughter, and yet crushed His own Son Jesus Christ under the weight of His own wrath for the sins of the sinners He longed to forgive.

It is brutal...even horrific!  But the Cross is a picture of how ugly our sin truly is.  The Cross reveals God's hatred for sin and the seriousness of our offenses against Him.

I truly have my doubts that God asked anyone -- ANYONE -- except Abraham to kill his/her own child for Him.  And I truly doubt he ever will.  If God didn't allow Abraham to complete the test of faith, why would He ask anyone else to do it?  If the purpose behind the Abrahamic sacrifice was to foreshadow the coming Messiah Jesus, then there is no purpose for Him to ask it of another.  He accomplished our redemption in the crucifixion of His sinless Son. 

So, Mr. Jillette, I can honestly say, "No, I wouldn't...because I don't have to.  Yahweh-God has already done it, and Jesus proclaimed, 'It is finished!'"

The Atheist Community, part 2 with Penn Jillette

One supposed atheist in the back row at the CFI event asked Penn, "Do you think there will ever be a community that unifies atheists as much as church unifies religionists?"

The question was intriguing from an "outsiders" point of view, to be quite honest.
The answer, however, was heart-breaking.  Penn enthusiastically replied, "We have rock and roll!"  The audience cheered and laughed.  He continued, "But seriously, we have art..."

Rock and roll?

Art?

Is that it?  Is that the hope that unifies atheists?  Music and art?

I love music.  All kinds of it.  I crank it up with the best of 'em. 

But if that's all the hope I have in this life, something's missing.  Drastically!!

I'm not a big fan of art.  I'm not artsy-fartsy, but I can appreciate neat works of art when I see them.
But if that's all the hope I have in this life....

My heart was broken for Penn, for my friend, and for all the people around me who are without greater hope than "rock and roll" and "art", with what this temporal life has to offer.  It has some great things to offer, but they are merely temporal.

Christian, don't you see that others are watching us?  Others long for what we have together, because our unity is not in something that will fade with the next "new release" or the next developed photograph.  Our hope is in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that is.  He is our living hope, today and beyond the grave! 

What a great Hope we have, and others crave what we have.  What a great motivator this ought to be to share the glorious gospel message of the Cross with those around us, to give them what they need!

A "Conversation" with Penn Jillette:

A dear friend of mine (who blogs over here) is a Christian-turned-atheist, and he invited me to an event hosted by the Center for Inquiry, Michigan chapter.  CFI is an organization that seeks to promote humanism, secular thought, skepticism, reason, science, etc -- as if nobody else can promote science and reason, but I digress.

Anyway, the guest speaker for the evening was Mr. Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller.  If you didn't know, he is a staunch atheist.  Yes I attended an event where I was outnumbered 350-to-1, I think.  I even bought his new book about a month ago, "God No!" for a whopping dollar-fifty at a used book sale (even though it was a new release!).  No, I'm not afraid to read what the "other side" has to say about my own beliefs.  I can honestly say I enjoyed myself.  Penn is hilarious...if you can get past his vulgarity and crassness, anyway. 

I took three main thoughts away from last night's event.  Over the next three posts, I'd like to blog about them: (1)a statement about "conversation" that is especially important to Christians, although it was directed toward atheists; (2)a strong rationale for why Penn is atheist, a question that is quite difficult to answer, to be honest; and (3)a question from an audience member about "unity in community" and Penn's response.

Penn admits to having heard atheists ask him, "What's the one slam-dunk argument I can pose to Christians to convince them they're wrong?".  His reply is simple: "We need to respect evangelicals enough to tell them the truth, to be able to tell them 'You're wrong'.  But we can't intend to change minds by manipulating them.  Instead, we need to be about conversations."

This ought to sound familiar to us Christians.  Unfortunately, I recognize that it may not, because far too often our tactics have been quite contrary.  Street preachers stand on boxes and social-action groups hatefully picket, both of whom seem to incite anger and hostility more than inviting respectful dialogue (yes, both sides are to blame for the vitriol); Gospel tracts are often laid out in  public places, including break-room tables and sinks, for unsuspecting persons to pick up; etc.  We've jettisoned careful conversations in favor of a mass-production mindset.  For some reason, we think we need to reach the world as fast as McDonald's turns out burgers.  Why are we in such a hurry?  I understand the message is important.  I understand "today is the day of salvation."  But where is our trust in the Spirit of the Living God to convert sinners?

At some point, a conversation that has slow-cooked needs to arrive at a destination where the gentle approach becomes more firm.  Sadly, many people don't recognize when the proper time is to do this.  We go to jerk mode wayyyy to soon and we turn people away from our position.  Penn suggests the same is true of the atheist position.  At the proper time, jerk mode is necessary and appropriate.  But save the jerk mode for later; Take your time.  There is no one knock-out "punch" or slam-dunk argument.

Christian, trust the Holy Spirit to work in a sinner's life.  After all, it took time for it to sink in for you, didn't it?  If you're like me, it's STILL sinking in.  If you think you need to convert someone today, then I have to ask, do you trust the power of the gospel to change lives?  Our job as disciples of Jesus Christ is to plant the seed, to tell the good news of Jesus Christ, to be a living testimony of the glory, majesty, and mercy of the Cross.  The Holy Spirit's job is to convict and convert sinners.  Not ours.  We must be faithful in our part, and we must trust that He will be faithful in His.

Do not fear the opposition.  Instead, learn from them.  For you may recognize they are pointing at your own weakness.  I will finish using his own words: "We need to respect [atheists, muslims, buddhists, etc] enough to tell them the truth, to be able to tell them 'You're wrong'. But we can't intend to change minds by manipulating them. Instead, we need to be about conversations."

What say you?  What style or approach do you suggest/prefer?

A WEEK OF ANTI-RELIGION:

It's easy to point fingers at the "other side" and say their position is the wrong one. 
You name the issue and the divide is present.
Whether racial, political, or religious, the other side is ALWAYS wrong. 
We always wish "they" could look honestly at their position, evaluate it's stupidity, and jump the fence to the "right" side of the issue. 

Good thing you're right, eh?

I'm going to jump into an endeavor this week to see religion from an outsider's perspective. 
I'm going to criticize "religion". 
Not God, but religion. 
And, boy, do I have some criticisms. 

A friend of mine, Bret, is an atheist.  Has been for quite some time after de-converting from Christianity.  We've had some thought-provoking conversations and I appreciate his candor.  He recently posted thoughts on his blog about religion, and I asked him why so many atheists put so much effort into disproving somthing they believe doesn't exist in the first place. 

Based partly on my question, Bret jumped into a week of being anti-atheist.  I liked that he was honest about the stupidity of some of his brothers' and sisters' (certainly none of his own, though) views.  I thought it was an intesting idea, so I'm going to do the same. 

I'm going to be anti-religious for one week.  I will start with a "Top 10 Senseless things Christians Do".  I will approach "religion" from a "Christian" perspective, since that's what I am and it's what I know best.  I think I have a good inside track on what we do that is so insanely stupid. 

I hope you'll join me. 
I hope you'll consider things you've seen or done...or do. 
Maybe in the end we'll stop being so religious and start resembling Jesus more.

"WHY GOD WON'T GO AWAY", by Alister McGrath

Two general classes of atheism exist today: Apathetic and Committed. Apathetic atheists say, “I don’t believe in God”. While atheists, they feel little need to provide reasons why they believe as they do. They have no axe to grind with religion; they are simply indifferent to it. Committed atheists, on the other hand, say, “I believe no God exists”. They have their reasons, and they’re not afraid to make their points. The committed atheists are not indifferent to religion, as are their apathetic counterparts, but they merely tolerate it.


But there’s a sub-category of Committed atheism: It’s the New Atheism. “New Atheists”, informally led by “The Four Horsemen” – Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, & Christopher Hitchens – do not stop with their profession that “there is no God”. Neither do they tolerate religion. Instead, they are militant about their position. In fact, they think apathetic and committed atheists are cowards. They hate religion, saying it is the sole source for today’s evils. In a word, they are “anti-theists”.

“Why God Won’t Go Away”, by Alister McGrath, is not a tome on the defense of Christianity – or any other religion, for that matter. McGrath writes, “It is not my intention to argue the case for the Christian faith in this short volume…” (p.145). Neither is this title one where the author slings mud at the atheists who sling mud at the religious. It is also like a childhood playground argument: “God is not good”, “Yes He is”, “No he isn’t”, “Yes He is.”

Instead, “Why God Won’t Go Away” is a book that sheds light on the inconsistent positions the New Atheists posit. In the three primary sections of the book, McGrath discusses three core themes of attack New Atheists level against religion: “Violence”, “Reason”, and “Science”. The New Atheists attack on these fronts because “New Atheism is characterized more by its attacks on religion than by its own positive beliefs…” (p.45).

Citing several historical events, McGrath brings injury to the New Atheist positions because “such irrational hatred [is] what the New Atheists want us to believe is characteristic only of religion” (p.50). He does well in pointing out the New Atheist flaws and inconsistencies (something too detailed to describe in this brief review), and he does it without demeaning or belittling those who hold the atheistic position.

“Why God Won’t Go Away” is intelligently written and presented – although the New Atheists will never accept anything that’s not atheist as being remotely intelligent. Reading this book was truly a pleasure, and I highly recommend it if the on-going conversation interests you. You will see that the New Atheism is, in fact, running on empty.  I give this one 5 stars out of 5.


I was given this free book by Booksneeze in exchange for my unbiased review.  All opinions are mine. I was not coerced or threatened to provide a positive review of this title.