Atheists like to use the argument that where you grow up determines your religious beliefs. But this argument fails in light of the many people that have converted, such as Masab-Joseph Yousef, a son of prominent West Bank MP Sheikh Hassan Yousef. According to an article on CNA, “Praying that his family will “open their eyes to Jesus,” he expressed love for his enemies and claimed Muslims’ conversion to Christianity is the only way to have a chance for peace in the Holy Land.”

It’s great to see stories like this because it proves that religious belief isn’t always just a matter of where you grew up. Atheists love to simplify everything, but often things like religious belief aren’t as simple as they would like it to be. This story, among many others, prove that it is possible to rise above the teaching of your parents, throw off the shackles of false religion, and embrace the truth of Christianity.

In my hometown newspaper, The [Toledo] Blade, a letter to the editor was printed that I thought I’d share, as it echoes my sentiments:

What has happened to this world? Muslim extremists have reached a new low. Young women have taken the place of young men as suicide bombers, murdering other young men and women and their children. What is even more disturbing is the fact that so-called “moderate Muslims” here in Toledo and around the world are silent. No outrage. No cry for this carnage to stop. No demand that their religious leaders take steps to speak out against this senseless and barbaric killing. Just silence. Just more silence.

It is now time for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and yes, Muslims to demand an end to these horrible and brutal murderers who hide behind their misguided and terrible religious fanaticism. Enough.

Rollind W. Romanoff, West Central Ave.

A long time ago, Rook Hawkins asked for my opinion on a recently unearthed tablet that contained an apocalyptic vision of the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah. According to many on the RRS boards, this find would invalidate Christianity. Well, I’ve thought long and hard about this. I don’t think that this tablet is anything to get excited about. Rook and I will actually agree on several points (surprising as that might be).

First, this was “found” in someone’s collection many years after the fact. We have no idea where it came from or how it got there. Already, the tablet has passed through too many hands to make an convincing case for its dating. This raises the possibility of a forgery. Second, if it is real, then it does solidify the fact that the notion of a suffering and rising Messiah was derived from Hebrew Scripture before Jesus ever was on the scene. This makes it all the more convincing that Paul was able to reason with people from the Scriptures about Jesus’ identity as Messiah.

What I don’t think that Rook will agree with is that the use of apocalyptic language suggests a prophecy–the writer wasn’t reporting a historical event but rather offering his opinion of what will happen in the future when the Messiah does come. Either way, the final report on this will be very interesting. But I don’t think it will offer any earth-shaking revelations that will destroy the foundations of Christianity.

In all, having a suffering-and-resurrection tradition already in place prior to the first century doesn’t weaken the case for Jesus in my mind. It strengthens it, and bolsters my faith to know that some of the Jews of Jesus’ day were on the lookout for exactly what transpired. These folks would have readily identified Jesus as the Savior promised in the Scriptures.

Rook Hawkins has taken me to task on calling for PZ Myers to get fired or to resign his position over desecration of the Eucharist.  Before I offer some much prayed-over changes to my position, I will clarify one thing: I have no intention of continuing the blog debate that I started.  The reason being that I’m out of my depth with historical data and Rook will continue to make me look foolish.  I’ll let the real (or amateur) historians take him on regarding a historical Christ.  I’m confident in a historical Christ based on what I’ve read, and that’s all that I need to say on the subject.

Now, let’s get back to PZ Myers.  I have not adjusted my position that he is a bad representative of the university for desecrating a wafer.  To millions of Catholics, that is the literal body of Jesus Christ.  I think that, as an educator, he should be respectful of his students’ beliefs, whether he agrees with them or not.  However, I’m not so sure that what he did was as a representative of the university; I think it was completely personal, as a private citizen of these United States.  As much as Bill Donahue is going to disagree with me, as much as I may offend Catholic readers (Dave Armstrong: admit, you still read my blog just like I still read yours), I’m going to have to say that what he did is free speech.

What I did was overreact.  I did exactly what Myers wanted me to do–I gave him publicity for something that I should have let slip quietly under the rug where it belongs.  Myers is, first and foremost, an attention whore.  I spoke where I should have been silent.  Calling for his resignation or termination was unwarranted.

I should note that there is a significance to the Lord’s Supper, and that I believe in Real Presence, though not the way that Catholics do.  I believe that the bread is a symbol of the body; the wine a symbol of the blood, and that we eat and drink it in memory of him, just as commanded in the Bible.  However, my brother-in-law Nate pointed out to me that a symbol ceases to represent anything when it is used in another way.  Just like a swastika used to represent good luck, but now represents a terrible regime that never should have happened, symbols change their meaning based on the context of their use.  In this case, when the host is desecrated in that fashion, it ceases to represent Christ’s body and becomes just what it is–a wafer.

In effect, Myers desecrated nothing.  I should have recognized this from the outset and kept my mouth shut.

Regular readers of this blog and my ongoing work on refuting God is Imaginary and Why Won’t God Heal Amputees know that I’m no friend of hyper-literal interpretations of the Bible.  I hate when people look at the words of the Bible hyper-literally and draw fantastic conclusions about what the Bible is trying to say, instead of just using common sense.

For example, the Bible is not forward-thinking when it mentions the “circle of the earth” in Isaiah 40:22.  That is meant to be poetic.

As it happens, it isn’t just hyper-literal readings of the Bible that annoy me.  Hyper-literal readings of popular literature also does it.  The Roman Catholic Blog, which comments on current events from a Catholic perspective, has just read National Geographic hyper-literally.  The writer says that a recent article with the headline “Who Murdered the Virunga Gorillas?” caught his eye and raised his ire.

According to the Roman Catholic Blog, murder is only the unlawful taking of a human life.  By definition, one cannot murder a gorilla.   checked Merriam-Webster Online and confirmed that neither the definition of “murder” nor the definition of “person” had changed.

But he fails to consider the purpose of the headline.  The headline is designed to grab the reader’s attention and rope them into reading the rest of the article.  Consider the headline of this blog entry.  I expect mostly regular readers and Roman Catholic Blog authors will read it; people stopping by will probably only glance it as long as it stays near the top of the page.  Why?  Because of the rather boring headline.  My most active posts are the ones with sensational headlines: “Brian Sapient Punched Out” and “The Tablet that Ends Christianity?”  I imagine most people pick which posts they read on the basis of the headlines.  People are no different whether they are scanning an RSS feed or a National Geographic.  Murder has more emotional weight to it than killing.

I don’t think that this is, as the author of the Roman Catholic Blog seems to think, a covert attempt to make a flawed philosophical argument.  I think that this an editor’s attempt to get people to read the story in the magazine.

Okay, I’m done ranting for today.  Tune in tomorrow when I finally put up what I’ve been promising since last Wednesday: a piece on the Tablet that Ends Christianity!!

Vitaminbook, atheist and regular commenter on this blog, at asks the following question at his own blog:

9942 Apophis is a near-Earth asteroid with a small chance of hitting our planet on April 13, 2036. . . . Should the asteroid hit us, it would explode with many times more force than whatever caused the famous Tunguska Event, with potential casualties running into the millions. . . . As a Christian or other believer in some sort of God, what’s your reaction? Do you assume that God wants this to happen for some reason? Or do you believe that God would save us at the last minute rather than letting Apophis (ironically named after an ancient Egyptian god) destroy a sizeable portion of his creation?

How do you reconcile the possibility of sudden destruction from space with a Universe supposedly made for us by God?

I don’t reconcile it.  I don’t have to reconcile it, because the earth and all of the heavens are made for his glory alone (Ps 19:1; Is 66:1; Col 1:16), not mine.  Should this event happen, and this asteroid collides with the earth, I will take comfort in knowing that this is for God’s purpose, for he foreordained all things that come to pass (Is 14:24).

The universe was not made for us.  It was made for God, for his own glorification.