Q12010 - The Song So Far

My favorite song so far this year has been "Dolores in a Shoestand" by the remarkable and sorely missed Esbjorn Svensson Trio. The trio's ability to control the tension in the song is fantastic.

f

If Atheism Is False, Then...

Occasionally, someone will ask me what I would do if Atheism were untrue. Frequently, what the questioner really wants to know is why I don't just play it safe (a la Pascal's Wager) by maintaining a position that asserts theistic belief but also recognizes important issues that would lead anyone to have questions or doubts. To the questioner, these issues usually include the problem of evil, the contradiction of science and religion, and the lack of direct and verifiable evidence of God's existence.

Setting aside Pascal's Wager, however, I think the original question is very interesting on its own and deserves attention. If Atheism is untrue, then theism is true. And then...

**Insert Television Dream Transition Waves Here**

(1) There exist in our world one or more gods, immortal beings able to control and transcend the laws of physics, and able to understand the thoughts of mortal beings.

(2) One or more gods is responsible for beginning of the universe, for everything in it, and for everything that happens in it.

(3) Other supernatural beings exist, although they may not be fully divine. Angels, demons, cherubs, and so on, all inhabit the world. Often, they are invisible. Ghosts, too, probably exist.

(4) Other realms exist, such as heaven and hell, and they lie beyond space and time. They exist invisible and undetectable in our world.

(5) People and perhaps other beings all contain an invisible and undetectable soul, which existed before life and exists after death.

(6) After spending a relatively very short time on Earth, every single immortal soul becomes judged by one or more gods for the actions of the human who housed that soul. The results of that judgment determine the soul's permanent residence in either heaven or hell.

(7) Human knowledge of time, space, history, medicine, law and life all become invalid because our perspective is wrong and our data leads to false conclusions.

(8) One or more human religious traditions describes the revelation of the divine to some or all humanity.

(9) Human activity and energy should be spent on an unceasing quest to establish which religious traditions, if any, express the true relationship of humanity to the deity or deities. If we people don't know how to relate properly to the divine, then our souls will perish and be punished for ever. So we need to know the right religions: we should study them all carefully and have tools to distinguish more accurate from less accurate traditions.

(10) The vast majority of humanity has already found their souls condemned eternally. Now, just stop and think for a moment about the number of human beings who have lived on this Earth and died over the past thousands and millions of years. We're talking billions upon billions of people, are we not? Reflect on what percentage of these people are now suffering in hell and what percent are playing badminton in heaven if Atheism is untrue.

I imagine that we could easily expand this list, some of the items above could be explained more or tweaked in this way or that, but the bottom line is this:

If Atheism is false and God exists (or gods do), then our world is actually nothing at all like we experience it in our daily lives or like we know it through our sciences.

Forget Pascal's Wager! People should be more concerned about the Common Sense Wager: If Atheism is false, then you (yes, you) are very probably going to spend eternity in hell!

I note with some sense of irony that #9 makes a very good reason to develop science and scientific methods. Because of scientific methods and processes we seem able to learn about the universe. We seem able to increase our knowledge in it and of it. We seem able to devise ways to overcome our natural limitations (physical, intellectual, rational) and arrive at better models of the truth of things. For these reasons, I have confidence that the Atheist conclusion is correct and the theist conclusion is incorrect. Furthermore, I see theist beliefs -- all of them -- becoming harder and harder to justify.

Looking Back at One of My Theist Posts

Here's something I wrote almost five years ago. My, how things have changed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 2005 -- In every Passover Seder, my family has debated that part of the service concerning the four different types of child. This is where we consider how to teach the meaning of Passover and its Seder to each type: wise, wicked, simple, and the one who does not know how to ask.

Each type is identified by the manner in which the child queries the leader about the Seder's meaning. The wise child asks, "What is the meaning of the testimonies, statutes and judgments commanded by G-d?" In contrast, the wicked child asks, "What is the meaning of this service to you?" Because the wicked child distances himself from the service, the leader's reply excludes him: "Because of what G-d did for me, in taking me out of Egypt."

My two brothers, it seems to me, dislike that one of the sons is called “wicked.” To get even a little more particular about it, they feel that the so-called “wicked child” is unfairly labeled and challenge whether he has truly done anything to merit such a strong condemnation as “wicked.” Again as it seems to me, they view him as a potentially spiritual individual whose inquiry from a place of independent thought brings down a harsh anti-intellectualism upon him.

There is much to admire in my brothers’ defense of the wicked child. If I have characterized their sentiments correctly, I share many impulses and thoughts with them. For example, we all understand that it is a disturbing and terrible thing to call a child “wicked.” At one time or another, all children behave wickedly, but this does not make them through-and-through wicked. It is hard to imagine any child as an essentially wicked being – as if a child were born evil, independent of his education and environment. In fact, this is such a strain on the imagination that I think my brothers and I agree that no child is born evil or wicked.

However, my brothers and I begin to part ways sharply when we consider a second point, whether the so-called wicked son’s behavior warrants being identified as wicked. What is the behavior that offends? It is a question, and it is question phrased in a way that communicates condescension and trivialization. In cruder, more colloquial terms, the child has stood up and asked the room, “What the hell are you all doing?” The form of the question implies the child’s ideas that the Seder ritual is beneath him and silly.

Is this behavior wicked? Certainly. To disdain and disrespect people, and to make them and their practices out to be inferior – these are evil acts because they attempt verbally to destroy the Seder, its origins, the current and past events that have made it possible, and the spirit of its participants.

2010 Note: This is an area where my viewpoint has probably changed. I now think I overstated the case. The wicked child's behavior may be impolite, but "wicked" is an inappropriate label for it.

However, if in his question the child has performed an act of profound wickedness, can it be said that the child himself is wicked? After all, we might resent the behavior but still be able to excuse the child. “He was just trying to be funny,” we might reason. “It was just an error of judgment,” we might conclude.

But at this point it’s critical to remember that “the wicked child” is not an actual child and does not refer to a particular person. The wicked child represents a personality type, just as the wise child, the simple child, and the child who does not know how to ask are personality types identified by the sages. At different points in a life, in different contexts, each one of us approaches a situation from the standpoint of wisdom, wickedness, simplemindedness or dumb silence. From earliest childhood and into adulthood, we hope to establish wisdom's standpoint as our default approach to the Seder, and also to Torah, Judaism, and living generally.

2010 Note: I still agree in principle with this. I might observe now that the wise child, as a personality type, need not be a believer. One can be an Atheist and ask the same questions. As an Atheist, I can still maintain a deep bond with the people at the Seder table and with all the Seder represents, even if I don't believe as the other people do and even if I have sharp disagreements with some or all of what the Seder represents.

This is partly why it is misguided to defend the wicked child. To advocate for the wicked child is not to protect a vulnerable innocent, it is to justify wicked deeds themselves. It is to legitimize and intellectually permit behavior that degrades other people and defiles their customs. It is to rationalize destructive actions and to refuse to take any kind of stand against them or their perpetrators.

So also is it misguided to suggest that the rebuke of the wicked child’s question intends to quell dissent and suppress a healthy community dialogue on different spiritual points of view. The response to the wicked child’s question makes explicit just what he had implied: the child implicitly removes himself from the Seder in the question, and the child is explicitly removed from the Seder in the response. The obvious intent in responding this way is to help the child realize on his own that the Seder does apply to him, but the application is not a mere given. It is fulfilled by one’s meeting the obligation to study the Seder and its "testimonies, statutes and judgments commanded by G-d."

What about multiple, different, and even conflicting spiritual views? If the wicked child or his question represents some alternative spiritual view, I do not see it. It certainly is not expressed in any positive sense. But make no mistake, the Seder – and Judaism too, I believe – fully supports inquiries, disagreements, and theories on "the testimonies, statutes and judgments commanded by G-d."

I fear that ideas that this is not so are becoming irrevocably entrenched in my brothers' hearts and minds. What's more, I detect a cancer in their offered and implied positions on the wicked child, a serious philosophical and spiritual issue that is turning them against Jewish observances, history and texts.

2010 Note: Although I am now certainly "against" much of religious observances, history and texts, I think some clarification is in order. I'm against the observance of religion as anything more than personal gratification and communal bonding. Observe if it makes you feel OK, but it doesn't make you or anyone "holy." It doesn't "sanctify" anyone or anything. It doesn't alter history or rehabilitate the nastier and inconsistent parts of the sacred texts. Having been raised in a family circumstance that made the Seder very enjoyable, I have no intention of giving it up. I will not pretend, however, that my Seder has any sort of real (in the sense of "reality") spiritual dimension.

I fear also that this stance is becoming more pervasive in Jewish families across America, and I believe that it is not a good thing. If my fears are true and this cancer is real, Seders of the future will be conducted without decent and intelligent Jews, those who passed over Judaism without recognizing that it always already explored and expressed their humanist ideals.

My brothers have a wisdom that makes them deserving of an appropriate reply to their questions. Have I given this reply? I don't know, but perhaps this, my expression of what I desire to understand, will help all of us have a new Seder next year. The Seder itself can be seen as wisdom asking a question. My family, and perhaps many Jewish families in America, can benefit from examining how we have responded to this question.

I Do Celebrate Passover

The flight of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt into the desert, as reported in the Torah, probably did not happen. At least, there is no archaeological or historical evidence that allows us to claim with confidence that the extraordinary events relayed in Exodus actually occurred. And even if one or more elements in the report are factual, I highly doubt that God played any part in the events -- this because I reject the hypothesis of God's existence.

Nevertheless, I will sit down with my family this year and conduct the seder. We'll set up the table as instructed by the haggadah, and we'll perform the rituals associated with Passover observance. I fully intend not to eat unleavened bread during the Passover time.

It's been hinted to me that as an Atheist I should not celebrate Passover or observe any of its rituals. Yet, I enjoy the seder and the week-long diet of matzah. Why deny myself of this? Why deprive my children of an annual marker of the heritage into which we were born? The seder is but dinner theater and only serves as the backdrop for storytelling, supper, games and song. The matzah restriction is but a diet, same as any other diet I might try for a week.

Holding seder and eating matzah do not constitute agreement with any truth claims made by the Bible or Jewish theology. I can celebrate this discrimination in and through the seder.

And irreverence? Of course, there must be irreverence.



Happy Pesach!

Repent While We Can!

[Not that there's anything wrong with that]

I am happy to have come across this gem from a person, Nick Duliakas, who clearly is not a fan of Richard Dawkins.

After the manner of "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time" by Robert Herrick. 1591–1674 (Gather ye rosebuds while ye may)

With slight corrections ~

Gather, ye atheists, while ye may,
Do your heckling and high-fiving,
Ye may be laughing at us to-day,
But, to-morrow ye'll be crying.

The glorious Light of Heaven, the Son,
Tis soon that He'll be coming,
And days as ye know it will be done,
Into His arms ye should be running.

The age is best which will be last,
And that is fast approaching,
Put your unbelief in the past,
Upon His grace, ye've been encroaching.

Be not fools, but redeem the time,
Away from the pit of hell, He'll carry,
Into a place beautiful and devine,
Where ye may forever tarry.

March 21, 2010 ~ Composed and written by Nick Duliakas. If used, please give proper acknowledgment. May not be used for profit without permission. (nikosd99@hotmail.com)

How wonderful that Herrick's lusty lyric should be made to scold the bad, bad atheist who must repent or face the eternal fires and torments of the big realm of h-h-h-hell. Unfortunately, Nick has mangled Herrick's iambs -- I am a fan of versification, after all -- but let's focus on content.

Stanza 1 - Apparently we atheists are troublesome rabble who heckle the faithful (presumably the Christian faithful, even though Dawkins begins his piece describing a dialogue with a rabbi). I particularly like the image of atheists high-fiving. I can only wish the poet had been able to find a rhyme for "chest bumping." But the point is that we atheists will get our comeuppance for being so disagreeable. Question for Nick: Is the idea appealing to you that you will be proved right and that we unbelievers will roast in humiliation? Is this part of the attraction to the position you take?

Stanza 2 - Jesus, differentiated from God, is said to be returning to earth to open a can of whoop-ass. Things will apparently be different when this happens. Again, we atheists and non-Christians are told that we should have been seeking to worship God via Jesus or Jesus via Jesus or whatever. Question for Nick: Are all Christian denominations equally in good standing with mighty Jesus, or are some denominations better than others? Why?

Stanza 3 - My favorite, if for nothing else than its inclusion of the contraction "ye've." Usually the poets and preachers warn that our present age is the most corrupt and turbulent OF ALL TIME. Yeats warned of it. Arnold, too. The Anglo-Saxons thought the end was nigh for their corrupt age. Heck, the folks in the Gospels think that the return of Jesus is imminent. But in Nick's stanza, we are told that our age is best for being last. We happy happy few will get to greet the magic Hebrew when he comes back to collect his souvenirs. We are exhorted to put away our unbelief as if it were but childish obstinacy. Question for Nick: Do you think your tone here approaches the kind of heckling that atheists exhibit toward religion?

Stanza 4 - The fun ends here, as the ol' "fool in his heart" allusion comes up yet again. We are supposed to be made fearful of this pit of hell and instead yearn to be man-carried by our big, strong, ripply-muscled Jesus up to heaven. The misspelling of "devine" (for divine, obviously) redeems the stanza for me. Question for Nick: Seriously, and with no judgment whatsoever, is the homoeroticism surrounding the relationship of the male believer and Jesus part of what makes the religion attractive? I mean, does the scene of worship allow straight men to play out homoerotic impulses?

I must admit I prefer Herrick's original. Herrick advises the virgins to seize the day:

Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may go marry:
For having lost but once your prime
You may for ever tarry.

Don't play a silly game of pretense, Herrick urges, but rather be open and industrious. Have a sense of urgency about finding love and living love. Herrick counsels that we live this very day with the very people around us. Herrick is a realist. I do not think it's very sporting of our Nick to have bent Herrick's happy verse. But I don't like to think of any poetry as bad, so I'll applaud Nick's effort.

March Madness

Sorry, no, this has nothing to do with college basketball. Instead, I want to make a bold -- bold, I tell ya -- prediction concerning an essay I recently submitted. I developed my little piece for the Share Your Secular Story Contest. Although I conceived, drafted and submitted the essay over the course of a day, I have some confidence that it's a winner.

This might sound boastful, but I am not predicting that the essay will win the contest. I just mean that it's a very good piece that has a reasonable chance of getting to the runner-up stage. I'm not naive, though. I know this contest will get a boatload of essays from REALLY REALLY smart people who are original, thoughtful, witty and great writers. I still think my submission will be able to stand with these others.

My story talks a bit about growing up Jewish and negotiating happiness in and out of religion. I was only allowed 800 words, so I had to keep things tight. The story's supposed to be true, and mine is, but I think I also told things "slant," to borrow from Emily Dickinson.

Since the winner gets the essay published in a place like the Washington Post, I am making a deal with myself. Should my essay be selected as a grand-prize winner and get published in the WaPo, I'll "out" myself by dropping the pseudonym.

If you hadn't guessed, my real name is not Larry Tanner. Larry Tanner was a stupid nickname given to me when I was an undergraduate, but it has nothing to do with my actual name. I started using the pseudonym when I thought just having a blog put at risk my professional life and aspirations. These days I also have blogs under my own name that relate to my research and studies.

Winners of the Share Your Secular Story contest will be announced after June 1.

Krugman on the Health Insurance Reform Vote

Fear Strikes Out, by Paul Krugman
22 March 2010

The day before Sunday’s health care vote, President Obama gave an unscripted talk to House Democrats. Near the end, he spoke about why his party should pass reform: “Every once in a while a moment comes where you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country, where you have a chance to make good on those promises that you made ... And this is the time to make true on that promise. We are not bound to win, but we are bound to be true. We are not bound to succeed, but we are bound to let whatever light we have shine.”

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

I’d argue that Mr. Gingrich is wrong about that: proposals to guarantee health insurance are often controversial before they go into effect — Ronald Reagan famously argued that Medicare would mean the end of American freedom — but always popular once enacted.

But that’s not the point I want to make today. Instead, I want you to consider the contrast: on one side, the closing argument was an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers; on the other side, callous cynicism. Think about what it means to condemn health reform by comparing it to the Civil Rights Act. Who in modern America would say that L.B.J. did the wrong thing by pushing for racial equality? (Actually, we know who: the people at the Tea Party protest who hurled racial epithets at Democratic members of Congress on the eve of the vote.)

And that cynicism has been the hallmark of the whole campaign against reform.

Yes, a few conservative policy intellectuals, after making a show of thinking hard about the issues, claimed to be disturbed by reform’s fiscal implications (but were strangely unmoved by the clean bill of fiscal health from the Congressional Budget Office) or to want stronger action on costs (even though this reform does more to tackle health care costs than any previous legislation). For the most part, however, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing.

Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency.

It wasn’t just the death panel smear. It was racial hate-mongering, like a piece in Investor’s Business Daily declaring that health reform is “affirmative action on steroids, deciding everything from who becomes a doctor to who gets treatment on the basis of skin color.” It was wild claims about abortion funding. It was the insistence that there is something tyrannical about giving young working Americans the assurance that health care will be available when they need it, an assurance that older Americans have enjoyed ever since Lyndon Johnson — whom Mr. Gingrich considers a failed president — pushed Medicare through over the howls of conservatives.

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

A Textual Debate at Uncommon Descent

I don't have time at the moment to comment on this (update, 9/2010: see the very end), but I want to flag an interesting discussion happening over at Uncommon Descent. I know, I know. But the discussion is worth having and studying because it's about text and about the problem of defining textual concepts.

Barry Arrington opens the thread with his usual brand of armchair philosophy:

The Medium is Not the Message

March madness is upon us. In that vein, I ask you to consider the following sentence: “A basketball is round and orange.”

You read this sentence through a medium, probably a computer screen. This means I had an idea, and I wrote out on my computer screen a representation of the idea in symbols (Latin letters forming English words arranged together into a sentence using the rules of English grammar and syntax). I uploaded these symbols onto the uncommondescent.com website. You downloaded the symbols to your computer and deciphered them. Now a representation of the idea that was once in my head is in your head. When you read my sentence you thought about a round orange basketball.

Now consider this. My computer, the UD server, and your computer all have physical properties that can be measured. These properties include mass, charge, etc. But the information in the sentence “A basketball is round and orange” is quite independent of the physical properties of the medium on which it is placed. Indeed, none of the physical properties of your computer changed when you downloaded the information. The physical properties of your computer were rearranged, but they did not change. Your computer had the same mass, the same charge, the same specific gravity, etc. after you downloaded the sentence that it did before you downloaded it.

Think of it this way. Suppose I wrote the same sentence (“A basketball is round and orange”) on a piece of paper and handed it to you and asked you to read and memorize it. You proceed to memorize the sentence. I take the paper back and burn it. Then I ask you to repeat the sentence into a tape recorder. You dictate “A basketball is round and orange” into the tape recorder. What just happened? The information was in my head. Then it was on the paper. Then it was in your head, but not the paper. Now it is on the tape of the tape recorder.

What is the point of all this? The point is that information may be transmitted on a physical medium, but it is not reducible to the medium on which it is carried, and it is independent of the medium upon which it is carried. Information has no mass. It has no charge. Indeed, it has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy. We conclude, therefore, that information is not reducible to matter, and it is not reducible to energy, and it is not reducible to a combination of matter and energy. Yet we know that information exists in the universe. Therefore, we must conclude that the universe is more than matter and energy, that it is more than mere particles in motion.

If the existence of information cannot be reduced to the properties of matter and energy, where did it come from? Where indeed?

Let me be clear that I think Arrington has introduced a wonderful and complex topic and treated it with prejudice, smugness, and a resistance to exploring the underlying assumptions of his own reasoning. Here are some of the first comments, abridged:

1- Its what they call an abstract noun. Each of us creates it anew in our head. It doesnt ‘exist’ just as a circle, happiness etc dont exist.
They are concepts, not objects.

2- All information is an abstraction. It requires perception to exist.

3- I don’t get this. If information “has no property that can be measured by the same means we measure matter and energy,” what’s Dr. Dembski doing all that math for? Isn’t a lot of that about measuring information?

4- Actually, your example would have only been more demonstrative if the phrase passed about was “material is all there is”.

5- Re #1: So if all of a sudden all perception would, let’s say, die, then all information would suddenly disappear?

6- (by Barry A.) In [1] Graham uses information to deny the existence of information. Self refute much? In answer to composer’s question in [3], I did not say that information cannot be measured. I said it cannot be measured in the way matter and energy can be measured, because it has neither mass nor energy.

Returning to the original post, I think we need to clarify terms first. Arrington uses the word "information," but he really is talking about "meaning." The terms overlap in their senses, but when he says

The information was in my head. Then it was on the paper. Then it was in your head, but not the paper. Now it is on the tape of the tape recorder

he is probably referring to the meaning of the information string being "in his head," or "on the paper."

When we adjust our terminology a bit, we are better equipped to address the problem Arrington raises. We have a message encoded on the computer screen, just a configuration of photons and such. Or we have a message encoded on a piece of paper, just marks inscribed by a pen and ink. The meaning derives from a living mind associating the symbols (individually and collectively) with words in a mental vocabulary, with ideas in memory and thought banks, and with complete expressions in an internal grammar derived from native human capability and cultural instruction.

My point is that we can reasonably and cleanly get from the physical causes of the information strings (photons, marks) to the mental processes of meaning. Arrington is correct that the medium is not the message. He is right that meaning "is not reducible to the medium on which it is carried, and it is independent of the medium upon which it is carried." He is wrong, or perhaps misguided, to say that meaning is not reducible to matter and energy. It certainly is. It reduces to brain states, a brain of matter and working through energy. Our universe still holds a great many mysteries, but meaning--or information, as Arrington would have it--is not one of them.

For a Friend

In honor and support of T.S., a video of a 1970 performance of "Uncle John's Band," by the Grateful Dead.



Be well and happy.

Invitation for Guest Posts

I feel like I've been too hostile lately toward religion and the religious. I mean too hostile in terms of articulation and approach, and not necessarily with regard to ideas or arguments. But hostility's not a good thing, even in a blogging persona. So, I offer my apologies and will try to do better.

But talk is cheap. To do better, I want to try something new for this blog and invite people to make guest posts on the topics of religious belief, atheism, music, current events, and a vague category I'll call reasoning/text/interpretation. To be honest, most any topic is OK with me, so long as it says something new and different - and hopefully true!

If you are interested, please email me with your first post. The email address is lartanner [at] hotmail [dot] com. The best 1 or 2 email posts, from any viewpoint, will be posted on Textuality, and the authors may be invited to become permanent bloggers here.

I hope this is something that interests people and does its part for a better blogosphere.

Good Religious Values

Arabi, Louisiana -- House formerly flooded out in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

If you are religious, you "approve" all of the following:

1. A man sets his own apartment building on fire, killing all the people and animals inside. However, he saves some of his own family and a few of the pets.
2. A man buys some dogs and has them compete in fighting competitions. When many of them lose, the man destroys the dogs and their offspring.
3. A mother learns that her son masturbates. She is offended by this and then kills him.
4. A sniper shoots at every person who walks outside from a store, killing those people.
5. A woman with several cats drowns the first-born kitten of every new litter.
6. A neighbor overhears a teenager having a spat with her parents. At one point, the angry teen says to her mother and father: “I wish I didn’t live here. I wish you weren’t my parents. I hope someday you feel as bad as you are making me feel.” The neighbor murders the teen for what she said to her parents.
7. A man with children marries and lives with a woman who also has children. He orders his wife and oldest child to bring any of the woman’s children to him who prefer their biological father and will not call the man “Dad.” The man murders those children.

Why do you support these actions? Because such behavior is modeled in the Bible.

1. Genesis 7:21-23 -- Worldwide flood.
2. Revelation 4:11 -- God creates mankind for his own pleasure then God destroys (murders) men, women and their babies when he isn’t pleased.
3. Genesis 38:9-10 -- Onan, when he has sex with his brother’s widow, wastes his seed on the ground. What he has done offends God. God murders him.
4. Exodus 9:23-25 -- God murders by hail every man that is outdoors.
5. Exodus 12:29 -- God murders all of Egypt’s firstborn.
6. Exodus 21:17 & Leviticus 20:9 -- Whoever curses his father or mother shall be murdered.
7. Luke 19:27 -- Jesus says: Those who would not have me be king over them, bring them before me and slay them.

So I guess God is love...except if you don't meet certain conditions that (a) are ambiguously expressed, (b) contradict other conditions, (c) are not agreed upon by a diverse array of biblical "experts," and (d) are not applicable to you anyway because you are not the right kind of people.

More likely, God is fear. Bertrand Russell has it quite correct:

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

So too does Karl Marx rightly observe the cultural use of religion to control populations:

The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.

In and through religion, people become trained to accept as divine fiat that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. People train themselves into agents of conservatism, social and economic inequity, and intellectual ghettoization.

Here comes the objection, and this from a humanist who at one level makes a valid point:

If the question they [i.e., atheists] are asking about religion is, Don’t these damned believers know what’s in the Bible, the answer is somewhere in the range between probably not to possibly so; but even if they do, they probably know that the Bible is not recommending carving up your girlfriend. And probably can guess that when you find blood and gore of this magnitude the story is about something else. Phrases and words like “symbolism,” “surface meaning,” “allegory,” “folk legend” and “myth” come to mind.

Probably? They probably know what the Bible really means? No, R. Joseph Hoffmann, I don't think we can say that they probably know. By the same token, we can't say that they know God isn't love. Even more egregious is the tacit idea that we must not criticize or point out the more unsavory elements of the Bible. We may really know that the Bible isn't really advocating carving up one's girlfriend, but does this mean we should just move on from the apparent advocacy and not reflect on it? You criticize atheists for constructing straw men, I think we're exhuming very real skeletons.

"God is Love" is one of those meaningless statements that sound pleasant and appeal to people's ardent desires for love and security. But don't just accept the statement on its face. This claim about God is belied by the reported actions of the fictional deity. It's belied by the disjunction between  behavior that we actually would find acceptable in our culture and behavior that we only can accept within the confines of the imagined world of the Bible.

Jewish to Atheist

Undoctrinate from Scott Lazes on Vimeo.
A short (and brilliant) film about the Jewish transition to Atheism.
When I "came out" as an Atheist, the most shocking thing to my shocked loved ones was that I now wrote out the "o" in "God" instead of the "G-d" I'd conscientiously done before. That "o" was the signal that I'd really rejected the idea.

I do the lowercase "g" too, but not always. It depends on the context.

You Atheists, Always Talkin' 'Bout Gawd!

I talk about God much more now, as an Atheist, than I ever did as a non-Atheist.

Of course, talking about God these days usually means talking about the non-existence of God. In this sense, the subject may more properly be identified as ontology or observation rather than God him/her/itself. Less frequently, I talk about how in the Bibles, God really is quite a wicked character.

No question, though: God comes up in conversation quite often in my original posts and in replies to commentators. Amused believers read all my God-text and are pleased to suggest that I harbor latent theistic beliefs. Or they trot out a popular quote from G.K. Chesterton: "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

Now, Chesterton's aphorism makes a nice sound bite, but it's not correct. Were I slightly cheekier, I would retort, "If there were no evolution, there would be no creationists." My proverb, at least, has the benefit of being factually true.

But the best and most direct response to Chesterton is to correct him: if there were no religion, there would be no atheists. Religion and its conjoined sibling, dogma, are the conditions that lead to people self-identifying as Atheists. God the being is, well, incidental. As ever, when we really start to look into matters, God is actually irrelevant.

Indeed, if it weren't for atheists, God would not be brought up nearly as much. Many believers are actually ashamed of God and uncomfortable with their belief. They simply do not want it challenged.

I bring up God, then, to expose the whole idea to inquiry. When the concept is brought into the foreground, we can clearly see its flaws and chips and patches and scratches. The believer wants God to be the eternal mystery, the thing we will never attain or know. The Atheist wants to talk about God. The fact is, we know all too much about him/her/it.

As for Chesterton, I have never been impressed with him. To me, he lives on that tier well below Wilde and Shaw. His little quip here opens itself up to reverse formulations that make much more sense, such as if there were a God, there would be no atheists. We Atheists "are," after all, because he/she/it is not.

So, believers, let's talk about God. Let's discuss your concept of God. Why not? What are you afraid of?

Litmus Test

Question: If you thought God were commanding you to murder a small child you knew to be innocent, would you obey?

Thanks

I was responding to another blogger on his site. He'd given what I thought was a poorly argued post on the kidneys and how they represent God's many kindnesses.

I thought immediately to remind him of the very recent earthquake in Chile as a counter example - after all, if God is responsible for the kidneys, according to his theory, then God should also be responsible for disasters such as earthquakes. I pointed out, too, that perhaps God should be held responsible for the congenital kidney problems many people suffer, but this person is impervious to dealing with these elements in his theory.

His predictable tactic was to brand me an ingrate who should donate his two kidneys if they weren't so great. But this is the sort of person we're dealing with, a man who sincerely believes that the Holocaust is an example of divine benevolence to the Jews.

What's the proper response to such intractable lunacy? Why doggerel, of course....

Thank you, god, for the kidneys,
Thank you, god, for the quakes,
Thanks for the Nazi stormtroopers
Impaling our children on stakes.

Thanks for disease and thanks for our health,
It don't make no difference,
To us it's all wealth.

And because I say thanks,
It puts me in bliss,
And I'll just go on and ignore
The feeling you just don't exist.

Relgion's Confusion of Fantasy and Reality

When I introduce students to lyrical poetry, I urge them to "open" themselves to the works. I want them to allow themselves the intellectual and emotional freedom to set aside their own personalities temporarily and don the emotional guise of the poetic speaker. In other words, I ask them to be actors, to think about the character whose part they play, and to inhabit as best they can the point of view represented by the character.

Indeed, what I request of my students very much resembles what many religions ask of individual congregation members. In regular worship and study, the believer or practitioner must imagine a scenario where God exists to receive human praise and petitions. The worshiper participates in a communally-charged dramatization of the world as it could be, the world governed by their god and punctuated by his interventions into history. The scene of religion is a literary scene.

However, we can easily point out the differences between the approaches of religion and literature. I do not, for instance, tell my students that the literary scenes they create in reading our selected poems are the true state of affairs in the historical/physical universe. Yet, religion asserts that its literary scene is real. The religious story is that "this is what actually happened."

The problem with religion is that "this is not what actually happened." God did not speak to the nation of the Hebrew slaves from atop Mt. Sinai. Jesus did not die a physical death and then return to physical life. Mohammed did not fly on a literal winged-horse of fire. And so on....

The problem goes even further. In my classes, I do not tell my students they must accept my version of the literary scene for the poems we read. Neither do I tell them that they will suffer consequences for non-acceptance. Religion, however, demands individual adherence to an orthodox version of its literary scene. Religion articulates consequences, such as social rejection and eternal damnation, and supports implementing them in the real world. The odious Pat Robertson's comments on Haiti are an example of this practice.

I do not tell my students that their experience in literature can guide them to be better human beings or help them decide how to vote on important issues in an election. Religion, however, advertises itself as an authoritative arbiter of morality. Religion often pre-packages political and social opinions for people.

There is no contradiction between an appreciation of religion as literary phenomenon or set of literary phenomena and a criticism of religion as a force in real social, political, cultural, an intellectual life. As literature, all religions open up whole worlds of knowledge and experience. As literature, all religions deserve to be acknowledged. That is, we should recognize that religions are an important part of human history. They tell us about humanity and about the human experience. This is a good thing.

However, as an authority in matters of public policy and everyday life, religion today assumes a position that is both counter-productive and dangerous. I say counter-productive because religious ideologies obstruct substantial dialogue and progress in the U.S. in such important issues as health care, climate change, abortion, stem cell research, and so on. I say dangerous because this obstructionism affects people's lives and liberties.

Religions today--and especially fighting between religions--increasingly put the entire planet in jeopardy. Perhaps somewhere ages and ages hence, people will marvel at how the literatures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam underwrote the main conflicts of our present time.

Holy Crap, The Beatles SUCK!

I still love and admire the music of the Beatles, as I have noted. However, I don't listen to them very much anymore.

I used to wonder why, but now I think I know the answer: They were good. They were very good, even. But they weren't THAT good. That is, when I wanted music that challenged me and that reflected a certain social or political posture, the Beatles ceased to be serviceable.

Piero Scaruffi gives a terrific review of the history of the Beatles. He talks about the Beatles/Beatlemania phenomenon while also discussing the other artists and cultural forces around them. His account is scathing at times, and he goes off the deep end on a few occasions, but for the most part he's dead-on -- and it's a freakin' revelation.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

I think "no creative depth" goes too far, but on the other hand we don't need to buy into the corporate myth of their infinite creative depth.

The Beatles were not gritty enough for Scaruffi. They were not adventurous enough in their compositions or in their musicianship. Yet the Beatles produced a great number of songs of very high quality, and they certainly did cover a range of attitudes and subjects, even if they weren't first. The Beatles clearly enjoyed developing new sounds, new styles, and new subjects. Each record sounded and felt different from its predecessor. To me, that's pretty cool.

Jefferson Airplane had a few great songs but then self-destructed. Hendrix was done after Electric Ladyland. The Beach Boys, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead, the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, and so on -- their gimmicks all wore off, sometimes very quickly.

The Beatles were more malleable, more adaptable than most acts. And they always had melody. Scaruffi, however, is unimpressed.

Every one of their songs and every one of their albums followed much more striking songs and albums by others, but instead of simply imitating those songs, the Beatles adapted them to a bourgeois, conformist and orthodox dimension. The same process was applied to the philosophy of the time, from the protest on college campuses to Dylan's pacifism, from drugs to the Orient. Their vehicle was melody, a universal code of sorts, that declared their music innocuous. Naturally others performed the same operation, and many (from the Kinks to the Hollies, from the Beach Boys to the Mamas and Papas) produced melodies even more memorable, yet the Beatles arrived at the right moment and theirs would remain the trademark of the melodic song of the second half of the twentieth century.

To me, what stands out about the Beatles next to these other artists -- the Kinks, the Beach Boys, the Mamas and Papas -- is the fact that the Beatles were consistently able to put together whole albums of good and polished songs. Earlier, I implied that Beatles songs ceased to be particularly challenging at a certain point. But the polish of the songs included both nuance and layering. Beatles songs tended to throw in plenty of rewarding nuggets: an intersting bass line, a sound effect, a harmonization. I don't think any artist was as aware of details as the Beatles.

And the Beatles had four different lead singers. A Beatles song could draw from any one of the four members. With a group like the Kinks, it was Ray Davies we ALWAYS got. With the Beach Boys, it was ALWAYS Brian Wilson. Not so with the Beatles. We got enough difference in the individual personalities of the songwriters to have our interest maintained on an album.

It also bears mentioning that John and Paul not only had terrific voices, but they had better voices than most every other act and so-called "innovator" out there. I always thought Lennon had the more emotive voice while Paul's was more pleasant. Nevertheless, both men had strong and flexible voices - they could get a range of sound out. In terms of pure vocal ability, I think only folks such as Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Smokey Robinson, and maybe a few others of that time period can be considered on par.

Another characteristic that made the Beatles distinct was their intelligence. As a musical act, they evolved and even disbanded when they felt the act was finished. Many artists don't change as much as the Beatles did, and many don't quit at the right time. The Beatles were very smart musically and commercially. They depended on melody as their music changed, and they depended on their enormous popularity as their look and image evolved.

So, great to read. Shocking to consider.

God's Love Versus Yours

Today is St. Valentine's Day, blah-blah-blah. Yes, I made my wife a card and gave it to her. She made me one, too. It was all very sweet. We have a good love.

I'm reminded, however, of this time when I attended one of the family night gatherings held by my wife's church. Before I stopped going to these--which is when they became less about family and more about jebus--the groups would tackle a family issue, like how to handle it when your child is fresh.

On this particular night, a woman who was a leader of the group said with a straight face that God loved our children more than we did. Indeed, if I remember the moment correctly, this tidbit was something of an afterthought to a different point she was making.

I was completely knocked over by this. This woman was actually asserting that God loved my babies more than I did. More astounding: I don't think anyone in the room except me thought that she had said something profoundly distasteful and repulsive.

To this day, I am utterly amazed that I did not stand and blurt out to her "Like fuck he does!" Yeah, he loves them so much, except when bad things happen to them, which is sad but actually part of a greater plan, except the fucking plan not only makes no sense but rather has the distinct appearance of being totally fucking random. And of course, if you don't love him back in the proper way, you'll fucking burn in hell for all eternity.

This was one of those watershed moments for me. I realized once again that religion and reality were at odds, and it dawned on me quite clearly that some differences might be irreconcilable. In the years to come, I would learn that MY religion too contradicted the messy facts of daily living.

Inconsistencies in the New Testament

No one believes that the New Testament was written by God (unlike the Torah, which is indeed said to be so written). However, Christians actually do believe that the New Testament books - at least the ones on the "approved" list - were "divinely inspired."

Unfortunately, such inspiration appears to have been rather inconsistent, which is not what anyone should expect from the eternal and unchanging alpha and omega of the universe.

On it's own, the fact that a super-powerful, super-intelligent being cannot make sure his message gets transmitted clearly and consistently is devastating.The contradictions and inconsistencies suggest the more plausible scenario: different writers and copyists recording what they know and feel. No divinity involved, just impassioned and fallible people.

Apologists, however, insist that the New Testament is perfectly (perfectly in a literal sense) harmonious and inerrant. Here's an example of their rebuttal to the question of contradictions and inconsistencies:

In dealing with so-called “contradictions” in the Bible, let these principles carefully be remembered.

No contradiction exists between verses that refer to different persons or things.

No contradiction exists between passages that involve different time elements.

No contradiction exists between verses that employ phraseology in different senses.

Supplementation is not the same as contradiction.

One need show only the possibility of harmonization between two passage (sic) that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of an alleged discrepancy.

Finally, this point needs to be made: the differences in various Bible accounts of the same events actually demonstrate the independence of the divine writers and prove that they were not in collusion!

God, although using human writers in the composition of the Bible, is nevertheless its ultimate Author. And since the perfect God cannot be the source of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) or contradiction (Hebrews 6:18), it must be acknowledged that the Bible is perfectly harmonious. This does not mean that men will not struggle with difficult passages. If seeming discrepancies are discovered, let us apply ourselves to a diligent study in an effort to resolve them; but let us never foolishly charge God with allowing His sacred writers to contradict one another.

The first three assertions are just beside the point.

More troubling is the idea that one need "show only the possibility of harmonization" between two contradictory passages. This is the problem of interpretation that I have mentioned again and again. The apologist starts with the axiom that God is the ultimate author of the bible, and that God cannot be the source of confusion or contradiction.

However, the apologist does not ask whether people, not God, are the authors of the bible. The answer to "why does there seem to be a contradiction here?" is NEVER "because there is a contradiction there." The apologist rejects the idea of contradictions altogether. This is not just bad reasoning: it's anti-reasoning.

Finally, that strange point about the differences in bible accounts of the same events actually demonstrating "the independence of the divine writers" is simply bizarre. First they say there are no contradictions, but then they admit there are differences, and the discrepancies are a good thing because they "prove" there was no collusion.

While I tend to think of modern Christianity a form of scam, I hardly believe that early Christianity began as a prank. If the New Testament is inconsistent, contradictory, and flat-out wrong, this does not also mean that it was deliberately begun by people who knew then that it was all these things. The early believers very likely thought they were preaching true belief, if not 100% true stories.

No, for me the inconsistencies and contradictions don't indicate collusion. Rather, they indicate the humanity of the texts, the beliefs, and the believers.

And so.... Here are 194 inconsistencies and contradictions of the New Testament.

1.
Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Mt.1:6.
Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Nathan. Lk.3:31.

2.
The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31.
The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21.

3.
Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35.
Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50.

4.
The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.

5.
There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31.

6.
Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.

7.
He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25.

8.
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.

9.
Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.

10.
The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.

11.
Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2.
Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.

12.
The baptism of Jesus was with the "Holy Ghost". Mk.1:8; Jn.1:33.
Fire was also added to the baptism. Mt.3:11; Lu.3:16.

13.
John knew of Jesus before he baptized him. Mt.3:11-13; Jn.1:28,29.
John knew nothing of Jesus at all. Mt.11:1-3.

14.
Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13,14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.

15.
It is recorded that Jesus saw the spirit descending. Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10.
It is recorded that John saw the spirit descending. Jn.1:32.

16.
The heavenly voice addressed the gathering. Mt.3:17.
The heavenly voice addressed Jesus. Mk.1:11; Lk.3:22.

17.
Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13.
Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1.

18.
Jesus went to Bethphage and the Mt. of Olives, then left for Bethany. Mt.21:1,17.
Jesus went to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mt. of Olives. Mk.11:1; Lk.19:29.
Jesus went to Bethany and then Jerusalem. Jn.12:1,12.

19.
Jesus and his disciples taught in Capernaum. Mk.1:20,21.
Only Jesus taught in Capernaum. Lk.4:30,31.

20.
Peter was chosen, with Andrew, by the Sea of Galilee. Mt.4:18-20; Mk.1:16-18.
Peter was chosen, with James and John, by the lake of Gennesaret. Lk.5:2-11.
Andrew chose Jesus and then got Peter to join. Jn.1:35-42.

21.
Peter was to preach to the Jews. Mt.10:2,5,6; Gal.2:7.
Peter was to preach to the Gentiles. Acts 15:7.

22.
Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15.
Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.

23.
Peter's mother-in-law was healed before Peter was called to be a disciple. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10.
Peter's mother-in-law was healed after Peter was called to be a disciple. Mt.4:18,19; 8:14,15; Mk.1:16,17,30,31.

24.
James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31.
James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:10,11.

25.
Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) was the name of an apostle - but no Judas, brother of James. Mt. 10:3.
Judas, the brother of James, was an apostle, but no Thaddaeus. Lk.6:16; Acts 1:13.

26.
The centurion's servant was healed in between the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Mt.8:2-15.
The centurion's servant was healed after the cleansing of the leper and the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38,39; 5:12,13; 7:1-10.

27.
The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.

28.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.

29.
A demon cries out that Jesus is the Holy One of God. Mk.1:23,24.
Everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God. 1 Jn.4:2.

30.
Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
It wasn't time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.

31.
The fig tree withers immediately, and the disciples are amazed. Mt.21:19,20.
The disciples first notice the withered tree the next day. Mk.11:20,21.

32.
Jesus is the mediator of the "Father". 1 Tim.2:5; 1 Jn.2:1.
Jesus sits on "his" right hand. Mk. 16:19.
Jesus and the "Father" are one in the same. Jn.10:30.

33.
There is one "God". 1 Tim.2:5; Jms.2:19.
There are three. 1 Jn.5:7.

34.
Jesus said to honor your father and mother. Mt.15:4; Mt.19:19; Mk.7:10; Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20.
Jesus said that he came to set people against their parents. Mt.10:35-37; Lk.12:51-53; Lk.14:26.
Jesus said to call no man father. Mt.23:9.

35.
Jesus/God said, "You fool…". Lk.12:20; Mt.23:17.
Paul calls people fools. 1 Cor.15:36.
Call someone a fool and you go to hell. Mt.5:22.

36.
Anger by itself is a sin. Mt.5:22.
But not necessarily. Eph.4:26.

37.
Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10.
Ask and you shall be refused. Seek and you won't find. Knock and you will be refused entrance. Lk.13:24-27.

38.
Do not judge. Mt.7:1,2.
Unless it is necessary, of course. 1 Jn.4:1-3.

39.
Jesus is thankful that some things are hidden. Mt.11:25; Mk.4:11,12.
Jesus said that all things should be made known. Mk.4:22.

40.
Jesus said that no sign would be given. Mk.8:12.
Jesus said that no sign would be given except for that of Jonas. Mt.12:39; Lk.11:29.
Jesus showed many signs. Jn.20:30; Acts 2:22.

41.
Jesus stated that the law was until heaven and earth ended. Mt. 5:17-19.
Jesus stated that the law was only until the time of John. Lk.16:16.

42.
The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on the mountain. Mt.5:1.
The "Sermon on the Mount" took place on a plain. Lu.6:17.

43.
The "Lord's Prayer" was taught to many during the "Sermon on the Mount". Mt.6:9.
The "Lord's Prayer" was taught only to the disciples at another time. Lu.11:1.

44.
Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58.

45.
Good works should be seen. Mt.5:16.
Good works should not be seen. Mt.6:1-4.

46.
Jesus said that Salvation was only for the Jews. Mt.15:24; Mt.10:5,6; Jn.4:22; Rom.11:26,27.
Paul said that salvation was also for the Gentiles. Acts 13:47,48.

47.
Repentance is necessary. Acts 3:19; Lu.3:3.
Repentance is not necessary. Rom.11:29.

48.
Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Mercy cannot be predetermined. Rom.9:18.

49.
All who call on the "Lord" will be saved. Rom.10:13; Acts 2:21.
Only those predestined will be saved. Acts 13:48; Eph.1:4,5; 2 Thes.2:13; Acts 2:47.

50.
Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

51.
Salvation comes by faith and not works. Eph.2:8,9; Rom.11:6; Gal.2:16; Rom.3:28.
Salvation comes by faith and works. Jms.2:14,17,20.

52.
The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10.

53.
Believe and be baptized to be saved. Mk.16:16.
Be baptized by water and the spirit to be saved. Jn.3:5.
Endure to the end to be saved. Mt.24:13.
Call on the name of the "Lord" to be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:31.
Believe, then all your household will be saved. Acts 16:31.
Hope and you will be saved. Rom.8:24.
Believe in the resurrection to be saved. Rom.10:9.
By grace you are saved. Eph.2:5
By grace and faith you are saved. Eph.2:8.
Have the love of truth to be saved. 2 Thes.2:10.
Mercy saves. Titus 3:5.

54.
Backsliders are condemned. 2 Pet.2:20.
Backsliders are saved regardless. Jn.10:27-29.

55.
Forgive seventy times seven. Mt.18:22.
Forgiveness is not possible for renewed sin. Heb.6:4-6.

56.
Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

57.
Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

58.
God resides in heaven. Mt.5:45; Mt.6:9; Mt.7:21.
Angels reside in heaven. Mk.13:32.
Jesus is with God in heaven. Acts 7:55,56
Believers go to heaven. 1 Pet.1:3,4.
Heaven will pass away. Mt.24:35; Mk.13:31; Lk.21:33.

59.
Pray that you don't enter temptation. Mt.26:41.
Temptation is a joy. Jms.1:2.

60.
God leads you into temptation. Mt.6:13.
God tempts no one. Jms.1:13.

61.
Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Mt.6:25-34; Lk.12:22-31.
A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. 1 Tim.5:8.

62.
Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13.
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Mt.7:21.
Only those whom the Lord chooses will be saved. Acts 2:39.

63.
We are justified by works and not by faith. Mt.7:21; Rom.2:6,13; Jms.2:24.
We are justified by faith and not by works. Jn.3:16; Rom.3:27; Eph.2:8,9.; Gal.2:16.

64.
Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8,9.

65.
Jesus said that in him there was peace. Jn.16:33.
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace. Mt.10:34; Lk.12:51.

66.
Jesus said that John the Baptist was a prophet and Elijah. Mt.11:9; Mt.17:12,13.
John said that he was not a prophet nor was he Elijah. Jn.1:21.

67.
Jesus said that he was meek and lowly. Mt.11:29.
Jesus makes whips and drives the moneychangers out from the temple. Mt. 21:12; Mk.11:15,16; Jn.2:15.

68.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Lk.12:1.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees". Mt.16:6,11.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod". Mk.8:15.

69.
Jesus founds his church on Peter. Mt.16:18.
Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and a hindrance. Mt.16:23.

70.
The mother of James and John asks Jesus to favor her sons. Mt.20:20,21.
They ask for themselves. Mk.10:35-37.

71.
Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

72.
Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29,30.
Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.

73.
Jesus healed all that were sick. Mt.8:16; Lk.4:40.
Jesus healed many that were sick - but not all. Mk.1:34.

74.
The council asks Jesus if he is the Son of God. Lk.22:70. The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of God. Mt.26:63.
The high priest asks Jesus if he is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Mk.14:61.
The high priest asks Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine. Jn.18:19.

75.
Jesus answers to the effect of “You said it, not me”. Mt.26:64; Lk.22:70.
Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. Mk.14:62.

76.
At the Mount of Olives, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Mt.26:30-34.
At the Passover meal, Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times. Lu.22:13,14,34.

77.
Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed. Mt.26:34; Lk.22:34; Jn.13:38.
Peter was to deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Mk.14:30.

78.
The cock crowed once. Mt.26:74.
The cock crowed twice. Mk.14:72.

79.
Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. Mt.26:69,70.
It was only to the maid. Mk.14:66-68; Lk.22:56,57; Jn.18:17.

80.
Peter’s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71,72.
It was to the same maid. Mk.14:69,70.
It was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.
It was to more than one person. Jn.18:25.

81.
Peter’s third denial was to several bystanders. Mt.26:73,74; Mk.14:69,70.
It was to one person. Lk.22:59,60.
It was to a servant. Jn.18:26,27.

82.
The chief priests bought the field. Mt.27:6,7.
Judas bought the field. Acts 1:16-19.

83.
Judas threw down the money and left. Mt.27:5.
Judas used the coins to buy the field. Acts 1:18.

84.
Judas hanged himself. Mt.27:5.
Judas fell headlong and burst his head open. Acts 1:18.

85.
Jesus did not answer any of the charges. Mt.27:12-14; Lk.23:9.
Jesus answered some of the charges. Mk.14:61,62.
Jesus answered all of the charges. Jn.18:33-37.

86.
Jesus said that eternal life would be given to all that were given to him. Jn.11:27-29; Jn.17:12.
Jesus released Judas in order to keep this promise. Jn.18:5-9.

87.
The chief priests and elders persuade the people. Mt.27:20.
Only the chief priests persuade the people. Mk.15:11.
The chief priests and the people persuade themselves. Lk.23:13-23.

88.
Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.
Jesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.
Jesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.

89.
The sign says, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”. Mt.27:37.
The sign says, “The King of the Jews”. Mk.15:26.
In three languages, the sign says, “This is the King of the Jews”. Lk.23:38.
In the same three languages, the sign says, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. Jn.19:19,20.

90.
Jesus asks God, The Father, why he has forsaken him. Mt.27:46.
Jesus said that he and The Father were one in the same. Jn.10:30; Jn.17:11,21,22.

91.
The centurion says, “Truly this was the son of God”. Mt.27:54.
The centurion says, “Truly this man was the son of God”. Mk.15:39.
The centurion says, “Certainly, this was a righteous man”. Lk.23:47.
There was no centurion. Jn.19:31-37.

92.
Jesus was crucified at the third hour. Mk.15:25.
Jesus was still before Pilate at the sixth hour. Jn.19:13,14.

93.
The women looked on from “afar”. Mt.27:55; Mk.15:40; Lk.23:49.
The women were very close. Jn.19:25.

94.
The last recorded words of Jesus were:
Version 1: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mt.27:46.
Version 2: “Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me” Mk.15:34.
Version 3: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. Lk.23:46.
Version 4: “It is finished”. Jn.19:30.

95.
A guard was placed at the tomb the day after the burial. Mt.27:65,66.
No guard is mentioned. Mk.15:44-47; Lk.23:52-56; Jn.19:38-42.

96.
Only those keeping the words of Jesus will never see death. Jn.8:51.
Jesus’ disciples will be killed. Mt.24:3-9.
All men die once. Heb.9:27.

97.
Upon their arrival, the stone was still in place. Mt.28:1 2.
Upon their arrival, the stone had been removed. Mk.16:4; Lk.24:2; Jn.20:1.

98.
There was an earthquake. Mt.28:2.
There was no earthquake. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:2-4; Jn.20:12.

99.
The visitors ran to tell the disciples. Mt.28:8.
The visitors told the eleven and all the rest. Lk.24:9.
The visitors said nothing to anyone. Mk.16:8.

100.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was right at the tomb. Jn.20:12-14.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb. Mt.28:8,9.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was on the road to Emmaus. Lk.24:13-16.

101.
One doubted. Jn.20:24.
Some doubted. Mt.28:17.
All doubted. Mk.16:11; Lk.24:11,14.

102.
Jesus said that his blood was shed for many. Mk.14:24.
Jesus said his blood was shed for his disciples. Lu.22:20.

103.
Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear the cross of Jesus. Mt.27:32; Mk.15:21; Lu.23:26.
Jesus bore his own cross. Jn.19:16,17.

104.
Jesus was offered vinegar and gall to drink. Mt.27:34.
Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. Jn.19:29,30.
Jesus was offered wine and myrrh to drink. Mk.15:23.

105.
Jesus refused the drink offered him. Mk.15:23.
Jesus tasted the drink offered and then refused. Mt.27:34.
Jesus accepted the drink offered him. Jn.19:30.

106.
Both “thieves” mocked Jesus on the cross. Mt. 27:44; Mk.15:32.
One “thief” sided with Jesus on the cross. Lu.23:39-41.

107.
Joseph of Arimathaea boldly asked for the body of Jesus. Mk.15:43.
Joseph of Arimathaea secretly asked for the body of Jesus. Jn.19:38.

108.
Jesus was laid in a nearby tomb. Mk.15:46; Lu.23:53; Jn.19:41.
Jesus was laid in Joseph’s new tomb. Mt.27:59,60.

109.
A great stone was rolled in front of the tomb. Mt.27:60; Mk.15:46.
There was nothing in front of the tomb. Lu.23:55; Jn.19:41.

110.
Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39,40.
Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55,56.

111.
The body was anointed. Jn.19:39,40.
The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.

112.
The women bought materials before the sabbath. Lu.23:56.
The women bought materials after the sabbath. Mk.16:1.

113.
Jesus was first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. 1 Cor.15:5.
Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1,8,9.
Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1,14,15.
Jesus was first seen by Cleopas and others. Lu.24:17,18.
Jesus was first seen by the disciples. Acts 10:40,41.

114.
The two Marys went to the tomb. Mt.28:1.
The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
Several women went to the tomb. Lu.24:10.
Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

115.
It was dawn when Mary went to the tomb. Mt.28:1; Mk.16:2.
It was dark when Mary went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.

116.
An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.

117.
Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3,4.
Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.

118.
Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.

119.
After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.

120.
Mary first saw Jesus at the tomb. Jn.20:11-15.
Mary first saw Jesus on her way home. Mt.28:8-10.

121.
The women entered the tomb. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:3.
The women stayed outside the tomb. Jn.20:11.

122.
The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36,37.
The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.

123.
Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25.

124.
The disciples doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mt.28:17.
The Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible. Mt.27:62-66.

125.
Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

126.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

127.
The moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11,12.
The moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.

128.
Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr.24:20.
Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)

129.
The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20,21.

130.
The kingdom was prepared from the beginning. Mt.25:34.
Jesus said that he was going to go and prepare the kingdom. Jn.14:2,3.

131.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

132.
The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50,51.
The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts 1:9-12.

133.
The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41.
The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
The holy spirit is obtained by asking. Lk.11:13.
The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8.

134.
Sometimes God is responsible for unbelief. 2 Thes.2:11,12.
Sometimes Jesus is responsible for unbelief. Mk.4:11,12.
The devil causes unbelief. Lk.8:12.

135.
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer. 1 Jn.3:15.
If anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar. 1 Jn.4:20.
No one can be a disciple of Jesus unless he hates his brother. Lk.14:26.

136.
Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24.
All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13.

137.
Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14.
Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31.

138.
Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47.
Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.

139.
None of Jesus’ followers would be lost. Jn.10:27-29.
Some of Jesus’ followers would be lost. 1 Tim.4:1.

140.
Jesus is the ruling prince of this world. Rev.1:5.
The prince of this world will be cast out. Jn.12:31.

141.
Jesus says all men will be saved. Jn.3:17.
Only 144,000 virgin men will be saved. Rev. 14:1-4.

142.
God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim.2:3,4; 2 Pet.3:9.
God does not want all men to be saved. Jn.12:40.

143.
Peter asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.13:36.
Thomas asks Jesus where he is going. Jn.14:5.
Jesus said that no one asked where he was going. Jn.16:5.

144.
Jesus lost only one disciple. Jn.17:12.
Jesus lost no disciples. Jn.18:9.

145.
Jesus came into the world to bear witness to the truth. Jn.18:37.
The truth has always been evident. Rom.1:18-20.

146.
During his first resurrection appearance, Jesus gave his disciples the holy spirit. Jn.20:22.
The holy spirit was given to the disciples after his ascension. Acts 1:3-8.

147.
The world could not contain all that could be written of Jesus. Jn.21:25.
All was written. Acts.1:1.

148.
Obey the laws of men for it is the will of God. 1 Pet.2:13-15.
The disciples disobey the council. Acts 5:40-42.

149.
Obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.
Obey men. It is God’s will. Rom.13:1-4; 1 Pet.2:13-15.

150.
God hated Esau and loved Jacob even before they were born. Rom.9:10-13.
God shows no partiality and treats all alike. Acts 10:34; Rom.2:11.

151. All who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. Rom.2:12.
Where there is no law there is no sin or transgression. Rom.4:15.

152.
Doers of the law will be justified. Rom.2:13.
Doers of the law will not be justified. Rom.3:20; Gal.3:11.

153.
The law has dominion. Rom.7:1.
The law does not have dominion. Rom.6:14.

154.
The law was the result of sin. Gal.3:19.
Sin is the result of breaking the law. 1 Jn.3:4.

155.
Those of “God” cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:9.
Those of “God” can sin. 1 Jn.1:7 8.

156.
The anointing of Jesus teaches right from wrong. 1 Jn.2:27.
The law written on the heart and conscience teaches right from wrong. Rom.2:15.

157.
Abraham was justified by faith. Heb.11:8.
Abraham was justified by works. Jms.2:21.
Abraham was not justified by works. Rom.4:2.

158.
It is not good to eat or drink anything that might cause your brother to stumble or be offended. Rom.14:21.
Let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink. Col.2:16.

159.
It is better that widows should not remarry. 1 Cor.7:8.
It is better that young widows should remarry. 1 Tim.5:11-14.

160.
The god of this world blinds people to the gospel. 2 Cor.4:4.
There is only one god. 1 Cor.8:4.

161.
The powers of this world are wicked, so fight against them. Eph.6:11-13.
All powers are ordained of God and, if you resist, you are damned. Rom.13:1,2.

162.
Bear one another’s burdens. Gal.6:2.
Bear your own burdens. Gal.6:5.

163.
Anyone who even greets a non-believer shares his wicked work. 2 Jn.10,11.
Always be ready to answer any man concerning your faith. 1 Pet.3:15.

164.
All of the grass on the earth is burned up. Rev.8:7.
The army of locusts are instructed not to harm the grass. Rev.9:4.
165.
Only “The Father” knows. Mk.13:32.
“Jesus” and “The Father” are one. Jn.10:30; 17:11,21,22.

166.
Jesus said that he would judge. Jn.5:22,27-30; Jn.9:39.
Jesus said that he would not judge. Jn.8:15; Jn.12:47.
Jesus said that The Father judges. Jn.12:48,49.
Jesus said that The Father does not judge. Jn.5:22.
Jesus said that his disciples would judge. Lk.22:30.

167.
He that does not believe is damned. Mk.16:16.
Thomas did not believe and was not damned. Jn.20:27-29.

168.
“When his branch is yet tender”. Mt.24:32.
“When her branch is yet tender”. Mk.13:28.

169.
Jesus is God. Jn.10:30.
Jesus is the “image” of God. 2 Cor.4:4.
Jesus was a man approved by God. Acts 2:22.

170.
Jesus and God are one in the same. Jn.1:1.
Jesus is beside himself. Mk.16:19; Acts 2:32,33; 7:55; Rom.8:34; etc.

171.
Jesus is the Son of God. Jn.6:69; Jn.20:31.
Jesus is the Son of Man. Mt.18:11; Lk.21:27.

172.
Paul states that he does not lie. Rom.9:1; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:20; 1 Tim.2:7.
Paul states that he does lie. Rom.3:7.

173.
Paul said that he does not use trickery. 1 Thes.2:3.
Paul admits to using trickery. 2 Cor.12:16.

174.
Paul says that circumcision is nothing. 1 Cor.7:19.
Paul says that circumcision is profitable. Rom.2:25; Rom.3:1,2.

175.
Do not covet. Rom.7:7; Rom.13:9.
Paul says covet. 1 Cor.12:31; 1 Cor.14:39.

176.
Paul teaches not to steal. Eph.4:28.
Paul admits to stealing. 2 Cor.11:8.

177.
Paul was assured that he would not be hurt. Acts 18:9,10.
Paul was often physically abused. 2 Cor.11:23-27.

178.
Paul states that the law is necessary. Rom.3:31.
Paul states that the law is not necessary. Rom.6:14.

179.
Jesus said to go and baptize. Mt.28:19.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize. 1 Cor.1:17.

180.
Paul said he was not sent to baptize but to preach. 1 Cor.1:17.
Paul baptized. 1 Cor.1:16.

181.
Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law. Mt.5:17-19.
Paul said otherwise. Eph.2:15.

182.
Jesus said that God did not condemn the world. Jn. 3:17.
Paul said that God did condemn the world. Rom.5:18.

183.
Those present at Paul’s conversion stood. Acts 9:7.
They fell to the ground. Acts 26:14.

184.
Those present at Paul’s conversion heard a voice but saw nothing. Acts 9:7.
Those present at Paul’s conversion saw a light but heard nothing. Acts 22:9.

185.
Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus where he spent some time with the apostles. Acts 9:19.
Paul went to Damascus three years later and saw only Peter and James. Gal.1:18,19.

186.
Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Damascus and then to Jerusalem. Acts 9:18-26.
Shortly after his conversion, Paul went to Arabia, then to Damascus, and then, 3 years later, to Jerusalem. Gal.1:17,18.

187.
In Damascus, the governor attempts to seize Paul. 2 Cor.11:32.
In Damascus, the Jews attempt to seize Paul. Acts 9:22,23.

188.
The holy spirit forbids preaching in Asia. Acts 16:6.
Paul preaches in Asia anyway. Acts 19:8-10.

189.
Paul said he would not be a servant of Christ if he tried to please men. Gal.1:10.
Paul said that he tried to please men. 1 Cor.10:33.

190.
Paul says that he was the chief of all sinners. 1 Tim.1:15.
He who commits sin is of the devil. Children of God cannot sin. 1 Jn.3:8-10.

191.
Paul said that Jesus is the judge. 2 Tim.4:1.
Paul said that God is the judge. Heb.12:23.
Paul said that the saints would judge. 1 Cor.6:2.

192.
Paul said that Jesus was the Son of God. Rom.1:3,4.
Paul said that Jesus was just a man. Heb.7:24.

193.
Do not boast. Lk.18:14.
Do not be proud. Rom.11:20; 1 Pet. 5:5.
Paul proudly boasts. 2 Cor.11:16-18; Gal.2:9-11.

194.
Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for discerning the lying apostles. Rev. 2:1,2.
Paul was the apostle to Ephesus. Eph.1:1.