fayfreethinkers.com

Today the 8th circuit court of appeals ruled that the U. of A. policy limiting Gary "Moses" Bowman's preaching on campus to a certain number of times per school year is an unconstitutional policy.

Darrel and I roasted him with a Bible quiz one day on campus. Maybe we need to make another trip to the U. of A?

"Maybe"? Just give me the date and time... and we'll hope I can show up.

I'll email some of my campus friends and see if they know when he's planning to be around.

Go for it! I have never stopped and listened to him, but just walking by is bad enough. It's not even the words, which I mostly couldn't understand, but the timbre of the voice - that demonstrates an attitude that needs adjusting - big time!

A friend of mine says he was back today. Maybe he'll be a regular again.

Savonarola wrote:A friend of mine says he was back today. Maybe he'll be a regular again.

DOUG
Greg told me that Moses is back. But "Moe" has a whistle that he blows whenever anyone tries to get in a word against him.

Of course, I have a whistle that is advertised as "The World's Loudest Whistle."



The fundies never win with us around, do they?

DAR
This is wonderful news. The chance that Moses has won anyone over for Christ is as near zero as possible, and in fact, integer, because his effect is exactly the opposite. He is a damn embarrassment to Christians and a sales sideshow against Christianity. It's Christianity taken seriously. If Christians actually believed that everyone was going to hell around them then they should be trying to warn everyone like Gary Moses does. But they don't. When Doug and I went and actually stood up to him kids were climbing all over us trying to get our tracts and see what we were about. The one thing that everyone can agree on at a Moses blatherfest event is that they don't want to be in anyway associated with him. He makes atheism look mighty fine.

He's undercover. He's on our team. The <ahem> devil works in mysterious ways....

Doug wrote:Greg told me that Moses is back. But "Moe" has a whistle that he blows whenever anyone tries to get in a word against him.

Day 1: Keep speaking up, making Moses blow the whistle continually, thereby preventing him from making any more claims.
Day 2: Bring our own whistles.
Day 3: Bring our own musical instruments and play along.

Darrel has an excellent point. I remember when I went to Sunday School there was a lesson about how some disciples are going into a town to preach the WORD, and some zealot is following them around with a sandwich board on (not really, but that's how I picture him) and ranting like this guy you're talking about. The lead disciple (Paul, I think) tells him to get away from them. My Sunday School teacher explained this was because the zealot was running off more potential Christians than attracting them. It's a very brief part of the story, only a line or two, so I haven't been able to find it again. But I've never forgotten it and always want to point it out to people like him (and John Latour, and people like him). If you know what verse I'm talking about or can find it again, I'd like to know.

Savonarola wrote: Day 2: Bring our own whistles.
Day 3: Bring our own musical instruments and play along.

DAR
I have a Ram's horn, which would be appropriate. I could announce that everytime Moses says something false or ridiculous I will blow it. It has a good loud Old Testament "biblical" sound. I would have to blow it a lot so we would have to take turns when my lips get sore.
Of course this can backfire a bit because it will draw more attention to Moses, and that's what he wants. That's why you also have to just directly roast his comments. And you have to do it well and fast (we're pretty good at that) or else he will just move along and out yell you. But if you directly and promptly roast some biblical bullshit he throws out he pretty much has to respond or it looks like he can't defend it.
We need to find out if we need a permit, or if we need to have a permit to pass out our pamphlets. Maybe we could make a signboard that could hold our pamphlets. Then let the noisemaking and roasting begin. And we should tape it.
And we could bring Belle goat and let people put their sins on her. That would be fun. Moses could really help us spread a lot of good information and there is nothing to put kids in the mood to be open minded toward freethought better than a wacked out Christian assclown like Moses.

D.


.
.

I checked with a friend at the Arkansas Union - Moses has been ranting on the Union side of the fountain, which is a no-no and they are going to move him to the library side of the fountain. He does need - and has - a permit from Facilities Management to "reserve" the spot for his "event". A like permit would be needed to hand out literature, but catcalls and shouted responses from the audience don't require a permit (a "counter presentation" would). I think a permit would be needed for the goat.

Darrel wrote:I have a Ram's horn, which would be appropriate. I could announce that everytime Moses says something false or ridiculous I will blow it.

That's no good; he's so full of crap, you'd hyperventilate.

really the best thing is to take the high road and just let him make a fool of himself, all the while passing out your own information like mature adults. although I do like the musical instrument idea...

If you are interested . . .
He's here!! Right now!! West of Old Main by the peace fountain . . .
I've never heard anyone quite so outrageous in my entire life . . .

Welcome Keyticklers!

Any idea how often he plans to be around? Do you know if he'll be back tomorrow and/or Friday?

DAR
Permit for the goat? She would be on a leash. I could wear sunglasses and say she is my "seeing eye goat."

Betsy's absolutely right that we must take the high road. Especially since this guy is so bad he already has everyone against him. No need whatsoever to be abusive or call him names. He THRIVES on that sort of thing (obviously). What he probably can't stand is seeing someone having a good time, with good humor, at his expense, or direct embarrassing scholarly rebuttals to his fundie inerrantist Bible positions.

I have an idea for a specific Moses handout which we could pass out to the crowd. It would surely get his attention and then we could get everyone involved in roasting him and teach people at the same time. Thus making his efforts flatly backfire. It will have about five specific Bible questions/problems for him. Simple, to the point and chosen for their maximum squirm factor.

Something like this:

***
Questions for Gary "Moses"

QUESTION ONE
The Bible clearly says that God cannot lie:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Num 23:19

"...and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;..." Titus 1:1-2

But at other times God blatantly admits to lying and deceiving:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22

"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
***

So Gary, since your God is an admitted liar, and we have established that the Bible contradicts itself on the fact that he is a liar, how can you trust this dishonest God or his contradictory Bible?

QUESTION TWO
The Bible say at Genesis 6 that two of each of the fowls were to be taken:

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." Gen. 6:20

But at Genesis 7 it says seven of each of the fowls were to be taken.

"Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female." Gen. 7:3

How many of the fowls were to be taken Gary? If the Bible can't get something simple like this straight how can it be trusted to get it's facts straight on the more complex claims?

QUESTION THREE
Matthew says that Jesus sent his disciples to retrieve two animals for the ride into Jerusalem and that they brought him two animals:

And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem,... then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them, and straightway he well send them... And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matt 21:1-3, 5-7

But Mark 11:1, and Luke 19:28 say that Jesus told his disciples to specifically retrieve ONE animal and that they brought him, specifically, ONE animal. Which version is right?

etc.

Forgive my Bible near-illiteracy...

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9

Just to play Devil's-- er, uh, Jesus's Advocate:
It says "if," so that doesn't necessarily mean that God did lie.

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22

Are these cases of God lying, or some guy trying to tell people that God is lying?

"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7

Are these just Jeremiah saying, "Uh, hey, God lied to me," as opposed to an example of God actually lying?

Re: QUESTION TWO
Even a Jesus freak can count. I have no idea how they might object. Maybe we'll see new legislation soon that mandates the teaching of 1+1=7.
You used this example (among others) in the Freethinker Bible study sessions at the UofA, and I thought it was particularly effective.

SAV
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9

SAV
Just to play Devil's-- er, uh, Jesus's Advocate:
It says "if," so that doesn't necessarily mean that God did lie.

DAR
More context, bold mine:

6Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.

7For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:

8And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

10And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him;

11That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD.

12The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,... etc.

DAR
These are the words of "the LORD." How can it make sense for him to say:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." if it is impossible for God to lie? God is admitting here that he certainly can. This problem makes fundies squirm. Having their God directly say that a deceived prophet has been deceived by their God is very uncomfortable for them and makes no sense if God cannot lie. God says he can.

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."
1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22

SAV
Are these cases of God lying, or some guy trying to tell people that God is lying?

DAR
Here is the context:

20And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

22And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

DAR
What is the difference between the LORD lying and the LORD dispatching a lying spirit to do the lying for him? How can such a "LORD" be trusted? That's for the fundie to explain. Watch them squirm. These are people wedded to a black and white world. They don't know nuance and almost without exception they don't know these verses (Moses probably will).

Dance monkey dance.

"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7

SAV
Are these just Jeremiah saying, "Uh, hey, God lied to me," as opposed to an example of God actually lying?

DAR
Is Jeremiah to be trusted or not? Is Jeremiah lying? That's a problem too then. Can't trust Jeremiah. If he is wrong or lying about this, and Jeremiah is an important prophet, how many other things is he wrong/lying about?

Just a couple verses earlier Jeremiah was saying "Thus saith the LORD", surely he didn't lose the inerrant inspirational spirit within just a few sentences:

4For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword.

5Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.

6And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die, and shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast prophesied lies.

7O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
***

Re: QUESTION TWO
Even a Jesus freak can count. I have no idea how they might object.

DAR
They will say there were two animals and in Mark and Luke the other animal simply wasn't mentioned. But that won't wash because this information was specified. In nine occasions, in the request and the retrieval, a single animal was made reference to (count the CAPS):

"And when they came nigh to Jerusalem,... he
sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto
them, Go your way into the village over against you:
and as soon as ye be entered unto it, ye shall find A
COLT tied, whereon never man sat; loose HIM, and
bring HIM. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye
this? say ye that the Lord hath need of HIM; and
straightway he will send HIM hither. And they went
their way, and found THE COLT tied by the door... And
they brought THE COLT to Jesus, and cast their garments
on HIM; and he sat upon HIM. Mark 11:1-4, 7. See
also Luke 19:28-40

Contrast that with the seven references to TWO animals in Matthew:

"And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem,... then
sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into
the village over against you, and straightway ye shall
find an ass tied, AND A COLT with her: loose THEM, and
bring THEM unto me. And if any man say ought unto
you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of THEM, and
straightway he well send THEM... And the disciples
went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought
the ass, AND THE COLT, and put on THEM their clothes,
and they set him thereon." Matt 21:1-3, 5-7

Which version correctly INERRANTLY represents what Jesus said and what happened here? That's the fundie's problem. As a famous fundie inerrantist apologest is fond of, quite correctly pointing out:

"...if the Biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested." --Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason L. Archer (pg. 23)

The more interesting thing is that we know why Matthew fudged his story. He wanted two animals in his version because he incorrectly read Zach 9:9 and thought in order to fulfill a prophecy his Jesus needed two animals. But the writer of Matthew wasn't familiar with Hebrew parallelism (he made other errors too). He didn't read the Hebrew straight and pulled an extra donkey out of his ass. Perhaps much of the rest of the story is a product of his bottom as well?

D.

Reading comprehension, as basic as it is, is actually one of my weakest areas, according to all standardized testing back in school. (Of course, one should consider how I did in other areas before drawing any solid conclusions about that.) This might explain why I tend to have a bit of trouble following the stories in the Bible. Or maybe it's just because I'm discouraged by the overwhelming amount of bullshit and inanity.

Darrel wrote:How can it make sense for him to say: [snip]

I didn't say it made sense (after all, if making sense was a requirement, there'd be no Bible at all); I'm just trying to find some objection. My objection is that that verse doesn't prove that God lied, or even is capable of lying. Saying, "If I didn't pay one of my mortgage bills, the bank would have repossessed my house" doesn't mean that you didn't pay a mortgage bill.

I'm not sure which a Fundy would consider worse: a non-inerrant Bible or a lying God. However, the possibility exists that Jeremiah was lying or (the more likely claim) he was mistaken or "misspoke."

BTW, I was praising argument #2, the Genesis ark bit, not #3. But #3 is great, too, for the reason you pointed out: it exposes the "historical" fudging. Every Christian should hear #3, complete with implications. Do we (or maybe FFRF) have a little blurb on it?

And of course, #3 enticed Darrel to give us this gem:

Darrel wrote:He didn't read the Hebrew straight and pulled an extra donkey out of his ass.

Not the best pun ever, but a damn good line nonetheless.

I'm not sure which a Fundy would consider worse: a non-inerrant Bible or a lying God.

DAR
That would be a good question for Moses. Probably lying God. Unfortunately for him, he's got both, so either way he loses.

However, the possibility exists that Jeremiah was lying or (the more likely claim) he was mistaken or "misspoke."

DAR
That's a problem. They inerrant Bible writers aren't supposed to be misspeaking when they are throwing around their "thus saith the Lord."

Every Christian should hear #3, complete with implications. Do we (or maybe FFRF) have a little blurb on it?

DAR
A double donkey tract is on my to do list. I think I would also like to work it into the Bible quiz. One or two of the questions can go and need to be upgraded to better questions.

D.

Here is a blurb on the donkey problem:

OBSERVATIONS:
1. Of the four accounts (1) Matt. 21:6-7 has two donkeys: a female and
her male foal (colt). Quotes "the prophet" (Zech. 9:9). (2) Luke 19:29-44
is a duplicate of Mark 11:1-7 (making one version) and mentioning only
the male foal, except that Luke says "they put him on the foal." (3) John
12:14-15, quotes "it has been written (Zech. 9:9) and refers to "a young
(small) ass" (actually the word is neuter, as is typical of diminutives).

2. The KJV translates from the Latin, not the Greek. Most other versions
follow the same.

3. The quoted passage in Matt. and John include Zech. 9:9. They include a second passage that is different. The chapter in Zechariah is considered
poetry and is so arranged in some versions. The Hebrew parallelism is
well-known and the reference is generally considered to refer to one
animal.

4. The writer of Matthew stated that there were two animals: a female ass and her male foal. The Greek text means "sitting on an ass AND on the foal of a yoked animal." Even if we accept the interpretation of the
poetic quotation as a reference to one animal, because of the
parallelism, this text definitely states that there are two animals.

5. The Greek word for THEM is the same in verse 3 ("has need of THEM"),
in verse 6 (place the garments "on THEM"), and again in verse 6 ("he sat
upon THEM"). The antecedent is clearly stated as "the ass and the foal."
In order to indicate without question that the word THEM referred to the
garments, a demonstrative pronoun ("the latter") would have been used
instead for same personal pronoun.

6. Nestle's Greek text shows two manuscript variants changing "upon them" to "upon him (the foal)," but the overwhelming evidence is for a plural pronoun.

7. KJV's "they set him thereon" (Matt. 21:7 & Luke 19:35) ) is directly
from Latin. The Greek has "he sat upon THEM." Using "thereon" is a sly
way of avoiding "THEM."

8. Is there a discrepancy? There are differences in specifics among the
four versions of the story. And they all differ from the quoted passage
from the OT.
--wingo2@juno.com (E. Otha Wingo) Greek scholar

Here is another blurb:

***
In talking about two donkeys, Matthew clearly misapplied the Hebrew parallelism in Zechariah Chapter 9. That is why he introduced two donkeys, not because he knew of a second donkey being ridden into Jerusalem by 'disciples' (which may or may not be the case).
- the original "prophecy" (in Zechariah) refers to synonymously paralleled animals ("a donkey, and a colt" - Matt 21:5). This is a Hebraism (a Hebrew figure of speech) which actually refers to a single animal. It is very common, and occurs right throughout the poetic and prophetic books.
- whereas the 'fulfillment' is literal in having "a donkey" AND "a colt" as two *separate* animals (Matt 21:7).
Therefore, there is no fulfillment at all.
Matthew's rendition of a "donkey AND a colt" is a clear reference, albeit mistakenly, to Zechariah's single donkey.
Synonymous parallelism is a constant feature of Hebrew poetry. It's right throughout the Old Testament. And Zechariah's reference to "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" is a typical example of this particular feature of Hebrew Poetry.
Yet, the writer of Matthew fails to appreciate that Zechariah originally referred to "one animal" utilising poetic parallel designations. Matthew failed to appreciate Zechariah's meaning! Matthew misinterpreted Zechariah. And in misinterpreting Zechariah, Matthew revealed that he had CREATED this account of Jesus entering into Jerusalem. Matthew's error reveals not only Matthew's ignorance
of Hebrew, but that this is not a 'fulfilment' of prophecy. This is merely one writer's creative telling of a story by using / misinterpreting prophecy.
The failure to recognise synonymous parallelism is actually fairly frequent in the New Testament, and therefore provides contextual support for this interpretation of Matthew. Here's another couple of examples:
1. In John 19:23-24 "garments" (himatia) and "clothing" (himatismon) are taken as two different items. The "clothing" (himatismon) is narrated as being divided into four parts - one for each soldier.
YET, the "garments" (himatia) are narrated as being apportioned by taking lots.
The 'prophecy' is taken from Psalm 22 (an infamously miscontrued Psalm by many Christians, since the days of the 4 Evangelists). Psalm 22:18 (being a poem) is a clear example of parallelism. Psalm 22:18 reads "they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots". Each of the two parallel descriptions tells EXACTLY
THE SAME THING: The enemies:
(a) took the Psalmist's clothes, and
(b) divided them between them.
Yet, 'John' failed to realise this fact. So, he narrates the taking of clothes and dividing of them between them TWICE!
2. In Acts 4:25-27 "kings" and "rulers" are treated as different people! The "king" is named as "Herod", and the "ruler" as Pontius Pilate. Yet, the 'prophecy' turns out to be another piece of Hebrew
parallelism, this time in Psalm 2:1.
Parallelism runs right the way through the Psalms, yet both the writer of Acts, and 'John' simply fail to appreciate this.
And, in their ignorance, they misinterpret the Psalms by making a literal translation out of a poetic trope.
Now, add to this that Matthew quoted from the (Greek) Septuagint without appreciating the context of the Hebrew text (as is shown at least in the famous example of the "virgin" / pregnant "young woman" of Isaiah 7.14), and there is compelling inductive evidence for our interpretation of Matthew as having misunderstood Zechariah.
Of course, you still have a "possible" explanation to the contrary (if you wish). But texts are first and foremost explained by the central hermeneutical rule of 'establishing the better explanation' - not by offering up some tenuous and tendentious possible harmonization.
Hope that helps.

--Brendon Jackson

I have more on this in my book too.

As to Moses - He's been here every day this week. He was on campus at least a couple of days last week and the week before. I'd say we have a "fair weather prophet" here, as in he always seems to show up when the weather is nice. DAR are you fast enough "on your feet" to respond to Moses with whatever he brings up? I'm sure not. All I can think of to do about him is mention Matthew 7:15-23 & make the sign of protection from the evil eye at him.

Luke is Greek, so it's not surprising he didn't get the parallel connection. My best guess is that the people who actually wrote the "gospels" - at least the ones the Council of Nicea decided to include in the bible - also weren't Jews by upbringing (remember it was decided that folks wouldn't have to convert to Judism to become Christians - probably about the time the Christian "fathers" decided they wanted power on earth, since it didn't seem to be forthcoming from heaven).