ReligionThink

Just as modern Fundamentalism was a religious backlash against higher biblical criticism and Darwinian Evolution in the early 20th Century, the 2nd Great Awakening was a religious backlash against Deism in the early 19th Century.  Deism was not disbelief in God, but only in particular providence such as miracles and revelation.  Deists believed God’s will was embodied in the creation and natural law, so there was no need for further intervention by God into his perfectly self-sufficient creation.  Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were the most famous of our American Deists.  Jefferson rewrote the Gospels, leaving out all of the superstitious nonsense that doesn’t occur in nature, such as the dead rising from the grave.  The remainder he considered as a very fine moral guide.  If you remember: “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” not “These are our God given rights” (Kors).
Many Religious cults appeared claiming intervention by God in their personal lives during the early 19th Century.  Most of the cults originated in upper New York, which became known as the Burned Over District. It was not burned over by fire, but by repeated religious revivals.  Some of these cults didn’t last a single generation: The Shakers who believed marriage was good, but sex was sinful.  The Oneidas who believed marriage was greedy, but sex was great.  The Millerites who believed the end of the world would happen on a certain day, and when it didn’t, it was known as The Great Disappointment.  I should mention a fraction of the apocalyptic Millerites became what we know today as 7th Day Adventists, who split again into the Branch Davidians or if you prefer those wackos from Waco.  Other of these cults survived to the present day, such as Christian Scientists who logically should have disappeared with the discovery of antibiotics.  But how do you get more in your face particular providence than the Mormons?  Not only do they claim Jesus came to America, but that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri all along (Allitt).
In 1827 Joseph Smith Jr. unearthed golden plates, on which the Book of Mormon was written, on Cumorah hill near Polmyra New York (Martin 187).  In Joseph Smith’s own words: “They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole (Hardy 1:200).”  The language the Book of Mormon is supposed to be written in an adapted form of Egyptian referred to by Mormons as reformed Egyptian.  Joseph from Egypt is supposed to have his book of prophesies recorded in the Book of Mormon.  Further, Joseph’s prophet descendents were taught this language of reformed Egyptian through the centuries (Hardy 1:198).  Since the golden plates are no longer available to be examined, we could assume it contains “Egyptian characters” from Joseph Smith’s statement.  Therefore it must be based on one of the four following Egyptian scripts:

• Hieroglyphic – The earliest Egyptian script used from about 3100 BC to 94 AD.  The script is largely pictorial, yet the symbols can either actually represent the object or represent a sound.  Typically this script is carved in stone, and is used on monuments or in religious works.  The term comes from the Greek word hieroglyphic meaning sacred, carved letters (Davis 10).

• Hieratic – The simplified version of Hieroglyphic written in black with a brush on sheets of papyrus or on bits of pottery.  The Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead were written in Hieratic.  These books contained spells and instructions for the deceased, and are buried with the dead, to help them in the afterlife. The term comes from the Greek word hieratika meaning priestly.  Hieratic was used until it was replaced by Demotic around 600 BC (Davis 21).

• Demotic – This script was used in day-to-day secular functions.  Demotic is very cursive and is full of abbreviations.  A reed pen, introduced by the Greeks, was used to write the script rather than a brush.  The term comes from the Greek demotika meaning popular script (Davis 24).

• Coptic – This script is a phonic pronunciation of Egyptian using 24 characters of the Greek alphabet and 6 characters from the Demotic script.  This script, a true alphabet with vowels and consonants, replaced all previous scripts by the 4th century, and started during the Roman and Christian occupation of Egypt (Davis 25-26).  <See appendix>

In Joseph Smith’s book, Pearl of  Great Price, he states he copied a considerable number of characters off the plates, translated them, showed them to Professor Anthon of Columbia University who “stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had seen translated from the Egyptian (Martin 197).”  Yet, in a letter in response to Smith’s claims, Professor Charles Anthon wrote:
The whole story about me having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false….The paper was in fact was a singular scrawl.  It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets.  Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived….the paper contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” (Martin 197-98)

Supposedly Joseph Smith Jr. made his translations by using magical “seer stones” called Urim and Thummim (Martin 195,198).  Too bad Joseph Smith didn’t use them to read French or else he could have actually have learned Egyptian hieroglyphics, since Jean – Francois Chamollion  published a decipherment of them in 1822.  Or Smith could have at least looked into the 1819 Supplement to the fourth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica and found a partial decipherment by Thomas Young (Davis 50-54).
According to the Book of Mormon, a group known as the Jaredites sailed to the New World on eight barges after the tower of Babel fell (Tanner 2:717).  Once in the new world, the Jaredites split and became two huge civilizations: the Jaredites, and the Nephites that split off of them.  They built great cities, ships and slew each other by the millions  (Marlin 199).  Yet no archaeological evidence of these civilizations has ever been found.  The only physical evidence of their existence was the golden plates that no one has ever seen except Joseph Smith Jr.
The Smithsonian Institute gave the following reason why the Book of Mormon has no basis in the history of the New World.  The native inhabitants of America crossed a land bridge over the Beiring Straight in a series of migrations during the last Ice Age 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.  These people had Mongoloid physical characteristics.  Mongoloid means having come from Eastern, Central and Northeastern Asia.  If the Native Americans were descended from the Lamanities, as claimed by the Book of Mormon, they would have Caucasoid physical characteristics since they originated in the Mediterranean area.  Skeletal remains of Native Americans are uniformly of the Mongoloid physical type, which can be determined by examining their skulls.  <see appendix>  The first Caucasoid physical type to reach the American continent were Norsemen around 1000 AD, and no Old World scripts were ever found in the New World dating before 1492 except for a few Norse rune-stones found in Greenland.  Contrary to the Book of Mormon, no Old World domesticated plants and animals were introduced to America such as: wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chicken, horses, and donkeys before Columbus arrived in 1492.  Iron, steel, glass, silk and the compass were introduced to the New World with the arrival of Columbus, not a product of the native inhabitants as told by the Book of Mormon.  Southern Mexico did have metallurgy, but their alloys involved gold, silver and copper, but not iron (Martin 200-201).
One standard to judge if a religion is a cult is: Does this religion accept the validity of other religions, or do they believe they have a monopoly on divine grace and only their own chosen beliefs are valid?  Catholicism publicly stated it no longer saw Protestantism as heretical during the 2nd Vatican Council.  Catholicism allows, if not encourages, parishioners to participate in Passover with Jews to better understand Christ.  Islam acknowledges Christianity has a right to exist, even al-Qaida and the Taliban.  These Muslim extremists rationalize attacks on America by viewing us as wholly secular and not religious at all.  Buddhists freely admit Buddhism is not for everyone.  Mormonism doesn’t.
Joseph Smith Jr. wrote he was visited by two angels that told him, “All religious denominations believed in incorrect doctrines.  And none of them were acknowledged by God as his church and kingdom.”  This view didn’t end with Joseph Smith Jr. but is an essential Mormon belief today as demonstrated by the Mormon practice of proxy baptisms.  Proxy baptism is when a Mormon, usually a teenager, is baptized in someone else’s name that has died.  It is believed that this can bring non-Mormons into the highest heavens with them.  “In fact the reason why Mormons are such ardent collectors of genealogical information from the whole rest of the world is cause they have in mind the ambitious project of baptizing everybody.  It has caused some hard feelings recently because holocaust survivors don’t like the idea that members of their families who have died in the camps should be baptized as Mormons” (Allitt).
Why do People join or stay in cults when the cult’s beliefs are so far fetched?  I have a two part theory.  First is what Nietzsche called “the awfulness of being,” which I understand to mean no one wants to think of themselves as an invisible dot, on an invisible dot, on an invisible dot, infinitely small in the universe.  A belief in anything is preferable to that rational.  Second is that there is a distinction between intelligence and wisdom.  Intelligence may be the sum of information in your head, but wisdom is the ability to apply that knowledge.  I came to this conclusion that Easter weekend when all of those webpage designers committed suicide to jump aboard the spaceship traveling in the tail of the comet Hail-Bop.  For example, I may not be able to design web pages, but when my mother told me that when she mentioned my extensive biblical research to our visiting Jehovah’s Witness, the Witness replied, “That is fine, but he really should have some guidance from a church to make sure he comes to the right conclusions and interpretations.”
“That’s funny,” I told my mother.  “That is the exact same argument the Catholic Church used against Martin Luther and Protestantism.  I don’t think she was trying to convert us to Catholicism do you?”  My mother said I was dangerous.  I like being that way.

Allitt, Patrick N.  “American Religious History.”  The Teaching Company.  Emory
U.  Audiocassettes.  2001.
Davies, W. V. Egyptian Hieroglyphs.  Reading the Past.  6.  Great Britain: U of
California P, 1995.
Hardy, Grant R., and Robert E. Parsons.  “Book of Mormon Plates and Records.”
Encyclopedia of Mormonism: The History, Scripture, Doctrine, and Procedure of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  4 vols.  New York: Macmillan,
1992.
Iscan, Yasar Mehmet, and Susan R. Loth.  “Scope of Forensic Science.”
Introduction to Forensic Sciences.  Ed. William G. Eckert.  2nd ed.  New York:
CRC P, 1997.
Kors, Alan.  “The Birth of the Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 17th and 18th
Century.”  The Teaching Company.  U of Pennsylvania.  Audiocassettes.  1989.
Martin, Walter.  “Church of Jesus Christ of  Latter-day Saints: the Mormons.”  The
Kingdom of the Cults.  1965.  Ed. Hank Hanegraaff.  Minneapolis: Bethany,

1. 177-243.

Tanner, Morgan W.  “Jaredites.”  Encyclopedia of Mormonism: The History, Scripture,
Doctrine, and Procedure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  4
vols.  New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Today Islamic Terrorism threatens Americans in the continental U.S. and abroad.  In Theology of Crime and the Paradox of Freedom, Dr. E. Scott Ryan pointed out that rehabilitation or reduction of theological crime such as terrorism would be more successful if the change came from within one’s own culture with secular and religious cooperation (6-7).  I will therefore make an argument why it is in the best interests for both secular and devout Muslims to actively work to stop terrorism against the West.
Technically there should be no such thing as a “secular Muslim” since “Muslim” means one who submits to the will of God, and one either submits or does not submit.  The P.L.O., Ba’th Party and most Islamic governments such as Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia may have embraced more Western Culture than other Muslims, and considered as “secular” or “traitors” by fundamentalist Muslims, but these “secular” Muslims see Islam as the epitome of modernity and see no contradiction in being innovative and being Muslim (Swanson).
Before I can proceed with how to stop terrorism, I must first explain how it evolves.  Sociology Professor Mark Juergensmeyer gave these “stages of symbolic empowerment” that leads to terrorism: First is a world gone awry.  Second is the foreclosure of ordinary options.  Third is satanization and cosmic war.  Fourth is symbolic acts of power (184-185).
A world gone awry, Juergensmeyer explained, “begins with real problems: The Israeli occupation of Palestine, the corruption of secular governments, discrediting traditional values and the dehumanization of modern societies” (184-85).  For example, extreme poverty may be a factor.  Unemployment among young men in Palistine stays around 50% (191).
The foreclosure of ordinary options, Juergensmeyer explained, is instead of trying to change their conditions through normal means such as political/social campaigns or electing new leaders, they turn to violence (185).  “To die this way (suicide bombings), is better than to die daily in frustration and humiliation,” explained the founder of Hamas Abdul Aziz Rantisi. My main argument to Islamic governments is that since terrorists have given up on legislative solutions, terrorists tend to target their own government leaders who they see as traitors for not fixing their problems.  Egypt’s Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by al Jihad, and these same Muslim extremists killed Rifaat al-Mahgouv, the speaker of the Egyptian Assembly in 1992.  The prestige King Hussein of Jordon held from having a direct lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad’s Hashimite family did not keep the P.L.O. from trying to assassinate him in the early 1970s.
Satanization and cosmic war Juergensmeyer explained as simplifying the world into a struggle between absolute good and evil.  The evil has to take the form of a faceless collective, a dehumanization in order to turn innocent victims such as housewives and school children into targets for Hamas.  “No one is innocent in the war between Arabs and Jews” Rantisi explained (175).  One Hamas suicide bomber that was intercepted by police explained he despised Jews for taking his land, but he admired the Israeli soccer team and knew the players by name.  When asked if he could blow u a soccer field of Zionists and nonbelievers, he admitted he could not (241).
To make the enemy less faceless and abstract, I recommend that Palestinian and Israeli schools teach both Hebrew and Arabic.  I watched a documentary entitled “Promises” that showed Israeli checkpoint guards holding back a crowd of Palestinians.  The guards were desperately calling out in English, “Does anyone here speak both Arabic and Hebrew?”  There can not be a “grass roots” effort for peace while Palestinians are segregated in refugee camps and do not share a common language with Israelis.  The conflict has already lasted over a half a century so an effort should be made to prepare the next generation so they at least don’t have the language barrier as in the past.  This won’t necessarily be a cure.  One just has to turn to the Turner Diaries which influenced Timothy McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing: there is no other way to destroy “the system” than by killing thousands of innocent victims (175).  There was no language barrier for McVeigh, but America’s militia terrorists are not as active as Hamas either.
Symbolic acts of power refer to the terrorist’s targets.  Notice they are not strategic.  Their only purpose is to cause terror with no purposeful military objective.  This means they will not stop because they are doing nothing to win.  Rantisi explained “Palestine was occupied before for two hundred years. (Hamas) can wait again for at least that long.”  Because all forms of terrorism do nothing strategically or politically productive Juergensmeyer has defined terrorism as performance violence (175).
In The Theology of Crime and the Paradox of Freedom, Dr. E. Scott Ryan related that “the most successful incident in negotiating with hostage-taking Islamic terrorists occurred at the Algiers airport when a negotiator quoted the Koran to the terrorists in successfully convincing them to release their hostages” (116).  I do not know what was said in the negotiations, but I propose the best way to argue against Islamic terrorism to Muslims is within the context of Islamic law.
Islamic law is a series of “do and do not” instruction.  If they are followed, that individual is believed to be living in accordance with God’s will.  Islamic law consists of two sources.  First is the Koran and second is the Sunna.  Sunna is the examples set by the lifestyles of the Prophet Muhammad and the first Islamic community.  These proscribed and prohibited acts derived from Koran and Sunna is called Sharia, or Islamic law in English.  The interpreters of Islamic law are scholars known as the Ulama.  Their influence is informal and respected only on the Ulama’s own merits, similar to how Protestants relate to their ministers.  This holds true for 85% of world’s population of Muslims.  The remaining 15% are Shiites who give greater authority to their scholars who are given the title Ayatollah (Swanson).
Now Islamic law works by weighing the importance of the proscribed and prohibited acts against one another if they conflict to determine which should take president, or as a Muslim would phrase it “determine God’s will.”  For example, the responsibility to one’s family is often a countervailing obligation to say giving alms or a pilgrimage to Mecca because the family is too poor to do so.  Another example is the proscribed cutting off of a thief’s hand, which is rarely carried out because God is merciful, takes repentance into account, obligation to feed the family and other exact circumstances (Swanson).
Egyptian writer Abd al-Salam Faraj published a pamphlet entitled “The Neglected Duty,” in 1981, which argued for violence against political and social injustice.  It was argued in terms of the Muslim idea of jihad. (Juergensmeyer 81).  Faraj himself was executed for the assassination of Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat, but his work was the greatest influence on Islamic terrorism.  Mahmun Abuhalima who was convicted in the 1990 World Trade Center truck bombing told Mark Juergensmeyer “’Do not say I was influenced by him (Faraj).  I respect him.’  Then he leaned closer and whispered ‘but he was right you know’”(83).
“’In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate,’ are the opening words of the Koran, and used in any if not all circumstances (by Muslims)”  (Swanson).  Reiterating the compassion and mercy of God is the strongest argument against Islamic terrorism.  For instance, the Koran also proscribes taking care of orphans and widows, so it doesn’t make sense that more orphans and widows should be made by terrorist bombings.  In order to stop Muslims from supporting or becoming terrorists, they should be convinced by seeing it is not in accordance with God’s will as proscribed by Koran and Suma.
In closing I would like to emphasize what Westerners should not to do to convince Muslims that terrorism is not God’ s will.  The West has used systematic doubt to question scripture beginning with Pierre Abelard in the 12th century (Burke 44-45), then Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century, and David Hume in the 18th century.  There is no such criticism or line of thinking in Islam.  They may have 14 centuries of scholarship on how to interpret Islamic law, but there is no body of religious speculation of the nature of God.  Islamic scholars are more like Kirkaguard in the respect that they explore the “unknowable-ness” of God.

Works Cited
Burke, James.  The Day the Universe Changed. Boston: Brown, 1985.
Juergensmeyer, Mark.  Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious
Violence.  Berkeley: U of California P, 2000.
Ryan, E. Scott.  “The Criminal Belief Rationality: The Theology of Crime.”  The
Theology of Crime and the Paradox of  Freedom. 2nd ed.  Lancaster: Anchor,

1. 99-126.

—.  “The Theology of Crime.”  The Theology of Crime and the Paradox of Freedom. 2nd
ed.  Lancaster: Anchor, 2001. 1-7.
Swanson, John Theodore.  “Great World Religions Part II; God and His Prophet: The
Religion of Islam.”  The Teaching Company.  American U. of Cairo.
Audiocassettes.  1997.

Holy Warriors and Yahweh. (Part 1)

Num 6:1-21

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When either men or women make a special vow, the vow of a nazirite, to separate themselves to the Lord, (3) they shall separate themselves from wine and strong drink; they shall drink no wine vinegar or other vinegar, and shall not drink any grape juice or eat grapes, fresh or dried. (4) All their days as nazirites they shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.(5) All the days of their nazirite vow no razor shall come upon the head; until the time is completed for which they separate themselves to the Lord, they shall be holy; they shall let the locks of the head grow long. (6) All the days that they separate themselves to the Lord they shall not go near a corpse. (7) Even if their father or mother, brother or sister, should die, they may not defile themselves; because their consecration to God is upon the head. (8) All their days as nazirites they are holy to the Lord. (9) If someone dies very suddenly nearby, defiling the consecrated head, then they shall shave the head on the day of their cleansing; on the seventh day they shall shave it. (10) On the eighth day they shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, (11) and the priest shall offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and make atonement for them, because they incurred guilt by reason of the corpse. They shall sanctify the head that same day, (12) and separate themselves to the Lord for their days as nazirites, and bring a male lamb a year old as a guilt offering. The former time shall be void, because the consecrated head was defiled. (13) This is the law for the nazirites when the time of their consecration has been completed: they shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, (14) and they shall offer their gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, one ram without blemish as an offering of well-being, (15) and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of choice flour mixed with oil and unleavened wafers spread with oil, with their grain offering and their drink offerings. (16) The priest shall present them before the Lord and offer their sin offering and burnt offering, (17) and shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of well-being to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest also shall make the accompanying grain offering and drink offering. (18) Then the nazirites shall shave the consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair from the consecrated head and put it on the fire under the sacrifice of well-being. (19) The priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them in the palms of the nazirites, after they have shaved the consecrated head. (20) Then the priest shall elevate them as an elevation offering before the Lord; they are a holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is elevated and the thigh that is offered. After that the nazirites may drink wine. (21) This is the law for the nazirites who take a vow. Their offering to the Lord must be in accordance with the nazirites vow, apart from what else they can afford. In accordance with whatever vow they take, so they shall do, following the law for their consecration.

Above we have the requirements of the Nazirite order. However there are many examples of the Nazirites as Holy warriors. Sampson, being one example, apparently there may have been an exception to the rule of coming in contact with the dead and being unclean, or it only applied to tribal members. Many of the “saviors” or “judges” of Israel may heave been Holy Warriors or Nazirites. Below we shall look at a few examples.

One of the earliest known examples we find in the Holy War Song of Deborah in Judges chapters four and five. In Judges 5:2 we read:

“When locks are long in Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly— bless the Lord!

This text harkens back to a day when all the Israeli tribes united and fought holy war together. Of the main issues in the early tribal league was that not all the tribes showed when holy war under Yahweh was called. Many did not feel they had to defend their bothers and so when Saul took office we find him uniting the tribes for war. Woe to those tribes who did not show. Here we find Saul calling the tribes to battle in I Samuel 11:6-8.

(6)And the spirit of God came upon Saul in power when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled. (7) He took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by messengers, saying, “Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!” Then the dread of the Lord fell upon the people, and they came out as one. (8) When he mustered them at Bezek, those from Israel were three hundred thousand, and those from Judah seventy thousand.

One example of when all the tribes did not show for holy war. Here the consequences of not showing were deadly for that tribe in Judges 19 and 20. Using the example in Judges 19:29-30, we see why Saul cut the bull in pieces in I Samuel 11:6-8, for it harkens back to a bloody civil war in Israel that almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin. Here in Judges 20:5-8 we see where the fateful decision was made not to show.

(5) The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they raped my concubine until she died. (6) Then I took my concubine and cut her into pieces, and sent her throughout the whole extent of Israel’s territory; for they have committed a vile outrage in Israel. (7) So now, you Israelites, all of you, give your advice and counsel here.” (8) All the people got up as one, saying, “We will not any of us go to our tents, nor will any of us return to our houses. At times the instructions for battle were given by Yahweh and anything captured in the Holy War was Yahweh’s. At times the Israelites were allowed to keep specific things that Yahweh would allow them to keep. And it this convent was broken then serious consequences were dealt out. For Yahweh would punish with a loss of battle, plague, or captivity into enemy hands. We find one violation of holy war and how it was dealt with in Joshua 7:19-26 when Achan failed to comply with Yahweh’s requirements of Holy War.
(19) Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel and make confession to him. Tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.” (20) And Achan answered Joshua, “It is true; I am the one who sinned against the Lord God of Israel. This is what I did: (21) when I saw among the spoil a beautiful mantle from Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels, then I coveted them and took them. They now lie hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath.” (22) So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and there it was, hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. (23) They took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and all the Israelites; and they spread them out before the Lord. (24) Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan son of Zerah, with the silver, the mantle, and the bar of gold, with his sons and daughters, with his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. (25) Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord is bringing trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned them with fire, cast stones on them, (26) and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his burning anger. Therefore that place to this day is called the Valley of Achor.

We also find Saul failing to comply with Yahweh’s requirements through Samuel in I Samuel chapter 15. Although the short term penalty was not as harsh, the long term was. Later Yahweh would repent making Saul king, send and evil spirit to torment him, take Israel and his entire house from him, and leave him to commit suicide on the battle filed, alone without his God to fight the war with him.

Returning to the Nazirite order, we find notable characteristics of the nazirite vow. Although some of the vows differed from person to person was that they all never shaved their heads or drank wine or ate anything from the grapevine what the seemingly had. We find these rules in the instructions given to Sampson’s parents in Judges Chapter 13 and then echoed again in the vow Hanna made to Yahweh in I Samuel Chapter 1. We also find these men consecrated as vessels, into which Yahweh would pour his spirit and as long as they met the requirements or the convent, they would perform heroically on the battlefield. If however they become unclean or their hair was shaved they were shamed or in Sampson’s case loose their super human abilities. They would have to go through a ritualistic cleansing as seen above in Numbers Chapter 6. Even shaving the beard was a gross form of shame. One example of an account, that is rather humorous, is of Hanun, king of the Ammonites in II Samuel Chapter 10: 2-5.

(2) David said, “I will deal loyally with Hanun son of Nahash, just as his father dealt loyally with me.” So David sent envoys to console him concerning his father. When David’s envoys came into the land of the Ammonites, (3) the princes of the Ammonites said to their lord Hanun, “Do you really think that David is honoring your father just because he has sent messengers with condolences to you? Has not David sent his envoys to you to search the city, to spy it out, and to overthrow it?” (4) So Hanun seized David’s envoys, shaved off half the beard of each, cut off their garments in the middle at their hips, and sent them away. (5) When David was told, he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly ashamed. The king said, “Remain at Jericho until your beards have grown, and then return.”

Also in Samuel it is the Nazirite vow and Holy War requirements that cause a problem for David with Uriah the Hittite. When David tried to persuade Uriah to sleep with his wife and drink wine he replies in II Samuel 11:11,
“The ark and Israel and Judah remain in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do such a thing.”


* All biblical references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

It puzzles me that some ministers of most mainline churches have very little background in psychology. It would seem that if the mind was so important in the sin process we would want to know more about it. Many are afraid to use science to our advantage when working with and counseling people who have these issues in churches. Not just adultery, but any sin that has been developed and dwelled upon in the mind.

The problem of using science in ministry could stem from the past issues churches had with science. The Scopes Monkey trial and the fight against evolution has, as an example, caused some churches to pull themselves from the main stream of society, pull their children form public schools, and a fight to prove God exists in a faith based religion. In a recent interview on National Public Radio former President Jimmy Carter, while being interviewed about the recent publication of his book, Our Endangered Values, mentioned that science is a revelation from God. Back when biblical texts were written the writers did the best they could explaining the world around them. They had no way of measuring time or how old a rock was. President Jimmy Carter went on to say that the job of proving God exist is a matter of faith not the job of the state.

In a recent workshop on criminal psychology at Mansfield University in Pennsylvania, Roy Hazelwood, one of Americas experts on profiling and violent sex crimes stated, “The composition of the human sex drive is ten percent biological ( instinct), twenty percent physiological (fantasy), and seventy percent psychosexual (mental and emotional). With this information from criminal psychology when can ask ourselves several important questions. What led me to think of and mentally dwell on the sin? What was the step by step process on how I committed the sin? Did I enjoy it? What was my post-offence behavior? These few question and many more can provide insight into the mind of the sinner and make him or her aware through self-reflection.

People who are not able to self-reflect at this level may never understand why the same conflicts keep arising in their spiritual lives and mentally and physically agonize over the issue because pastor may not know how to deal with these issues. Currently the cures are, pray and repent. While this may be correct and need to be done the question, for example, of post–offence behavior could come in handy. If the person is emotionally distraught repents, but then commits the same sin, then they in fact did not feel remorse. Many people fail to realize that emotions can be faked and at times repentance over and over is seen as a form of penitence. However, if the person felt remorse while they committed each step of the sin and there is more post–offence behavior then just the emotions, then perhaps insight was realized and the cycle of the spiritual ups and downs can be somewhat slowed.

Providing insight into why the sin was committed in the first place (stress, abuse, family issues, financial issues, domestic ect.. ) can be helpful for then the person will know what to be on the alert for. It is important to know that these factors do not excuse the sin but can provide insight into why it occurred. Each person is different and there are no absolutes. Withdrawing form society and friends can no longer be the answer to avoiding temptation. For what good is the armor of God if we are held up in the safe fort of the church and never use it? What of all the friends and people we abandoned when we were saved just to avoid temptation? Are we not responsible for them also?

These examples are just a few ways that the behavioral sciences can be applied to understanding and developing our spiritual lives. Though these forms of research are still in development but they can be utilized by pastors and Christian counselors to better the religious experience and lives of many. Also if the mind makes up a large part of our being and is the originator of sin then it behooves us to take more than one class of psychology.

Posted by the author of Religionthink.com

I started this blog, Religious Think as a way to put down the many thoughts that have been going through my mind. I am from a Christian Fundamentalist background which I left almost ten years ago. Recently I have been able to come to terms with most of those issues and have begun to attend church again. I have grown to appreciate the many diverse opinions on how church, spirituality, and religion should be valued and used to further the Kingdom of God while we are yet here on earth.

Many strange ideas will be posted here and many may not sound very Christian like at all. Some proposals here will and may go against established church doctrine and dogma. The ideas here are merely ramblings as if to say “what if.” By doing this if I can get one person to consider beyond the norm then my task will be achieved. I have not been to a bible collage, or studied theology, or Greek. I have, however, educated myself as a hobby on biblical history and I will try to keep the essays posted here documented so that the reader may look farther into the issue if they like.