James Patrick Holding's intentional stupidity on biblical alcoholism

 Update: September 18, 2017, see end of this post.

After I wrote a blog entry enlightening Christians to the fact that their bible encourages its readers to promote alcoholism, Mr. Holding, fearsome intellectual scholar that he is, typically decides that the best way to "refute" me is not to reply to my blog directly or to write a rebuttal article, the normal way that serious bible scholars seek to address each other's work, but  to produce a cartoon video that has some type of moose character representing him,  rebutting a childish caricature of myself.

He cites to no scholarship whatsoever, providing us another reason why he presents things in cartoon format.   The lack of supporting scholarship coheres with the theory that it is Christians with the emotional and intellectual capacity of juvenile delinquents that he panders to.

According to one properly credentialed evangelical inerrantist scholar that once publicly endorsed Holding:

From: "Blomberg, Craig" <Craig.Blomberg@denverseminary.edu>

To: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:18 PM

Subject: RE: questions on 2nd Timothy 2:24-26

        I answered several of these  questions explicity or implicitly in my previous response.  I don’t care to expand on it much  One can never make absolute statements about Scripture never justifying insulting behavior.  The Twelve are to shake the dust off their feet for those who reject them.  But, in general, we do much better to be positive, except to the ultraconservative Christian who needs to be rebuked. Interpretations that no bona fide scholars anywhere support are likely to be suspect because detailed scholarly studies will have canvased them already.

Mr. Holding, who is the stupid moron here?  You for failing Blomberg's criteria that a reasonable interpretation of the bible can be supported by scholarship?  or Blomberg for not realizing that God begins speaking whenever a viewer clicks one of your cartoons?

Why don't you tell the world why it is that there are no properly credentialed Christian scholars who donate any money to your ministry?

His video seems to indicate that after 20 years of stupid pretentious trifling efforts to make distinctions that make no difference, he still hasn't learned.  He'd go to his grave insisting that the charge to give alcohol to people (31:6) is significantly different from any "command" to give people alcohol.  In this he denies his own "sociological perspective" in which the Proverbs authors spoke from a community that obeyed Mosaic Law, and therefore, the "son" receiving these proverbs would have little reason to distinguish a fatherly warning against adultery, from the divine mandate to avoid adultery in Exodus 20.

For example, when I was little, bedtime on a school night was 9 pm, by Dad's decree.

So when 9 pm rolled around and Dad said spoke in non-mandatory fashion "Ok, it would be good if you guys hit the sack now" we didn't respond the way Holding would have ("you must be giving me an option to disregard your words here;  because you've couched this bedtime statement as a Proverb just now, and this is not in the same genre as your "mandate" that we go to bed at this time, because sayings cannot be commands!")  Instead, like normal kids, we understood that the proverb was no less mandatory that the mandate.

The video where he attempts to refute my interpretation is here, and I now answer him point by point.

First, the text in question

 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
 6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.
 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more. (Prov. 31:4-7 NAU)

I asserted "the proverb contains the mandate to "give" strong drink (v. 6)."

Holding seizes on my word-choice "mandate" (video at 0:35 ff) as if the difference between "mandate" and "Proverb" was some significant thing.

It's not.  Otherwise you wind up with the type of stupidity that says sometimes God forbids adultery by command (Exodus 20:14), and at other times God only suggests avoiding adultery as just one among many options (Proverbs 6:24).  What stupid fool would argue based on the difference between "saying" and "command" that the Proverbs author isn't mandating the same thing mandated in Exodus 20:14?

Would the author of Proverbs 6:24 have viewed his adultery-prohibition as optional or mandatory upon his son?

Apparently Holding didn't make it as far as Proverbs 2 before he produced his silly knee-jerk reaction video:

NAU  Proverbs 2:1 My son, if you will receive my words And treasure my commandments within you,
 2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; (Prov. 2:1-2 NAU)

The author clearly equates his "words" and "wisdom" with "commandments".  "Commandments in v. 1 in Hebrew is the typical word for command, mistzvah, and the LXX provides the typical Greek work for command too, ἐντολῆς.

Again, the Proverbs author characterizes his words to his son as "command", and in context equates them as performing the exact same function:

 20 My son, observe the commandment of your father And do not forsake the teaching of your mother;
 21 Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck.
 22 When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you.
 23 For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching is light; And reproofs for discipline are the way of life
 24 To keep you from the evil woman, From the smooth tongue of the adulteress.
 25 Do not desire her beauty in your heart, Nor let her capture you with her eyelids.
 26 For on account of a harlot one is reduced to a loaf of bread, And an adulteress hunts for the precious life. (Prov. 6:20-26 NAU)

By first saying "commandment is a lamp", and then in Hebrew parallelism saying "teaching is light", the author clearly thinks that his wisdom "teaching" is a "command" too.

The Proverbs author once again characterizes his previous proverb as a "commandment":

 15 Laziness casts into a deep sleep, And an idle man will suffer hunger.
 16 He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, But he who is careless of conduct will die. (Prov. 19:15-16 NAU)

 1 My son, do not forget my teaching, But let your heart keep my commandments;
 2 For length of days and years of life And peace they will add to you. (Prov. 3:1-2 NAU) 

Inerrantist D.A. Garrett, in the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary, also calls the stuff in Proverbs 3 "commands":

"As in 3:3, the command to bind the teachings to the neck means that they are vital to the young man’s survival.125 The father’s teachings are personified as guide, guardian, and companion126 (v. 22) and objectified as a lamp and a way (v. 23). The last verse of the paternal appeal (v. 24) indicates that what follows will be a warning to avoid the adulteress.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs,

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 99).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 4 Then he taught me and said to me, "Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live;
 5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth. (Prov. 4:4-5 NAU)

The Proverbs author specifically equates the wisdom sayings with commandments:

 1 My son, keep my words And treasure my commandments within you.
 2 Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye.
 3 Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart.
 4 Say to wisdom, "You are my sister," And call understanding your intimate friend; (Prov. 7:1-4 NAU)

Murphy and Garrett are not at the fringe, that Proverbs can also be commands is a standard view.  From the Emory University's Brennan Breed, in his Oxford Biblical Studies Online article "Wisdom Literature":

Other common categories of proverbs are "commands" (Prov 24.13) and "admonitions" (Prov 24.1–2), "rhetorical questions" (Job 4), and "happy" or "blessed sayings" (Job 5.17).

"write them on the tablet of your heart" is a) a throwback to the statements by the prophets that God would write his LAWS on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), and b) is exactly like the "bind them on your finger", it is a metaphorical way of telling the reader to carefully observe this wisdom instruction with the same type of care that one would observe laws that God wrote on their heart. 

Holding says Proverbs cannot be commands or mandates. "there's no mandate in a book like proverbs...I told you this before...Proverbs can't be commands or mandates" (video at 38 ff).


This signifies his black and white fundy view of the bible, the view that he so viciously insults others for having.

Mr. Holding concludes his cartoon scholarship on Proverbs, not having quoted even one scholar in support, by saying

 "Today the fundy atheist learned a valuable lesson:  The contents of the book of Proverbs place it in a genre where nothing in its contents reflect a divine moral imperative.  The closest it ever gets to a command is where it presents instruction from figures who were wise and in authority.  And that's the exact opposite of being a fundy atheist."

Well first, I only made the simple argument that the "give" of 31:6 was a command, I did not say "divine moral imperative".  The Proverbs author is still supporting alcoholism and being inspired by God the whole while, whether it is advice or command, assuming the two should distinguished at all.  The problem of God inspiring speech that promotes and encourages alcoholism remains, even if we deny that any commands were used in the promotion.

Third, despite Holding's past history making clear that he doesn't give one flying fuck about the fact that other equally or more scholarly brothers in the Lord who believe in biblical inerrancy, disagree with him, I provide the following for anybody who isn't quite as obstinate as Holding, so they might realize that God is not necessarily speaking whenever somebody clicks on one of Holding's cartoons:

Inerrantist evangelical scholar D.A. Garrett in the New American Commentary characterizes many Proverbs as "commands" and "mandates" without caveat.  Here he specifically asserts that the commands in the Proverbs are equal to the commands of Mosaic Law:

The Paternal Appeal (7:1–5). 7:1–5 In the appeal the father urges the son to keep his “commands” (vv. 1–2), the same word that is often used of God’s commands. The authority of God in the covenant and the authority of the parent as a teacher of wisdom are joined. In addition, the son should write the instruction on his heart, much as God will write the new covenant on the hearts of his people (v. 3; see Jer 31:33). The teaching should be internal, part of the son’s character and personality, rather than an external requirement.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 30).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Admonition. This is a command or prohibition written either in proverbial form (as a couplet or bicolon42) or as an extended discourse. A command in discourse form is found in Prov 6:1–5. An example of the proverb form is 16:3.

                     Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.

Prohibitions in discourse form occur as units (e.g., 1:10–19) or scattered among the commands of discourse admonitions (e.g., Prov 4:10–19). Prohibition proverbs are often in two parts: the prohibition proper and the reason for the prohibition (a warning of what will happen if the prohibition is violated).

Garrett specifies that the "instruction" is equated with "command" in 13:13:

12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life.
 13 The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded. (Prov. 13:12-13 NAU)
"Note the rich vocabulary of instruction in these two verses: דָּבָר (“word”), מִצְוָה (“command”), מוּסָר (“instruction), and תּוֹכַחַת (“reprimand”). The parallelism of the two verses is reinforced by ending both with a pual imperfect verb."

No fool would deny that a prohibition is also a command, so when Garret say "prohibition", he likely intends the sense of the synonymous word "command".  We have the 10 "Commandments", and several are nothing more than prohibitions (i.e., "do not commit adultery").

Garrett continues, citing to Proverbs 30 twice:

Finally, biblical wisdom stresses the limitations of human knowledge. The gulf between human perception and divine reality is never really closed. The sage is commanded to go about his task with humility and reverence for God. The learned must never forget their limitations (30:2–4) and that they are prone to error and conceit. Above all, they must subordinate their quest to the Word of God. For “every word of God is flawless” (30:5).

The blessing in v. 18 might appear to be a promise of many children,104 but again the passage emphasizes the sexual pleasure of marriage and not having offspring (v. 19). The command to “take pleasure105 in your first wife”106 implies negatively that a man should never have sexual relations with another woman (whether in adultery or by divorce on contrived grounds) and positively that marriage should include sexual joy and fulfillment.

Lest Holding pretend he doesn't feel threatened by another evangelical inerrantist Christian scholar's disagreement with him (which attitude would be not be fruit of somebody who is a legitimate part of the body of Christ and desires more unity than diversity in exegesis), let Holding provide quotes from any properly credentialed Christian scholar who agrees with his astoundingly stupid belief "there's no mandate in a book like proverbs...I told you this before...Proverbs can't be commands or mandates" (video at 38 ff).

 Holding then at 1:30 ff, insists the scholar I quoted (to show the saying "give alcohol" in Proverbs 31:6 was a command) I had misunderstood, and he says the scholar meant "command" only in the sense of "saying" and supports this by analysis of v. 1-5.  Again, Holding's trifle is unnecessary and is a lie:  Here's the full quote from my original article naming the scholar:

The WBC is a bit more realistic:

6–7 The emphasis on royal justice is followed by a rather bold and singular recommendation. Instead of enjoying personal consumption of the royal cellar, the king is to provide a supply of drink for the unfortunate people who need it as a kind of comfort (?) for their misery. This strange command has provoked several hypotheses. On the one hand, it has been considered to be “cynical” and perhaps a later addition; as noted in Note 5.a.*, the command is in the plural. On the other hand, it has been interpreted as providing some relief for the unfortunate. What is to be, as it were, doled out to kings is to be provided generously for afflicted members of the realm, whose comforts are little enough. Even though this can be only a temporary measure, a kind of ancient opium (as well as modern?), it is nonetheless recommended.  

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 241). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding insisted that Murphy meant "command" in the sense of "saying", but Murphy asserts, repeatedly throughout his commentary on Proverbs, that many of them either include, or ARE, "commands", and in some contexts, he clearly equates them with the Mosaic law, or else clearly distinguishes them from "sayings".

Proverbs 16: 3 Trust in the Lord is a frequent topic in this book; here it is expressed in a command, while in v 20 it is in a saying.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page xxii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 Murphy again demolishes Holding's stupid trifling pretentious bullshit, and admits part of a proverb is a command and is thus different from the "saying" that follows it:

Proverbs 25: 6–7a The two verses go together; the command is motivated by the better saying that follows it.

 Murphy also says:

 In a sense, the whole book of Proverbs is instruction, for even an experiential observation (which is best included in the neutral term “saying”) is meant to impart some awareness or knowledge. However, it is well to note the appropriateness of “instruction” as an overall designation of the kind of writing evidenced in chaps. 1–9, where the parent/teacher strongly urges “son[s]” to a particular lifestyle. The same is true of the section associated with the Instruction of Amenemope, Prov 22:17–24:35. A simple example would be some kind of command, followed by a motive clause (“do this, because”), as in Prov 3:1–2. But this can be developed at great length, as in Prov 2:1–22. In the context of the book, the instructions of chaps. 1–9 can also be called wisdom poems. The command (or the prohibition) can also be framed as a statement. For example, there is no change of meaning between Prov 16:3 (a command) and 16:20 (a saying), despite the differences in form.

From the point of view of wisdom, how should “ethics” be understood? I would offer the following considerations. It is not just commands and condemnations, but rather the art of living honestly together with others before God.

  It is obvious from what has been said that Israelite wisdom is more practical than theoretical. It attempts to persuade, cajole, threaten, or command a particular attitude or course of action.

Proverbs 1:10–14 The instruction begins with a dramatic description of temptation that youths can expect to face. 10 The parent/teacher issues a command and proceeds to describe the danger coming from “sinners”; they are not called “fools.”

Proverbs 2:1–4 The teacher promises wisdom as a gift of the Lord, if the “son” truly follows the bidding to seek wisdom above all else, beyond any riches. The intensity of the appeal matches the intensity of the speeches of Moses in Deuteronomy. 1 The “commands” are those of the teacher, not the Torah. Although the technical term (מצות), so frequent in Deuteronomy, is used, and thus may have another level of meaning for later readers, it is generally understood here in its literal historical sense as referring to the commands of the father/teacher.

5–6 O. Plöger points out that wisdom joins Yahwism (were they ever really separate?) in this command to trust in the Lord,

Proverbs 3:27–28 The couplet style returns (if not already in vv 25–26) with prohibitions and commands dealing with relationship to neighbors. 27 The presupposition seems to be that a neighbor has some right to consideration (in the LXX translation, a poor person), and that one has the means to help. 28 The admonition to help the neighbor is strengthened by this verse; there is no reason for postponing kind action. Delaying tactics are equivalent to a refusal. Cf. Jas 4:16.

29–30 These are commands to live at peace with one’s neighbor, and in particular to avoid unjustified legal disputes (such is the meaning of “contend”).

Proverbs 4: 4–9 These verses are to be regarded as a summary in the form of a “quotation” of the grandfather. It is a very intense passage, and its erotic quality has been described by R. E. Murphy (CBQ 50 [1988] 600–603). 4 The father was pressured by his father to keep the “commands” (see Comment on 2:1) and to pursue wisdom, which stands in parallelism with the “words” from the grandfather’s mouth

Proverbs 5: 1–5 The topic is that of going surety, of providing some financial backing for someone who is in debt. 1 The instruction is addressed by the father/teacher to “my son,” but without the customary command “listen.”

Murphy agrees that "teaching" is parallel to "command" in the Proverbs, so Holding will probably trifle, as usual, that "teaching" is different than "saying", just so he doesn't have to admit that Murphy meant some of the "sayings" are parallel to "commands":

Proverbs 7:1–3 The introduction reflects 3:1–3, and thereby Deut 6:6–9. “Teaching” and “command” are parallel as in 3:1; cf. 4:1–2. 2 V 2a is the same as 4:4b; again, the typical wisdom emphasis on life appears. 3 The commands are to be bound on the “fingers” (like amulets, or tephillin?) and also on the tablet of the heart, a phrase occurring in 3:3; cf. Deut 6:6 and Jer 31:33. It is not certain that a material tablet is meant; so B. Couroyer, RB 90 (1983) 416–51. It could be metaphorical, emphasizing the interiorization of the teaching.

Proverbs 8: V 5 is a command; the tone of the speech remains imperious throughout; it is not the pleading tone of the parent/teacher.

Proverbs 8: V 9 indicates the requisite reaction: Those who have understanding will “find,” or acquire knowledge. The comparison to precious objects such as gold and silver is a frequent one (e.g., 2:4; 3:14–15; 16:16), but v 10 is a command, not merely a comparison.

Proverbs 13: 13–14 “Word,” “command,” and “teaching of the wise” give a certain unity to these verses. The word and command refer, at least in the first instance, to the teaching of the sage, not to the Decalogue.

Proverbs 25: 21–22 This quatrain, made famous also by Rom 12:17–21, has given rise to many studies and differing interpretations. 21 The command is so clear that it loses its quality of shock, and perhaps it has become domesticated by long use.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 193). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Proverbs 30: 32–33 An admonition with motivation follows the numerical sayings, and there seems to be a deliberate threefold repetition of “pressure” in v 33. 32 The word for fool here is nbl, the same consonants which appear in the name of Nabal in 2 Sam 25, whose conduct exemplified “pride” as well. It is not clear what “plans” (see Note 32.a.*) are meant, but in an admonition such as this against foolish pride they are probably foolish. The gesture of hand to mouth is broad enough to indicate various reactions. In Job 21:5 it appears to designate being appalled, but here it is a clear command: Silence!

Murphy finally makes clear, one last time, as clear as anybody could ask, that a teaching in Proverbs 31 is an actualization of specifically Torah Commandments:

Proverbs 31: These instructions were produced among educated women and men belonging to the urban upper class of the Yehud province. Their teaching is conceived as an interpretation and an actualization of Torah commandments.

Holding must not think Paul's statements in Romans 12 about feeding one's enemy are mandatory, but only optional, since he'd otherwise have to admit calling this "mandatory" constitutes calling a proverb a "mandate"

 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
 22 For you will heap burning coals on his head, And the LORD will reward you. (Prov. 25:21-22 NAU)

Apostle Paul sets forth that Proverb as if it it's instruction is a mandate which no Christian has a right to avoid obeying:

 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
 20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:17-21 NAU)

 Inerrantist Mounce interprets Paul's statements here as mandatory upon the Christian:

12:17–21 The natural impulse is to return injury for injury. But retaliation for personal injury is not for those who claim to follow the one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek and go the second mile (Matt 5:39, 41; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). Instead, believers are to be careful56 to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone57 (cf. Prov 3:4). The early church understood the necessity of having a good reputation with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7).

Mounce, R. H. (2001, c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 240).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Christian Scholar Murphy says in the Word Biblical Commentary:

Proverbs 25: 21–22 This quatrain, made famous also by Rom 12:17–21, has given rise to many studies and differing interpretations. 21 The command is so clear that it loses its quality of shock, and perhaps it has become domesticated by long use...The enigma of coals on the head is not the issue (if it can even be understood) that calls for discussion here. Rather, it is the sharp commands: feed, give drink to the one who hates you, literally—not merely a vague “enemy.” The concrete situation is not known, but the application has a universal impact; who does not have enemies? The saying, along with Prov 24:17 (cf. 20:22), is contrary to the Schadenfreude, the joy in the downfall of an enemy, that is not uncommon in the Old Testament. It belongs with the strong command of love of neighbor expressed in Lev 19:17–18, even if the perspective is that of the Israelite community.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 193). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding, apparently learning as he goes along, starts qualifying what he meant, and now says at 1:45 ff that proverbs cannot be a command "in the sense of being a divine imperative".

But not even this qualification will save him.  The "give" in v. 6 is an imperative by grammatical necessity:

נתן verb qal imperative masculine plural   שֵׁכָר noun common masculine singular absolute  

 And Gensenius says:

§ 110. The Imperative.

Mayer Lambert, 'Sur la syntaxe de l’impeÃratif en heÃbreu,' in REJ. 1897, p. 106 ff.
a1. The imperative,¹ which, according to § 46, is restricted to the 2nd pers. sing. and plur., and to positive commands, &c., may stand either alone, or in simple co-ordination (as in 1 K 18:44, Is 56:1, 65:18) with other imperatives:

 Matthew Henry thought the "give" of 31:6 was a "must" implying mandatory observance:

III. The counsel she gives him to do good. 1. He must do good with his wealth. Great men must not think that they have their abundance only that out of it they may made provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts of it, and may the more freely indulge their own genius; no, but that with it they may relieve such as are in distress, v. 6, 7. "Thou hast wine or strong drink at command; instead of doing thyself hurt with it, do others good with it; let those have it that need it." Those that have wherewithal must not only give bread to the hungry and water to the thirsty, but they must give strong drink to him that is ready to perish through sickness or pain and wine to those that are melancholy and of heavy heart; for it was appointed to cheer and revive the spirits, and make glad the heart (as it does where there is need of it), not to burden and oppress the spirits, as it does where there is no need of it. We must deny ourselves in the gratifications of sense, that we may have to spare for the relief of the miseries of others, and be glad to see our superfluities and dainties better bestowed upon those whom they will be a real kindness to than upon ourselves whom they will be a real injury to.

The Talmud Rabbis interpreted the verse to imply that houses that did not have wine could not be considered blessed.  How mandatory is it that one make sure one's house is blessed?

R. Hanan said: "Wine was created only to comfort the mourners and to pay the wicked their reward for any good they may have done, on this earth, as it is written [Proverbs 31.6]: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those who have an embittered soul." (By "one that is ready to perish," is meant the wicked and by "those who have an embittered soul," are meant the mourners.)

R. Hanin bar Papa said: A house where wine does not flow like water cannot be classed among those that are blessed, as it is written [Exod. 23.25]: "And he will bless thy bread and thy water." The bread referred to is that which can be bought with the proceeds of the second tithes and the water which cannot be bought with such money really means wine. If, then, wine is so plentiful in the house, that it flows like water, the house is counted among the blessed.

 The Gemara holds that the expense of such wine "must" be borne by the congregation:

When one was going to be killed, they used to put a grain of frankincense in a goblet of wine and gave him to drink, so that he should become dazed. As it is written [Prov. 31.6]: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those who have an embittered soul." And there is a Boraitha that the wine and the frankincense were donated by the respectable women of Jerusalem. Now, if it happened that they were not donated, who must bear the expense? Says the Gemara concerning the latter: Common sense dictates, at the expense of the congregation, as the verse reads "give," which means the congregation.

 Holding then falsely caricatures me as saying his view can be dismissed, as if I had totally discounted Proverbs' genre as useless to the debate (video at 2:00 ff).  I never expressed or implied any such thing.  But the quotes of Garrett and Murphy, supra, Christian scholars who say multiple times that proverbs often contain, or ARE, "commands", make clear Holding gets no help from appeal to "genre".  To repeat:

Excursus on Theology

The assessment of biblical ethics is a difficult one, and questions of methodology abound. In one of the latest studies (Ethics and Politics in the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. Knight [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994]) it is only tangentially that wisdom literature is mentioned. From the point of view of wisdom, how should “ethics” be understood? I would offer the following considerations. It is not just commands and condemnations, but rather the art of living honestly together with others before God.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 276). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Holding, pretentious childish immature repressed idiot that he is, then entertains his idiot followers with a parody of himself becoming He-Man or some cartoon character and physically attacking me, as his childish way of expressing how he defeated my argument. 

As usual, Holding

a) sets forth his view as if it was non-controversial common knowledge, when it is anything but, and 
b) doesn't cite to any scholarship to support his point, despite the fact that Craig Blomberg said a position on the bible that cannot be supported with any published scholarship is likely to be false, which must mean Holding's denial that Proverbs can be divine imperatives is likely false until and unless he supplies scholarship to support his points;
c) is contradicted in his trifling distinction between wise-saying and "mandate" by properly credentialed conservative Christian bible scholars, and yet
d) still has to pretend that his opinion of the matter is so obviously true that those who disagree with it deserve to be called morons.

Perhaps Holding would like to do his admiring audience a favor and explain when it WOULD be appropriate for a modern-day Christian to obey Proverbs 31:6-7.

 =========================

Update: September 18, 2017
Holding's answer to this post is his plagiarism of the intro to the 80's cartoon "He-Man", nothing more.

The reader can decide for themselves why it is that the atheist is the only person in this debate quoting evangelical inerrantist Christian scholars, and the "Christian" in this debate is the only one trying to prove things by plagiarizing secular cartoons.

Update: September 25, 2017 
Holding has removed that video, probably because it took an atheist to remind him that there are limits to how creatively stupid and immature a person can be in their apologetics, and of all the ways to bring the presence of the Holy Spirit into one's arguments, imitating secular 80's cartoons probably isn't the way any serious Christian would do it.

Cold Case Christianity: Wouldn’t A Loving God Reform Rather Than Punish?

This is my reply to a podcast by J. Warner Wallace entitled

 Wouldn’t A Loving God Reform Rather Than Punish? (Podcast)  

Posted: 27 Jul 2017 01:47 AM PDT

In this blast from the past, J. Warner responds to a common objection to the nature of God: If God is all-loving, why doesn’t he “reform” people rather than simply “punish” them in Hell? How would you answer a skeptic who argues a God who simply punishes his children in Hell is sadistic and vengeful, unworthy of our worship? J. Warner responds to this objection and answers listener email related to the nature of “election”, and the evidence for “annihilationism.”

Wallace begins the podcast with intro music and intro speech that indicate he wants to the the center of attention.  And I've been accusing him of being the Arnie's Used Car Salesman of Christianity for years.

The intro also says one purpose of the podcast is to "engage" skeptics with the Christian world view, so my Christian readers should note the day i posted this rebuttal, and start counting the days, weeks, months and years that Wallace will let my rebuttal go by before he decides to live up to his promise to "engage" this skeptic.

At 4:30, Wallace invites the listener to come to his "blog", and says he would "love" to have the listener come over and join that conversation, but when one presses the "comment" button to comment on one his articles, one is taken to his Facebook page...and despite my never having violated any of Wallace's Facebook rules or Facebook's own rules, Wallace banned me several months ago from his Facebook page.

So I continue standing by my accusation that Wallace is a liar:  he says he wants to "engage" skeptics, and yet despite my never having violated any rules of conduct from Wallace or such rules required by Facebook itself, he still banned me, rather quietly, from his Facebook "blog", several months ago.  Wallace is thus a liar; when he says he would love to have the listener join his blog conversations, the unstated caveat is that you not know enough to substantially refute his beliefs.  Nothing spells "fake Christian employing typical materialistic political marketing strategy" quite like "let's ban our more informed critics, that will prevent potential customers from being dissauded from buying our product.".

And indeed, when one goes to Wallace's websites, one would think he is some ridiculous liberal who thinks God wasn't able to get His act together until Wallace began teaching Christians how to have a forensic faith.  It is not an exaggeration to say Wallace promotes his materials so relentlessly, he is making his apologetics fantasy more the center of attention than Jesus precisely because of his marketing pitch that you cannot really live up to what Jesus wants you to do without having the forensic faith that comes from purchasing Wallace's materials.

If Wallace is correct that the bible is the inerrant word of God, "sufficient" for faith and practice, then why does he so relentlessly promote, market and advertise his own opinions about what the bible means?  Why market so obstinately that today's Christians "need" his books?  If the Holy Spirit doesn't need his help, why does Wallace make it seem that he and the Holy Spirit entered a mutually beneficial marketing contract?

If we are correct to ask 1990's televangelists whether they think God cannot be activated until the evangelist recieves donations, aren't we correct to ask the same type of question of other Christians who use similar marketing gimmicks?  Sure, Wallace doesn't tell others to send in their last grocery money, but that hardly means he must be employing any more honest of a marketing ploy.  He still drowns himself in relentless ceaseless promotion of himself, and his books, and this degree of "look at me!!!" is not consistent with Wallace's alleged trust that the Holy Spirit doesn't need his help and that the bible is ALONE "sufficient' for faith and practice. 
 
Basically, the first 10 minutes of this podcast justifies more the interpretation that Wallace's first priority is Wallace, than the interpretation that Wallace's first priority is Jesus.

Wallace is never going to make God look good, no matter what excuses he puts forth to "explain" how a literal hell can be consistent with divine "love", because of one bible passage that I've been using to beat fundamentalists senseless for years, and they haven't moved even one single inch toward making this sadistic lunatic look "good", probably because common sense prevails over their theological delusions:

NAU  Deuteronomy 28:
 1 "Now it shall be, if you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
 2 "All these blessings will come upon you and overtake you if you obey the LORD your God:
 15 "But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
 16 "Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
  30 "You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit.
 41 "You shall have sons and daughters but they will not be yours, for they will go into captivity.
 53 "Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will oppress you.
 63 "It shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you will be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it.

Notice, the bible teaches not only that God's curses will cause men to rape women (v. 30) children to be kidnapped by sick-minded pagans (v. 41), parents to cannibalize their own children (v. 53), but that God would be just as "delighted" to cause these curses to happen, as he is "delighted" to give prosperity to those who obey him (v. 63).

One fundamentalist breathed an ill-advised sigh of relieft by pointing out that nothing in the context indicates that God said this, it was only Moses doing the speaking.

I asked him which other statements Moses made about God, that this fundamentalist thinks are wrong.  He disappeared.

I can at least buy the notion that God hurts his kids in an effort to punish them or teach them, even if we today are enlightened and know that kids don't need to be abused to be disciplined.

What I cannot buy is that a god can be "good" while "delighting" to cause women who disobey the 10 commandments, to be raped.  Worse, v. 63 intentionally defines God's delight in inflicting such curses, as being the same type of "delight" he has to prosper those who obey him.  So if you think God is gleeful, happy and cheerful to grant you prosperity, you cannot subtract those emotions from him when you speak about him causing rape, kidnapping and parental cannibalism.

When you think of an ancient Hebrew woman being raped, you didn't envision God standing next to her and "delighting" to watch it, until just now, did you!

God's "delight" to cause rape rationally warrants the atheist to say "fuck you" to your bible religion and do more productive things like smashing beer cans on his forehead.

Who would you rather have babysit your kids?  Some spiritually dead dork who smashes beer cans on his head?

Or some bible-believing inerrantist who seriously thinks there are times when it can be good and moral to be happy cheerful and "delighted" to cause women to be raped, children to be kidnapped and parents to eat their kids?

Tough question, eh?  You need to weigh your pride against the obvious stupidity of allowing sadistic lunatics to babysit your kids, you cannot just suddenly give up your faith of 30 years, can you?

Go ahead, check all the Christian commentaries you please.  Let me know when you find exegetical and contextual argument that God's "delight" in v. 63 in inflicting such curses is something other than the happy gleeful cheerful "delight" this verse says he takes in prospering other people.

And if you are really stupid and insist that this is just Moses speaking with typical semitic exaggeration, let me know the critiera you use to figure out which extremist statements in the bible are mere exaggeration and rhetoric.

The Psalms magnify God and extoll his goodness like no other book in the world.  Are this book's extremist statements about God's eternal goodness also a case of mere Semitic exaggeration?  If not, why not?  Where is your sociological evidence that the only time ANE peoples exaggerated about their god, was when they were describing his wrath?

Cold Case Christianity: Are Atheists Smarter or Simply More Self-Reliant and Self-Indulgent?

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled 

Cold Case Christianity: Are Atheists Smarter or Simply More Self-Reliant and Self-Indulgent?

Posted: 26 Jul 2017 01:32 AM PDT

264After attending Southern California universities for nine years, I was a committed atheist.

And after studying the bible for 20 years, I was a committed evangelical Protestant.

 Was my atheism the result of my intellectual prowess and education, or something else?

Was my Christian belief the result of the Holy Spirit, or something else?

One controversial study seems to imply a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism.

Meaning exactly nothing because if you do enough studies, you are bound to notice that one of them provides results at variance with the others.  I have no qualms admitting that atheists, like Christians, are human and thus are no less subject to harboring atheism for purely emotional reasons, than Christians are subject to harboring Christianity for purely emotional reasons.

A review of 63 studies of intelligence and religion from 1928 to 2012 allegedly reveals the following: non-believers, on average, score higher than religious people on intelligence tests. I think there may, in fact, be some truth in this discovery, but non-religious people should hesitate before they start celebrating. I think folks with higher IQ’s may be more inclined to reject God, not because they’re better able to assess the evidence and draw reasonable inferences, but because they are far more likely to reject any authority other than themselves.

I don't see your point; thousands of protestants and evangelicals feel free to church-hop when they find their current pastor teaching something that they themselves think is false (i.e., these Christians believe themselves to be the rightful arbiters of whether a religious proposition is true or false, they do not simply buh-leeve because somebody proclaims herself a spiritual authority).

And atheists who reject any authority but themselves, do so likely because of higher intellect, (i.e.,the person who needs to decide whether some religious claim is true, is not one's pastor, priest, spiritual mentor or best friend.  It's one's self, alone).  The alternative (believing a religious proposition true because a person you placed in authority above you teaches the proposition as true) is markedly plagued with disaster and deception, viz. Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  Smart people do exactly no less than "reject any authority other than themselves."

When I was a young boy, my teacher encouraged my mother to have my IQ tested. I was only six years old, but I can still remember the room where they administered the test. When it was all said and done, I found myself in “gifted” classes for the rest of my public education.

 We'd never have guessed that based on your piss-poor and laughably unpersuasive apologetics arguments, which probably explains why your fruits show you promoting your own self and views far more than the simple gospel that you say has power to do what it needs to do without your input or "help".

As the years passed, I never forgot my IQ score and I came to think of myself as someone who was too smart to believe in imaginary beings.

Well, you ARE too smart to believe in imaginary things...aren't you?

The more I thought I knew, the more self-reliant I became and the less I was willing to listen to what others had to say, especially about matters related to God.

Sounds like you were a Martin Luther in the making, it was only a matter of time before you nailed your 95 thesis to the door of religion.

I was comfortable as my own judge and jury; my own authority about any number of things.

Nothing has changed; you have freewill, and you think God won't violate it but will always respect it, so, your own self really is the authority that you submit to before you decide that some allegedly godly thing is actually godly.

While you might claim that today your authority to accept or reject Christian propositions comes from what the bible says, the truth is, there are millions of Protestants who say the same exact thing, and yet they are absurdly divided on numerous issues of bible interpretation, justifying the suspicion that they are all deluded, and this whole business of going to the bible to decide something is about as likely to resolve problems as handing a crowd of Trump supporters and ACLU lawyers a copy of the U.S Constitution and expecting them to agree on how to resolve constitutional problems. 

One of the worst cases is how Mike Licona and Norman Geisler can so successfully divide the body of Christ on the issue of biblical inerrancy and whether Licona's resurrection apologetic is sound.  Another example is the 5 Christian scholars who tear each other apart in a book called "Five Views on Apologetics"  Not only do you people disagree with each other on how to interpret the bible, you can't even agree on which method of apologetics is "biblical".

My self-perception as a “smart guy” resulted in an arrogant, self-reliant and self-indulgent attitude toward life.

This was consistent with apostle Paul, who boasted that even angels from heaven would be cursed if they taught a gospel contrary to his own (Galatians 1:8-10), when in fact the more properly humble view would say that if an angel from heaven preaches a gospel different than Paul's, then Paul's gospel is the one that is false.

I don’t think I’m the only smart person who has experienced this. Studies repeatedly show the practical difference between non-believers and religious people when it comes to wise decision making. Religious people consistently demonstrate wisdom unmatched by their non-believing peers:

Believers make wiser choices in their relationships

Studies repeatedly reveal believers are more inclined to enter committed relationships, more likely to make wise marriage choices, enjoy better marital stability and remain satisfied in their marriages. When both spouses are actively engaged in their religious communities, they are more than two times less likely to divorce than unbelieving couples.

 What you aren't telling your readers is that it a) this article is not available by simple clicking around on google, and therefore, your busy Christian readership made up mostly of people lacking subscription to such journals are not likely to take the time to obtain a copy of the full report, and b) the abstract for it says it was a mere 13.2% (114 of 864) of the researched marital cases that  included a measure of religion, and c) those who attended at least 15 hours of premarital counseling made better adjustments in marriage.

Point "c" doesn't exactly cohere with the ancient Hebrew practice of arranged or forced marriages.  Is your god smarter than the scholars doing a study in a modern journal?  Then why don't we see any premarital counseling prescribed in God's instruction for how the man who just killed a woman's family, can become legitimately married to her? 

¹⁰ “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners,
¹¹ you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry.
¹² Take her to your home, where she will shave her head,^[a] cut her fingernails,
¹³ and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her.
¹⁴ Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you forced her to have intercourse with you, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

Does your "study"  include those "Christians" who consistently attend their liberal churches?  If so, then if your study makes fundies look accepted by God, it also makes liberals look accepted by God.  But if liberals and heretics can clean up their lives morally and consistentlly attend their churches for purely naturalistic reasons, then it remains a possibility that the reason is no different when this phenomena is seen in conventional evangelical churches.  You are getting nowhere talking about how religious people are statistically more likely to be moral.  Mormons are statistically more likely to be moral than the non-religious persons, but does that say anything positive whatsoever about their religious claims?  No.  Why then should high morality in evangelical Protestant signify anything more?

Believers make wiser choices in their parenting

Believing mothers and fathers make wiser choices as parents. They are more involved in the lives of their children

 For example, if they find their teen daughter had premarital sex in the house, they burn her to death because the eternal God once commanded this, and he doesn't change:

 9 'Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Lev. 21:9 NAU)

 Would burning your daughter to death violate your duty under Romans 13 to obey secular laws which forbid you from murdering your kids?  "We must obey God rather than men" was Peter's response to secular laws that were contrary to God's intentions, Acts 5:29.  And contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not free anybody from the Law, he did the opposite, he conditioned salvation upon obeying each and every part of it, specifying that anybody who tried to abrogate even the least part of the law, would be called least in the Kingdom of heaven, in the apparent hope of dissuading some from teaching that some parts of Moasic law no longer applied in his day:

 17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
 18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:17-20 NAU)

In context, this righteousness is not imputed from Christ, but is one's own personal legal righteousness measured by how closely one conforms one's life to both letter and spirit of the Law:

21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
 23 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. (Matt. 5:21-24 NAU)

 You cannot escape this with the dispensationalist argument that what Jesus required for salvation of people before he died on the Cross, no longer applies to the modern-day church:  the resurrected Jesus allegedly told the 11 apostles that they were to require their Gentile followers to obey ALL that Jesus had taught the original apostles.  The part of the Great Commission that Christians typically ignore is highlighted below:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

 Staying within the proper literary context, Matthew apparently thinks the "all I commanded you" that Gentiles must be taught, consists of all the sayings and doings of Jesus that Matthew himself chose to record.  

So it doesn't matter how many church fathers said Matthew was written solely for Jews...Matthew 28:19-20 extends whatever was written for Jews, also to the Gentiles.  If this proves impossible to live out in real life today because the Temple was destroyed in 70 a.d., that's Jesus' problem for requiring something of future Gentiles that future wars would make logically impossible for them to fulfill.  Apparently the day of his second coming wasn't the only fact Jesus was ignorant of.

more involved in their children’s educational experience,

Nowhere in the bible does god or anybody express or imply that educating children in reading and writing has the least bit of importance.  Either your bible is a mere product of its time, or God cares a whole lot less about secular child education than you do. 

are more likely to invest in the lives of their kids, and report stronger and better relationships with their children.

Yeah, Mom and Dad would probably bond more with their surviving kids if the older teen brother was executed for being drunk and rebellious:

 18 "If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them,
 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
 20 "They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'
 21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear. (Deut. 21:18-21 NAU)

 If bible believers are obstinate and insist that yes, this harsh rule would indeed have induced parents in the days of Moses to invest more in the lives of their kids and have stronger and better relationships with them, then why aren't Christians doing this today?  Secular law forbids murder, Romans 13?  "We must obey God rather than men", Acts 5:29.  Jesus' death brought about a new covenant?  Irrelevant, Jesus taught that his followers would not be justified to avoid even the least part of the law, Matthew 5:19.

Things are different today?  yes, they are, but only because materialism fueled the industrial revolution, inspiring us with a sense of competitive capitalism, from which derives our decidedly unbiblical individualism.  If we had retained our collectivist outlook, then we'd probably find solutions that do the most good for the group to be better than solutions that cohere most with the individualist U.S. Constitution.
 

There are no convincing arguments that something about the ministry or death of Jesus means that Jesus' Father is now softer on crime than he used to be.

Believers make wiser choices related to early sexual activity

The more committed a believer is to his or her religious practice, the lower the level of teenage sexual activity.

That's equally true of those Christians you think are heretics and false Christians, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.  If you think "wiser choices related to early sexual activity" makes orthodox trinitarians look good, why doesn't it look good for members of "cults" who can boast of such sexual purity too?  Or was it just my spiritual blindness that caused me to forget that the devil inspires cultists to be sexually prudent in his effort to keep them deceived?  Or maybe your Sovereign God is responsible for steering cultists properly on matters of morals, but cannot do so on matters of theology?

As a result, committed believers are 2 to 3 times less likely to have a child out of wedlock.

That's rather obvious and thus useless to point out.  No fool needs to be told that when a Christian is a "committed" believer, then by definition they put forth substantial effort to abide by the moral requirements of their religion. What else are you gonna say?  Committed Islamic terrorists are 2-3 times more likely to behead an American citizen?

Believers make wiser choices in their use of alcohol and drugs

Many studies confirm the relationship between religious belief and reduced likelihood of alcohol abuse, and researchers have also established a similar relationship between religious commitment and drug use. Religious people are far less likely to become alcoholics or drug addicts.

Then those bible-believing Christians are not getting their scruples from the same Holy Spirit, who inspired Proverbs 31, where alcoholism (i.e., drowning your troubles in a bottle) is specifically encouraged:

 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink,
 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted.
 6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter.
 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more.
 (Prov. 31:4-7 NAU)

That the wine of v. 6-7 is not mere weak "grape juice" is seen from the fact that the author warns that kings who drink it will forget their decrees.  You don't risk forgetting something by drinking too much grape juice, but you risk forgetting your decrees when  you drink strong alcohol.

When is the last time you bought beer for a depressed homeless person, with the intent that they get drunk and remember their bitter troubles no more?  NEVER.

FUCK YOU, CHERRY PICKING HYPOCRITE.

I don't care what conservative Christian commentaries say about this passage, it clearly does encourage alcoholism, and that's not going to go away merely because the Christian reader is an inerrantist and cannot figure out how this can be reconciled with other bible verses that discourage drunkenness.  Contradictions between the OT and NT are nothing new and have bothered Christians for centuries.

Believers make wiser choices in the way they live their lives

Committed religious believers are much more likely to make wise choices in their personal lives. Believers, for example, are less likely to commit acts of violence against their partners.

Would genuine "believers" have also been less likely to commit acts of violence against their partners back when the man was justified to force his wife, suspected of adultery, to drink deliberately poisoned water, waiting to see if her vagina got all gooey (Numbers 5:12 ff)?

The more committed they are to their religious belief, the less likely they are to behave violently.

For example, the more committed the ancient Hebrew believer was to laws of Moses like Lev. 21:9 and Duet. 21:18-21, the less likely they are to behave violently.

In addition, believers report they are happier, more satisfied with their lives, and have greater morale.

Read the book of Jeremiah.  Your happiness in God is no evidence, whatsoever, that God really is on your side.

Believers make wiser choices related to education

Religious people have higher academic expectations, attend school more regularly, achieve higher levels of education and generally perform better in their academic environment. Studies demonstrate academic performance is positively affected by religious practice.

Never mind that it was uneducated illiterate people of the first century who were the demographic most likely to find Christianity's claims persuasive:

 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
 (1 Cor. 1:23-26 NAU)

By referring to the makeup of the Corinthian church, Paul now illustrates the principle that God takes what is foolish to our world and makes it wise. While he did not completely eliminate the possibility that there were a few culturally and socially prominent members among them, he knew that there were not many. The congregation could claim as members a former ruler of the synagogue, a city treasurer, and perhaps one or two successful businessmen, but the majority were without educational, social, cultural, or religious credentials.

Chafin, K. L., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1985). Vol. 30: The Preacher's Commentary Series, Volume 30

1, 2 Corinthians. Formerly The Communicator's Commentary.

The Preacher's Commentary series (Page 37). Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.

From the New American Commentary on 1st Corinthians 1:26:

        

Believers make wiser choices related to compassion and charity

Studies also reveal religious believers are more likely to report compassionate, empathetic feelings toward disadvantaged people than their non-believing counterparts.

For example, when God inspired people this way in the OT, they went around killing children:

  10 Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire.
 11 They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast.
 12 They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.
 13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp.
 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
 15 And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women?
 16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.
 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.
 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
 (Num. 31:10-18 NAU)

  2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.
 3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Sam. 15:2-3 NAU)

  21 They utterly destroyed everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. (Jos. 6:21 NAU)

  4 The LORD said to him, "Go through the midst of the city, even through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst."
 5 But to the others He said in my hearing, "Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity and do not spare.
 6 "Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary." So they started with the elders who were before the temple.   (Ezek. 9:4-6 NAU)

 Wallace would likely counter by hiding behind the most comprehensive effort by Christian scholars to explain these passages away:  Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God

 But there are numerous problems with the Copan/Flannagan thesis:

1 - They are at odds with other conservative Protestant scholars who say these commands are literal and the Hebrews really did slaughter children.  Walter C. Kaiser is stoutly evangelical in his acceptance of biblical inerrancy and other standard Protestant doctrines, and was a professor of OT, yet he disagrees with attempts to tone down such biblical language, he says such attempts "fail from the start".

2 - No church father or Christian commentary before 1900, with possible exception of Origen, ever so much as suspected that these shocking references to genocide were mere Semitic exaggeration.  Sure is funny that God never reveals exegetical truths of the bible to his followers until after uninspired secular studies make logical room for the hypothesis.  If God was guiding Christians before 1900, we'd expect to see a few more of them noticing that these genocide-references are mere rhetorical exaggeration...just like we'd have expected, if God was really guiding the church up to 1400 a.d. for a few of its scholars to assert, without help from science or astronomy,  that the bible references to flat immobile earth and moving sun are mere language of appearance.  But no, "God" didn't reveal such biblical truth until secular science through Galileo forced the church to either admit bible error, or dream up some unprecedented hermenuetic that would reconcile these bible statements with astronomical truth.

3 - King Saul lost his throne precisely because he did not carry out divine infanticide orders in the literal way, 1st Samuel 15, the whole chapter.  Copan and Flannagan attempt to avoid this obvious conclusion, but in this their excuse-making testifies to their inability to seriously re-interpret it.

4 -Does committing to the premise of “hyperbole” to explain the OT genocide texts, open Pandora’s Box?

Where ELSE does the bible make an extreme assertion mostly because the author is using hyperbole, but which we've been taking literally for hundreds of years? Is God literally as wonderful as bible authors say, or is some of that lofty language mere hyperbole?  Is God’s wrath against iniquity really as aggressive and hot as the bible says? Or is that just the ancient Semitic author employing typical rhetorical techniques of exaggeration common to his culture?  You cannot avoid noticing how much life sucks if you are a Christian and you try to defend your beliefs from an academic perspective.

5 - Copan and Flannagan realize that having a god of truth who cannot lie, talk to believers in a bible filled with exaggerated statements, is hard to believe, and so they cite to the feverishly unpersuasive tactic of William Lane Craig, employed for the purpose of allowing him to believe the bible is "inspired" by God while also giving him a convenient escape hatch for those biblical statements where God is commanding infanticide:

             

Notice the utter lack of objectivity:  Craig is unable to reconcile the happiness toward infanticide in Psalm 137:9, with Jesus' command that believers love their enemies.  Because he cannot reconcile these two attitudes, he thus insists, without further justification, that surely the more barbaric hateful attitude of the OT authors is simply their own naturalistic emotions expressed without divine inspiration.  Craig's presupposition of biblical inerrancy is his sole motive in declaring the OT view the one that lacks divine inspiration.  The absolute harmony of the bible must be defended at ALL costs.  If that means denying divine inspiration to passages Christians have believed divinely inspired for centuries, so be it.

 Other Evangelical scholars more responsibly admit that exactly what Christians should do with such imprecatory language in the bible is far from clear.  See Alex Luc, "Interpreting the Curses in the Psalms", The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 1998, the full article of which can be found here. See esp. the section "III.  Imprecations and Christians Today"

Luc there draws in his "Conclusion" section a conclusion totally contrary to the one drawn by Copan/Flannagan:

Though the imprecations are generally expressed through a mode that appears to be personal wishes, they are prophetic judgments against the wicked and are not to be treated as merely the psalmists' own vindictive sentiments.

 If even evangelical Christian scholars disagree with each other on whether the divine-atrocity statements in the bible are inspired by God, what fool would dare say atheists have an intellectual obligation to get involved in the debate?  How can spiritually dead atheists rationally expect to get themselves any closer to the truth if spiritually alive Christian scholars can't even agree with each other on where the truth can be found in these matters?  I get involved to expose apologetics absurdity, certainly not out of any sense of intellectual "obligation".

This heightened compassion motivates religious people to be much more charitable; believers give far more to charitable organizations than do non-religious people.

But the god of those believers has no scruples in causing men to rape women and making parents eat their kids, Deuteronomy 28:15, 30, 53, and even specifies that he will "delight" to cause such atrocities to disobedient people no less than he "delights" to prosper those who obey him (v. 63).  Don't discount the perfectly biblical possibility that the Christian who bombs an abortion clinic is doing the will of God.

And when you say God doesn't will for Christians to bomb abortion clinics, or for men to rape women, you disagree with your orthodox 5-point Calvinist sisters in Christ, who assert that God predestines and wills all human sin, and they insist that God's will be divided into his revealed will (thou shalt not murder) and his secret will (go ye and gun down a schoolyard full of kids). You cannot characterize the atheist's barbaric view of your god as a result of their spiritual deadness, unless you insist that all 5 point Calvinist Christians are equally lost and spiritually dead.

Believers make wiser choices related to criminal activity

There is also a direct relationship between committed religious belief and criminal activity. Committed believers are far less likely to use weapons, engage in violent activity or commit other felonious crimes.

Mormons also refrain from crime more than the average non-religious person.  If Mormon morality is totally naturalistic despite their claim that it is the Holy Spirit within them, then you cannot fully discount the possibility that the alleged higher morality of protestant evangelicals derives from the same purely naturalistic base, despite their claim that their higher morality derives from the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, benefits of religion need to be weighed against the costs and disadvantages.  A person can be a Christian bible believer and be more moral than the average atheist, and yet allow his kids to play with live rattlesnakes in their tiny little KJV Only church in Appalachia, and given the stupidity of this, it is clear this fool has already heard plenty from other Christians about how this is wrong is he is stone-cold deaf to reason, in his belief that the taboo nature of the act somehow means the act is inspired by God...so no, educating idiot Christians is not the better solution than simply dismissing Christianity altogether. 

Plenty of former fundies have testified to how much emotional distress and mental anguish was created by their sincere attempts, over a period of years or decades, to figure out, and live out, all that the NT requires of them.  Not everybody has the same capacity to accept contradictions and mysteries and the regular tirade of dogshit excuses that necessarily accompany religion.

If believers are so much less intelligent than their non-believing counterparts, why do they repeatedly make wiser choices?

Maybe for the same reason that most mentally retarded adults don't attempt to rob banks? And I don't claim most Christians are less intelligent than atheist bible critics.  I maintain that most Christians personally find the social benefits of Christianity something more important than the question of whether their choice of religion was correct, and in this view I'm joined by most of the more conservative fundamentalist faction of Christianity. 

As a boy, I can remember an incident that seems to explain this phenomenon. I was not yet a teenager, but I certainly thought I was smarter than most adults, and on this particular day, that included my mother. I can remember arguing with her at a local retail store and repeatedly challenging her (I can’t remember the subject of our argument). For every point she offered, I countered with a stubborn opposing view. We went back and forth for a while as we walked through the store. I stubbornly refused to comply with whatever it was she wanted me to do, offering five or six reasons for rejecting her request.

And you've now made a life of offering multiple reasons for rejecting the views of other people, such as bible critics.  Nothing's changed. 

By the time we got to the checkout register, she was exhausted. We continued to argue as we stood there in line, and at one point an older man standing behind us turned to his wife and said, “That boy is too smart for his own good.”

This is not believable:  You "don't remember" the subject of the argument, but you remember providing her multiple reasons 'repeatedly'  for rejecting what she had to say?  

There is often a relationship between intelligence and the willful rejection of authority.

Such as your rejection of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's alleged authority as the faithful and wise servant mentioned in the gospels.  Your intellect is sufficiently developed that you can tell this claim to authority is faulty.  Amen?

Being smart doesn’t guarantee you’ll make smart decisions.

 It also doesn't guarantee Christian apologists will conform to Christ.  The fruit of William Lane Craig is not "gospel" but "counterfactuals of creaturely freedom in all possible worlds".  The fruit of James Patrick Holding is closet-homosexuality, and telling his favorite scholars to fuck off after he was forced to admit they think he gives Christianity a bad name, he says:

However, if any of the Context Group ever wished to argue that such language is inappropriate today, my reply is that they need to mind their own business and look past the rarified confines of academia.

Wallace continues:

For this reason, the connection between IQ and religious belief is unsurprising and unflattering.

That works the other way too (i.e., the fact that some Christian apologist is super-smart, does exactly nothing to increase the likelihood that he is qualified for the office of teacher, or walking in Christ properly).

There are lots of incredibly smart believers; these folks have simply learned to submit their self-reliance and self-indulgence before investigating the case for God’s existence.

And there are a lot of incredibly smart believers who subsequently became just as convinced that biblical authority is bullshit, no less than YOU determined for yourself that Mormon authority is bullshit.