Meet my friend Velu who was born and raised as an Untouchable (Dalit) in India. With hard work, Velu made it to the United States, and after earning a doctorate in engineering, embarked on a journey, as an activist, to educate and protect his community. Over the years he had read a number of Hindu scriptures, and to put it mildly, denounced every one of them. Once I handed him a copy of the Bible and asked him to read it. About three weeks reading into the first half of the Hebrew portion of the Bible he called me and said, “GB, this stuff is not any better than the Hindu scriptures and I refuse to read it any further.” All my attempts to induce him to read the Bible failed.

Continuing with our ongoing debate on the Biblical God (BG), I received a lengthy reply refuting my earlier article published in the last issue of the Sikhspectrum, giving me the opportunity to not only reply but also share the contents of the Bible that were so unpleasant to Velu.

1.  Mr. Jaspal Singh in his letter, with embedded replies from J.P. Holding and Glenn Miller, attempted to refute the serious charges against the BG leveled by C. Dennis McKinsey and me. With Dennis’ permission, his colleague Ed Unger was more than happy to provide his rebuttal. My own reply is also attached here. Since my portion of the original article dealt with the issue of slavery, I think the readers will benefit from the comments of Morton Smith, a famous author on the topic of religions:

“There were innumerable slaves of the emperor and of the Roman state; the Jerusalem Temple owned slaves; the High Priest owned slaves (one of them lost an ear in Jesus’ arrest); all of the rich and almost all of the middle class owned slaves. So far as we are told, Jesus never attacked this practice. He took the state of affairs for granted and shaped his parables accordingly.

“As Jesus presents things, the main problem for the slave is not to get free, but to win their master’s praise. There seem to have been slave revolts in Palestine and Jordan in Jesus’ youth (Josephus, Bellum 2. 55-65); a miracle-working leader of such a revolt would have attracted a large following. If Jesus had denounced slavery or promised liberation, we should almost certainly have heard of his doing it. We hear nothing, so the most likely supposition is that he said nothing.”

2.   Gary DeVaney, the owner of an intriguing web-site, was kind enough to provide me an exhaustive list of the crimes committed by BG. These references had shaken my friend Velu when he first decided to read the Bible, and never finished reading it. Please take your time to go through this list.

3.   If there is no other outstanding issue on the BG, my intention is to move the topic to Jesus Christ. At the same time I encourage SikhSpectrum readers to read carefully the materials posted here, and share their views with the editor and the individual authors.

In the spirit of open debates, I am indebted to my younger brother Jaspal Singh who showed the courage by responding to my critical article on the Biblical God (BG). In addition he sought the help of J.P. Holding (I understand his real name is different) and Glenn Miller to refute rather serious charges leveled against BG. While I acknowledge Jaspal’s written part as minimal, however, Holding’s and Miller’s “responses” are hardly the answers to the challenging questions raised in my article on slavery.

Mr. Holding devoted a considerable space to refute what Dennis McKinsey wrote. Dennis is not my relative and I have no special association with him. Years of my dedicated research brought me to evaluate his writings. In addition to roughly two hundred issues of the Biblical Errancy, a monthly magazine he wrote and published, he has authored two books on the errors in the Bible. I find his work extremely valuable. I am not saying Dennis is perfect, and anyone including Mr. Holding can try refuting him--which he did here. In matters of critical thinking on critical issues I must say that I was not impressed by the arguments of Mr. Holding. Having said that I must make it clear that I have nothing against Mr. Holding and respect him as a human being and as my brother, and marvel at his energy to respond to the serious issues that we are confronted inside the Bible as well as outside. Moreover, through open debates we learn from each other, and every argument put forth is worthy of reading and debating.

For me whether one is a believer (irrespective of any religion), agnostic, atheist, freethinker, skeptic, or whatever is of the least importance. What is important is that we as human beings can get together and share our ideas without any inhibitions. Bible is an important book and its contents must be evaluated. Reverend Tony Zekveld and I started on this mission on the pages of SikhSpectrum.com and now others have joined in to pitch their own views. And that’s what makes this debate great.

Jaspal made an interesting comment: “…I would like to emphasize that true knowledge of God is never just an intellectual exercise, but involves a man's spirit connecting with God's Spirit. This in essence is a revealing move from God to us, for in ourselves, our spirit's are blind. If you take exception to this and the thought flashes through your mind that you in particular are not blind, even if others maybe, then take note that your case is double blindness, for blindness is mixed with pride.” I am baffled at this and find that the same kind of mumbo-jumbo can be thrown at him. But I am not going to do that.

I commend Jaspal for his courage to set aside the boundaries to be a seeker for the “true living God.” He is correct in thinking that God is not confined within the boundaries of some prescribed culture, religion, etc. But I am afraid to tell him that what he opted for is exactly the opposite of the high motives that inspires a seeker to start his or her journey. He is not the first, nor the last seeker to fall for the “true living God.” It would have been better if Jaspal himself had responded to my article with respect to the serious questions raised therein. I certainly would have wanted to know whether he had read the Bible before he fell for the “true living God.” And if so, did he read the verses on slavery and other numerous debasing values of BG that are unbecoming of God? If this were the case, how did he resolve the moral and ethical conflicts that are bound to arise?

Is it possible that Jaspal never truly read the Bible, and converted for reasons entirely different and beyond the scope here? For all these years I have never come across a person converted to Christianity after reading the Bible in its entirety. A person becomes a Christian (for whatever reasons including psychological) and then begins to read the Bible through selective readings of some prescribed verses. Jaspal has titled his response “Can the real Biblical God please stand up.” I wonder what he means? Has doubt entered his mind?

Before I get down to Mr. Holding’s rebuttal, I must say that I have browsed through his extensive web site and I commend him for standing up for his beliefs. However, standing up for one’s own belief is not sufficient to the serious questions I have raised. I have read his views thoroughly, and I am not convinced of his arguments. Here are my answers in brief:

1.  Mr. Holding agreed with my finding that in Christian bookstores there is no section referenced for books on “God.” I will skip the “evasive” part of the story. He raises a point that “God category” is “too broad” to be used in a bookstore. After giving due consideration, I disagree with him. I think a Christian bookstore can have a section on “God” hopefully without interfering with the rest of Christian theology and the associated business ventures.

2.  Yes I do have an “understanding of Trinitarianism” that is different from what evangelicals preach. However, in my article I wanted to strictly deal with BG without the stresses of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I certainly have plans to talk about the other two member of the Trinity at another time in future. I am pretty sure Mr. Holding is aware of the verses where Jesus himself is referring to and about his father. It is that father who was the focus of my article and he is called Biblical God.

3.  Regarding my comments that Mr. Holding italicized as, “I have never come across a Christian who has opened himself to discuss with me the moral and ethical problems of BG as revealed in the Bible.” I am glad to read, as per Mr. Holding, these problems “have been discussed repeatedly in Christian literature.” Since I must have missed it, Mr. Holding kindly provides some narrative as well as a web address authored by Glenn Miller. I read and reread the narratives very carefully and nowhere did I find any convincing evidence against what the Bible really says on slavery. It would be commendable if both Holding and Miller had agreed that BG had indeed approved of the institution of slavery.

I know a number of honorable Christians who would never go to the extent to beat around the bush in attempting to confuse the matter by throwing smoke screens to make BG look somewhat better from the real one. I need not remind here that European Christians brought slavery to Africa. Once slavery was outlawed they brought about indentured servitude to the inhabitants. Read the history of low-caste Hindus who were brought to southern Africa via indentured servitude methodology and the hell they went through. Has anyone looked into the history of colonialism of “heathen lands” by the very hands that proudly called themselves Christians? Should I remind the readers of the terrible consequences of following the Biblical dictates that brought slavery to the United States of America?

White slave masters time and again pointed to Biblical verses that approved of slavery. Mr. Holding and Miller need not go the extra length to protect the BG. They need to think that agreeing with the truth goes a long way to heal past wounds, while making sure that the BG and his unacceptable teachings are kept away from our society. I still say that “I have never come across a Christian who has opened himself to discuss with me the moral and ethical problems of BG as revealed in the Bible.”

Beyond this even Jesus Christ who supposedly had read the Hebrew Bible should have alerted the people against slavery, indentured servitude, and other despicable practices. His failing to put out an alert makes me wonder? I would urge brother Holding to read (if already read, please re-evaluate it carefully) the chapter, God’s Stance on Slavery by Dr. Jason Long.

4.  With respect to Jesus, in the New Testament, not doing away with the institution of slavery Mr. Holding wrote, “slavery as such did not exist in the Jewish lands where Jesus preached, and slaves would have been a rare sight there.” Interestingly, there is no evidence provided. What Mr. Holding is saying is that in the geographical entity where Jesus lived under the Roman Empire slavery was not practiced. I disagree with him. However, for the sake of truth I am interested to explore it further to a fruitful conclusion once proper references are provided.

5.  Moving on to the discussion on Paul, Mr. Holding then provided the following four references:

i.  Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households [1 Tim 1.9-10]

ii.  Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23]

iii.  Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21]

iv.  Paul encourages Philemon to 'free' Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21]

Paul lived and traveled in the Roman Empire for roughly 20-30 years after Jesus according to the history given to us. It is quite clear that Holding, by citing the above verses, is telling us that slavery existed in the Roman Empire, and by citing Paul informs us that he moved “the church away from general slave-system orientation.” Let me get it straight: We are at first told that slavery didn’t exist in the Roman Empire, and then we are told that slavery existed in the Roman Empire. Let me ask Mr. Holding: Which one is correct? Perhaps it is not out of place to remind him that BG’s revelation on promoting slavery etc. occurred on the Jewish lands.

6.  Let me take few more lines to address the above-mentioned four verses of Paul. Are they really what they are as we’re being told? Let’s consider them one by one:

Paul explicitly denounces slave-trading, which would have restricted the supply of slaves to Christian households. [1 Tim 1.9-10]

Allow me to quote 1 Timothy 1:9-10

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"; [King James Version].

Mr. Holding has a unique way of interpreting verses and that’s why he belongs to a cadre of modern day Christian soldiers called Christian Apologists.

Paul tells free people to NOT become slaves [1 Cor 7.23].

Paul tells slaves to become free, if they can [1 Cor 7.21].

Allow me to quote 1 Corinthians 7:21-23

"Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." [KJV]

I am not quite sure if Paul meant that the slave should or shouldn’t take an opportunity to freedom. Perhaps there is another way of reading these verses. In Paul’s mind the end of the world was at hand and the above verses might fit in better in that context. I certainly would caution Mr. Holding to shy away from citing these verses the way he did unless he would want to depict Paul as inconsistent and contradictory.

Paul encourages Philemon to 'free' Onesimus in that epistle [verse 21].

Allow me to quote Philemon, verse 21

"Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say." [KJV]

I wouldn’t use the “Book” of Philemon to rescue the Bible. While subject to interpretation, one can construct a solid case where Paul is buttressing the institution of slavery by sending Onesimus, a slave, who had earlier run away from his slave master named Philemon. One sure way of freeing Onesimus was not to send him back to Philemon. Obviously we don’t know if Onesimus went back to Philemon, and if he did, what Philemon did with Onesimus.

Let me put Paul to rest. Peter J. Gomes, professor of Christian Morals at the Harvard Divinity School, in his book The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart has written the following:

Southern Christians were quick to point out that slavery was not an accidental or an incidental matter in biblical times, and that the Apostle Paul took considerable pains in nearly all of his letters to regulate slavery, a social fact he accepted, within the ethics of a Christian society. Acceptance of the reality of slavery was not necessarily approval or endorsement.

In heaven, where there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage, as Jesus points out, is presumably no slavery, no master and no free, for as Paul says, in Christ there is neither free nor slave. On earth and in this life, however, for as long as it lasts, marriage and slavery obtain. Paul endorses neither, and neither does he condemn either. He accepts both.

7.  In the end Mr. Holding captures the complexity of slavery by taking refuge into the historical situation where the blanket statement of “free them all” could not be issued because of the following reasons as he himself wrote and I reproduce:

a.  Many slaves were still in infancy or childhood, rescued from infant exposure/abandonment.

b.  Many slaves were acquired in infancy or childhood, with life-care being provided by owner.

c.  Many slaves were aged or sick, without means to live in 'freedom'.

d.  The social relief systems of the Empire would have been inadequate to care for these needy people. [Later, the emperor Julian will lament about this--that it is only the Christian community that provides welfare services to the needy of the world.]

e.  There were known legal limits to manumission (and probably others), some before an owner's death and some at death.

f.  There was a growing body of legislation and intellectual support for amelioration of the slave's conditions, and the trendlines were very favorable to the slave.

Vow! Can you believe this person? His justifications reminds me of a few educated Hindus who would do anything to protect the caste system on the one hand, and on the other take on extraordinary steps to re-educate you on the true meaning of caste — something of milder form - different from the one you already knew. And in the end these Hindus (mind you not all of them) would love to cite historical factors by blaming others for the continuation of the wrongful perception of the caste system. Mr. Holding is doing just that.

At this point I think the opportunity has arrived to introduce Mr. Holding to the example of Sikh Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh whose historical teaching cover roughly two hundred years starting in the 1500s. Those were the times when the caste system was in full force with huge population loads lying at the very bottom as slaves. This slavery was far worse than any other system of slavery known to humankind. The political situation was such that every fiber of the authority (both Hindu and Islamic) was active in keeping the status quo intact.

Guru Nanak could have taken the route of BG, Jesus Christ and that of Paul. Guru Nanak could have kept silent against the caste system. He could have opted to talk in an evasive language where his prescription would have meant anything to anybody. But that was not to be. My brother Jaspal Singh is not going to tell you that Guru Nanak denounced the caste system and the other Sikh Gurus who followed him implemented the ideals to demolish the caste and slavery associated with it in favor of an egalitarian society. At times they paid heavy prices for abolishing the caste and all the paraphernalia that went with it. That’s the kind of example I was looking for in BG, but unfortunately I can’t find it.


Copyright ©2005 G.B. Singh. About the author