The quote above is from Allan Fenty’s ‘Frankly Speaking’ column in the Stabroek News of July 24th titled: Popular church, same attitudes.

The anti-social routine Mr. Fenty alluded to was on full display in the Guyana Chronicle of July 27th when the man, who cannot prove that he is not a fake pastor, talked about “so-called science.” Daniel Singh is on a campaign to mis-educate and corrupt Chronicle readers about empirical science.  He has no time to teach Christ’s values. Fortunately, he is being debunked by rational people and, with the exception of his sister, has not inspired a single Christian representative to rally to his cause.  Singh seems to be living on the edge.

Perhaps proper believers stay far away from him because the fundamentalist drivel that Singh produces in the newspapers is most likely considered to be what Mr. Fenty describes as “spiritual grossness”.

Singh launches an attack on humanism saying it behaves as God. As usual he is deliberately misleading the public. The Council for Secular Humanism describes their philosophy as “a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasises reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.”

Humanists may not believe in the Abrahamic God, but they have not substituted anything else in its place. They just think differently. Is Singh saying that anyone who does not believe and think as a Christian is being anti-god? The Muslims and Hindus, I’m sure, are very interested in his answer.

Singh says humanist ideals are no good (though I think he really means it undermines his alleged ability to demand tithes). The only rules worth living by, the possibly fake pastor says, are enshrined in the “absolute” rules of the Ten Commandments. So let’s examine these edicts just enough to demonstrate the stupidity of the fundamentalist view.

To begin with we can’t be sure who wrote the final commandments; Exodus 34:1 tells us God did, but Exodus 34:27 says Moses did.

Then we know that God Jesus broke some commandments. He is often found in the gospels breaking especially the 8th commandment in regards to the Sabbath. And in Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16 we find that Sabbath keeping is not the “absolute” commandment that Singh would have us believe.

And in Matthew 19:17-19 we find even Jesus messing up the commandments counting, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ as one of the ten. This was never the case. So much for absolutes!

Singh’s God commanded absolutely, “Thou shall not kill.” Then in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 He declared, “go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

“Thou shall not steal” is an absolute commandment. But God told Israel to steal from the Egyptians in Exodus 3:22 and in Nahum 2:9 He urged them to steal from the people of Nineveh.

One should absolutely not make “graven images” except not so absolutely in Exodus 25:18, 20 where it is ok to make cherubim’s and in numbers 21:8 where you can “make a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole.”

We are told absolutely that “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” And then told the absolute opposite in Deuteronomy 24:16: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

We are commanded, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” But we are also commanded in Numbers 31:18: “But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”  And in Hosea 1:2:  “And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms….”

Now, I can go on with this for a while but this is enough to show that the Bible must not be taken as a fundamentalist “absolute”. Any intelligent theologian will tell you that, except for those on the edge of lunacy, most believers know that scripture requires interpretation.

Meanwhile, I invite readers to check out the validity of Singh’s claims by visiting: http://www.secularhumanism.org/
JUSTIN de FREITAS