Can We Recite Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut?

I was surprised to see the extent to which this seemingly innocuous question is actually a hot-button issue. After all, we come across essential points such as whether we should have waited for the Messiah to bring us to Israel or how we should view the celebration of a secular state. Hallel, which is Psalms 113-118, is not something we can just recite capriciously. Even the Gemara speaks harshly of those who recite it everyday (Shabbat 118b). Hallel is only reserved for special occasions. As such, we need to be prudent in approaching such a halachic question.

As to whether we should even have a Yom Ha’atzmaut, I’ll be brief. Most of those who don’t give any credence to Yom Ha’atzmaut are certain members of Haredi Orthodoxy. Short of that, it is universally accepted as a modern holiday. Even the Chief Rabbinate has declared it a holiday, as well as helped in creating new liturgy expressing Zionist sentiments on this day. Sufficeth to say, with its overreaching acceptance, we can, at the very least, treat it as a minhag.

Now we come to the question of whether we can recite Hallel for Yom Ha’atzmaut. We only recite Hallel under certain conditions. The first one is that an open miracle took place. There are rabbis who argue against reciting Hallel because they believe that a blatant miracle did not occur. I beg to differ. Israel is surrounded by the antagonistic nations of Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, all of which are ready to pounce on Israel and eradicate the Jews from the land. The Jews were outnumbered, had inferior weaponry, and a comparably small amount of assets [compared to those nations surrounding them]. Geographically speaking, Israel’s location makes it highly vulnerable to invasion. If one calculated the odds, there was no way that Israel could win, but lo and behold, it happened. It is such a blatant miracle that when West Point was asked why they don’t teach this war in their military school, their response was “we don’t teach miracles.” Since there is no geo-political or militaristic reason for Israel's victory, the only explanation is Divine Providence.

R. Azulai opines that an event that represents a step in the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash (i.e., the creation of the modern state of Israel) warrants reciting Hallel [with a blessing]. Complaints against this notion are that Israel’s shortcomings negate the recitation of Hallel because Yom Ha'atzmaut is not fully redemptive.  Rav Ovadia Hadaya, for instance, rules that Hallel cannot be recited because of Israel’s unstable security. Even Chazon Ish (Letters of the Chazon Ish, #97) stated that Israel’s spiritual shortcomings, i.e., the insufficient amount of Torah observance, doesn’t allow us to institute a new practice such as this. However, many rabbis with notoriety, such as R. Aharon Soloveitchik and R. Meshulem Roth, disagree. When one looks at Pesach or Chanukah, both the Exodus and the militaristic gains were both the beginning of redemption, yet we say Hallel for both. Even according to R. Ya'akov of Lisa, one can establish a holiday for the entire Jewish People to commemorate an event that is considered an act of redemption.

Another issue is whether the miracle happened to the entirety of the Jewish people. With Pesach or Chanukah, the miracles occurred to all Jews. In this instance, we see that the War of Independence did not affect all Jews. Normally, one would think that this would disqualify us from reading Hallel. However, the caveat here is expressed by Meiri’s ruling, based on Pesachim 117a (the Talmudic source of reciting Hallel), which states that if a miracle happens to an individual or a portion of the Jewish people, Hallel can be recited without a bracha.

Conclusion: Although you can easily find a rabbi on either side of the argument, a disinterested look at it provides ample evidence to show that Hallel can be recited. However, since this miracle did not occur to the Jewish people as a whole, a bracha technically cannot be recited. After much contemplation, I have decided to go with reciting Hallel without the bracha. Whatever your approach to this modern holiday is, I hope that you can find a way to use Yom Ha’atzmaut to enhance your connection to the state of Israel, as well as G-d.

Another Academic Who Can't Get Israel Right

And I thought that Noam Chomsky was annoying enough!  I came across an op-ed letter from in the Post Crescent, my local newspaper, from Professor Martin Gruberg, an emeritus professor from UW-Oshkosh.  When I initially read the article, the tone of the writing made it appear as if it were written either by an anti-Semite or a self-loathing Jew.  Even after reading the article and finding out who the author was, I can't but help to still think the author is either one. In any event, the basis of his article is that there are six policies that Israel can implement to bring peace to the Middle East and lessen the need for American involvement in that part of the world.  I'll list them and briefly comment on each one:

1. Creation of a functioning Palestinian state.  The problem with this "solution" is that there are two entities in question, mainly that of Hamas and Fatah, that would need to be granted statehood.  They are both separated by Israel.  Since they are two separate entites without sovereignty, they clearly cannot function on their own. 

2. Dismantling illegal Israeli settlements and outposts.  These are not an obstacle to peace.  Get over it!

3. Exchange land for peace.  This has been Israel's approach to the "peace process" since before the inception of the modern state.  The fact that Israel has withdrawn from 93% of disputed territory doesn't seem to make the Palestinians happy.   

4. Share Jerusalem as the capitol of two respective states.  The Palestinians don't want to share.  They want it all to themselves.  Just take a look at some pictures from Palestinian textbooks.  Even Hillary Clinton thought Palestinian textbooks were a form of child abuse, that is before she worked for the Obama administration.

5. Relax the economic embargo on the Gaza Strip.  Yea, just another way for Israel to compromise its national security for a bunch of terrorists.

6. Create a machinery for compensating Palestinians for property lost with Israel's creation.  Bolstering and aiding your enemy makes a lot of sense...only if you're a proponent of national suicide!

Professor Gruberg, you might as well work for the Obama administration because your "blame Israel while giving the Palestinians a pat on the back" mentality lines up perfectly.  I noticed that you never decided once to list what the Palestinians need to do to bring peace.  How about not teaching their children how to blow up innocent Jews?  How about recognizing Israel's right to exist?  How about not indoctrinating children with hatred towards the Jewish people?  It takes two to tango, Professor!  Israel has been doing the "land for peace" bit for decades, and all the Palestinians do is continue to hate Jews.  Rather than be part of the "blame Israel first" group, maybe you should chastize who is really to blame--the Palestinians.

Tea Party 2010: A Look at the Future of America's Economy

Tea Parties are fun to go to, and that’s not just because you get to hang around like-minded people who wonder where their country went. It’s because when you talk with those at the rally, you get a better idea of what the American people want. No, these people were not political activists prior to this. About 99% of them are normal, everyday Americans who are feeling the repercussions of the erosion of their economic freedoms [the other 1% are political pundits such as myself]. This movement has nothing to do with racism or even social issues, for that matter. If you need proof of this, just look at this New York Times/CBS News poll that shows interesting findings, such as 57% of those in the Tea Party support legal recognition of same-sex unions [that breakdown being 16% for gay marriage and 41% for civil unions], about 65% agree on a degree of access to abortions, or that only 2% think that “moral values” are an important issue facing the country. If you are wondering what made the Top Four of the list of prioritization for Tea Party supporters, it was the economy (23%), jobs (22%), politicians/government (13%), and the budget deficit (11%).

Economic failure and governmental intrusion are very much on the forefront of the Tea Party Movement’s mind. One of the speakers at the rally last night was a doctor who was discussing, in detail, how ObamaCare’s price controls on insurance are going to greatly hinder doctors’ ability to treat their patients. A not-so-amusing anecdote he brought up was when Nancy Pelosi was being interviewed after the passing of the health care bill. A reporter asked her about the constitutionality of the bill. You want to know what her response was? It was “Are you serious?” I think that has to be my response to her idiotic response. The head of Congress has no respect for the Constitution, which means she has no respect for American jurisprudence. And she still holds a seat of such affluence?! And you wonder why Congress’ job approval rating is so low.

Idiocies from Congress set aside, people at the Tea Party Rally were just fed up with government intrusion.  If you think that economic freedoms aren’t important, think again! In more ways than one, your economic freedoms are your freedoms. If we continue going down this path of giving the government more regulatory powers over the economy, which, by the way, are not granted by the Constitution, you wouldn’t be able to buy property, buy the kind of car you like, eat whatever you want, have the thermostat set the way you like it, or to pursue the career of your choice.

The Founding Fathers were highly intuitive men, especially after experiencing governmental stifling of the American colonies. They knew that the best government was a limited one. At best, government was a necessary evil, and at worst, an intolerable one. As James Madison said best, “If people were angels, we would have no need for government.” Because of their intuition, the Founding Fathers gave the federal government a minimalist amount of power. I think just the actions of the Obama administration alone would cause the Founding Fathers to roll in their graves. Bailouts of the banks, a stimulus package which has been nothing but treif, a failed Cash-for-Clunkers program, and the recent overhaul of a sixth of our economy. What have the American people received in return? Increased unemployment, an economy showing no signs of recovery, and an ever-rising debt. That sounds like a fair trade-off. I guess that’s what Obama meant by hope and change!

And if you thought that wasn’t enough, guess what the federal government has in the works? A cap-and-tax bill along with a plan to add a value-added tax to the government's continuously burdensome taxation.

Whether it’s anthropogenic global warming, increasing regulatory oversight of the Federal Reserve, or the government telling citizens that they have to buy health insurance, our government is clearly forgetting about the concept of “we, the people.” Quite a few at the rally were putting emphasis on “working within the system” in order to bring constitutional integrity back, which means finding accountable people to run for office within the two-party system. Whether or not you agree with the Electoral College, or the status quo of the two-party system, one thing is for certain—the November elections will be a good indicator of the future of our political climate. We will be able to see if Tea Party politicians can keep their word to the people. We will see if “we, the people” truly are fed up with the government and their increasingly invasive laws and regulations. In short, we will see if America wants to maintain its exceptionalism or become a crippling, European-style welfare state.

Obama’s Nuclear Dream is Going to Go “BOOM!”

A world without nuclear arms sounds lofty. We can all happily live in peace in a care-free world knowing that there is no strife or conflict. But the main problem with Obama’s dream is that that day has yet to arrive. In order for a true, utopian world peace to occur, amicable relations need to precede any disarmament, not the other way around.

This is yet another example of Obama’s backwards view on the world. The world is not filled with liberal democracies. Totalitarianism still exists. America still has enemies. Much of foreign policy is still dictated by Realpolitik, which still implements such axioms as self-interest, balance of power, and national security. Until we can all “get along,” no country is going to [totally] relinquish their nuclear capabilities. In terms of national self-interest, there would be too much at stake if disarmament took place.

Look at this chart below:

First of all, if nobody has to been able to confirm Israel’s nuclear arsenal, I'd like to know how the heck the BBC even knows that Israel has eighty nuclear warheads?! This tangent is beyond me, although if I had to guess, it's probably shotty journalist work where they embellish on numbers just to make themselves look smart. But let us assume, for argument’s sake, that Israel has these warheads. Why would they give them up?? Israel is surrounded by a bunch of Arab nations that have tried to annihilate Israel in the past. You have a despotic Iran run by an absolute loon who has called for Israel’s destruction on multiple occasions. Only a masochist in the Israeli government who has a death wish for the Jewish state would hand over their weapons.

Israel wouldn’t be the only nation with something substantial to lose. After losing the Cold War, Russia has been trying to gain clout in the international field. Why would the Russian government surrender the only asset that gives them an edge? China is building up to be a world power, so it certainly won’t give up a single warhead. Pakistan and Indian have been at each other’s throat about the Kashmiri territorial dispute since 1947, and that is not about to wane anytime soon. And unless North Korea has nuclear arms, no one will pay attention to that authoritarian regime.  Even if there isn't a specific context to the reasoning, the fine point of all of this is that it is nobody's self-interest, not even America's, to totally disarm.  Even if we pretend to in the public sphere, it's very likely that we have another stash in a secret location because as military strategist, you have to think to yourself, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

Any attempt at disarmament will turn out to be even more pathetic than the Copenhagen Conference this past December. And it's not that I don't want to live in a world free of nuclear worries.  It's that I know the gap between reality and what we strive for [i.e., world peace], is too wide.  Until such a gap is minimized, we cannot risk our national security based on Leftist, whimsical notions of world peace. 

Remembering the Holocaust and Going Beyond “Never Again”

Never again. It was a popular saying amongst the Jews after World War Two. What happened during השואה (the Holocaust) was one of the most, if not the most, repugnant and immoral acts that man has ever performed. Hitler’s perverted sense of racial purity to get rid of the Jews, along with the mentally disabled, homosexuals, Gypsies, and others who were deemed racially inferior, is most assuredly engrained in the Jewish psyche.


It is something that the Jewish people have remembered ever since. Remembering is part of the Jewish experience. It is no accident that לזכור (to remember), or some derivative of the word, is mentioned in the Tanach no less than 169 times. It’s a daily mitzvah to remember the Exodus of Egypt (Exodus 13:3). We are even to remember what Amalek did to us (Deut. 25:17). The experience of השואה has also come under the Jewish tradition of זכור. Recently, a day on the Jewish calendar was set aside to remember the Holocaust, which is celebrated on this day, the 27th of Nissan. There have been multiple Holocaust museums erected to tell the stories embedded within this dark period of man’s history.

Even though remembering such events is a part of being Jewish, is remembering sufficient? Rabbi Emil Fackenheim is famous for coming up with the “614th commandment,” which was “thou shall not give Hitler a posthumous victory.” Let’s leave the controversy of whether it should literally be added to the list of 613 commandments for a moment. Knowing what the anguish that Nazi Germany has caused, Fackenheim is certainly correct in securing Jewish survival. After the Six-Day War, Israel certainly proved itself to the world that she can hold her own. And considering that 40% of Jews are located in America, and that America has the best track record [out of all non-Jewish states] of protecting Jews’ rights, it’s safe to say that a bulk of Jewry has a fair amount of security. As for remembering, I’ve already illustrated that point. Fackenheim’s point of denying G-d is of interest, one which I will have to discuss at later time.

What I do want to hit home is how Judaism traditionally copes with loss of life. In Judaism, we don’t mourn the death of somebody so much as we remember their life and how that person lives on through us. That message is all the more important when applied to those lost in the Holocaust. There is certain space for grieving, and Judaism leaves ample space to grieve. But ultimately, we are meant to live our lives and carry that person’s memory on with us. That way, the person lives on, even beyond the physical life—it’s much more enduring when we remember them, thus the Jewish tradition of placing a pebble on a tombstone, as opposed to flowers.

With that in mind, I will take Fachenheim’s “commandment” one step further. Rather than merely not granting Hitler a posthumous victory, how about granting the Jewish people the victory? Let’s go beyond remembering. Every time we, the Jewish people, observe the Sabbath, study the Torah, say a blessing before eating kosher food, or give tzedakah, we embolden ourselves. Every time we do a mitzvah, we don’t just say “never again”; we posthumously deliver a striking coup to Hitler. Every Jewish deed we perform, we bring the light of goodliness in this world.  If you want to partake in the ultimate form of remembrance, honor the memory of those who died by living more and more Jewishly. That way, the evils in this world can finally be vanquished by the good we do in this world.

כן יהי רצון!

Parsha Shemini: What I Learned From a Stork (Leviticus 11:19)

Studying the dietary laws is always of intrigue. Since it’s Parsha Shemini this week, we, of course, study these laws in Chapter 11 of Leviticus. When coming up to list of forbidden birds, I had to stop for a moment because I had always been under the impression that a bird that was non-kosher had that status because it was a bird of prey (Ramban). Because of their nature, we did not want to emulate that behavior. I’ve also read that land animals that have their cloven hooves and that chew their own cud tend towards kindness, which is something we should emulate.

I’ve always heard that as an explanation of why certain birds are not kosher, and I was surprised to see that the stork made the list. A stork isn’t a bird of prey. Quite the contrary! The word that is used for stork is חסידה, which is actually a homophone meaning “righteous [female] person.” I certainly was not the first person to realize the linguistic commonality. The Sages realized this centuries ago (Chulin 63a). They realize that it is called a חסידה because it acts with חסד (kindness) towards other members of its species.

If we “are what we eat,” and the חסידה is such a bird of compassion, why would G-d deem it to not be kosher? The Rizhiner Rebbe saw the Talmudic passage and pointed out that it was kind only to its own kind.  It’s easy to feel a special connection with family because they are kin. It’s easy to be kind to a Jew because he’s “another member of the tribe,” as it were. This is what the חסידה did, and for the חסידה, it was more instinctual for it to act in such way. The same goes for us.

Before we continue, I need to point out that the חסד of the חסידה was not some bubbly, flighty emotion. It was done through acts of giving. Through doing benevolent acts for others was the bird able to show kindness, at least to his own species. The action is important. When you perform an act of kindness for another person, you invest a part of yourself in that person. As Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler puts it,

“Giving may bring about love for the same reason that a person loves what he himself has created or nurtured: he recognizes in it a part of himself. Whether it is a child he has brought into the world [or] an animal he has raised…a person is bound in love to the work of his hands, for in it he finds himself. If one were only to reflect that a person comes to love the one to whom he gives, he would realize that the only reason that the other person seems a stranger to him is because he has not yet given to him. If I give to someone, I feel closer to him; I have a share in his being. It follows that if I were to start bestowing good upon everyone I come in contact with, I would soon feel that they are all my loved ones.”

What does this all mean for us? In a multicultural, twenty-first century America, where the types of people are as diverse as species in the animal kingdom, many around us are “not like us.” What the Rizhiner Rebbe points out in analyzing this verse that acting with חסד to your kind only was not חסד at all. In order to have a life filled with חסד, you need to do so with all.

There is much to distinguish Jew from the Gentile. Jews have specific dietary rules, keep the Sabbath, keep their heads covered, don't mix wool and linen, I could go on for hours. And you know what?  Jews should and need to be proud of their heritage, traditions, and connection to G-d. But if we solely obsess over our distinctiveness incessantly, we forget about everybody else and isolate ourselves from everybody else (i.e., Gentiles) because they are “the other.” This is the very type of behavior that the Rizhiner Rebbe advised us against, and precisely why the חסידה is not deemed kosher. All human beings, whether Jewish or not, are created in His image. If it were just Jews that were “created in His image,” G-d would have declared that to Abraham, not Adam. Since He had declared that to Adam, Jewish tradition teaches that we are all G-d’s children. We all have hopes, dreams, worries, questions, ambitions, and a yearning to connect to a transcendent being (i.e., G-d). Although we have much to contrast ourselves from one another, we have much more in common. In order to express true kindness in the world, we need to remember the innate g-dliness in every human being.

To conclude, I have a video clip from the movie El Tren de la Vida. Aside from being the best musical duel I have ever seen in my entire life, it teaches an important lesson. Even though Jews and Gypsies are two very different groups of people, they get past their differences and we see them enjoying and rejoicing in what brings them together: their humanity.  ואמרו אמן!

The Easter Story: The Greatest Myth Ever Told

We’ve all heard the story. Jesus is resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion. His “miraculous recovery” is supposed to prove that his death that he died to save mankind, or at least Christendom, from their sins.

I call the Easter story the greatest myth ever told, well, because it is. The story is great because of the impact it has had on this world, for better or worse. I call it a myth because, as I detail below, this story is inconceivable.

I am certain that this blog entry will not be palatable to any Christian who reads it. To be perfectly frank, that is not my issue, even if you happen to be one of my many Christian friends. Ascertaining truth in this world is of utmost importance to me [and I hope you understand that], which is why such stories need to be classified and recognized for the untruths they are.

Although Christian apologists would claim that there is ample historical evidence proving Jesus’ resurrection, historicity has another tale to tell. When performing historical analysis, we look for the historical evidence to corroborate or negate its veracity. Unlike other historical events, we have no evidence whatsoever of a resurrection, not even a single eyewitness testimony!  The only sources we have around that time period documenting this event are sacred scriptures of a pro-Christian bent.  So, in terms of historical veracity, the evidence we have is of the least objective kind—nothing more than the word of a bunch of biased, unscholarly devotees of Jesus who would have said anything because their devotion to Jesus had been set in stone long before his death. Even if we were to believe Paul when he said that there were over five hundred witnesses to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6), we run into a problem. Why didn’t Paul tell us who these witnesses were or where they lived? Why is there no eyewitness testimony from them?  Hypothetically, I can claim that five hundred people saw me make a five-story building disappear. Aside from the initial ridiculousness of the claim, wouldn’t it be all the more embarrassing if I couldn’t produce any eyewitness testimony to my supposed miracle?

If I were an objective historian, I would not use Christian scriptures as my sole basis for proving anything since one can hardly consider such a text to be unbiased. Since Christian scriptures are the only “evidence” for such an event, one would also have to consider that other scenarios were just as plausible. This is precisely what Yisroel Blumenthal does--create reasonable doubt.  One scenario is that Jesus’ followers were in a hurry to bury Jesus [since it was almost the Sabbath], and because they were in a rush, they could have forgotten the location of the burial site. Another possibility is that the disciples, in their zealousness, removed the body themselves and lied to the masses in order to perpetuate the worship of Jesus the man. A third possibility is that Jesus’ body was indeed exhumed by the governing authorities to be put on display to prove that Jesus was never resurrected, but what makes you think that such evidence would have survived centuries of the Catholic Church’s censorship?

But let us put aside notions about eyewitness testimony, reasonable doubt, and corroborating evidence for a moment. After all, Christians tell us we should believe because the Bible tells us so. Just for the record, they’ll also have you believe that the Bible is true because the Bible is true—you have to love that circular argumentation! For argument’s sake, what I will do is temporarily suspend my disbelief by taking Christian scriptures at face value and presume that they were written by well-intentioned men whose goal was to genially “bring the [true] word of Christ to the world.”

When looking at what Christian scriptures has to say about the alleged event, even an unbiased reader has to question the veracity of such a source due to multiple textual issues and inconsistencies. Just to name a few:

1) On which day was Jesus crucified? Some sources say the day before Passover (John 13:1, 29, 18:28, 19:14), whereas others say the first day of Passover (Mark 14:17-25, Luke 22:14-23, Matthew 26:20-30). This causes an even more complicated discrepancy since right before Jesus’ death, he had a Passover seder. There is no way that the seder would have occurred before Passover began, which means that his death could not have either.

2) What were Jesus’ last words? Luke 23:46 says they were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit.” John 19:30 says “It is finished.” Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 both say that they were “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is translated ‘My G-d, My G-d, why have you forsaken me?’” The latter is perturbing since those last words sound more like a man who questions why G-d has abandoned him more than anything else.

3) How many days was Jesus in his tomb? Jesus prophesized (Matthew 12:40) that it would be three days and three nights, the same time that Jonah was in the belly of the whale. John 20:1 said it was two days and two nights, whereas Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, and Matthew 28:1 say it was three days and two nights. Aside from the contradictions between the Gospels, what is even more glaring is that in either case, his stay in the earth did not last for three days and three nights, thereby making him a false prophet.

4) On the Sunday morning, how many people initially approached the empty tomb? This is another one of those “depends on who you ask” questions. John (20:1) says one, Mark (16:1) says three, and Luke (24:10) says four.

5) After seeing the angels, whom did Mary meet first? According to Luke (24:4-10), it was the disciples. John (20:14), Mark (16:9), and Matthew (28:9) all say that she first met Jesus.

6) Did those who were allegedly there doubt that it was Jesus? Answer: Yes! Mary thought it was the gardener (John: 20:14-15). Even some of Jesus’ disciples were unsure that it was actually Jesus (Matthew 28:17).

7) Where did Jesus' post-resurrection appearances take place?  Luke (24:13-53) said they were near Jerusalem, whereas Matthew (28:7-20) said they were near the Galilee, which is in the northern part of Israel.

8) When did the apostles receive the "holy spirit?"  According to John (20:22), it was on Easter Sunday, whereas Luke (Acts 1:5, 8, 2:1-4) insists that it was on Pentecost, which was fifty days later!

I can come up with about twenty other inconsistencies in no time flat, but I'll leave the rest to Rabbi Tovia Singer, who has done what any unbiased reader of the text would do. He has lined up the four versions of the resurrection story here and shows that none of the details in the four accounts are consistent with each other. In case anybody is doubting me, I did verify the citations' veracity, which means that the existence of the inconsistencies is not up for debate. If any other text, religious or secular, had such glaring inconsistencies, I wouldn’t expect Christians to ardently defend it with the [theological] acrobatics that they defend their scriptures.

To say the least, this causes many problems for Christian apologists. In the words of Asher Norman, author of 26 Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus, he ever so eloquently states, on page 274 of his book, the blatant issues with the conflicting eyewitness testimonies:

Missionaries explain these conflicts to be like differences in eyewitness testimony of an event. They assert that conflicts are expected and actually prove the veracity of the witnesses because false witnesses would rehearse their stories. There are three problems with the missionary answer. First, the Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses. None of them are reported to have witnessed the events described above. Second, many of the differences concern times, dates, and places, which cannot be explained away by differences in perspective. Third, the testimony of the authors is supposedly “the inspired word of G-d (2 Timothy 3:16).” Would G-d transmit a garbled version of the story that is the foundation of Christian faith? Since the “resurrection” of a dead body is not scientifically possible, one needs to believe in a miracle to accept the story as true. Since the contradictions prove that G-d did not inspire the text, there is no rational reason to believe in the “resurrection.” It is therefore simply a self-serving explanation to explain the death of a failed messiah.

Conclusion: I find that the inaccuracies this story epitomize my theological frustrations with Christianity, and calling them "frustrations" would be me putting it mildly. After all, this story is unquestionably the cornerstone of Christianity. Without it, there would be no Christianity. This is why an honest, thorough analysis of the text is essential.

I hope I'm not asking for too much here, but I’ll give it a go. What I ask of Christians is that the minimalist standards that you use to prove veracity are those that you would use in any other decision or analysis you make in your daily lives. The very fact that a significantly lower burden of proof is used in Christianity is regrettable, especially from my conservative Christian friends who constantly complain, and accurately so, about the political Left and their usage of double standards.

I’d also like to make another essential point. Even if this “resurrection” ever happened, I would still find it to be a moot point because, as I blogged a couple of months ago, Jesus could not have possibly died for our sins.

This is not to say that I don't think Christians have a right to practice their religion in America.  If Christianity makes you feel happy and it helps you to be a contributing member of society, go for it!  As long as your faith does not interfere with anybody else's right to practice their religion, I will respect your right to practice Christianity. However, I hope that for any Christian who takes their faith seriously, I hope you take my legitimate concerns just as seriously and think about these inconsistencies.