Religious Apologetics: So Easy Even an Atheist Can Do It

The apologetic defense of religion is so illusive and illogical that it is a basic mental default; a remnant left over from the mystical and superstitious childhood years fed and modified by the professional (paid) clergy. The rush to lock a young mind into a god complex is the main goal of all denominations, sects and cults. The old Catholic maxim “Given be a child to the age of twelve and I’ll give you a Catholic for life.” can also be seen in fervent missionary movements especially in the LDS Mormons, who, like the Blues Brothers Jake and Elroy, are “on a mission from God”.


Those who have remained religious have commented here at DC representing one of two Positions:

The Deist and Theist Position: Easiest to defend since there is no religion or cult attached to it and this position draws in many agnostics.

Without a Bible, there are very little, if any dogmas or doctrines to defend, and, thus very little emotionalism (if any) is found here. All one need do here is take a past event and say, “It’s of god!”

A good Comparison would be: “A cat died. God killed it.” When this cat lived and how it died are not relevant to this apologetic defense. The debate is simply, “It’s of god". (An example here is our agnostic commenter Charlie.)

The Biblical Religionist Position: This apologetic defense is associated with an established belief usually either Judaism or Christianity. Unlike the Deist or Theist position, some form of salvation is involved in that since God is now personal and has a plan for all his creation (especially humans), thus he demands morals and ethics.

These apologists usually feel empowered by the Holy Spirit and debate believing that religious truth is singular and orthodox. This position has an evangelical goals in mind, usually viewing Jesus as a personal savior and God as a “Heavenly Father”. (An example here is our fundamentalist commenter Rick.)

Finally, no matter how much time John, Evan, or Lee puts into writing a very logical argument, the apologetics that defends this illusive God are still just as un-phased as the magical and religious Ouija Board which spells out the future and the unseen world for its believers despite logical fact against it for the last 120 years.

So, just how would an atheist defend God? Easy! An ancient nonfunctioning entity is so illusive, it simply defies logic. As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go!

Simply remove the Bible and the Biblical Religionist position becomes the Deist / Theist position. Remove the illusive term “god’ and the Ouija Board now has all the answers.

57 comments:

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Dear Harry,

This is the poorest post I have seen yet a DC. And I have seen many...?

I have been reading your blogs for over a year and never have found not one convincing or even challenging blog to date. You yourself have been given a challenge by myself and said you would respond yet didn't? What is the go?

You said,

This position has an evangelical goals [sic, goal] in mind, usually viewing Jesus as a personal savior and God as a “Heavenly Father”. (An example here is our fundamentalist commenter Rick.)

I agree.

You said,

Finally, no matter how much time John, Evan, or Lee puts into writing a very logical argument, the apologetics that defends this illusive God are still just as un-phased as the magical and religious Ouija Board which spells out the future and the unseen world for its believers despite logical fact against it for the last 120 years.

This is the bit Harry which is poor. I have blogged with Lee and found him wanting, poor research, misguided assumptions, aggressive rhetoric, and lastly failure to quickly acknowledge mistakes in his apparent methodology.

Evan has also shown selective data accumulations, biased scientific research and lack of responding to significant data reproaches upon examination.

You yourself have failed to answer my questions yet maintain an aggressive rhetoric against the Christian standpoint. This is just simple school yard tactics.

You can check my blogs on this site or either see my blog for comments by Lee @

http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/

You said,

So, just how would an atheist defend God? Easy! An ancient nonfunctioning entity is so illusive, it simply defies logic. As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go!

This is the last bit the extremely unbecoming. This Blog Harry which I keep reminding the authors is about evangelical Christianity not a deist or an nonfunctioning entity. Evangelical Christianity happily places its head on the chopping block of history, yet not one blog in the last year has convinced me otherwise. If your can, please show me which one?

You said,

Simply remove the Bible and the Biblical Religionist position becomes the Deist / Theist position. Remove the illusive term “god’ and the Ouija Board now has all the answers.

Sure but that's not Debunking Evangelical Christianity? I'm not sure what it is debunking?

I don't mind good cleaver rhetoric based on well founded research but this Harry reeks of closed minded biased aggression, simple generalisation and at worst naivety about comments on your own Blog?

The other consideration why not one person on any comment strand I have seen has moved from Christian to Atheist is because you here are not really debunking Christianity? If you are where is the evidence?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Charlie said...

I must respectfully confess that, even by low philosophical standards, this was probably the most illogical entry to grace the DC blog. Where did you find this guy, John?

david said...

Harry,

Unlike the Deist or Theist position, some form of salvation is involved in that since God is now personal and has a plan for all his creation (especially humans), thus he demands morals and ethics.

Theists certainly do believe in a personal God; its one of the basic deist-theist distinctions!

Unknown said...

Even if this post is very weak in its argument, that has absolutely no bearing on the authenticity of xianity.
I guess I can understand the desire to have candid, thorough debate about the topic of religion, however ultimately there is no point because it is all unprovable anyway. With the exception of some minute # of people, xians aren't gonna change the mind of an atheist (expecially not atheists that used to be xians) and vice versa.
In the end, xians will live their lives based on their xian doctrines that they believe to be 'truth' and atheists will live their lives based on whatever individual moral standard that they believe to be reasonable. No one has a 'lock' or monopoly on absolute truth. We will all ultimately live out our lives then die. What happens after that?? NO ONE knows. You can speculate all you want but it doesn't mean that anyone knows. Just live your lives and be happy! Life is tough enough as it is without adding all of this religious bantering.
This, of course, is only my opinion so take it with a grain of salt. Cheers!
-B

Just us - Just me said...

I once found myself doing apologetics for hellenic polytheism. Is that weird or what? I am an atheist.
It is just that I think more gods make a little bit more sense than one god (actually no god makes the perfect sense) because of all the confusion in the universe. One god that comprises all that and lets everything happens the way it does, would have to be batshit crazy.
I'm a fan of Afrodite too :P
So what do you guys think, am I going crazy myself? An atheist with a sympathy for polytheism?

Jason said...

Another fascinating and entirely useless non-argument put forward by Harry. Well done.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

I agree with Reverend Brown and Jason, Harry, what in the world is this???

The ONLY thing that even deserves any attention in my book is this supposed question,

Harry~ "So, just how would an atheist defend God?"

Ask C.S. Lewis that question. Better yet get more than a few of his books on the very subject and read how that FORMER ATHIEST takes apart mostly ALL of your athiestic presuppositions and trashes them on the pile-heap of garbage that they are. I think C.S. Lewis should be standard reading for all athiests wanting to prove their point. He's just ONE by the way which I would recommend.

Other than that...I'll c u round the way Harry. Peace.

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown,

I don’t professionally pedal religion in order to make a living. I designed and repair electronics and not superstition.

Are we here at DC really do NOT expect that a man who makes his living off religion; supporting a family; has denominational discounted health insurance; has a free parsonage to live in; gets extra perks with money for doing weddings; preying off the dead person’s family at funerals; plus, has a good denominational retirement package… Are we here at DC REALLY naïve enough to think that for one second we could convince you or any other paid parasitic religious professional to give up the good life and cook burgers at McDonalds? Now that would be what I call dumb!

My all my posts are not to convince people like you form being superstitious (any more than I can convince people that Ouija Boards don’t have spirit powers at work on them).

I post here for two reasons: A. To show the increasing non-religious secular world that happens to come across this blog that the Christian life boat has some major holes in it.

B. To help a weak or hurt Christian to leave / loose their faith.

C. If you don’t like it here, go argue Christian dogma with a religious apostate like Jason. I’m sure he would be more than happy to have at least one person comment on his blog a month.

Regards,
Harry

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Harry,

You said,

Are we here at DC really do NOT [sic] expect that a man who makes his living off religion; supporting a family; has denominational discounted health insurance; has a free parsonage to live in; gets extra perks with money for doing weddings; preying off the dead person’s family at funerals; plus, has a good denominational retirement package…

Again another naive assumption about my profession? Research is helpful here Harry?

Not one of your jibes actually reflects reality just for the record. But thanks for proving my point.

You said,

My all my [sic] posts are not to convince people like you form [sic] being superstitious (any more than I can convince people that Ouija Boards don’t have spirit powers at work on them).

Come on Harry this is your claim...

"As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go"

If christians are just mental gymnasts then where if the proof? You claim you don't try to convince but this is exactly what you are claiming? This is not good intellectual honesty.

You said,

A. To show the increasing non-religious secular world that happens to come across this blog that the Christian life boat has some major holes in it.

Sure, but you post had nothing to do with that Harry. Can you explain?

You said,

B. To help a weak or hurt Christian to leave / loose their faith.

Sure but again and again and again you post had nothing to do with that Harry. Can you explain?

You said,

C. If you don’t like it here, go argue Christian dogma with a religious apostate like Jason. I’m sure he would be more than happy to have at least one person comment on his blog a month.

I am confused. Is this a reason why you post blogs?

Or is it at my happiness at the blogs posted here?

I'll answer the second.

I'm happy.

Regards, Rev. Phil.
Author of the Blog

Christianity Versus Atheism
http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/

openlyatheist said...

Oh Harry, you do bring out the Christian crazies don't you? But your threads need better moderation. Otherwise you end up w/ the confused ones who say things like:

"I am confused. Is this a reason why you post blogs?"

Who must not have read your words: "I post here for two reasons."

Always good fun. :)

Harry H. McCall said...

Charlie, I can even make a so-called “Christian” agnostic squirm.

Fact is, you hate that which you fear.

Harry H. McCall said...

David, theism is basically a philosophical system and NOT an evangelical theological system.

Christianity is but one face of theism as the number one definition in Webster’s Dictionary is “the belief in the existence of a God”; that is some / a god ,but not the God.

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown,

Here is my plan to get rich off Christianity:

After years of a godless atheistic life, I’ll claim to have had a spiritual experience where I fell down and cried out to God for forgiveness. Then I’ll make the rounds as a special evangelical speaker proving that Christ can save even an atheist while taking in hundreds of thousands in love offerings.

Think it can't be done? Do you remember when Larry Flint got “saved”? Churches were so desperate to prove Christianity they had him as their honored guest speaker. Flint played them like a fiddle to promote his sex magazine to Christians and it worked.

Finally, I’ll assume your questions are rhetorical.

Harry H. McCall said...

By the way, I want to thank GEICO auto insurance for their line: “It’s so easy, even a caveman can do it.”

Honestly, did not any of you Christians recognize that line?

Philip R Kreyche said...

Harvey,
C.S. Lewis converted to theism based on emotion, and from there it took him about two years to convert to Christianity. It's not like he was filled with the Spirit or anything (if it did, God took his sweet time)

One would think that going from an atheist to a Christian, would mean he had some good arguments, but instead he offers childish nonsense like the Moral Argument and the Trilemma. These might seem lucid and beautiful to you, but they're not intellectually very satisfying.

His arguments are naive, and are really only convincing to those who are inclined to believe them in the first place.

Sorry Harvey. You will remain unsuccessful getting any converts from here unless you step up your game.

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks Openlyatheist!

Rev. Brown: It’s so simple; even an atheist ( Openlyatheist) can understand plan language.

It’s so nice to know that Christian ministers and evangelists feel the need to fellowship with us atheist here at DC..."Birds of a feather, flock together".

Hey, who knows, they just might learn something here, plus we don't pass an offering plate.

Jason said...

Harry, you seem to be more interested in idle banter then intelligently discussing...well...anything. Thanks for the cheap entertainment nonetheless - your posts can always be counted on for a good chuckle. :)

Anonymous said...

I'd like to submit this essay for consideration:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/debunking-the-liar-lunatic-or-lord-argument/

Reverend Philip Brown, charlie, jason, and District Supt. Harvey Burnett are just spitting in the wind. Especially the point about C.S. Lewis. What a disgrace! He sold out.

Dale Husband

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, I have a question for you:

Which do you think will happen first?

A. Jesus will return.

B. Someone will actually read and post a comment to your heretical writings on your blog.

I bet A!

Unknown said...

Hey Harry

You said,

Rev. Brown: It’s so simple; even an atheist ( Openlyatheist) can understand plan language.

Hmmmmm. What is plan language? Do you mean plain????

I just love this about you atheists???

@ Openlyatheist

So You think Harry reasons for posting Blogs is because I'm not happy? You sound as confused as Harry? Or is this PLAN language?

@ Harry

Harry please answer the questions, they are not rhetorical. I will assume from now on you cannot answer my questions. This I assume will be your tactic every-time a question is asked?

@ Jason,

Spot on mate, No questions answered. Funny how a blogger does not answer blogs. It would seem he can't?

@ Harry

Oh and Harry, I live in Australia, so your American understanding of religion needs expansion and taken into consideration of an international expression. Do you think you can handle that?

@ circleh

Your article is pretty bad but since you think we are spitting in the wind I will answer it for you.

(1) Jesus did not write anything down?

1a I agree but neither did Socrates. We don't dispute him though?

(2) A person can be a con artist and still teach morals.

2a Jesus claiming he is the very "Son of God" the Jewish Messiah is not good morals.

(3) People appear sane even though they are insane.

3a Sound goods but has no point to disproving Jesus as divine??

(4) Jesus cursing the fig tree is given as proof of insanity?

4a Jesus clearly knew the fig tree was barren at the time and then cursed an already fruitless tree for illustration of a fruitless Nation Israel. The Messiah comes but there is no fruit to recognize, (much like the Atheist). And of course the next section in Mark Jesus Cleanse the temple. Do any atheists read the bible in Context? Makes perfect sense in context.

(5) If it can be used for Christianity then it can be used for other religions.

5a This is the weakest. The article seems to say that we cannot get away from Lord, Lunatic or Liar so therefore Christian justify yourself further an explanation in relation to other religions. Which is it? Jesus is Lord and we must compare religions or Jesus isn't Lord. I know I have my cake and eat it two. Not good argument.

Poor article.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Sorry DC,

Michelle is actually me.

Rev, Phil.

Anonymous said...

Michelle, aka Reverend Phillip Brown, it is your response to my essay above that is ridiculous, but I do not expect a delusional personality like yourself to admit it in public. I really can't stand hypocrites like yourself who cannot give a consistently rational argument or any empirical evidence for his faith (for there are no such things), but claim that others like myself have written a "poor article". Truly pathetic, you are!

Dale Husband

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, I'm so sorry I misunderstood what you are.

You see I thought you were a Christadelphian, but form your lack of ability to understand, you are really a Christa-deaf-ian.

My mistake.

Anonymous said...

reverend Phillip Brown sez:
Harry please answer the questions, they are not rhetorical. I will assume from now on you cannot answer my questions. This I assume will be your tactic every-time a question is asked?

Here's another possibility: That you are so full of yourself that you massively overestimate your debating abilities and do not realize how utterly ridiculous you look to most atheists and agnostics. Why should we waste time debating with someone like that?

Harry H. McCall said...

That’s right Rev. Brown, plan language!

So how do I get your god to function? He struck down people in the Bible, in both Testaments, but then again he is said to have healed people also, but I’ve read fiction novels before.

Well what can one expect form God the Father who kills God the Son…theological confusion!

Rev.: “Oh and Harry, I live in Australia, so your American understanding of religion needs expansion and taken into consideration of an international expression. Do you think you can handle that?”

Re: Your problem, not mine.

Rev. “If christians are just mental gymnasts then where if the proof? You claim you don't try to convince but this is exactly what you are claiming? This is not good intellectual honesty.”

Re: Again, get your ancient illusive construct to function in the present tense. Get him, her, it to strike me down…Oh, that’s right; mythical stories in the Bible really do put God on the spot. He appears to be asleep on the Judgment Seat. Just an ancient myth unable to function; asleep (if not dead) on the throne (which may just be the crapper).

Rev. “Again another naive assumption about my profession? Research is helpful here Harry?”

Sorry, I did not realize you held down a full time secular job. Now you claim you are not like the rest of the professional clerical parasites? So what does that make you? One in ten-thousand?

openlyatheist said...

From Rev. P.B.:
"So You think Harry reasons for posting Blogs is because I'm not happy? You sound as confused as Harry? Or is this PLAN language?"

Dude, what the HELL are you talking about? No one is addressing your happiness.

Harry's JOKE, which I will now explain to the humor-impaired, in PLAN English (that's a joke too!), is that if some Christian doesn't like DC's posts here maybe they can post on Jason's blog and make HIM happy by bringing him traffic. No one knows why Philip produced an unintelligible response to this quip. Not happy...?

Of course, as it is with Jason, its hard to see the happiness from Christians who resort to repeatedly plugging their blogs on DC without any traffic results. C'est la vie.

I wonder if we got david, charlie, phillip, harvey, and jason to all manage the same blog, which ones would turn out to be apostates, according to the others? I wonder if Triablogue would take them?

Anonymous said...

Hey, I got an obsessive troll calling himself Michael who tried to start trouble on my Wordpress blog, right after I posted here. Clearly, he reads this blog too, so I will make one final statement here: No, I an NOT interested in having dialogues with people who think they are all that just because of their faith. If you were an atheist and slammed a Christian blog the way you did mine tonight, I'd despise you just as much, you obnoxious piece of work! At the very least you could have offered an apology once you knew you had offended me, but you seem to think you have a RIGHT to post your filth on other people's blogs. No, you do not!

Dale Husband

openlyatheist said...

For The Lurkers:

Flame wars are fun. But it occurs to me there may be some visitors here who actually want to read and comprehend what Harry wrote. Here is one atheist's summary of the point of this article.

Harry is making a broad distinction between two schools of apologetics that atheists have to cope with.

1. The Deist and Theist Position
Here, Harry is pointing out the school that takes an improvisational approach. These are apologists who throw out the Bible and replace it with metaphors and their own projected images about what God is, wants, does. I like to call it 'Christian improv,' because you never know what these guys are gonna claim to believe.

2. The Biblical Religionist Position
Then there are apologists who appeal to the doctrines and traditions of a given position, or at least they try. This is founded upon, but more refined than, approach #1. These apologists spend less time making stuff up as they go along, but end up unable to think their way past dogma, as is the case of Creationists.

Finally, Harry points out what we atheists already know about apologetics; the same effects can be achieved by calling off all bets of logic. This is what allows us to see religion for the intellectual amusement that it is.

While both schools intend to encroach on the same atheist blog, in the words of one commenter here, "If it weren't for us atheists, christians would kill and eat each other," as they are wont to do when their schools collide.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey guys,

Wow some emotion and defamation being bantered around. Hot stuff!

@ circleh

You said,

it is your response to my essay above that is ridiculous, but I do not expect a delusional personality like yourself to admit it in public. I really can't stand hypocrites like yourself who cannot give a consistently rational argument or any empirical evidence for his faith (for there are no such things), but claim that others like myself have written a "poor article". Truly pathetic, you are!

I'm sorry you have chosen to think like this. Also, I'm even more sorry than you have retorted to abusive slander, rather than show my apparent mistakes that you mouth about. This is extremely unbecoming. Here is where you are wrong. For a defensive of my faith and empirical evidence see my blog, http://christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com/

I you article is so good, please show me where and I will stand corrected. I think its poor for the reasons stated.

You said,

Here's another possibility: That you are so full of yourself that you massively overestimate your debating abilities and do not realize how utterly ridiculous you look to most atheists and agnostics. Why should we waste time debating with someone like that?

Here are a couple of things I find interesting about this comment.

(1) I have asked some questions and they are not answered? How is that being full of yourself?

(2) If I look so stupid to the Atheist and Agnostic alike then why are my questions un-answered? You yourself even fail to show what is wrong with my comments on your article? Perhaps you should reconsider who is looking stupid?

@ Harry,

You said,

That’s right Rev. Brown, plan language!

Touché, Ha Ha!

You said,

Well what can one expect form God the Father who kills God the Son…theological confusion!

Not sure what you mean? Are you implying the separation of the trinity at the atonement? If so not confused rather greatest mystery in the bible, its just there in plan language.

You said,

Your problem, not mine.

It is your problem because you keep placing me in America. But fun rhetoric nonetheless.

You said,

Re: Again, get your ancient illusive construct to function in the present tense. Get him, her, it to strike me down…Oh, that’s right; mythical stories in the Bible really do put God on the spot. He appears to be asleep on the Judgment Seat. Just an ancient myth unable to function; asleep (if not dead) on the throne (which may just be the crapper)

This shows you real lack of theological understanding. The ultimate judgement of God on man is simply not to show up. Leave people in the Atheists position so to speak? Where is the judgement you ask. Your position is the best evidence for it.

You said,

Sorry, I did not realize you held down a full time secular job.

I'll repeat, “Again another naive assumption about my profession? Research is helpful here Harry?”

You said,

Now you claim you are not like the rest of the professional clerical parasites? So what does that make you? One in ten-thousand?

I made a claim you need to do more research before you assume, I stand by it.

@ Openlyatheist

You said,

Dude, what the HELL are you talking about? No one is addressing your happiness.

Well you could have fooled me, Let me show you what Harry wrote...

If you don’t like it here, go argue Christian dogma with a religious apostate like Jason.

I answered that I do like it, I'm happy. Does that clear it up DUDE!

You said,

Harry's JOKE, which I will now explain to the humor-impaired, in PLAN English (that's a joke too!), is that if some Christian doesn't like DC's posts here maybe they can post on Jason's blog and make HIM happy by bringing him traffic.

I agree, and my Joking reply was I'm happy. But seriously I'm happy.

You said,

Of course, as it is with Jason, its hard to see the happiness from Christians who resort to repeatedly plugging their blogs on DC without any traffic results. C'est la vie.

Ohh cheap shot, I'll take it though. My reason for posting my blog is not for traffic, this just takes more time away from other things, rather the reason is for you atheists can see my more extensive arguments. Perhaps you could see the retort previously and maybe see why posting blogs is of some use. Of course what is becoming apparent is that considered dialogue is not a prerequisite for blogging, it seems more a more a place to make ourselves feel better about our position?

You are right such is life.

Regards, Rev. Phil.
Author of the Blog,

Woops I'll hold off....

Anonymous said...

I you article is so good, please show me where and I will stand corrected. I think its poor for the reasons stated.

No, you won't. And the reasons you stated strike me as idiotic. You probably would see it too if you were not defending your faith, which you are biased towards.

If I look so stupid to the Atheist and Agnostic alike then why are my questions un-answered?
Because our answers would not enlighten you at all. You would simply dismiss them with lame counter claims, taking the debate in an endless circle that wastes everyone's time, including yours.

Jason said...

Harry,

You've got a real hardon for my blog!! It's a bit embarrassing!

Christa-deafian. lol Funny stuff, Harry!!! .John, you've got yourself a real winner here. :)

Remember way back when when this forum was about intelligent discussion...? Now you've got people like Harry lazing around doing nothing but ridiculing people because he's forgotten how to intelligently discuss the issues. Very sad.

Anonymous said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said,

This is the poorest post I have seen yet a DC. And I have seen many...?

I have been reading your blogs for over a year and never have found not one convincing or even challenging blog to date. You yourself have been given a challenge by myself and said you would respond yet didn't? What is the go?


When you start off like that, you are not interested in productive dialogues, only attacking and disrupting, like a bigot.

Harry McCall said,
I post here for two reasons: A. To show the increasing non-religious secular world that happens to come across this blog that the Christian life boat has some major holes in it.

B. To help a weak or hurt Christian to leave / loose their faith.


Which is quite obvious, yet the Reverend says:

Sure, but you post had nothing to do with that Harry. Can you explain?

Sure but again and again and again you post had nothing to do with that Harry. Can you explain?


Of course they did, so the Reverend's responses were an EPIC FAIL! Denial of the obvious is LYING!

Harry H. McCall said...

Jason, I’m not sure which is denser? Heavy water in a nuclear reactor or your brain.

When the evangelical Southern Baptist fired all their women professors based DIRECTLY on what Paul wrote in his epistles, I claimed that made women eternally Biblically “unforgiven” .

Your eternally repeated response was “Where does Paul say that women are eternally unforgiven?”

Jason just where in all the IRS Tax Code does it tell you the exact amount you should pay in numerical figures to the goverment?

Little wonder your remain a Christian (and Christa-deaf-ain at that!)

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown,

Until you can get a Biblically claimed, eternally alive, and eteranlly active God to function, his ass is asleep on the Bema Seat (Judgment Seat).

The next time you read the Bible from the pulpit, please preface it with:

“Folks, it’s time for another story and adventure time today… In this hour we’ll see how a mean old God in the Old Testament killed people an how mean old people in the New Testament retuned the favor and killed God.

Folks, you are in for some wild claims today, so hold on to your seats and let you imagination run wild!

However, don‘t loose any sleep as our fictional character God NEVER existed.”

Jason said...

Harry,

As with my blog, you seem to have an awkward obsession with a conversation that took place eight months ago? Get over it man!

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey circleh

You said,

No, you won't. And the reasons you stated strike me as idiotic. You probably would see it too if you were not defending your faith, which you are biased towards.

Well circleh, this just shows a great deal about yourself. If you are so enlightened and so smart and so above the mere mortal man then surely a few words from you about my responses would indicate that. But here is the kicker, you have not. Can you?

You maintain you are right, I'm wrong;

you are smart, I'm dumb and delusional,

I'm defending my faith; you are simply a well reasoned extremely smart and culturally aware person.

Your accusation must be directed at yourself. You give one piece of evidence to defend your position [your own article and label Christian as people spitting in the wind] and then call someone stupid and arrogant when that position is questioned.

Lets get out of the school yard. We cannot meet behind the toilets at lunch to sort it out man to man.

You said,

Because our answers would not enlighten you at all. You would simply dismiss them with lame counter claims, taking the debate in an endless circle that wastes everyone's time, including yours.

Well if that's the case then why are you bothering to respond at all. It must be concluded that you don't answer my questions as you said because they would do not good but yet you think defamation, slander, and naive assumptions about who I am and how I function is the better approach? You are just not making sense.

My answers show that your article has baseless claims, you cannot answer them can you, all you can do is name call? Which is what the general unconsidered atheists does when cornered.

You said,

When you start off like that, you are not interested in productive dialogues, only attacking and disrupting, like a bigot.

Please read my comments in context something you failed not only here but also with Mark's gospel in your article. My comment was in reference to John Evan and Lee posting very logical arguments.... something that you will see in my experience they have not done. My blog references this, its there for the world to view. The productive dialogue is there, the claim is false in my experience and thus poor. As for attacking and disruption like a bigot, you need to walk out of the glass house taking your stones with you, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING?

You said,

Of course they did, so the Reverend's responses were an EPIC FAIL! Denial of the obvious is LYING!

Here is another question that I give with again no hope of an answer.

Where in Harry's post is he helping someone leave the faith. All Harry is doing is showing that apologists in his opinion use mental gymnastics. He gives no evidence for his position, quotes no research, samples no data, and finally fails to answer question on the comment strands. Lets be honest, aggression is your only tool here.

@ Harry,

I like how you only answer the off topic things and questions.
Its like, Hey I'm an atheists and I KNOW God does not exist here is why, oh by the way I cannot answer heaps of questions I just say God does not judge now like from the bible. Or hey here is a claim, cannot back it up or show any data, but I'll make another if this does not work.....

Stay Tuned.

You said,

“Folks, it’s time for another story and adventure time today… In this hour we’ll see how a mean old God in the Old Testament killed people an how mean old people in the New Testament retuned the favor and killed God.

Nice story, what's the point? The testaments paint a different picture of God?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

You give one piece of evidence to defend your position [your own article and label Christian as people spitting in the wind] and then call someone stupid and arrogant when that position is questioned.

My article should have been quite enough. You reject it because you are prejudiced against atheism. As proof, I submit your own words about it:

1. I agree but neither did Socrates. We don't dispute him though?

2. Jesus claiming he is the very "Son of God" the Jewish Messiah is not good morals.

3. Sound goods but has no point to disproving Jesus as divine??

4. Jesus clearly knew the fig tree was barren at the time and then cursed an already fruitless tree for illustration of a fruitless Nation Israel. The Messiah comes but there is no fruit to recognize, (much like the Atheist). And of course the next section in Mark Jesus Cleanse the temple. Do any atheists read the bible in Context? Makes perfect sense in context.

5. This is the weakest. The article seems to say that we cannot get away from Lord, Lunatic or Liar so therefore Christian justify yourself further an explanation in relation to other religions. Which is it? Jesus is Lord and we must compare religions or Jesus isn't Lord. I know I have my cake and eat it two. Not good argument.

Poor article.


Only someone with an irrational bias could possibly think those were credible responses to my article. Socrates never claimed to be a god, point 2 is irrelvant, and point 3 was actually a response to a strawman. I did NOT say "People appear sane even though they are insane." Point 4 is just an unfounded rationalization, and point 5 is flatly avoiding the real point I made, that ANY religion can have its founder subject to the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord (Prophet) argument. The fact most of them didn't claim to be God does not matter, for they did claim to be speaking for God, which is much the same thing in terms of their credibility or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

And here's the entire blog entry that the good Reverend dismissed:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/debunking-the-liar-lunatic-or-lord-argument/

One of the favorite arguments put forth by Christian apologists is that of ”Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” in reference to Jesus. It was published by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity, and later repeated by Josh McDowell in his works. Basically, it goes like this:

“Jesus claimed to be God. If so, he must have been God incarnate in order to be accepted as a great moral teacher. If he was NOT God incarnate, then he must have been either a liar (evil) or a lunatic (diseased in the mind) and by definition someone who is evil or diseased in the mind cannot be a good moral teacher, so the only logical conclusion is that Jesus must have indeed been God incarnate, and therefore his teachings were infallible and was by nature superior to any other moral teacher that ever lived.”

This argument is completely bogus! And here’s why:

First, we know NOTHING about Jesus that came directly from him. Everything written about him, including all quotations of his words, are second-hand or third-hand sources. See my earlier blog entry for more details:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-chain-of-abrahamic-religions-is-too-rusty-and-weak/

Second, it is perfectly possible for someone to teach good morals and yet be a con artist. Indeed, you wouldn’t expect someone to openly proclaim “I am a liar and am immoral, corrupt, and serve evil causes!” You would expect someone to USE issues of morality to attract the well-meaning but gullible followers that the con artist could exploit for his personal gain later.

Third, even most insane people have some elements of lucidity in their characters. There is not an absolute distinction between the insane and those of normal mentality. Mental illness has many different manifestations and degrees of severity.

Fourth, there is an incident recorded in the Gospels of Jesus cursing a fig tree just because it had no figs to give him at the time (and it wasn’t even the season for them) and the tree soon dies: Mark 11:14, 20-23, Matthew 21:19-21. He uses this irrational action as an example of the power of faith. Sounds like insanity to me!

Fifth, the same liar, lunatic, or lord argument could be just as well applied to the founders of every other religion, including those with teachings very different from Christianity. Yet to be a Christian, you must assume that all those other religions are false!

Quite simply, this argument is an appeal to religious and cultural prejudice. It is no more valid than arguments to support astrology, palm-reading, or belief in a flat Earth.


Note how carefully I tried to make distinctions with reference to issues like insanity, to debunk the sweeping generalizations used by the Christian apologists in their Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. So what does the Reverend do? He claims that I used a sweeping generalization in reference to insanity by misquoting me as having said: "People appear sane even though they are insane," which is completely false and not as all what I was saying.

BUSTED!

Anonymous said...

openlyatheist:

in regards to the "Christian improv" style in contrast to the others - what does it matter anyway, which style is used, since it's all made-up anyhow??

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown here is the cursing of the Fig Tree pericope and how this embarrassing story was reworked in Luke.

In the earlier Gospel of Mark, we find a pericope which tells us that after leaving Bethany with his disciples, a hungry Jesus sees a live fig tree in the distance. Given the change to stuff-his-gut, Jesus makes a bee line to it and finds nothing but leaves, since, as even he writer of Mark knows; hey, it’s not the season for figs!!

So what does the Son of God do? He throws a temper fit just like a kid who didn’t get want he wanted. He uses his healing powers now to attack a defenseless fruit tree and kill it (Mark 11:14, 20; = Matthew 21:9).

Now, how is this embarrassing situation handled by the Synoptic Gospel of Luke (13:6-9)? Luke completely rewrites it. The pericope is now placed on the lips of Luke’s Jesus in the form of a parable so you know it can’t go wrong! Plus, it will make Jesus at least look half way logical.

The irrational action of an immature Jesus is now transformed and then transferred to a level headed and patient, wisdom-aged farmer who goes three times to the fig tree wanting fruit and finding none, he tells his vinedresser “Cut it down and reuse the ground.” But even the vinedresser pleads with the farmer not to be so impatient and to just give it one more chance by waiting another year. He’s sure, with just a little care and work, the tree will produce fruit. If not (and after the fourth year), the vinedresser agrees with the farmer that it would not be irrational to cut it down (kill it).

The author of Luke /Acts has taken an irrational story where an out-of-control Jesus is removed and it is totally reworked into a wise and intelligent parable of wisdom. By putting it on the lips of Jesus, Luke has now credited Jesus with a parable which will further the spread of the Gospel and not be an embarrassing hindrance to it.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Guys,

Here we go. Finally some answers.

Lets see.

@ circleh

You said,

Socrates never claimed to be a god.

- Excellent response. No he claimed to be a philosopher and we all accept that. Your point. Jesus claimed to be God therefore he must write things down to validate his claims? Come on surely you have something better than that?

You said,

point 2 is irrelvant.

- Good way to get around the point. You cannot answer this can you?

You said,

and point 3 was actually a response to a strawman. I did NOT say "People appear sane even though they are insane."

No you say this...

"even most insane people have some elements of lucidity in their characters. There is not an absolute distinction between the insane and those of normal mentality. Mental illness has many different manifestations and degrees of severity."

- Jesus was insane and sane as the rest of us? Same point...? Come on where is the power of this great mind waiting to smash the small delusional christian. Oh wait, that was just huff and puff?

You said,

Point 4 is just an unfounded rationalization,

- Please see Cole, on the matter. He is the world renowned scholar on the text. In fact read any commentary on Mark. Oh have you ever read a commentary?

You said

that ANY religion can have its founder subject to the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord (Prophet) argument.

Sure lets do it with other religions. Oh I forgot this is debunking CHRISTIANITY, not Islam or Buddhism, Or scientology. Point remains. We can blog later about it though if you like but I will not be distracted, something you accused me of.

You said,

The fact most of them didn't claim to be God does not matter, for they did claim to be speaking for God, which is much the same thing in terms of their credibility or lack thereof.

- Wow. I would think there is the biggest difference in the world. Assessing the credibility of a God is so much easier than the credibility of a person speaking on God's behalf. A god could do miracles, Oh look out so can Jesus. A person speaking of Jesus' behalf cannot.

Thanks for publishing you article here again.

Your first point fails though because in antiquity [Socrates in but 1 example] we have extremely small first hand written work of apparent historical figures, yet over 90% of historical scholars in SECULAR UNIVERSITIES accept historical figures like Jesus to be real and there teachings as accurate. A recent study of previous Oxford and Cambridge historians will prove my point if you are game to do some research. You point is of no consequence.

You say,

Jesus taught good morals, No he did not. Read you bible again. He asked people to leaved the mothers, fathers, and family, he claimed he was the only way to heaven, where is the morality? I cannot believe I'm repeating myself.

You say,

Mental illness can manifest in different ways. Fine what's you point, Jesus was Insane? We all are insane, Be clearer.

I have answered the others sufficiently.

You said,

So what does the Reverend do? He claims that I used a sweeping generalization in reference to insanity by misquoting me as having said: "People appear sane even though they are insane," which is completely false and not as all what I was saying.


That's it! Is that all you based this on.

This is your response to me questions,

it is your response to my essay above that is ridiculous, but I do not expect a delusional personality like yourself to admit it in public. I really can't stand hypocrites like yourself who cannot give a consistently rational argument or any empirical evidence for his faith (for there are no such things), but claim that others like myself have written a "poor article". Truly pathetic, you are!

So I am ridiculous, delusions, a hypocrite, not rational, lacking empirical evidence, and pathetic? These are you labels and you base them on the fact the you point is a moving hermeneutic within insanity and I apparently miss-applied that moving hermeneutic to mean you cannot judge insanity in Jesus????

That's it!

Nothing more?

My gosh you are aggressive for no reason. Perhaps you boat is leaky and you have not checked your atheist holes?

BUSTED!

Hmmm, projecting again! What have you BUSTED! My .......?

@ Harry,

Good synoptic analysis. But you fail to understand history.

Pliny makes it plain that Christians worshiped Jesus as God long before the book of Mark was written. Perhaps even 20 year previously. The gospels of Mark and Luke cannot be used as examples of propaganda since their validity comes from the practicing Christians at the time. Christians validated the gospels not the other way around.

Therefore the more plausible reason that Mark and Luke differ in there stories is that they had a different audience in mind. Gentile/Jewish.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

P.S. You can find my Pliny evidence on my blog. I will not quote it to be polite....

openlyatheist said...

stevepolychronopoulis said...

what does it matter anyway, which style is used, since it's all made-up anyhow??


That's the whole point of this post: it doesn't matter to those in the know. That is the joke that atheists get, and the reality Christians try to bury with their trolling.

Read apologetic arguments between Christians if you want to see who takes which approach seriously.

Anonymous said...

Reverend Phillip Brown spits...

Assessing the credibility of a God is so much easier than the credibility of a person speaking on God's behalf. A god could do miracles, Oh look out so can Jesus. A person speaking of Jesus' behalf cannot.

Complete nonsense, even by Biblical teachings. Moses, Elijah and Elisha, Old Testament prophets, did miracles and they were not God, but they did claim to speak for Him. So did Peter and Paul, New Testament apostles, who claimed to speak for Jesus. You just committed another EPIC FAIL. And thus you proved me right when I said earlier that it was a waste of time to argue with you, because you could not be enlightened.

Anonymous said...

openlyatheist:


stevepolychronopoulis said...

what does it matter anyway, which style is used, since it's all made-up anyhow??

openlyatheist said....

That's the whole point of this post: it doesn't matter to those in the know. That is the joke that atheists get, and the reality Christians try to bury with their trolling.

Read apologetic arguments between Christians if you want to see who takes which approach seriously.

OK then, so it was a shared joke.

You see, I was detecting a negative value judgment toward the Christian "improv" style/approach, as though they are less 'sincere' or are being disingenuous about what they believe...and under that misunderstanding, I wondered what was the significance or relevance of the distinction being

Anonymous said...

I noticed that Rev. Phil has made a big stink over certain questions that he has asked that have not been answered - implying that this weakens Harry's credibility.

I decided to go back and look at these questions and see if there is any truth to this.

RPB Question #1: "This is the poorest post I have seen yet a DC. And I have seen many...?"

Appearently the good reverend isn't sure how many posts he has seen here at DC. I believe that he has actually seen many posts but has only attempted to grasp one or two.

RPB Questions #2 & #3: "I have been reading your blogs for over a year and never have found not one convincing or even challenging blog to date. You yourself have been given a challenge by myself and said you would respond yet didn't? What is the go?"

Answer #2: I cannot speak for Harry, but I would imagine that your challenge probably ranks somewhere near the bottom of his "things I just have to do" list; right after "polish toenails" but before "resort telephone directory numerically by phone number".

Answer #3: The "go" is the square on a Monopoly board where you collect $200.

RPB Question #4: "Evangelical Christianity happily places its head on the chopping block of history, yet not one blog in the last year has convinced me otherwise. If your can, please show me which one?"

You want Harry to point out an argument which convinced you that christianity has been debunked when you just said you are still not convinced. My guess is, he can't do that. (Unless, of course, you have been convimced and you're just too dishonest to admit it.)

RPB Questions #5 and #6: "Sure but that's not Debunking Evangelical Christianity? I'm not sure what it is debunking?"

Ok, just putting a question mark at the end of a sentence doen't make that sentence a question. If there was something you wanted to ask, please try again.

Question #7: "I don't mind good cleaver rhetoric based on well founded research but this Harry reeks of closed minded biased aggression, simple generalisation and at worst naivety about comments on your own Blog?"

Again, you are not technically asking a question - but you're getting warmer.

RPB Questions #8 & #9: "The other consideration why not one person on any comment strand I have seen has moved from Christian to Atheist is because you here are not really debunking Christianity? If you are where is the evidence?"

Answer #8: Again, this is a statement not a question.

Answer #9: Finally an actual question - sort of. Are you asking for evidence that people are moving from christianity to atheism because of this site, or are you asking for evidence that this site is actually debunking christianity? It's kind of hard give a straight answer when you're not given a straight question.

So, of the 9 questions that Rev. Phil asked, 4 are not actually questions, 1 is vague, 3 are silly and 1 is only relevant if your thimble is sitting between Boardwalk and Mediterranean Avenue.

You happy now Rev.?

Anonymous said...

One more thing and I'm going to bed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE

This video says it all, I think. Good night!

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey again,

@ circleh

Man you are getting worse. Is this the only thing against my last comment. You really are plucking at straws.

You said,

Complete nonsense, even by Biblical teachings. Moses, Elijah and Elisha, Old Testament prophets, did miracles and they were not God, but they did claim to speak for Him. So did Peter and Paul, New Testament apostles, who claimed to speak for Jesus. You just committed another EPIC FAIL. And thus you proved me right when I said earlier that it was a waste of time to argue with you, because you could not be enlightened.

You logic is in question here.

My premise you will see is that a person claiming to be God would have to be able to do miracles. By this we can verify against other claims of divinity.

Your premise, performance of miracles denotes divinity. this is first year logical dissonance. Poor form. EPIC FAIL in your words, no.

Reason, a claim of divinity must cannote divine credentials. Speaking for God demands different credentials, e.g. not the divine ones specified. However divine creditionals in part can be present in a non divine form. I suggest you re-look at your logic. In your words you aptly committed another Epic fall. You might benefit from post secondary education in logic.

By the way can you answer any other questions I had?

Or are you so enlightened in the dark to do that?

@ Tigg13

You said,

Appearently the good reverend isn't sure how many posts he has seen here at DC. I believe that he has actually seen many posts but has only attempted to grasp one or two.

Very sure how many I have seen, my blog will answer that question. the fact we have dialogued previously before on more than one occasion will demonstrate this also Tigg13.

You said,

Answer #2: I cannot speak for Harry, but I would imagine that your challenge probably ranks somewhere near the bottom of his "things I just have to do" list; right after "polish toenails" but before "resort telephone directory numerically by phone number".

Thanks Tigg13, another pointless blog comment designed to look intelligent but really just not. Still really does not answer the question though, feel free to keep trying.

You said,

Answer #3: The "go" is the square on a Monopoly board where you collect $200.

I thought it was the green light under the orange????

You said,

You want Harry to point out an argument which convinced you that christianity has been debunked when you just said you are still not convinced. My guess is, he can't do that. (Unless, of course, you have been convimced and you're just too dishonest to admit it.)

No, I want Harry to show how Christianity is to be debunked? Still waiting? Maybe you Tigg13 have one? Or are you just the comic relief before the main act?

You said,

Ok, just putting a question mark at the end of a sentence doen't make that sentence a question. If there was something you wanted to ask, please try again.

I agree. But do you understand grammer. A question mark is also used after a word or phrase whose appropriateness is in doubt, or after a number or date whose accuracy is in doubt.

Hmmm, perhpas you should do some more work beofre trying to play with the big boys.

You said,

Again, you are not technically asking a question - but you're getting warmer.

See above.

You said,

Answer #8: Again, this is a statement not a question.

No Tigg13 its deomonstration of appropriateness is in doubt. Do more work on grammer?

You said,

Answer #9: Finally an actual question - sort of. Are you asking for evidence that people are moving from christianity to atheism because of this site, or are you asking for evidence that this site is actually debunking christianity? It's kind of hard give a straight answer when you're not given a straight question.

No just simple question about the blog. Wow I can understand how you found it so hard.

You said,

So, of the 9 questions that Rev. Phil asked, 4 are not actually questions, 1 is vague, 3 are silly and 1 is only relevant if your thimble is sitting between Boardwalk and Mediterranean Avenue.

And of the nine responses by Tigg13, 4 don't understand grammer and assume questions due to lack of knowledge, 3 he cannot answer but makes jokes and 1 answer is only sensible if your thimble is sitting between the Boardwalk and Mediterranean Avenue. Opps tried your own comic reliefe.

You said,

You happy now Rev.?

Alwyas happy but still would like considered research and answeered questions. Perhpas you should leave the comments to the big bloggers, your making them and you look bad.

Lastly, good video but I'm not a fundamentalist.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rev..

You said, "Very sure how many I have seen, my blog will answer that question. the fact we have dialogued previously before on more than one occasion will demonstrate this also Tigg13."

Ok, if you already knew how many you've seen, why did you ask?

You said, "Thanks Tigg13, another pointless blog comment designed to look intelligent but really just not. Still really does not answer the question though, feel free to keep trying." (This was in regards to Phil's charge that Harry wasn't meeting his challenge.)

You're welcome. But what was the point of the question? To make Harry explain why he hasn't met your conditions by your time table? You must think you're pretty important.

You said, "I thought it was the green light under the orange????"

No that would be the answer to "what do you have to see before you can go?" (Talk about pointless questions.)

You said, "No, I want Harry to show how Christianity is to be debunked? Still waiting? Maybe you Tigg13 have one? Or are you just the comic relief before the main act?"

Ah, the real heart of the issue. How does one debunk christianity? There are those that need only flip through the first few chapters of Genesis to see all they need to to know that it is crap. But you want us to meet your standards of proof, right?

Well, what would make you decide that your religion is bunk? Whatever it is, it would have to make you admit that there is no truth to it whatsoever. So, obviously, you would no longer be able to have faith in it. (christ, god, the bible etc.)

But faith doesn't require proof or evidence or good arguments or even a rational basis. We could present you with undeniable proof and unquestionable evidence and you could still wave your hands and claim that you are not convinced. (particularly if you are a liar or a lunatic).

So convincing you that we've debunked christianity would be like convincing a drunken alcoholic that he shouldn't have one more drink. We shouldn't expect you to agree with us; all we can do is lay out the arguments and hope that you come to your senses.

You said, "I agree. But do you understand grammer. A question mark is also used after a word or phrase whose appropriateness is in doubt, or after a number or date whose accuracy is in doubt.

Hmmm, perhpas you should do some more work beofre trying to play with the big boys."

See below.

You said, "See above.

Again, see below

You said, ""No Tigg13 its deomonstration of appropriateness is in doubt. Do more work on grammer?"

To doubt a "demonstration of appropriateness" is not asking a question. Now perhaps this, as well as the preceding "grammatically correct" sentences were not intended to garner any responces. You really weren't specific as to which "questions" you wanted answered and I didn't want you accusing me of not addressing all of your "questions".

You said, "No just simple question about the blog. Wow I can understand how you found it so hard."

Here is the original question, along with the "grammatically correct demonstration of inappropriateness" that preceded it.

"The other consideration why not one person on any comment strand I have seen has moved from Christian to Atheist is because you here are not really debunking Christianity? If you are where is the evidence?"

Ok mister english major, lets add a little needed punctuation and sentence structure to these sentences and maybe you'll see what I mean.

"The other consideration: why not one person on any comment strand I have seen has moved from Christian to Atheist. Is (it) because you here are not really debunking Christianity? If you are where is the evidence?"

Or:

"The other consideration: why not one person on any comment strand I have seen has moved from Christian to Atheist? (It) is because you here are not really debunking Christianity. If you are (moving christians to atheism) where is the evidence?

Straight answers require straight questions.


You said, "And of the nine responses by Tigg13, 4 don't understand grammer and assume questions due to lack of knowledge, 3 he cannot answer but makes jokes and 1 answer is only sensible if your thimble is sitting between the Boardwalk and Mediterranean Avenue. Opps tried your own comic reliefe."

Yeah, that's about right.

You said, "Alwyas happy but still would like considered research and answeered questions. Perhpas you should leave the comments to the big bloggers, your making them and you look bad.

I have no illusions when it comes to comparisons between myself and others on this site like John, Harry, Lee, Evan, Dr Avalos and others. They are way smarter and more educated than I am.

But when I see something that even I can see is petty, inane, inconsistent or dishonest then I feel obliged to say something. Even if it is in regards to someone as superior and enlightened as yourself.

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown states: “Good synoptic analysis. But you fail to understand history.

Pliny makes it plain that Christians worshiped Jesus as God long before the book of Mark was written. Perhaps even 20 year previously. The gospels of Mark and Luke cannot be used as examples of propaganda since their validity comes from the practicing Christians at the time. Christians validated the gospels not the other way around."

Re: With all due respects, you have an apologetic agenda and have either greatly over stated the facts or, more than likely distorted history.

Galius Plinius Caecllius (Pliny the Younger 61 - 112 CE) served the Emperor Trajan in Bithynia-Pontius and it was in his epistle 10: 96 that he gives the earliest external account of Christian worship as well as the fullest account the reason for Christian executions written around 110 CE.

Your claim: “Pliny makes it plain that Christians worshiped Jesus as God long before the book of Mark was written. Perhaps even 20 year previously.” is way out of line as to the conservative dating of Mark (60 - 70 CE) as you assume Pliny either had or knew about the Gospel of Mark.

This is where your apologetic goals over state the facts and you sir are very disingenuous! See: The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary by A.N. Sherwin-White (Oxford University Press, 1966).

Rev. Brown states: “Therefore the more plausible reason that Mark and Luke differ in there stories is that they had a different audience in mind. Gentile/Jewish.”

Simply put, the action of Jesus in Mark/Matt. are totally inexcusable for a Christianized "prefect / sinless god" in flesh and are more in line with the debauchery of the gods of the Greco-Roman world.

Secondly, with the acute Hellenization of Palestine under the Seleucids (where the majority of Jewish texts such as the books of I & II Maccabees were composed in Greek) greatly under cuts your claim of two different audiences.

Regards,
Harry

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown; you wanted Christianity debunked, well here it is: Debunked with its own theology!

As a Christian, you are now following THE supreme God who created the universe. The main facts you need to know are these:

A. Your God is omnipotent (Having unlimited power and authority).
B. Your God is omnipresent (He is present everywhere).
C. Your God is omniscient (Having total knowledge).
D. Your God commands billions of angels of which just one could destroy the world.

As a Christian, you are part of a large and diverse group totaling over 2.1 billion members that has a worldwide yearly budget that totals approximately one half of one trillion dollars.

With all this power, who are you at war against?

It’s Satan (a fallen angel) is your main and only adversary who leads a small rag-tag army (1/3 the size of God's) of fallen angels (demons).

A. Satan has limited power (Only what little control God gives him).
C. Satan has no earthly members (Just a few "Dabblers").
D. Satan has no budget.

AND YET...

According to God's OWN WORD , the Bible (especially the Book of Revelation), God, with all the above supreme attributes, IS LOSING a battle in a world He created and even sacrificed His only begotten son (himself) to win.

Most of humanity will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne of Judgment to "give an account" of why they as mortal sinful creatures with limited understandings, SCREWED UP, and then they will be cast spiritually alive into the Lake of Fire (whose smoke rises forever), i.e., blamed for their loss of innocence in the Garden of Eden / Original Sin for all eternity.

This is the real God of love, logic and forgiveness in action. This Rev. is from your on Christian theology as its own logic debunks itself!

Regards,
Harry

Anonymous said...

Of course, Harry, you know the good Reverend won't accept such logic. I would put him out of business if everyone did.

Harry H. McCall said...

I would expect such. Hey, jobs are hard to get!

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi team,

Here we go!

@ Tigg13

You said,

Ok, if you already knew how many you've seen, why did you ask?

I don't think I did?

You said,

You're welcome. But what was the point of the question? To make Harry explain why he hasn't met your conditions by your time table? You must think you're pretty important.

No, the reason was about his blog and the statement therein.

You said,

No that would be the answer to "what do you have to see before you can go?" (Talk about pointless questions.)

Ha Ha, good, I like it!

You said,

Ah, the real heart of the issue. How does one debunk christianity? There are those that need only flip through the first few chapters of Genesis to see all they need to to know that it is crap. But you want us to meet your standards of proof, right?

Hmmm, I see. Re Genesis, Please see my blog. Not worth responding here. And that is the point, this site claims it can? (That was not a question)

You said,

But faith doesn't require proof or evidence or good arguments or even a rational basis.

Now your are just objecting to your own preconcieved ideas or what others have stated.

You said,

To doubt a "demonstration of appropriateness" is not asking a question. Now perhaps this, as well as the preceding "grammatically correct" sentences were not intended to garner any responces. You really weren't specific as to which "questions" you wanted answered and I didn't want you accusing me of not addressing all of your "questions".

Thanks Tigg13, but I was not in dialogue with you. You stepped in to defend your so called brother and took the mantle of answereing the questions. Four you calimed were not questions and I never intended them to be. That was my point. I never asked you a question until you joined the fray.

You said,

Straight answers require straight questions.

Sure, I'll let Harry respond for I asked him the question, not you. If he needs clarification then he can ask? (That's not a question). Oh by the way I did not major in English.

You said,

I have no illusions when it comes to comparisons between myself and others on this site like John, Harry, Lee, Evan, Dr Avalos and others. They are way smarter and more educated than I am.

That's plain.

You said,

But when I see something that even I can see is petty, inane, inconsistent or dishonest then I feel obliged to say something. Even if it is in regards to someone as superior and enlightened as yourself.

Sorry Tigg13, I do not consider myself superior to yourself or more englightened, but you jumped on a comment strand and accused me of not asking questions and then tried to gramatically prove your point. Now I am unsure which part is inane, inconsistent, dishonest or petty about asking questions? This is a Blog.

@ Harry

You said,

With all due respects, you have an apologetic agenda and have either greatly over stated the facts or, more than likely distorted history.

Ok lets see?

You said,

Your claim: “Pliny makes it plain that Christians worshiped Jesus as God long before the book of Mark was written. Perhaps even 20 year previously.” is way out of line as to the conservative dating of Mark (60 - 70 CE) as you assume Pliny either had or knew about the Gospel of Mark.

No its not. The geographical location of the Christians recounted by Pliny is affirmed by the letters of Peter in the NT. Pliny himself notes that there were Christians there for a least 20 years, so about A.D. 90 from his accounts. However Peter's writing is almost identical to the letters of Pliny in content of Christian practice, proving that the same geographical region was christianised long before the gosple of Mark was concived and subesquently written. Perhaps even 20 years. That is my point. Mark/Luke/Matthew cannot be used as evidence of propagandar for a religious cause.

You siad,

This is where your apologetic goals over state the facts and you sir are very disingenuous!

Hmm no I think Harry you just don't know the facts.

You said,

Simply put, the action of Jesus in Mark/Matt. are totally inexcusable for a Christianized "prefect [sic perfect]/ sinless god" in flesh and are more in line with the debauchery of the gods of the Greco-Roman world.

I disagree but we can blog later about that?

You said,

Secondly, with the acute Hellenization of Palestine under the Seleucids (where the majority of Jewish texts such as the books of I & II Maccabees were composed in Greek) greatly under cuts your claim of two different audiences.

Only from a certain point of view. The Jewish reponse here cannot be directed towards Christianity in many scholars opinion. I will look into this further though as I think I know what you are saying but I need to read the work quoted.

You said,

Wait a big comment that you attempt to debunk with logic.

Simply put you have underestimated theology. The bible is plain that God is on about His Glory, consequently judgement and salviotn are both seperate arms of achieving that goal. To simply state that Love is the primary goal and forgiveness is the primary goal is to limit theology. In this instance Chrisianity does look stupid but this is not what the bible says. You need to do more work on theology if this is the best thing you have got? (@ Tigg13 this is not a question)

@ circleh

circleh said...
Of course, Harry, you know the good Reverend won't accept such logic. I [sic, it] would put him out of business if everyone did.


Ah Circleh, thanks for the littel comment at the end. I assume your failure to answer my comments is an indication that you cannot? (@ Tigg13, this is a question)

Hmm I wounder what logic you are referring to?

Miss represetated data fromthe scriptures?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Harry H. McCall said...

Rev. Brown,

Not only can we debunk Christianity with its own theology, one can again use an out of control Jesus curing (who employing both with magic abuse and verbal abuse) and killing a fig tree in a temper fit, but all one need do to debunk the so called founder of Christianity again look at his total bigoted views toward gentiles.

This bigoted view is seen straight forward in the most harden and reveling position Jesus takes in this context is over his love and protection of the exclusive truth of the faith of Israel and its God. As hinted at else where in the Gospels, we see a dark side of Jesus in his cruel and venomous attack on a mother simply requesting his mercy for her possessed daughter (Matt. 15: 21-28)... The Gospel of Mark simply calls her “…a Gentile, of Syrophoenician race.” (Mark 7:26). However, when this verse is redacted in Matt. 15:22, she is call “…a Canaanite woman…” a term used in the time of Jesus equivalent today to an African American being called a “Nigger”. Here Jesus is referenced to the “New Moses” (a theme used by the writer of Matthew) in confronting a non-Jew (Israelite) or a pagan Canaanite woman. His disciples know Jesus’ position on Gentiles; his basic hate for them, but are unable to get rid of her and are forced to file their complaint with Jesus himself who has, up until now ignored her. Now the Jewish Jesus must confront someone his faith and history requires him to hate. Matthew’s Jesus has some cruel fun with her and her sick daughter: “It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).

Although Jesus warns against adults harming any Jewish child’s faith (Matt. 18:1-6), he has (as expressed in the above periscope) no concern about Gentile children since any faith they may have is non-Jewish and pagan. In short, for Jesus, Gentile dogs have no true faith.

Now, Rev. Brown I’m sure I’ve totally missed read this. I’m so sure this is NOT as it seems. LOL! “OH, sweet Jesus; meek and mild, come and stay with me a while” just would not have been a biased bigot that the book of Acts and Paul had to correct.

Now lets see the mental gymnastics you will employ to get out of this head lock!

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Harry,

Ah yes, I love this. You chuck out a Debunk and sit back and wait, its answered so you chuck another and then its also answered and then another and so on ad infinitm.

So the issue here is Jesus is a racist? Therefore Christinity is flase.

Well your logic is really in question, I don't even have to enter into your miss reading of the text.

But lets be nice.

The point is that a you think Jesus calls her a dog? Right?

Firstly the word "kynaria" is a diminutive form and can be translated as puppies. Don't worry I won't say Jesus called them loverly puppies that would be metal gymnastics. The word is harsh, but proably from a proverb, Jesus is qutoing here, but it is to point out that Jesus' limited time was menat for Israel. After the resurrection the gentiles get the full force of Christianity.

Mark's gospel is directed at Gentiles and quite obviously is meant for that purpose.

Secondly, we see clearly that the woman takes the humble position and Jesus does as requested. Not really something a bigot would do.

Pretty easy head lock to get out of. Need more time in the Gym?

Regards, Rev. Phil.

Harry H. McCall said...

Sure Rev. Brown, Jesus’ Jewish world was shaped by Yahweh’s promise of the land of Israel to Jews ONLY.

In this context, Jesus in the Synoptic Tradition, makes no reference of sympathy for the slaughter of the indigenous people in the Hebrew Bible over the so-called “conquest of Palestine”. For Jesus, Yahweh’s wrath on the non-chosen people = nations = gentiles, is what made Jesus proud and caused him to limit his contacts with the gentiles. His comment to his disciples that gentiles were pigs and dogs was just that (bigoted words of hate) as expressed in Matt. 7:6 and shows a Jesus still bitter from the aftermath of the defeat of the Jewish revolt under the Maccabees. In fact, Jesus statement in Matt. 7:6 would be considered as a statement to incite a “Hate Crime” today. Plus, I sincerely doubt that any congregation would keep a pastor who brought a single mother and her child up to the front of the church and treated her as Jesus did in this text just to “test her faith”.


You completely missed the fact of hatred by all religious Jews created when Antiochus Epiphanes carried out his fearful massacres, terminating in the notorious desecration of the Temple and the Hellenization of Holy Jerusalem. Antiochus sacrificed a pig in the Temple, an act which inflamed the Jews under John Hyrcanus and brought about a revolt ending with another gentile occupation of Israel: The Romans.

Jesus, indeed, had much fuel to fire his negative comments toward gentiles. Stories in the Apocryphal such as the one describing how a mother watched all 7 of her sons killed before her eyes by the Seleucid soldiers when they would not eat the gentile food of pork would be highly disturbing to Jesus as it would be to any Jew.

Moreover, if, as some scholars claim, both John the Baptist and Jesus had their origins in the Essenes at Qumran, than the hatred over the liberal Hellenized Jews would run very deep, but not as deep as his hatred for the gentiles who had defiled the Temple and now controlled Israel.

Some notes: The claim of a mission to “all the world” is an addition to Mark (see Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” pp. 102-106). This was probably was picked up by Matthew 28 in the Synoptic tradition.

In light of the above Jewish back ground, to think that Jesus must have said this in a playful tone using “puppies” is more wishful thinking than based on Jesus’ national Jewish past history of dealing with the gentile armies with occupied Israel. For effect, just read the books of I and II Maccabees as to Jewish attitude towards gentiles and their occupation of their land.

Jesus had a biased (negative) or bigoted attitude towards the following groups in the Gospels:

Tax Collectors: This group was hated because they were composed of Jews who were viewed by other Jews (and Jesus) as traders in that they collected taxes to support the gentiles (in this case the Romans) who ruled Palestine in N.T. Times.

Harlots: While an acceptable profession in the Hebrew Bible, they were hated by Jesus and other Jews since, as Jewish women, they had sex with the gentile Romans soldiers.

Gentiles: In that the foreigners / gentiles controlled what Yahweh had given ONLY to Israel.

Finally, Jesus’ praise of her faith, “O woman, your faith is great; be it done as you wish.” In the Synoptic Tradition (by the fact that this verse does not occur in the earlier Gospel of Mark), makes it highly likely that it was placed on the lips of Jesus by the redactor of the this gospel (just as the 3 times the word “church” is injected into this gospel) to gain the support of gentiles who made up the majority of the church at the end of the first century or the time when this gospel was composed.

In the end Rev. Brown, it was the bigoted views of Jesus over his pro-Jewish nationalism and his hatred of the Roman gentile occupation that cause his crucifixion; a fact that only the Romans could carry out the death penalty and this type of execution.

Regards,
Harry

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Harry,

Please see my blog,

Regards, rev. Phil.