Bart Ehrman On if He's Out to "Destroy the Christian Religion"

Ehrman answers this question for the Washington Post. Speaking about the fundamentalist faith in the Bible or in inerrancy he claims:

Throughout most of history most Christian thinkers would have been seen this view as theological nonsense. Or blasphemy. The Bible was never to be an object of faith. God through Christ was. Being a Christian meant believing in Christ, not believing in the Bible. Link

David over at the Unreligious Right Blog says this about Erhman's point:

This is also interesting from the atheist perspective, as atheists often attack Christianity by pointing out the many problems with the Bible. Such a line of argument can be effective with Christians who believe in the primacy of Biblical authority, or Biblical inerrancy, but is less compelling to those who hold more liberal versions of Christianity. Link.

I agree. That's why my focus is about debunking the ideas that Christians have gained from the Bible rather than the Bible itself. Besides, I have reasons for rejecting liberal Christianity as well.

There Will Be Saved Parasites in Heaven!

The Biblical text is clear in that neither Enoch (Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. 2 Kings 2:11), Jesus and maybe even Moses {(Transfiguration (Matt 17:3 and parallels), in the Jewish work, The Assumption of Moses and its likely New Testament preservations in Acts 7:36 and Jude 8 - 9)} died, but were taken up into Heaven clothes, parasites and all!

While the parasites in the guts of Enoch and Elijah never died, but were translated to Heaven with them, the E. coli parasitic bacterium in the gut of Jesus died and were resurrected back to life by God along with the body of Jesus. Theologically not only are we talking about a single bodily resurrection, but millions of parasitic bacterium E. coli who were also bodily resurrected too…Glory! Praise God!

[Since some the resurrection narratives of Jesus are not coherent or expressed whether Jesus arose bodily or in spirit form only, some Gospels (such as Luke 24 below) went out of their way to prove a physical resurrection (To also counter the spiritual only view which later would be considered heretical), Jesus is not only handled by the apostles, but even eats food:

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. (Codex Bezae reads: “they thought they saw a ghost”). 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; (the Textus Receptus better know as the King James adds: and of an honeycomb.) 43 and He took it and ate it before them.]

So, according to Luke 24, Jesus’ E. coli parasites were also alive and still active in Jesus’ holy gut to help break down the fish (and, maybe even the honeycomb) Jesus ate telling us not only did God resurrect Jesus, but God resurrected the holy parasites that dwelled in the promised land of Jesus’ holy gut.

Thus, like the E. coli in the guts of the living Enoch, Elijah; Jesus’ resurrected E. coli were taken up to Heaven with Jesus too and now dwell up yonder only to return again to earth along with Jesus in the Second Coming!

Some Things of Interest on the Internet

You might want to take a look at Dr. Matt McCormick's post, Putting Odds on Jesus. Really, what are the odds? [BTW He's using my book in his class on atheism]. Ed Babinski sent me a link to the 7 Most Horrifying Parasites On the Planet. God is perfectly good, right? That site has many other interesting things on it you could spend a lot of time reading. William Lobdell's book, Losing My Religion was just recently given a rave review in the NY Times. Congratulations William! My own book will be reviewed by the overseas equivalent, The Literary Times Supplement. Bruce Droppings recently reviewed an interview of Pastor Dave Schmelzer and me where he says he was disappointed. Check it out to see why. Then don't forget to look over my friend James McGrath's hosting of the Biblical Studies Carnival 41. It's interesting to see what people are saying. Lastly I've received notice that some fine folks on Facebook are getting up a petition calling for a debate between my former professor William Lane Craig, and me.

Cheers.

Dr. David A. Dunning: "Most Incompetent People do Not Know That They are Incompetent."

On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in studies...are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

While we can all ponder about this I've offered a good reason to think we at DC know what we're talking about right here. For those Bible thumpers out there who think we're ignorant and incompetent simply because they disagree with us, try listening to what your own Christian professors are saying about us. If we're ignorant and incompetent, then what do you say about them when they recommend and use my book in their college classes?

Christians Converting Christians to Christianity

From 1983-85 I worked in electronics with a Bob Jones University ministerial graduate who was getting support for the mission field. His country of choice was the Pacific nation of Guam; a country where over 90% of the population is Roman Catholic or, as he put it: Over 90% are lost.

The excerpts below are from several of his news letters to his mission board and supporting churches. In them he shares a few of the burdens the Lord has laid on his heart to win the Catholic false religionist to Christ:

“We have almost finished another door-by-door visit through the village of Agat. Many of the doors are posted with Catholic signs that clearly state that they are not interested in any other “religion”. Never the less we keep sowing, praying and watering and trust the Lord of the harvest to bring forth fruit. We are very thankful for those that He has brought in and rescued from the religion that the devil has used to blind their eyes. Our old folks’ home ministry is also still going well. God keeps the door open though we preach strong doctrinal messages that contradict the predominant religion of the residents. A few have professed faith in Jesus Christ.”

“That village is on the southern tip of Guam and has about 2,000 folks living there. Please pray that the hearts of the folks will be receptive to the gospel since it is very strong Catholic. During the meeting there was one soul saved. In the past month one of our members had the blessing of leading a niece to the Lord and a daughter to confirm her salvation.”

“I am sad to report that a Catholic lady Doris and I had witnessed to many times over the past five to six years went into eternity last week and to our knowledge she had not been saved. What a price to pay to be loyal to a false religion!”

Atheism Hits Southern Bible Belt!

More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops

Why The “Minimal Facts” Model in Defending the Resurrection of Jesus is Unpersuasive

You can find this critique over at Evaluating Christianity by clicking here.

Educated People Can Disagree Agreeably and Learn From One Another

I received yet another email from a Christian professor who is planning on using my book in his classes. Here is what he said about my recent decision not to allow any more comments [Edit by popular demand we're now moderating comments]:

I have really appreciated reading your DC blog the past couple of months after very carefully reading, highlighting, and writing in the margins of Why I Became an Atheist. (I agree with your suggestion that it merits a second and third reading.) I was disappointed when I read about your decision to no longer allow general comments. I understand that you must get frustrated by the many banal comments of those who just want to argue rather than discuss intelligently.

I am planning to use your book in a couple of courses I teach, one undergrad and one grad class, and was hoping to use the blog as a way for my students to interact with you and others in the blogosphere. I would enjoy finding a venue by which that could still happen.

I figured you were getting some annoying and hateful posts. My concern is that there are so few places anywhere, including cyberspace, for genuine, thoughtful conversation between open-minded people on both sides of the theism fence.

This is what I have wanted my Blog to be from the beginning despite the attention getting name (once again, it's main purpose is to grab people's attention), although I don't claim to be open to Christianity at this point even if I AM willing to have an open dialog about it (which may be what he meant). But there are ignorant Christian trolls who comment here to try to disrupt and derail this discussion/debate.

So what's the difference? Why is it that educated Christians and professors want to truly engage our arguments in a thoughtful and mostly mutual respectful manner but that ignorant Christians do not?

I think I have an answer. Only ignorant people (on both sides, by the way) think that whoever disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant and dumb. We can see this almost everywhere. An ignorant person not accustomed to fine wine, classical music, art, or the classic novels of the day simply cannot appreciate them. They have to be educated to see why such things are indeed on a higher level than cheap wine, rap music, graffiti or romance novels. What we fail to understand we also think is unworthy or undignified and that people who enjoy them are stupid, ignorant or dumb. But educated people know differently, even if on some levels they can still appreciate other expressions of these kinds of things.

[Full disclosure, I like cheap wine. I like some rap music and I don't listen to classical music much. I also think some graffiti is amazing, even if it's illegal. I dislike novels, even classical ones for the most part, especially romance novels (from what I understand romance novels are a woman's kind of pornography anyway). But then I am not claiming to be knowledgeable about these kinds of things. I lack the refinement of these tastes, but then I know that I do and I will never tell people with these more refined educated tastes they are ignorant or stupid for having them. I just don't think there is any comparison with the music of a Beethoven, Back, Chopin or Brahms with Vanilla Ice and some others, although many rappers are really creative. For instance, have you heard Wanna be a Baller by Lil' Troy? ;-)]

In the first few months after becoming a Christian I was dispensationalist. I remember reading through my Scofield Bible Study Bible notes as if these notes were as authoritative as the Bible text itself. I didn’t know any better. No alternative view was presented to me. So when I ran across a Christian who questioned this eschatology I had a hard time thinking that other person believed the Bible! I was ignorant. I later learned that Christian people had such disagreements. In fact, on issue after issue where I found disagreement among other Christians the more and more I learned that Christians can believe a wide variety of things and still believe the Bible. But this process took some time. As I became better educated I could embrace more and more Christians as Bible believers.

The same thing went for many different kinds of arguments I found at first thought ot be repelling, especially as I began studying philosophy. If you have ever thought that someone was completely ignorant to think there is no material world then just wait until you get into a Ph.D. program and take seriously George Berkeley’s arguments on behalf of Idealism. Then you will no longer think such an argument is stupid or absurd, even if you might still find it wrongheaded, if you do.

Here’s the point. As one becomes educated, truly educated, then the absurd doesn’t sound absurd anymore. You'll probably still think certain ideas are wrong, of course, but you cannot say of most any idea defended by an educated scholarly person that it is so completely out of whack that anyone who believes and defends it is just stupid, ignorant, or dumb. In fact, since none of us has a corner on the truth (and there is disagreement among philosophers about what truth is) then even those ideas we thought of initially as absurd might be correct after all.

Only the ignorant think that people who disagree are ignorant simply by virtue of the fact that they disagree. People who are educated will use the opportunity of interaction mainly as a time to learn from one another and then to disagree agreeably.

There’s something else. An educated person knows when someone else is educated. S/he can see it in how the argument is expressed, how much force is claimed for the argument, whether the person pontificates about things for which it isn’t possible to pontificate on, and so forth. For instance, when someone starts out an essay or comment claiming to "refute" a certain philosophical argument, that is a very large claim to make and is unlikely to happen (within certain restrictions, or course). Educated people know that the larger the claim is then the harder that claim is to defend. Educated people look for these kinds of things and they can tell when the person they are discussing something with is educated or not. The ignorant haven’t a clue. All they see is disagreement, and where they find it they automatically present their opponents a screwball award because they cannot recognize these clues. And they most emphatically cannot understand that the other person simply cannot say all that s/he knows in one short comment, one short posting, one short summary of an argument, or even one book. We all know more than we can say, although some people are better at saying it than others. So we must always assume the other person has more to say on a topic, and not assume that this is all he can say about it.

The ignorant person may also suggest some silly stupid objection to what a person writes as if this objection will end the debate. The ignorant person may even think such an objection has not even been considered before. The educated person offers better objections and asks whether it has been considered before. And an educated person will usually just ask of another recognized educated person what his response is to the objection.

Sometimes the best thing is for an educated person, who is on your side of the issue, to tell the ignorant people on his side, that this is what he sees when he reads the arguments of the person on the other side of the issue.

Educated Christians are saying that they appreciate our type of atheism here at DC, for the most part. And professors in both Christian and secular colleges are using my book in their classes on apologetics and atheism. This should be a clue to the ignorant Christians out there that educated Christians take me and this Blog seriously, that we know what we're talking about, and that we are worthy opponents, despite the fact that they still disagree. That's because educated people can disagree agreeably and learn from one another, although even educated people falter from time to time in the heat of a debate, which does happen, because we still disagree.

I wish the ignorant Christians who comment here would understand this, but then to do so they must become educated. I can only hope that barring a good education they will listen to the educated Christians and engage us in respectful debates about theses issues, instead of name calling, slander and charges of stupidity, ignorance and of being dumb. This only reveals THEIR ignorance, for they are saying something different than their own professors in Christian colleges are saying when they choose my book as a textbook for their classes on atheism and apologetics.

Q.E.D.

Praise God for the Coming Swine Flu Pandemic!

As a bit of sarcasm that Voltaire would appreciate let's all praise God for the coming Swine Flu pandemic! It's been long overdue. A state of emergency has been declared by the US which you can read about right here. On NBC's Nightly News the word pandemic was bandied about as a real possibility.

If the Swine Flu is a punishment sent by God then God's punishments are good, aren't they? We're all sinners so we deserve to drown in our own bodily fluids as our lungs fill up with water, even children, right? People deserve what happens to them because Adam and Eve sinned, or because our parents sinned, or because of original sin (whatever that can possibly mean in this context for children). God's goodness and glory are displayed in the sufferings and deaths of its victims along with the grieving surviving family members. In any case, it's disasters like these that God sends to draw people to him, sort of like beating your wife in order to get her to love you, right? God is perfectly good. Glory be to God! He always does that which is perfectly good. So this is not a tragedy, not a disaster, not an "evil". This is all good! Praise God! Evil is nothing but a privation anyway, according to Augustine. It doesn't really exist!

In addition, the Swine Flu can be considered as a perfectly good divine method of population control. Every once-in-a-while God just has to do this because populations get out of hand and because of this they might upset the so-called perfectly fine tuned ecosystem he created. Never mind for a moment that a more humane way to control population is to control our sex drives, or female ovulation cycles, so that we don't even have a population control problem in the first place. And never mind that there is no reason for a miracle working God to be concerned with such a fine tuned ecosystem when he could sustain the world and control population growth by means of several perpetual miracles such that the coming Swine Flu isn't needed at all in his perfectly good plan. No, God knows what he's doing and his ways are the very best. We cannot even fathom how good God's ways are since he's omniscient and knows best. He has perfectly good reasons why he remains hidden. We know this by faith because we certainly cannot figure it out using the rational powers he created in us even given his perfectly good revelation in the Bible.

Anyway, those damned Catholics are not really Christians anyway, so the Swine Flu started in Mexico where it belongs. No wonder they don't have divine protection. We know that our version of Christianity is true because we were born into it. But wait, it's infecting Protestant Evangelical Christian America too? Oh well, forget about the facts. Who needs facts when the high road is to have faith? And any true Christian who dies in this pandemic will go to heaven anyway.

Besides, Jesus told us that when we see such things we should look up into the sky dome of heaven and be thankful, for this is yet another sign that Jesus is coming. Just ignore the many other pandemics that took place, like the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and the failed apocalyptic predictions that came with it of the end of the world. In fact, let's hope and pray things get worse because we'd rather be in heaven than here on earth. And ignore also the fact that if the world comes to an immediate end there are still billions of non-Christians who have not yet been reached with the saving knowledge of Jesus, many of whom could still be reached if God grants them more time. Ignore also that these people will burn in hell forever. God's patience cannot last forever. Who cares if he calls a halt to this world whenever he does? I don't. I only care about me. I want to go to be with God soon, today if possible. The people who wind up in hell deserve what they get, even those who die in this coming Swine Flu pandemic. Let them burn. I'm just thankful that in God's graciousness toward me he didn't end the world before I got saved. Isn't God so full of it [grace]? It's simply amazing!

So let's thank God and do nothing to prohibit the Swine Flu from spreading because it's God's will. And let's look to the sky for Jesus and help raise money for doomsday ministries that tell the world of the coming disaster upon the heathen, atheists, homosexuals, criminals and child molesters for whom this disaster is being sent. We'll be raptured out of this mess, and even if not, his grace is sufficient for us. We know where we'll go when the time comes.

Be thankful and praise God in all things!

The Problem of Evil; What Can God Do?

Here's a redated post of mine from April '06:

It's time once again to discuss what is known as the bedrock of atheism, the problem of evil. As my springboard let's start with David Hume:

A deity who knows the secret springs of the universe might easily, by particular volitions, turn all accidents to the good of mankind and render the whole world happy, without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet whose purposes were salutary to society might always meet with a fair wind. Good princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and authority be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the face of the world, and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of nature or confound human conduct than the present economy of things where the causes are secret and variable and compounded. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying Caesar and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored liberty to a considerable part of mankind.” [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XI].

Here are some more things God could’ve done: One childhood fatal disease like the Spanish Flu of 1918 could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII. One actual attempt on Hitler’s life by some people, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could have ended his reign after the war started. A different police officer could have discovered a naked boy who had briefly escaped Jeffrey Dahlmer’s clutches, and upon investigating further could’ve saved that boy’s life. Timothy McVeigh could have had a fatal vehicle crash while driving to Oklahoma, or a crash that would reveal what was inside his truck. McVeigh could also have been killed while in combat before coming back to the states.

A fatal heart attack could’ve been sent to Saddam Hussein before our war with Iraq, stopping it dead in its tracks. The poison that Saddam threw on the Kurds a decade ago could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized. Sure it would puzzle Saddam, and it would not be explainable by science, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable, so this wouldn’t necessarily lead him to believe that the laws of nature were suspended, revealing God behind it all. The same thing could have been done to the Zykon-B gas pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even if Nazi's did conclude that God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm done?

Why did God allow the earthquake that sent the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in Asia? Did he not have the power to restrain that earthquake? No one would know that he kept it from happening. The same goes for the predicted San Andreas Fault and the earthquake that will send Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean. No seismic scientist would ever discover God as the reason why it doesn’t do this.

Why couldn’t something have happened to all nine hijackers of those planes on that fatal 9/11 day? One could trip and fall to his death, or a broken limb. Three others could’ve gotten in a car accident on the way. One other could’ve had a heart attack. Still another could have been robbed by a New York pair of thugs and killed (there’s utilitarianism at its best!). Another could have been reminded of something by God that would weaken his will, maybe intense doubts like those who walk down the wedding aisle. Another could have been spotted at security by a different officer, while another’s take-on-bag might have spilled open revealing his knife. And so on. These things would all occur on that morning stopping the terrorist attacks dead on. But none of these things happened, did they? God allowed the destruction of nearly 3500 lives that day even though there were means at his disposal to stop it.

And even if by changing these things in the world God would “eradicate the laws of nature,” which I seriously doubt, the Christian would still have to argue that these things are impossible for God to do. Who says that the laws of nature must be fixed and unalterable, anyway? David Hume first questioned this. The ordering of the world by general laws “seems nowise necessary” to God. If by changing something requires some adjustment that does not accord with any known laws of nature, so what? The Christian claims God can do miracles, then why not a perpetual one that doesn’t affect anything else in his creation?

"Most people understand that the Bible is full of allegories, metaphors and symbolism."

This criticism was once directed toward me for ridiculing the first chapter of Genesis. I responded by saying...

Not really. For every person who believes that a certain story is allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic, I guarantee that I could find another person who believes it is entirely literal. I further guarantee that each person could use hermeneutics to find textual justification for their respective positions. What does this say? How can one definitively determine literal from figurative? Is the resurrection of a dead man allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic? If not, why not? “Most people understand that the resurrection is full of allegories, metaphors, and symbolism.” How is that statement less valid than the one above?

The fact of the matter is that those who argue that the Bible is an allegorical, metaphorical, or symbolic book belong to a generation that has merely retreated from the position of their predecessors. Apologists for religion have changed over the years, just as apologists for other pseudoscientific disciplines have incorporated new interpretations for more recent evidence that debunks their disciplines. The first ghost photographer was found to be a fraud when living people started showing up in his pictures, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent ghost photographs. The first spirit-rapper confessed that the otherworldly sounds in her sessions were the popping of a joint in her big toe and not communications from the dead, but this doesn’t discourage the field from continuously pressing the validity of subsequent ghost whisperers. The first footage of Bigfoot was admitted to be a hoax by the man who made the suit and the man who wore the suit, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent films. The first verifiable crop circles were made by two men who confessed to having invented the whole idea in a pub, but this doesn’t discourage the field from forming new explanations for subsequent crop circles. Abductees alleged that the first space aliens told them that they came from Mars and Venus, but once scientists determined those worlds to be inhospitable to life, abductees talked of subsequent abductors hailing from far away solar systems. In this same manner, once science destroyed a literal reading of the Bible, the book retreated into the realm of symbolism and other such explanations.

Calling for a Debate with William Lane Craig

Let me make a request to all skeptics as well as many Christians who visit DC. My request is a simple one. I would like skeptics and Christians alike to call for a debate between myself and Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic, Is Christianity more probable than atheism? Use your Blogs and websites to issue this call if you would.

Never mind for the moment that my friend and former professor Bill Craig has basically said he won’t debate me. If people were stopped so easily from pursuing their goals this world would be a different place. He can change his mind. People do all of the time especially when pressure is put on them to do so. On a recent poll many people think I would win such a debate, even if most think I will lose it. About that poll I wonder if some of the Christians who voted I would lose probably just think that since the skeptics are wrong then there is no way any skeptic can win a debate against any Christian apologist. And I wonder if many of the naysaying voters have read my book or seen me debate against David Wood on the problem of suffering, seen here, which most people think I won. Keep in mind that in the debate I had with Wood I did not know in advance how he would argue. But when it comes to Bill Craig I have been a student of his works and debates and I pretty much know his arguments inside and out. He would have to come up with something completely new to surprise me. But I think I could surprise him with a debate strategy I won’t reveal until the time comes to debate him, if it comes. I have watched Craig’s debates enough to know what to say and I want to surprise him with something so different he’ll be taken aback. I am sort of an expert on Craig. I’ve followed him for years, first as a student, and now as a skeptic. I probably know Craig and his work better than most other skeptics.

Many skeptics are now hesitant to encourage debates with Craig because of the recent losses coming from Christopher Hitchens and Richard Carrier, who said: “As I had predicted, I didn't win the debate.” Carrier debated Craig even though he admitted he expected to lose. I do not expect to lose. At the very minimum I expect to hold my own, and I think I could win. I have a habit of succeeding when others tell me I cannot do something.

Eddie Tabash is actually calling for a debate between Craig and me even though he watched in person as Hitchens lost the debate with Craig. I’d like for others to join Tabash if you think one of the premier skeptical debaters on our age knows what he’s talking about.

When it comes to debate experience I think I’ve had more of it than most of the skeptics who debate Craig. Most all of the skeptics that Craig has debated probably never debated before, and some of them win, like most recently Shelly Kagan. The only skeptics who have had a great deal of experience in formal debates are probably Eddie Tabash, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker and Hitchens. So even though I don’t have as much formal debate experience as they do, it may not matter since I'm sort of an expert on Craig. Besides, I’ve been winning debates ever since I won an argument against my 7th grade math teacher and all of the other students in that class over a math problem. And I debate these issues every single day here at DC.

The reason I’m Blogging about this is to try to get Bloggers all over the web to call for this debate, from both skeptical and Christian Blogs. If you’re a Christian why wouldn’t you want to see such a debate? And if you think I’ll be trashed then why wouldn’t you want to see me eat my words?

The saying goes, “if you build it he will come,” and I think if you Blog it Craig will come around. Is he scared of me or something?

Atheism - An Australian Perspective [Part 1 of 3]

See below

New Book: 10 Things I Hate About Christianity

You can check it out right here. This is an interesting title written by Jason T. Berggren who is an ex-punk rocker and professing Christian. He was interviewed recently by ABC News. Who says titles don't sell books? I wonder if I shouldn't write one like that from an atheist's perspective.

Pastor Turned Atheist Talks to Atheist Turned Pastor

Dave Schmelzer, a former atheist who now pastors a large church in the shadow of Harvard and MIT, and myself, a former pastor who, according to the show's producers, is now "one of atheism’s top 'apologists,'" discuss the influence of our experience, thinking, and the evidence as our paths took opposite directions. Dave speaks from his book, Not the Religious Type, and John from his, Why I Became an Atheist. We were interviewed on the popular and somewhat prestigious Christian talk show "The Things That Matter Most." Enjoy. I've previously critiqued Schmelzer's main thesis in his book right here.

Stephen R. Kingsley's The Easter Answer, Is No Answer At All.

I have recently read Stephen R. Kingsley's booklet, The Easter Answer, and my conclusion is that it not only contains a great deal of ignorance about how the gospels were written in the first place (see Luke 1:1-4; he even quotes from the discredited longer ending of Mark), but also that the scenario he presents is quite flawed in several places. It's no answer at all to harmonizing the Gospel accounts of the resurrection stories of Jesus.

Kingsley is attempting to answer Dan Barker’s Easter Challenge offered in his book, Losing Faith in Faith. It’s a challenge that a skeptic named Ralph Nielsen offered $1,000 if anyone could meet it. Basically the challenge asks the believer to “go to your Bible and put together the various resurrection stories into one consistent narrative. Read Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20 & 21. Read also Acts 1:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. List all the events from the resurrection to the ascension of Jesus without omitting any detail. If you can do this with no contradictions I will pay you a $1000 reward.”

Kingsley’s answer fails miserably, I think.

Take for example Matthew 28:1-7:

1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

Kingsley disagrees with the majority of today's translators on verse 1 and instead goes with the 1971 New American Standard Bible where it begins "Now late on the Sabbath..." So Kingsley claims verse 1 describes events that took place, not after the Sabbath day was over, but instead late on the Sabbath day, at say, 5:45 PM. Then Kingsley claims verses 2-4, the angel's rolling away of the stone, took place several hours later between 12 midnight and 3:00 AM. And finally he claims verses 5-7 describes the events that took place at 6:30 AM when women first discover the tomb was empty.

The problems are inherent just in these short verses, for when reading Matthew they are meant to describe a flow to the events he narrates. These events in Matthew's Gospel are supposed to be taken in order right after each other. It requires Kingsley to rewrite the Gospel to produce one of his own, which as it stands disagrees with all four of them individually. As Bart Ehrman argues, what happened that morning depends on which Gospel we read!

Kingsley has Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb four times, telling the disciples on three separate occasions about it, and having Peter run to discover the empty tomb not once, but twice. On Mary’s third visit to the empty tomb she encounters Jesus himself and touches him (John 20:10-17). But on her fourth visit to the empty tomb (Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1-2) Mary Magdalene goes with other women to anoint the dead body of Jesus and unbelievably keeps silent that she already knew Jesus had arisen and the tomb was empty! Kingsley suggests Mary kept silent presumably because Peter and the other disciples told her to (without any Biblical support), or that Jesus ONLY told her to tell the “brethren” and did not require her to tell women, or because the other women might have been jealous and accused her of a delusion, even though she was emphatically NOT afraid of telling men who would’ve been more skeptical of her testimony as a woman!

Kingsley also tries to harmonize the five appearances of Jesus to his disciples in the four Gospels with Paul's completely different chronological list of six appearances in I Corinthians 15. To do this Kingsley merely combines them together to make eleven appearances, ignoring the fact that Paul intends to provide not just a list of appearances but a chronology of appearances. And Paul's chronology does not accord with Kingsley's chronology either, when we consider that Paul never mentions any appearances to women at all (Kingsley claims Paul didn't recount them because of their social status, but then why did the Gospel writers do so?). Furthermore, the four Gospels never make mention of the 500 hundred people whom Paul boasted in I Corinthians as having seen the resurrected Jesus at one time, even though this fact would’ve been an astounding confirmation of the Gospel writer's claims.

I think Kingsley should take heed of what several Christian scholars said about attempting such a project, as quoted by him on page 20: Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary said: “No plausible solution has presented itself.” Dr. J. Lyle Story, of Regent University said, “I do know that it’s next to impossible to provide the sequence of events in the post-Resurrections…there’s no way that they can all be harmonized.” Dr. Donald Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary said the problem is a “notorious” one.

Kingsley has emphatically not harmonized the accounts by far. His attempted harmonization is far fetched and as such no answer at all. He does not deserve the $1,000 dollars from Ralph Nielsen.

I will say though, that it was very interesting for me to see the extent a believer will go to prove his faith true. I think it's high time such an attempt is abandoned entirely. It's time that evangelical believers look at the phenomena of the Bible and then only afterward construct a theory about inspiration, rather than continuing to allow their preconceived inerrant theory about the Bible to force the phenomena of the Bible into a Procrustean Bed. Let the Bible do it's own talking. Stop forcing it to fit your preconceived inerrant theory due to ignorant assumptions picked up in Sunday School when you were kids. Grow up. Learn. Question. That's what adults do in most every other area, except unfortunately, when it comes to religion.

If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify for the Death Penalty?

This week the Supreme Court declined to review a Texas murder case in which a juror brought a Bible into the sentencing process – showing that the Book recommends death for anyone who kills another person with an iron rod (Numbers 35:16).

Let me say for the record that I’m not against the death penalty, and in this case it sounds like the defendant fit my criteria, too. I know I'm ruining my liberal credentials here, but I frankly don’t have any moral problem with the jury condemning him to death. However, to do so based on the sanctification of a Bronze Age legal code is somewhat horrifying—especially given the list of other "crimes" that are recommended for capital punishment in the Bible.

Yes, yes, the court assures us that even though bringing the Bible into the sentencing was improper, there is no evidence that it swayed the jury. Rest assured that when the Bible and other authorities (like our judicial system ) are at odds, we can trust Texas jurors to ignore the Bible and do what is right. Even though half the country believes that God made humans in their present form because the Bible says so—we can count on Texans (school boards excepted) to follow the evidence and the constitution.

All the same, just in case an issue like this should come up in your state, thirty six different offenses in the Bible qualified for capital punishment. Do any of these apply to you?

Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9

Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

Premarital Sex (girls only)
. . .If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, Deuteronomy 22:20

Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18

Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that . . . hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; . . .Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18

Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9

Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city . . . But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25

Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16

Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you--even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend--saying, "Let us go worship other gods," . . . you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6

Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15

So. Are you up for the death penalty (along with all those Kiwi sheep)?

Just so you know, it could be worse. As I am reminded by people who want me to make nice, this list represents an advancement from mob justice. They are right, and the Levitical Code would a fascinating window into human moral history were it not for the fact that juries in Texas, politicians in Colorado, and clergy in Africa all advocate the death penalty for one person or another on the basis of these texts (murderers, homosexuals, and child witches respectively).

When people put God’s name on Bronze Age documents, and then make those documents a golden calf, they get stuck with Bronze Age moral thinking. Maybe it’s time to take the Bible down off of its pedestal, and acknowledge the obvious human handprints on the texts. Maybe it's even time to do again what Thomas Jefferson did: cut the book apart, keep the parts that are worth keeping, and leave the rest on the floor in the cutting room of history.

Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig v. Shelly Kagan

Even some Christians think Dr. Craig lost this debate.

Is God Necessary for Morality? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

Nate Phelps, Son of Bigot Pastor Fred Phelps, at the American Atheist '09 Convention

Link.

Film and the Apologetics of Biblical Violence

A new scholarly article by Dr. Avalos shows that, despite the seeming radicality of modern filmmaking, most films with biblical subjects are still very conservative in their approach to biblical violence. Read the article:The Apologetics of Biblical Violence

Hold On to You Horses Here We Go. You Will be Able to Talk With Me on an Individual Basis

I have a very important announcement about something I've been working on where individual people who want to talk live with me can do so. Christians who would like to argue with me can do so. Skeptics who would like to bone up on the arguments as well as pick a bone with me will be able to do so. Students in ethics or philosophy classes can get special personal tutoring from me. Christians who struggle with their faith can talk things over with me. And former Christians who want to vent or ask advice about their personal pain can do so.

Details will be forthcoming, probably very soon. This will be exciting. Stay tuned.

American Atheists 09 - Richard Dawkins

Satan is a Christian!

A. Satan is religious.

B. Satan believes in God.

C. Satan believes in Jesus (Since salvation is based on faith alone (Protestant); then Satan has salvation).

D. Satan believes in all the doctrines that make up soteriology in the Bible since he is portrayed as working against them.

E. Satan is a good friend of God: 1. In the Book of Job, Satan and God were betting buddies who made life Hell for poor ole faithful Job. 2. In Numbers 22, Satan is one of God messenger angles and he acts in accordance with Yahweh‘s will. (Check out the Hebrew here!)

F. The fact that Jesus stated that those who love him do the will of his father (God), than Satan proved that he also loved Jesus as he did the will of God as stated above.

G. Satan has more morals than God himself as Satan has never murdered defenseless men, women children, babies and the unborn as God did in the Hebrew Bible. Now, compared to God, Satan has been an angle of love (Note the objection to Revelation below).

H. Satan has a code of morals and ethics and abides by them as seen in the temptation of Jesus (unlike the murderous Israelite god Yahweh, Satan values life).

I. Satan is willing to be God’s “whipping boy” to allow Jesus to look good. But we should note! Satan has never said he was the leader of the demons. Demons are Gods own creations to affect fallen humanity after their expulsion from Eden and are God’s eternal curse on them. (In the New Testament, the term Devil can mean demons (Mark 1:34, 3:22; Matt. 9:34, 12:24; Luke 8:2, 9:1, 11:15; 1 Tim. 4:1; James 2:19) as well as Satan (Matt. 4:5, 8:11; Luke 4:2,3, 13; John 13:2, 8:44; James 4:7 and so on).

J. The Book of Revelation is a late addition to the Canon objected to as heretical by a number of the Church Fathers and Luther.(1) Fact is, the Book of Revelation late creation (post 90CE) is simply revisionist theology written to shift all God’s historical faults onto Satan.

K. Since Satan can not create anything; the problems imposed by Hell, the Lake of Fire, the Pit
(Rev. 9: 1,2 ) as depicted in Revelation from which stinging the demons come forth (Rev. 9:10), the Beast and the false prophet are all Gods creations and was one reason Revelation was considered heretical which contributed to its late inclusion in the New Testament Canon.

Fact is, the woes in the Book of Revelation are God’s own doing to make him look like a Deity in control (Like the deranged fireman who starts a fire so he can get the glory of being the first on the scene to put it out). In this sense, the self destructive God of Revelation is the same self destructive God in the book of Job who gloried in Job’s suffering to make himself look great!

L. Satan was never hated for what he preached unlike Jesus whose so-called ministry of love went from zero to death in three years or less! The statement that Jesus himself said: “By their fruits you will know them.” Matt. 7:16 - 20 by which Satan’s actions are vindicated while Jesus’ actions definitely are not (Jesus was the “tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire”/ crucified). It’s funny how a man like Jesus, who is said to have loved all of humanity, ended up hated and killed by the end results of his own so called love (Talk about a moral and ethical contradiction)!

M. Jesus believed in and trusted Satan so much that during all three temptations, Jesus followed Satan for 40 days (Mark 1: 13, Luke 4:2) and enjoyed Satan’s preaching (if he did not, why did he hang out with him for 40 days?). In the end, Jesus was as faithful to Satan as Jesus’ own disciples were to him in that Jesus abandon Satan just as the Disciples were to later abandon Jesus: A time when they were needed the most.

N. While Satan is called a “Liar and the father of all lies” the Bible fails to give not one single incident of Satan lying. Even the serpent in the Garden of Eden is depicted as stating the truth while Yahweh lied (The very day you eat of it, you shall die). This serpent in the Garden of Eden has more in common with the medical rod of Asclepius noted for wisdom.

P. Since Satan is a fallen angel, the atoning death of Jesus only benefits fallen humanity and not the spirit world, so just as the Church Father Origen’s belief in universal salvation implied Satan will be given salvation at the last judgment just as all Christians (Commentary on John 32.229f.).

Q. Satan did not create this Fallen World outside the Garden of Eden, God did. Just as God created the woes in the Book of Revelation to sadistically extract prayers and praises for himself, God created the Fallen World to sadistically billed himself up and extract prayers and praises for himself.

R. Sure, God gave his only son to die for a mess God himself created just like God created Satan as his escape goat to blame for his evil side. God uses others to carry the blame for his screw ups.

S. If one was to take the Bible and list all the evil deeds God has done compared to those deeds of Satan, the evil deeds of God recorded in his own word, the Bible, would over whelm any so-called evil deeds of Satan.

T. Finally, since the Bible lists the acts of God as a witness to his many evil and sadistic deeds, by such a Biblical witness, Satan is indeed a Christian!


(1) The Book, which was probably known to Papias is already ascribed by Justin to the Apostle John. This attribution was accepted in the Muratorian Canon and by Tertullian and Hippolytus and generally followed in the west.

In the East it was widely rejected, most notably by Alogi, Dionysius of Alexandria (who argued against its Apostolic authorship on the ground that it differs in style and content from the Fourth Gospel and believed it to be the work of some other John). It was also rejected by Eusebius. Some Eastern Church Fathers and Councils (Cyril of Jerusalem, the Council of Laodicea, john Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia0 did not include it in the Canon. It was also omitted originally from the Syriac Peshitta and the Armenian versions.

(Further discussions on the theology and canonical status of this Book can be found in the commentaries of R.H Charles (2 vols. in the ICC), David Aune’s 3 vols. in The World Biblical Commentary or Bruce Metzger’s The Canonization of the New Testament)

The Amazing Race and Amazing Grace

While briefly watching Episode 9 of The Amazing Race on CBS tonight, I wondered to myself if I should bother any more with debunking Christianity. It's already debunked. The final nail is in the coffin. The nail is our contact with a global world. We're now in a global society. The contestants are in China. Watch the video and tell me that the Chinese are not reasonable people with morals and concerns that all humans share. That's a country that knows little or nothing about Christianity. A country that has had little or no contact with Christianity. Go live in China. Become an anthropologist and study their culture for a couple of years. Then come back and tell me that only Christianity can provide an objective basis for morals. Then tell me God was smart when he sent his so-called Son in the Middle Eastern ancient world. Then tell me no one will be saved except through Jesus, or that the Chinese people who don't believe will go to hell. Do it with a straight face, an honest face. All of the apologist's arguments to explain away religious diversity will fall on deaf ears.

And while I'm at it, if you really want to see whether Christianity makes a difference, become a preacher. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll see Christianity in action like never before with the veil removed. Or, become a scientist, a psychologist, real a Biblical scholar or a biblical archaeologist. Wake up. Become informed. There is no amazing in amazing grace. It's hogwash plain and simple. [Sorry]

What Would Jesus NOT do?