The Irreverent Musings of Harry McCall (And Others)

The Irreverent Musings of Harry McCall (former Christian seminarian, still a lover of Biblical studies, having been bitten by the "Bible bug")

The Bible is like a senile senior citizen, semi-coherent and out of touch with reality--but his loving children (believers), via their denials and creative ingenuity, lovingly take him by the arm and theologically help him to shuffle along.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sitting here at my keyboard thinking about my past life as an Evangelical Christian. How did I ever believe all the doctrines, and swallow the love mixed with strange fears, for decade after decade? I appear to have been victimized by a frighteningly overpowering (dare I saw psychotic) mix of something the Bible (and my church) called God's "love," mingled with that same God's "eternal hatred," and, I was also taught that I was the one to blame for this weird mix, I was the one "asking for it!"

As a Christian I heard John 3:16 run into the ground about how God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son to die for us. Even Jesus said we should call God "Father"--a loving father who forgives us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, gives us our daily bread, sends blessed rain on the farmer's fields of both the just and unjust, or who would leave 99 of his sheep to hunt for the single lost one. Of course this love only lasts till judgment day (or till we die, whichever comes first). Because on that day our loving Father morphs from a kindly Dr. Jekyll into a sadistic Mr. Hyde (or maybe more like “Sybil”—as in the academy award winning movie of the same name—whose mother loved her one moment only to beat and torture her the next).

Thus, the perennial question that young believers and non-Christians ask: If God is a God of love, why does He morph into someone who demands eternal punishment, as if to say, "Remember all that stuff I said before? 'Peace on earth goodwill toward men?' 'Blessed are the peacemakers?' 'Bless those who curse you?' 'Love your enemies?' ‘Love keeps no record of wrongs… It always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails… These three remain: faith, hope and love?’ Forget about it. You're dead now, and your rear end is mine!”

Of course a common modern reply is that “God does not send anyone to Hell. We send ourselves.” Yea, right! Just like Sybil MADE her psychotic mother punish, beat and torture her.

A god who slaughters families, not to mention cities, nations, and drowns the whole world, is acting in ways it's difficult for any human being with an ounce of compassion to not view as reacting questionably. This is a god who also blames the victims eternally, as a way to justify the horrific gore He puts them though.

One might picture it this way: After death the Christian comes into the presence of a God who quickly begins morphing into a sadistic vampire-like character. The Christian of course can’t hold up a cross, or use “holy water” to ward off God, instead, Christians must use the blood of Jesus to compel God to draw back from his angry wish to inflict eternal punishment (anger that God blames on the victim and that preachers insist we are asking for). God smells the aroma of Jesus’s blood and his irrational everlasting anger abates, so the Christian can get to live with this psychotic-like God forever. It's like the movie, “The Exorcist,” with the Christian driving back God's unquenchably angry desire for eternal vengeance by shouting: “The blood of Christ compels Thee!” God curses and screams, drawing back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans "Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding for us" in heaven. (Romans 8:34, NIV) While Romans 14:12 tells us that each person is going to have to step up and "give account of himself to God" even though God already knows all the thoughts of our hearts (Romans 8:28). (Not that "heart" is necessarily being used as a scientific term by Paul, though it also can't be denied that in Paul's day many did believe that "hearts" had "thoughts.")

But returning to the image or metaphor of "Jesus at the right hand of God interceding for us" in heaven. Not to be coy, but how exactly am I to imagine the need for incessant "intercession?" Didn't Jesus suffer, "become sin," say "it is finished," then die and rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven? But after he got to heaven he was assigned yet another job, which is to "intercede for us" to the Father--who apparently is still highly prone to yet more anger? Or forgetfulness?

Scene: Heaven

God: "That Christian down there is really starting to p*ss me off! I should let him slip into sin further, send him strong delusion that he might believe a lie, send in some lying spirits, and let Satan have his way with him--but save some for me to punish eternally."

Jesus: "Forgive him father. I died for him."

God: "Oh, yeah, I remember. O.K. But what about that other Christian right there who is..."

Jesus: "Forgive her father. I died for her."

God: "Oh, yeah, I remember. O.K."

And Jesus after 2,000 years and for the sixtrillionth time: "Forgive him father. I died for Him."

And God for the sixtrillionth time: "Oh, yeah, I remember. O.K."

Little wonder neither God nor Jesus has time to answer prayers since both now find themselves in a Catch-22 situation; one of eternal intercession:

"Blaugh, blaugh, blaugh: O.K."
"Blaugh, blaugh, blaugh: O.K."
F-O-R-E-V-E-R!

Maybe this is why churches must repeat prayers over and over again in liturgical rotation from Sunday to Sunday. In a similar fashion advanced Alzheimer's patients must also hold to a repetitious stablized environment.

Or maybe Jesus at some point will get tired of begging God to have mercy, and turn toward the earth, and shout, QUIT sinning you guys! I've interceded enough! Give me a break! I need some "down time!"

Of course the idea of Jesus continually interceding for us also reminded me of something that St. Ansalem (sp?) wrote, that Jesus's love was so great he was going to "remain on the cross" until the last sinner was finally sprung "out of hell." THAT kind of interceding makes sense if God truly "is love." Because God and time are the best teachers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I sometimes reflect on the way God/the Bible/a church/a theology blames its problems, difficulties and evils on humans. At the same time, we humans are never given any credit should we do something good. In short, if there is a problem, it's the fault of humans, but if a human being does something good, God alone gets the praise. People trained to view themselves in such an untterly "unworthy" manner will tend to assert the perfection of their particular religion's doctrines, and assert how utterly wrong everyone else is if they dare question the Bible or even their church's interpretation of the Bible. In effect, they learn never to trust themselves, and get sucked into trusting their church, and their church's particular doctrines and interpretations of its holy book, everyone else be damned.

Compare that with, say, a theology that teaches there is a spark of goodness already inside everyone, and people's "job" is to blow on that spark and brighten it further?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We come to God/the Bible/a church/a theology wanting our inmost pains healed, be they loneliness, fears, or uncertainties; and to gain protection and gain certitude; only to be handed in exchange a much larger and complex set of problems we couuld ever have bargained for, called "theology." (That's what's called the old "bait-and-switch.") It's like the case of a trusting child who depends on the adult to protect them and comfort them, only to be abused because the adult has much more serious, older and deeper issues than the child in his care. "God" and "theology" are complex reflections of the history of human mental agony--an agony steeped in a questionable form of "love."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The New Testament states that Jesus "became sin" [or was "treated as sin"] while on the cross. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21) Did Jesus become as hated as "sin" and/or "Satan" in God's eyes? Did God hate Himself? Did an infinite God wind up hating himself and released His full wrath on Himself, treating Himself as "sin," all because some of his finite creatures ate some forbidden fruit? Sounds a bit difficult to swallow.

Harry McCall (whose testimony appears in Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SOME MUSINGS OF OTHERS

I read in the Gospels that Jesus forgave the men who nailed him to the cross.

He even promised, “This day you shall be with me in paradise,” to a thief crucified next to him--a thief who addressed Jesus simply as a “man” rather than as “the son of God.”

Yet, today, this same Jesus cannot forgive my kindly old aunt and allow her to dwell in paradise, simply because her “beliefs” do not match Reverend So-and-So’s?

Arthur Silver

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They say that when god was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing with him on the subject of the Trinity.

They say that God says to me, “Forgive your enemies.” I say, “I do;” but he says, “I will damn mine.” God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be.

Robert Ingersoll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When all has been considered, it seems to me to be the irresistible intuition that infinite punishment for finite sin would be unjust, and therefore wrong. We feel that even weak and erring Man would shrink from such an act. And we cannot conceive of God as acting on a lower standard of right and wrong.

Lewis Carroll (author of Alice in Wonderland), “Eternal Punishment,” Diversions and Digressions of Lewis Carroll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is strange to me that people can consign others to hell without a scruple. One only has to remember a toothache, not to wish it eternally on anyone.

Lucy Daugalis (daugalis@arcom.com.au)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given headaches, backaches, toothaches, strains, scrapes, breaks, cuts, rashes, burns, bruises, PMS, fatigue, hunger, odors, molds, colds, yeast, parasites, viruses, cancers, genetic defects, blindness, deafness, paralysis, mental illness, ugliness, ignorance, miscommunications, embarrassments, unrequited love, dashed hopes, boredom, hard labor, repetitious labor, accidents, old age, senility, fires, floods, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, hurricanes and volcanoes, I can not see how anyone, after they are dead, deserves “eternal punishment” as well.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I was a boy I heard tell of an old farmer in Vermont. He was dying. The minister was at his bedside--asked him if he was a Christian, if he was prepared to die. The old man answered that he had made no preparation, that he was not a Christian, that he had never done anything but work. The preacher said that he could give him no hope unless he had faith in Christ, and that if he had no faith his soul would certainly be lost.

The old man was not frightened. He was perfectly calm. In a weak and broken voice he said, “Mr. Preacher, I suppose you noticed my farm. My wife and I came here more than fifty years ago. We were just married. It was a forest then and the land was covered with stones. I cut down the trees, burned the logs, picked up the stones, and laid the walls. My wife spun and wove and worked every moment. We raised and educated our children--denied ourselves. During all these years my wife never had a good dress, or a decent bonnet. I never had a good suit of clothes. We lived on the plainest food. Our hands, our bodies are deformed by toil. We never had a vacation. We loved each other and the children. That is the only luxury we ever had. Now I am about to die and you ask me if I am prepared. Mr. Preacher, I have no fear of the future, no terror of any other world. There may be such a place as hell--but if there is, you never can make me believe that it’s any worse than old Vermont.”

Robert Ingersoll, “Why I Am An Agnostic”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, “casting” billions of people into a “lake of fire whose smoke rises up forever,” because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.

Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist [Edited by E.T.B.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus loves you unconditionally, and if you do not believe it you will when you are in hell.

Source unknown

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Christianity eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God’s infinite love. That’s the message we’re brought up with, believe or die. “Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options.”

Bill Hicks (comedian), Rant in E-minor, CD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a tot I was given the usual terrifying mixed message: a) God is love; and b) If you don’t believe how much he loves you, you will stand in the corner for eternity.

James Lileks, “God Has Call Waiting,” Notes of a Nervous Man

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any religion that teaches there is only heaven or hell
is gonna be a haven for manic-depressives.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I believe in eternal punishment? Hell no. I always believed God could get his revenge in far less time.

Robert Ingersoll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God recently remodeled hell. He replaced the flames of eternal damnation with a microwave. Now, instead of taking forever, His revenge is complete in seconds. The only hard part is hanging on while the plate rotates.

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I cannot conceive that Mind, usually called “God,” as totally mad. I mean, guys, compare that “God” with the worst monsters you can think of--Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely mathematical universe around us.

If such a monster-God did exist, the sane attitude would consist of practicing the Buddhist virtue of compassion. Don’t give way to hatred: try to understand and forgive him. Maybe He will recover his wits some day.

Robert Anton Wilson, “Cheerful Reflections on Death and Dying,” Gnoware, February 1999

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Conservative Christian theologians teach that if you make the wrong choice and believe the wrong thing, you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That’s not a “choice,” it’s more like a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath.

William C. Easttom II [Edited by E.T.B]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some Christians argue that eternal hell should be viewed as “God’s great compliment.” But if hell is a “compliment,” what does God do when he wants to “insult” someone?

Others argue that hell is a “loving provision,” a place where non-Christian souls are safe from the pain they would feel if they were exposed to God’s presence. Such apologists for “a kinder, gentler hell” seem to have forgotten their own Bible where it says Jesus visited hell and preached to the souls there. So apparently God can “tone down” His presence at will, becoming “Jesus” who mingled with “sinners and wine-bibbers” in Judea and Galilee, as well as preached to “souls in hell.” If Catholics and Lutherans are right, God can even put His “presence” in communion wafers. And most people can eat even a consecrated communion wafer without it burning their tongues (unless the person happens to have a strong allergic reaction to wheat).

By the way, those Christians who are willing to question the notion of a firey retributive hell lit by God’s jealousy and anger, should also take their questioning to the next level and ask why “hell” needs to be any worse than this world? We have pain and sickness here, we suffer here, but there is also room for healing, growth and education, and speaking of education, what better teachers could there be than God and time?

E.T.B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Primates often have trouble imagining a universe not run by an angry alpha male.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any infinite Being who feels it is their duty to torture me for eternity, should switch to decaf.

E.T.B.

Gimme That Old False Prediction, It's Good Enough For Me

The author of the letter to the Hebrews began his letter, “...in these last days,” and argued on such a basis that, “He (Jesus) would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” With equal fervor he employed the phrase, “as you see the day drawing near…”--and made the prediction, “…for yet a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay.” (Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 10:25,37) Oops! There’s been a sleight delay.

Even worse is the fact that “at the consummation” can also be translated, “at the end of the age.” What does that phrase mean, “the end of the age?” A verse in the Gospel of Matthew defines it precisely: “At the end of the age... the Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Mat.13:40-41--the author based his description of “the end of the age” on Daniel 12, which was a description of the final judgment of mankind). So that is exactly what the author of Matthew and the author of Hebrews predicted would happen in their day, i.e., the final judgment of mankind.

Also note the logic behind the argument in Hebrews 9:26. The author argued that continuous sinning “since the foundation of the world” required blood sacrifices “often.” But God saw to it that Jesus’s sacrifice occurred at a time when no further sacrifices would be required. That time could only be “at the consummation” or “at the end of the age” when the time of final judgment for all sinners had arrived. Thus he hoped to persuade his readers of God’s wonderful plan in having Jesus sacrifice himself “in these last days,” and that it was only a “very little while” before “he who is coming will come, and will not delay.” It should appear even to the most dense that the prediction as stated in the Book of Hebrews has failed. So, the author of Hebrews was a false prophet.

For more examples from the New Testament of false prophecies see, "The Lowdown on God's Showdown."

Just What Does the Calvinistic God Want Us to Do and Believe?

Steve Hays has responded:
When God forbids adultery, he is not claiming that he will prevent adultery, even though he secret intends to permit adultery.The prohibition is not a prediction or promise of what God intends to do.

My response: Wait just a minute. If anyone asks you what God wants us to refrain from doing, you will quote the Bible which purportedly tells us what God wants us to do, like not commiting adultery. "Thou Shalt Not..." you'll say.

Does God want us to refrain from adultery or not? Let's say he does, but then he doesn't. Let's say he doesn't, but then he does.

Why don't you preach your true theology? Why not just say that you don't know whether or not God wants someone to refrain from adultery, because that's the truth.

So, does God want me to refrain from adultery? Why? Why not?

You could say you believe God wants you to tell me that I should refrain from adultery but that whether or not he does want me to refrain is something you just don't know. So just say, "I don't know."

The next time a man comes to you for counseling who is considering an affair, tell him the truth: "I don't know what God wants you to do." You see, there is no ethical guidance in such a theology if you tell people the whole story. So you are a co-participant in the deception, along with God. Be honest. Be truthful. Spell out all of your Calvinistic distinctions and end by saying that you just don't know what God wants such a person to do. Why not? That's the whole truth.

But at a deeper level you could say that God has decreed your answer to his question about adultery, and that's all you can say in response to his question. But such an admission doesn't answer whether or not God wants him to commit adultery. It only says that God decreed your answer to his question about it. You still have no confidence that such a decree has any bearing on what God wants him to do. So the answer you give him about adultery from the Bible may not be the truth, since God decrees what you will tell him. As far as the truth goes, God could've revealed that he wants all married people to commit adultery, because whatever he reveals has no bearing on what he wants us to do. This goes for all of the commands in the Bible too, including all statements that describe who God is, that he is loving, truthful, and that he will reward those who believe he is loving and truthful.

In fact, the whole basis for your believing in Calvinism is that your God decreed that you should believe it and has nothing to to with either the Bible or the evidences either way. But if he so decreed what you believe, then like the unbeliever you still have no reason to suppose that what God decrees you to believe is the truth. He could be decreeing you to believe falsely against the total available evidence, just like you claim he decrees what I believe. Therefore, you simply do not know whether what you believe will gain you access into heaven. As far as your theology goes, it just may be the unbeliever whom God will reward, since you really do not know what this God is like and what he will do with us when we die.

So in fact, there is nothing in the Calvinistic Bible that describes what God wants us to do or believe--nothing! In fact, if God decrees all of human history then he does not even need a revealed word in the Bible at all! It is superfluous, unnecessary, and completely irrelevant to what he wants us to believe and to do. He could decree all of our beliefs without it.

Why not just admit this? It's true. And the next time someone asks you what God wants him to do just be honest and say "I don't know." And when he asks you what God wants him to believe, just say "I don't know."

For that is the truth.

Now tell me, does God want me to believe in him? Yes or no?

A Letter to Jason Engwer

An Open Letter to Jason

I write this with a heavy heart but I have been seriously rethinking what I wrote in my previous post. After my most recent e-mail correspondence with John Loftus, I have come to agree with my reponse to Jason Engwer's critique of my article series on visions was too antagonistic. I have been thinking about it and I believe that I owe Jason an apology for my behavior. I have to say in all serious and honesty, that I do not like being nasty or combative towards people who disagree with me or hold an opposing view. In fact, I really enjoy having friendly, polite, and highly civil discussions with people of opposing view points and this includes Christians. When I meet Christians who are very well-read in the subject of Christian theology and apologetics, the fact of the matter is that I often hope that I can find within that person a good discussion or debating partner, someone who can help to sharpen my mind and perhaps I can serve the same goal for that person. I don't believe in befriending any Christians only for that purpose. I gladly befriend people because I really like befriending people; I just love having good discussions with people whose passions and confidence of convictions either match my own or are greater than mine.

I had written for Loftus' blog an article series on the origins of Christianity and I put forth a hypothesis of visionary origins that I find plausible. I wrote subsequent articles with the intent of answering objections to any theory or hypothesis of Christian origins that proposed visions, such as mine. Jason Engwer wrote a response. I have to admit that I found his responses a bit unnerving at first because I thought that he had trouble understanding what I said, but I certaintly wasn't trying to be antagonistic towards him. I guess I might've been a bit blunt and perhaps even curt in what I wrote to him but I wasn't trying to be nasty or antagonistic. The problem is that trying to educate or explain your viewpoint in order to clear up what others misunderstand can be tiring and trying, especially if they greatly misunderstand what you wrote. I got the impression that Engwer considered me just another ignorant skeptic who needed to be put in his place and although I hadn't intended to be nasty or antagonistic, what really rubbed me the wrong way was an article I read on Engwer's website called "Don't Waste Your Life". I got the serious impression, however mistaken that impression may have been, that Jason was just looking down in contempt on the retired couple who were collecting seashells, wondering where the hell he got the nerve to judge them like I felt that he was. I further read the blog of one Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong who had a somewhat nasty impression of Jason, himself. He believes ( or believed at the time that he wrote his blog entry) that Jason was guilty of sophistry and double-standards. That only darkened my opinion of Jason further.

It was the accumulation of what I considered to be his rude and condescending contempt for the retired couple, the reports of sophistry and double-standards by Dave Armstrong (certainly no God-hating atheist by the way), and what I felt were condescending remarks towards me as well as gross misunderstandings of what I had written as well. My impression of Jason turned worse and I began to consider him a loathesome individual, another Jonathan Sarfati or Jerry Falwell, so to speak. I decided to write a detailed response to Jason. I decided to be just as confrontational as I thought he was being towards me and I not only had the intention of dosing him with his own medicine but I had planned on trying to best to make Jason feel as though he had his head handed to him.

That's the reason why I got a bit nasty at times with my writing. I wanted to cut Jason down to size and make him feel an inch tall, wanting partly to avenge the retired couple as I saw it and also to give Jason a bit of a intellectual flogging so he would come to understand that there are folks like myself who would not put up with what I thought was abusive condescension on his part, as I believe that Robert Turkel is horribly guilty of.

The fact of the matter is that I hate abuse and I react very strongly and even violently (never physically violent unless the abuse is physical) to abuse, especially emotional abuse. Now, granted, there are some Christians who do not accept that there is any such thing as emotional abuse but I believe that there is. I grew up as a minister's son and I suffered from terribly low self-esteem for many years because I seriously believe that my dad abused me emotionally. There were so many times growing up that my dad made me feel so stupid and so utterly worthless that more than one time I contemplated suicide. I get along a lot better with my dad these days and I suspect that he has great many regrets over his past behavior and how he reacted. I can tell that my dad has his share of regrets but he has always had a horribly difficult time apologizing for wrongs committed. I have forgiven my dad for what he has done to me because I realize that he regrets his abusive ways towards us at times growing up, wishing that he handled things differently and also because I realized that my dad reacted the way to us kids that his mother reacted towards him.

I tend to react very negatively towards abusive people, particularly people who are bullies. If I see someone who is a bully heaping undeserved abuse on another person I will get in that bully's face and try and cut that bully down to size and I am ready to put such a bully in the hospital if I have to. For me, Turkel is such a bully and I was hoping that Jason wasn't one himself and I still hope he isn't. Why was I so offended?

Part of it started with an article on Jason Engwer's website called "Don't Waste Your Life". Perhaps my criticism is misdirected at Engwer and it is John Piper who has one heck of a nerve sticking his self-righteous nose where it doesn't belong! I mean, really, who is Mr. Piper to criticize and look down his nose at a retired couple for playing softball and collecting seashells? And why on earth would Jason endorse such a book? I got the impression that Jason shared in Piper's condenscension, and like Piper, looked in contempt on such a couple. Why though? So what if a couple "wastes" their retirement years, what is that to Mr. Piper or even Jason? I certainly saw no condemnation on Jason's part or Jason saying "I really wish Christians like Mr. Piper wouldn't act this way towards people; it turns them off of the Christian message and, besides, isn't what the couple does with their declining years between them and their creator, assuming they meet one? If Jason condemns Piper's attitude here then I retract my judgement of Jason on this point and I apologize for it. But Jason did endorse the book by Piper and I best concluded that Jason, too, shared in Piper's condemnation and arrogant contempt for the couple. Seriously, if Piper told me I was wasting my life as an atheist, I would tell Piper where to stick it. Maybe Jason doesn't mean to look down his nose at the retired couple and maybe he doesn't tend to look down his nose at even me. If this is the case- then I apologize for telling Jason to "drop dead"! Maybe it's Piper who I should be telling to "drop dead" if I ever met such a character. But if Jason really does endorse Piper's work and shares in his attitude, at this point I can only shake my head in regret.

The last thing that we need are arrogant and condescending people in this world who have no business judging others. What reward is there for sounding like a snob, and worse, being one? Judgement is best reserved, in my opinion, for a lack of integrity and for law-breaking, but for playing softball and collecting sea-shells. I would say to the Pipers of this world: keep your loathesome attitude towards yourself!

Jason also linked repeatedly to Robert Turkel. As I have said before, I now have a very low opinion of Turkel and I consider him to be the worst spin-doctor imaginable these days. I do share in Farrell Till's judgement that Turkel is most probably out to fleece the faithful. I likewise called Jason a spin-doctor and accused him also of out to fleece the faithful. I very much regret that I said this to Jason. Whether Jason is a spin-doctor for the Christian faith remains to be seen and perhaps he is not and I unfairly misjudged him. I also have no proof that he's out to "fleece the faithful"- and I retract this statement with an apology because I was, in effect, calling him another Robert Turkel and that may well be a very unfair and even libelous comparison. Jason, I am very deeply sorry that I said this. I don't think you even beg for money like Turkel does. You seem to actually have a life of your own and apologetics seems to be a very serious hobby of yours whereas Turkel is just an intellectual wanna-be who wants to make his living tickling the ears of the faithful. I apologize for such a senseless and unjust comparison.

Now at this point I want to address a criticism. Why is that I can link to Farrell Till and others whom I don't fully embrace and don't agree with what they say and yet Jason cannot? For one thing, I carefully qualified my agreement. Everyone knows that I don't agree with everything that Farrell Till says or does nor do I agree with everything Robert Price or Richard Carrier writes. Price and Carrier advocate the Radical Critical school of thought. I find such an approach fascinating and very delicious sounding but I am just not all that sure and I won't be until graduate school. Hence, when I don't always agree with an given author, scholar or not, I often try and qualify any such areas of agreement or disagreement, at least to fellow skeptics. The fact of the matter is that I didn't see Jason qualify any endorsement or links to Turkel. I never read from him any statement like "I don't agree with everything Robert Turkel writes, does, or says."

I also think however that the situation is much worse than I am making it out to be here. It's not just simply a matter of whether Jason agrees or disagrees with Robert Turkel and over what it is they disagree with but it's also a matter of behavior and tactics on Turkel's part. Turkel has not only made some stupid mistakes and statements ( the famous software blunder and his stupid statement about we having only ourselves to blame if we find the message of the Bible unclear) but I also strongly challenge Turkel's professional ethics ( I am nearly convinced that he hasn't any) as well. I believe that regardless of the qualify of his arguments, Turkel's attitude, his behavior, and his antics are very questionable. I believe that Turkel is guilty of being dishonest, abusive towards people he disagrees with, has often behaved childlishly, has been very disprespectful, and on top of this, he seems to want people to take him seriously as some kind of intellectual. It's this disgusting behavior and antics of his that I have a very low opinion of him.

I seriously ask Jason if he is aware of this behavior by Robert Turkel and just why folks like myself regard Turkel has a complete creep? I'd be happy to write some articles on Robert Turkel in attempt to document his disgusting behavior if Jason is open-minded to it. My sincere hope is that Jason will come to discover what kind of person that Turkel really is and will remove all links to him. I really would rather not see Jason link to Turkel at all. I honestly hope better and I would like to see Jason condemn Turkel for his disgusting antics and behavior (not to mention his crappy research at times- I am also willing to document this if Jason finds himself in need of persuasion). Turkel is an apologetic joke of the worst sort and I regret that any Christian might have a high opinion of him. It's my hope that the Christian community will one day, in strong unity, condemn and chastize Turkel for the charlatan that I am convinced that he is. I earnestly hope Jason will be a big part of that.

Next, I want to especially apologize for suggesting that Jason be "bitch-slapped". Again, it was keeping in tone with my intent on making Jason feel doused by what I thought was his own medicine and making him feel flogged and an inch tall. I thought he might've been abusive and I was hoping that he would feel abused for once as to know how it feels. I won't apologize for hating abuse and earnestly wanting abusive people to feel the pain that they heap on others. I am a very strong believer that one goes around should come around and that people who are abusive suffer ultimately for the abuse that they have undeservedly shown others.

I can well admit that I am wrong. I can freely admit that I am wrong. I admit to being wrong all the time and I apologize not only for errors but for hurt that any errors of mine cause other people, and it's hurt that I am most often concerned about. If Jason was not intending to be abusive, or arrogant, or condescending, and if I have indeed really misjudged him, then I very deeply apologize for it and vow never to lapse from any professionalism in my writings that I made an exception this one time in my lengthy reply. If Jason wasn't trying to be spiteful, arrogant, judgemental, or condescending, then Jason, I very much apologize for what I wrote to you. I apologize for anything hurtful or spiteful I said and for any unfair characterization about you or anything that was uncalled for, unprofessional, or unethical on my part. Jason made a great observation that is well worth quoting here:

"However I, Steve Hays, J.P. Holding, or other people may have erred in our treatment of Matthew, I think that we've been much more reasonable in our treatment of him than he's been in his treatment of us."

I commend Jason for bringing up this point. And I apologize for having erred in my treatment of Jason and for any misjudgements I have made. I notice, too, that Steve Hays wrote a response to what I wrote in response to him. I am personally glad that Jason didn't join in that and has even given me the benefit of the doubt and assumed that I do get along well my father and I do want to be more friendly when he could've joined in Steve's effort to hose me with acid like that. I say to Jason: I appreciate what you wrote and I believe that, I, have unfairly misjudged you.

I am really starting to think that Jason may not be the insidious apologist I originally took him to be and that my judgements and treatment of him was uncalled for. Jason may actually be quite gentlemanly and cordial. If getting to know him more and better can be the best way to confirm this, I am very much willing to get to know him, and I freely invite him to do so likewise. I want to close by saying that I am looking forward to good discussions with Christopher Price of the Christian CADRE and I hope I can gain a friend in Price. I also hope, as well, that I can gain a friend in Jason as well.
With respect and apologies where applicable,
Matthew

Debunking Christianity - Women Speak Out!

Because blogs like"Debunking Christianity" are thick with male participants, some might wonder what women have written about the topic, especially women who once were conservative Christians. Below is an assortment of books, memoirs and autobiographies by women who have debunked Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic). (I would also like to express my gratitude toward one female debunker in particular, Sharon Mooney--former member of the fundamentalistic inerrantist "Worldwide Church of God" sect, who left it for deism, and produced this website that features a variety of freethought articles.)

Below is a table of contents listing 21 former conservative Christian women along with their works that debunk conservative Christianity and/or their conservative Christian experience. After the initial list a longer section follows that features weblinks and additional data on each individual, as well as some MISCELLANEOUS information related to women and Christianity.

Read more »

The Evidence for the Resurrection

In an earlier post, I argued that the resurrection of Jesus is initially implausible compared to the possibility the account is an example of legendary development. If Christianity is to be considered even remotely reasonable, then there have to be aspects of the resurrection accounts that are very implausible presuming the legendary development hypothesis.

If I am going to debunk Christianity, it is important to me that I am not merely defeating a straw man version of Christianity. I want to be open to all the relevant evidences for and against Christianity. I also want to use the best analytical tools to evaluate the evidences (hence my prior use of Bayes' Theorem). In this post, I would like to compile the aspects of the resurrection accounts that supposedly make the legendary development hypothesis implausible.

In other posts, I am going to list some of the aspects of the New Testament that seem less likely if the resurrection is true. A fair assessment should not arbitrarily discard any evidence. Subsequently, I will begin the assessment of each of the evidences listed. The goal of this is to see where the evidence points. If Christians are correct the likelihood of the resurrection is very nearly one, if we non-Christians are correct, the likelihood of the resurrection is nearly zero. I want to make the evidence I am considering and my reasoning as open as possible. If there are good reasons to think I am wrong, I want to know them. My goal here is to follow the evidence.

The historical evidence for the resurrection is mostly from Dr. William Lane Craig in the books, "Reasonable Faith" and "Jesus Under Fire". Some of the evidence Craig presents can be found in his debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman here. In that debate, Dr. Craig presents experts' conclusions as evidence. There are some pitfalls to using experts conclusions as evidence. It is quite likely that experts are influenced by things that should not affect ones reasoning, such as their background and/or funding. It is not that experts can't overcome biases, but I want to examine the evidence that should influence the experts. The evidences that really need explanation are aspects of existing documents. The existing documents are copies (of copies) of earlier reports. I am going to am not going to do justice to any piece of evidence here. But if I am ignoring any piece of significant evidence, please let me know.

Aspects of resurrection accounts considered unlikely on the legendary development hypothesis:

1. The lack of time between the reported event and the reports
2. The report of James' conversion recorded in Galatians
3. The report of preaching in Jerusalem which would be unlikely if there was an occupied tomb
4. Paul's account in 1 Cor 15:3 is unlikely on the legendary hypothesis
5. The "first day of the week" motif in Mark instead of "on the third day"
6. The reported discovery of the tomb by women
7. The report of an early Jewish polemic in Matthew
8. The lack of a record of tomb veneration
9. Paul's testimony of the appearance to 500
10. The narrative of the empty tomb is relatively free of theological and apologetic claims.
11. The account of the burial seems less likely for a legend

Of course this blog's purpose is to give evidence that is unlikely on the resurrection hypothesis. In addition to the evidences for Christianity, I will also consider evidences that indicate the stories are legendary including: The parallels between of the gospel of Mark and other legends. How Jesus knowledge, strength and control seemed to grow in later accounts. I will also look at the apparent evolution of the story of the resurrection.

If I am missing major aspects of the historical accounts that support the fact of resurrection over legendary development, please let me know.

Can the Calvinistic God Sovereignly Decree This, Or Not? And if Not, Why Not?

Steve Hays has responded to what I said here:

Loftus: It's quite possible that the total evidence is against Christianity but that Hays' Calvinistic God simply makes/decrees him to believe against the evidence.

Hays: Even if we were to credit that hypothetical, it presupposes the very existence of the Calvinistic God. Hence, it assumes that Calvinism is true even if all of the apparent evidence were arrayed against it.

Really? Let’s backtrack and take a deeper look. Hays started out by claiming that all objections to his faith are stupid ones. That’s what he said. Again, he said that all objections to his faith are stupid ones, including what I'm going to argue for here. That’s stupid as in S-T-U-P-I-D. Then I argued that as far as he knows the total evidence may be against his faith but that his Calvinistic God is making/decreeing him to believe against the available evidence. In his response does he dispute this? No! Can he? I doubt very much that he can. Nonetheless, he calls such a possibility a “hypothetical.” But I’m still very interested in why such a possibility is merely a “hypothetical.” Based upon Calvinism he just does not know. There is no way for him to determine whether the “hypothetical” is true or false. In fact, such a possibility has as much plausibility as the alternative possibility that he believes.

Now back to his claim that all objections to his faith are stupid ones. If my “hypothetical” (as he calls it) is true, then the objections against his faith are not stupid ones. In fact, the objections against his faith are right on target, and surely some of them, if not most of them are intelligent, whereas his rejection of our objections is not very intelligent. And if this is the case, then who wears the dunce cap now?

Furthermore, what happens as a result of granting this “hypothetical” as he calls it? The total available evidence is against Calvinistic Christianity. That’s total as in T-O-T-A-L. The available evidence would be against believing in Calvinistic Christianity. Now let’s say he grants this possibility. What follows? Epistemologically once someone accepts this as a fact then he should cease believing. It’s that simple. To be on the side of intelligent thinking and to have integrity with oneself such a person should reject Calvinistic Christianity…EVEN IF THE CALVINISTIC GOD EXISTS! That’s right....even if the Calvinistic God exists! One cannot continue to believe unless one accepts what he believes are false beliefs, and that IS stupid!

Again, the problem here is how Hays would know his faith is correct if what I suggested is true about the total available evidence being against his faith? According to Calvinism he has no reason to suppose that the evidence supports his faith and yet he continues to have the gall to call all objections to his faith stupid objections. How does he know they are all stupid objections if God is decreeing what he believes against the total available evidence? Our objections might be intelligent objections whereas Hays' arguments might be the stupid ones. The only difference is that Hays' God decrees what he believes. But the fact remains that our objections are not stupid objections, given this possibility.

But here’s how Hays continued to respond:

Hays: In that event, as long as my belief is true, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, who cares? At the end of the day, I’m right and he’s wrong. It would make my arguments superfluous. I’d be right even without my supporting arguments. How is that a problem?

Not so fast Steve!

Here is where you must deal with yet another twist, and I want you to think real hard about this, okay? If the total available evidence is actually against your faith even though the Calvinistic God exists and decrees that you believe, then you also have no reason to suppose that those who believe in the Calvinistic God will be rewarded in heaven while the skeptics will be punished when facing God’s judgment. That’s right. Just like God may decree you to believe in him against the evidence, God may also have a secret will to save those skeptics whom he decrees to follow the actual available evidence where it leads! God may actually have a secret will to only save those who do not believe in him! If you think otherwise, tell me upon what basis you think this? You may argue that such a God is duplicitous all you like, but duplicity isn’t a serious criticism of the Calvinistic God, now is it? He can reveal what he wants us to do in the Bible, like "love one another," and yet he can also have a secret unrevealed will that decrees someone to murder his neighbor.

A God like that can make the available evidence against what you believe AND he can also save those who follow the available evidence, at the same time he's sovereignly decreeing all of this.

Steve, maybe you’d better take another good hard look at the available evidence. Maybe it just isn’t stupid after all. Your eternity may be at stake. And as far as you know, based upon YOUR theology, your God is using me right now to speak to you. Who knows, right? He’s brought you into contact with me to help you see the light of day. How do you actually know otherwise…that’s what I’m still waiting to hear. Until you take seriously this objection to your faith and deal with it head-on how do you know our objections are really stupid? Such an objection as this one is not stupid at all. However, your refusal to take seriously this objection of mine makes me conclude you are not thinking deeply enough.

What God Really Wants

We all have difficult decisions to make in life. Believers in the Judeo/Christian God do also, like: "should I sacrifice my kid to God?" Or, "does God want me to leave my wife and marry a prostitute?" Or, "is genocide okay sometimes?" Or, "who do we get to replace Judas?" Or, "what color do we paint the *narthex?"

So, how do Evangelical Christians know what God really wants? They seem to be divided into two camps. Some think God said/says everything you need to know in the Bible (not the Jerusalem Bible), some believe in "the Spiritual gifts" like prophecy, dreams, visions, word of knowledge and wisdom-along with the Bible. Either way, both believe God guides them. Whether one believes God speaks to them through the Bible or through a still, small voice, how does one distinguish between their own thoughts and feelings and the will of God?

I was a co-elder in a church back in 1999 (remember Y2K?). One of the other elders in the church "received from God" that the end was near. He believed the church was to move from Virginia to northern Maine, so the nuclear fallout wouldn't get us when New York was bombed. I got to split the church when I got up and said I didn't think this was from God. Now, as nutty as this guy may sound, he was intellegent and sincere, he believed himself to be a prophet. Was he any nuttier than Hosea or Abraham? Both the Tenach and the new testament support the notion of a "prophet." Prophecy, dreams and visions are listed in the Bible as ways that God communicates to people. How does one know if that dream was from God or pizza? Or, if one is getting their cues by reading the Bible, does one skip those parts guiding them to commit genocide? How does one "follow" a God one cannot see or discern?

Then there is choosing straws and the Urim and Thummim. Urim and Thummim (generally translated "revelation and truth," respectively), were objects connected with the breastplate worn by the Jewish High Priest during the time of the first temple and it's believed they were used as a type of divine oracle. In Acts, the apostles purportedly used a similar method of divining God's will when they chose straws to see who would replace Judas. Implicit in both of these methods is an understanding that ones own thoughts and feelings can color what "God is saying," but of course both assume you are asking the right question. If God wants the narthex painted red and you only give Him a choice of blue or yellow, your sunk and don't even know it.

So, how does one explain to ones wife that it's okay to sacrifice the kid or leave her and marry a prostitute because God said so? How does one first explain it to oneself?

*Narthex: 1. church entry or lobby area. 2. dyslexic former drug enforcement agent with a speech impediment.

Dr. Steve Freud

This is a reply to Steve Hay's response to what I wrote in my rebuttal to Jason Engwer. As one can see, Steve likes to play psychologist there. Either that or he's trying to impress readers with a bad impersonation of Sigmund Freud. And hence, the title of my article here. (Warning for the humor impaired: this response contains some friendly sarcasm and satirical humor). Here we go:

"Matthew Green has posted a long, bitter, self-pitying hit-piece on Jason Engwer:http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/green-vs-engwer-defending-visions.html"

Steve doesn't understand why I posted my rebuttal. First of all, it's a very long piece because Jason Engwer complains that I am always too vauge and I never give enough details. I wanted to give him a run for his money this time. As for self-pitying, where am I feeling sorry for myself? The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, I am a very joyous person, except when rubbed the wrong way by self-righteous blow-hards like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Robert Turkel. Secondly, my very long response wasn't meant to be bitter but I wanted the tone of the rebuttal to suggest that I felt that Engwer had rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, throughout my post, I repeatedly offer to debate Engwer in very civil, respectful, and friendly terms. Would someone who is angry and bitter do this? I think not Steve. Personally, I get the impression that you're reading your misconceptions into my post here, Steve.

Steve: This is one of those unintentionally revealing pieces which tells you a lot about the critic and nothing about the target.In particular, we see that Green’s opposition to the Christian faith is essentially emotional rather than intellectual.

Well, yeah, sure, if you like pretending you're a modern version of Sigmund Freud, Steve. As for my opposition to the Christian faith essentially emotional rather than intellectual- that's not very accurate. I do have strong intellectual skepticism towards the Christian faith, especially given that I have good reasons to believe that some of its core and vital doctrines have been refuted, such as inerrancy and creationism. I do have a stong emotional loathing of Christianity, particularly of Christian fundamentalism because I believe that it's very harmful to human beings. My opinion is simply that fundamentalism is the most authentic type of Christianity that exists today and I deeply loathe fundamentalism.

"For example:"I am pretty sure that Jason just looks down his nose at me personally, thinking what a waste my life is as an atheist, when I could be as high and holy as he is in the arms of Jesus! Please. The last thing I can think I would possibly want is to spend eternity with Mr. Engwer. I loathe arrogant, self-righteous, and judgmental people and if Mr. Engwer is offended that I loathe him, too damn bad! He needs to get over himself!

Steve: Needless to say, this bears no resemblance to Jason.

Steve, I am pretty sure that you would agree with me that context always helps in these cases. I mentioned this after having cited an example of an article that Jason wrote. It's after having read this article that I have kissed my initial hopes of a pleasant, friendly, and well-meaning exchange with Jason good-bye. I could very well be wrong this and I have even offered the opportunity to debate Jason on more pleasant and friendlier terms. You should know this Steve; I know you read my article.

Steve: Rather, Jason is merely a stand-in for MG’s father-complex. As a renegade P.K., MG is taking his arrested teenage rebellion at his old man, and redirecting it at the next available target.—which happens to be Jason

I am? Would it surprise you, Steve, that I actually get along great with my dad these days? My father and I have come to have quite a lot of respect for each other. Sure, we disagree with each others' beliefs but I don't hate my dad. Oh, I get it Steve, you're playing Freud here. I also was never into any kind of teenage rebellion. In fact, I was very shy and quite as a teenager. My mother once told me that she thought I was a little "too" shy at times. Why would I be going through a period of "arrested teeange rebellion" right now at my father? My father isn't the same kind of man he was all those years in the ministry as I was growing up. My "old man" has really mellowed out although he can still be stubborn at times- then, again, so can I.

I want to ask Steve something. Steve, if I am engaging in a late form of teenage rebellion, do you think I am doing drugs, having sex, and listening to rock and roll? If so, I hate to disappoint you but that is not the case. I am still very much a virgin and I am waiting until I fall in love with a woman, I don't ever plan on doing drugs, and I don't particularly care for rock'n'roll. The only music which I imagine might come close, that I like is "Magic Carpet Ride". Does that count, Steve? Besides, apart from Steve's silly stabs at pretending he's Freud ( I hope he doens't actually do this at parties- I'd hate to imagine people throwing popcorn at a sucky impersonation of the good, late doctor) if I was redirecting it at the "next available target", um, wouldn't that be Robert Turkel since I knew him long before I ever encountered Jason Engwer? Come on, Steve, you don't even really know me. You're reading stereotypical motives into what I wrote as something that an P.K. atheist "must be like". After all, without the Christian Savior in our hearts, we have no choice but to be angry and miserable, right? I don't think so!

Steve quoting me:
"Continuing:"I have no problem with that. In my opinion, Jason has long arrived at this point and I see him as little more than another spin-doctor out to fleece the world of faith."

Steve: Yep, that’s what Jason is up to, all right. Jason is a prosperity preacher, out to fleece the flock in order to subsidize his grand mansion in Malibu, Lamborghini, Lear Jet, superyacht, and other accoutrements of his lavish lifestyle."

Jason Engwer repeatedly linked to Robert Turkel and that's why I concluded that he was a spin-doctor. I thought that by putting himself in the same league as Turkel that he was, in effect, endorsing him uncritically, perhaps even hero-worshipping Turkel. I hope he doesn't. If I am wrong about him being a fleecing spin-doctor, then I will apologize for it. But the day that comes is when he stops linking and endorsing Robert Turkel.

Steve: Continuing:"I want to make it clear that while I have no problem accepting that the resurrection of Christ did, in fact, occur, and that it validates the claims made by the Christian gospel of the New Testament, I would never willingly and gladly accept the Christian gospel. On the contrary, I find the Christian gospel to be horribly repugnant but that doesn't mean that I won't be intellectually dishonest. If I came to believe that the resurrection happened, I wouldn't embrace such a conclusion gladly. Contrarily, I would only, ever, accept it extremely grudgingly, and I would have to be violently dragged kicking and screaming into the Christian faith. Since I have no desire to spend eternity with the Christian god, or his followers like Mr. Engwer himself, if I came to conclude that the Christian faith is valid, I would most likely take my own life. I mean, seriously, if I lived, knowing that Jesus Christ was alive and that the gospel claims about him were true, what would I be accomplishing by living as though he wasn't risen and alive and trying to avoid the implications of the gospel? If I found the Christian faith to be that repugnant, wouldn't it make much more sense to take my own life sense I am accomplishing nothing by delaying the inevitability of Hell itself? Oh, what? Mr. Engwer doesn't like that decision of mine? Pity I don't care. If he doesn’t like it, all I feel I can say to him is: drop dead!!!""

I said this after I got the strong impression that Jason was condescending towards the retired couple. I got a strong impression that Jason was just another arrogant apologist right up there with Robert Turkel and Jonathan Sarfati. And yes, I was bitter when I wrote this because I felt offended by what Jason wrote! I mean, who wouldn't?

Steve quoting me: "Even if my hypothesis proved invalid and there are good reasons, further, to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and the Christian gospel is true, then I would admit to such a thing, and then proceed to overdose on medication so I can take my own life and get judgment over with. Seriously. If Jason has a problem with this, then screw Jason!!"

Again, keeping with the context. I got a strong impression that Jason was very condescending towards the couple and was being so, even towards me. I even offered to debate Jason, Steve. Let's not forget that here.

Steve quoting me: Let me state that if the Christian gospel was true and I concluded such, I would not avoid the inevitability of Hell. I would take my rightful place there. I promise Jason this and if he doesn't like the fact that I don't want to be his "brother in the Lord", that I don't want to hug him and thank him for saving me, be his buddy, go to Church, adore those arrogant bastards in the Church, too damned bad! Jason can drop dead!"

Steve: So, by his own emphatic admission, MG’s rejection of the Christian faith is motivated by pure emotionalism.

Steve, I do have a strong emotional loathing of the Christian faith. And I am serious about what I said. If it was to prove true, I would take my own life. Period. I am not certain that my intellectual skepticsim is justified and I am hoping to enroll in graduate school to test my intellectual skepticism to see if it holds water. If it doesn't, and my skepticism proves flawed and the Christian faith is true, I really don't see the point in delaying the inevitability of Hell. But, Steve, you can read whatever you want into my statements. Your suggestion of "pure emotionalism" is far from accurate.

Steve: The evidence for or against the faith is irrelevant. He hates Christians and he hates the Christian God. That’s his bottom line.

No, any evidence for or against the faith is not irrelevant, Steve. It's highly relevant. I do not hate Christians Steve. I have Christian friends, believe it or not. I have Christian family members and I do not hate them. So it's not the bottom line here; you are grossly mistaken Steve. This isn't true so please do not repeat this or else this is libel. You have only your own integrity to damage here, Steve. As for hating the Christian God, I do find the Christian god to be a loathesome species of deity after some of the things I have read about him. Let me ask you something, Steve? How do you claim to know so much about what's going on in my mind? How do you know, Steve?

Steve quoting me:Continuing:"My personal loathing of Jason aside, I have to say that although I have attempted a response here, I freely leave it to readers to judge for themselves.

Steve: Thanks. MG. We’ve taken you up on the offer and judged you accordingly.

Steve, don't be facetious here. I was asking readers to judge my arguments here and you know this.

Steve: Continuing:"I agree with Till. I find it bizarre that Jason would want to link to someone who is so idiotic such as this. If this is the quality and caliber of apologetics that Jason wants to associate himself with, I freely leave it to him, since by linking to and (in effect) endorsing Robert Turkel without qualification, Jason is only making himself look foolish.

Steve: Yet another example of his raw emotionalism. Just a few months ago, MG was defending Turkel against Steven Carr.

Raw emotionalism? I confess to a very failed attempt at diplomacy with a fellow who I now regard as a spin-doctor! I came to finally see the light about Turkel. I really wanted to believe that there was a lot of good in him but there wasn't and there isn't. If I hated Christians, would I have attempted a friendly diplomacy with Turkel and some of his readers in the first place? Well, Steve, your bluff has been called. You just shot your own criticism there to pieces.

Steve: Now, however, he’s turned against Turkel. And having turned against him, if Turkel is evil, then Jason is evil for linking to Turkel’s website.

Well, John Loftus was right: he predicted to Turkel that Turkel would turn me against him. Needless to say, Loftus was right on the money. My post on the subject makes it clear why I turned against him. While "evil" would be a very strong word to describe Turkel, I didn't say that I thought Jason was evil at all for linking to Turkel's website. Foolish and idiotic, yes. But that is forgivable and we can learn from our foolishness. I have done many foolish things in my life and have acted idiotically, and guess what Steve? I have learned from those mistakes of mine. Still to this day I make stupid mistakes and act foolishly. Let me ask you something: where did I say Jason was "evil"? If not, can you stop pretending to be Freud here? Please by all means, continue your day job!

Steve quoting me: Continuing:"As for his appeal to Glenn Miller and the Christian CADRE, I wouldn't exactly put much stock in what these folks have to say in terms of a rebuttal. If Jason links to Turkel, I cannot reasonably expect the work of Miller or the CADRE to be of any higher quality. Neither should any other rational, carefully thinking adults."

Steve quoting me: I haven't read Mr. Price's discussion but being that Jason had linked to Robert Turkel, I am not expecting to be impressed with Price's discussion. I have seen what quality and level of caliber that Jason thinks is good apologetics.

Steve: This is, of course, completely irrational. Even if Turkel were inept, that does not prejudge Glenn Miller or Christopher Price. To dismiss them unread based on guilt-by-association is yet another example of MG’s undiluted emotionalism.

No, it's not another example of my "undiluted emotionalism". If Jason has never linked to Miller or Price, then I would gladly go over them and debate the issue further with Jason. I have actually read Miller's material and while I think he makes some good points here and there, I am not all that impressed with Mr. Miller's arguments, although he is definitely above the sarcasm, insults, and arrogance of Turkel. As for Price, Jason has advised me not to be so quick to dismiss Price and I admit that I am willing to give his arguments a fair shake. I would've done that anyway, had I not seen Turkel linked to with Price. So, if there's any guilt-by-association, it's only because Jason is disgracing Miller and Price by putting them in the same league as Turkel.

Steve: BTW, I assume that Jason links to various websites for the simple reason that anyone who is reading Triablogue has access to the Internet. But many people who have access to the Internet do not have access to a good research library.

But does Jason have no concern for quality, here? Jason links to many websites for the reason that anyone reading your website, Steve, has access to the Internet and not always good research libraries; I do think that even Jason could do better than link to Turkel. Besides, Steve, do you deny the examples that I cited against Turkel? My sarcasm- that Jason cannot do better because he linked to Turkel was actually intended to shame him somewhat and make him think about who he was linking to. In all seriousness- I hope that Jason will do better than to link to Turkel in the future. Turkel is an utter disgrace to Christian apologetics. Lastly, my offer to have a friendly, courteous, and respectful debate with Jason still stands, believe it or not, I just didn't want Jason to give me what I thought was a condescending and arrogant attitude, which I got the serious impression that he was trying to dish out at me in his rebuttals to what I have written.

Steve: Therefore, Jason refers them to online resources when he can for their convenience.

Steve, at this point, I simply ask Jason to seriously reconsider who he is linking to. Perhaps Jason doesn't know Turkel that well. Perhaps he hasn't seen what Turkel has done in the past. If he hasn't, I am willing to apologize and retract my sarcasm and my attempts at shaming him, provided that Jason get to know what kind of person he is linking to better and why I consider Turkel to be a slimeball these days. My offer to debate Jason on friendlier, respectful, and courteous terms still stands, you know? Heck, I'd be willing to debate you, too, Steve. We can have a friendly, good-natured, and respectful debate or even a discussion if you like. I only responded to Jason the way that he did because I honestly felt as thought he threw the first stone at me like I thought he did at that one retired couple.

Steve: Of course, Jason’s sources are by no means limited to the Internet. He often quotes from scholarly works. But there’s a limit to how much you can manually transcribe.

Good! Jason should use the Internet for sources if they prove to be well-informed and scholarly, even if written by nonscholars such as Glenn Miller (or has he gotten an advanced degree since I last read something from him?) Jason quotes from scholarly works- good. I am glad that he does and I think that shows that Jason is seriously interested in discussing these issues on a scholarly level. I just wish he would think twice before linking to someone whose lack of professionalism and personal ethics, his critics (myself included) have challenged.

Steve quoting me: Continuing:"I wouldn't trust Christian apologists to effectively rebut Carrier and Price.

Steve: Just another example of MG’s reactionary hysteria.

My reactionary hysteria? Um, Steve, no offense here, but you're not good at impersonating Freud. Sorry to tell you this. There need not be any reactionary hysteria in me and I am really bewildered that you would make this out to be a case of it on my part. Yes, I wrote in a really sarcastic and I was even a bit nasty but I only did so because I thought that Jason had thrown the first stone. Let's not forget here that I did offer to debate Jason on friendlier, repectful, and more civil terms. The offer is even open to you if you are interested, Steve.

Steve: What does "trust" have to do with it? You don’t have to take what they say on faith. Rather, you judge them by the quality of their argumentation.

Um, I have seen the quality of some of their arguments, Steve, and there is no faith here involved. I am not using "trust" in terms of faith, religious or otherwise. I don't trust them to do a good job for the same reason I don't trust certain politicians to make good on their campaign promises once they're elected to power. I distrust Christian apologists for the similar reasons I distrust many politicians.

Steve: "Continuing:"The fact that my ‘treatment’ of the issues was not as detailed and as extensive as Jason would like and that he feels the need to suggest that I am ignorant of New Testament scholarship and critical history in general is just meant as an insult to me personally."

""Apologists like Jason want more than anything to prove that their critics are uninformed, careless, stupid, ignorant- or else we would be Christians like him and just adore him!"

Steve: Other issues aside, MG is several years younger that Jason. MG is also a fairly recent apostate.

Jason may well be older than me but I fail to see what difference an age-difference makes here. As for my "fairly recent" apostacy- how long would Steve imagine is "fairly recent"? I deconverted from Christianity four years ago. I evolved from Christianity, to Deism, to agnosticism, and finally atheism.

Steve: By contrast, Jason has been doing this sort of thing for quite a few years now. So, as a matter of fact, Jason does know a whole lot more about the subject than MG.

That may well be the case, Steve. You know as well as I do that it doesn't make Jason right or me wrong nor does it discredit my arguments and vindicate his. Jason may know more about the subject than I do. I have never denied that I am still learning and I do not for one second claim that I "have arrived". Jason may know a lot more about the subject than me. I am curious as to Jason's plans are for the future. If he working on an M.A. or Ph.D. degree? I will be this next year, working on my M.A.

Steve: "But that’s not all. Consider some of MG’s own disclaimers in the course of this very post:

"I just lack the expertise to decide one way or another. The simple truth of the matter is that I would love to embrace Carrier's theory, in all its details."And:"Both Richard Carrier and Robert Price seem to endorse the Radical Criticism school of New Testament thought. Although I find such an approach fascinating, Jason is right in that I don't necessarily commit myself to their views because I lack the scholarly expertise to make that kind of a judgment, although I would love to embrace the school of the Radical Critics; I'm just not sure if it's necessary or not. It all boils down to scholarly expertise."

Steve quoting me: And:"But the fact of the matter is that I am still undecided on the question of the genre of the gospels.

Steve: So, by his own admission, MG is quite ignorant and uninformed.

Um, the folks I have cited are scholars. If I need to be a scholar to be considered informed, then of course, I plead to being ignorant and informed. If by "ignorant and uninformed" and I am not well-studied as you or Jason are, Steve, that may well be the case. I am not claiming I am super-informed or even expertly so. I'd like to know what your point is?

Steve quoting me: Moving along:

"In each of these passages, Herodotus names his sources and how he got a hold of this information he finds worthy to pass on. Now I ask Jason: where do the synoptic gospels identify their sources? Where does John do so? Herodotus writes what he hears from the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Persians. Does Luke say how he knows what women went to the tomb, or how he knows where Joseph took Mary and the baby Jesus after the dedication of Jesus? Does Mark say how he knows that Jesus cursed the fig tree? Does Matthew say how he knows about the story of the wise men and Herod? No. Does John's author say how he knows that Jesus cleansed the temple and overturned tables? or how he knows that Jesus supposedly raised Lazarus from the dead? No."

"No names, methods, weighing of evidence, competing claims, or anything like that in the gospels.

Steve: The problem here is that MG is comparing the incomparable. Herodotus is writing about events from the distant past.This is quite different from contemporary history.

How am I comparing the incomparable here? What difference does it make that Herodotus is writing about many events from the distant past? My point is one of critical intent. And I do believe that if some authors are claiming to narrate the greatest event in human history in terms of soiterology, then they should be very critical in what they intend to write. Does Steve believe that if authors are writing events that are contemporaneous with their lives, they need not be critical-minded? Even about extraordinary claims?

Steve: Suppose Peter Lawford wrote a biography of Frank Sinatra. Would we ask, where did he get his information? What was his methodology? Did he weigh the evidence? Sift through competing claims?That would all be irrelevant. Since Lawford was a member of the Rat Pack, we know that he would be either getting his information from first-hand observation or from the testimony of other Rat Pack alumni.MG is simply assuming, without benefit of argument, that the canonical gospels are either anonymous or pseudonymous.

Well, in the case of Lawford writing a biography of Sinatra, we would have enough background information to determine whether or not Lawford was in a position to narrate Sinatra's life events with great accuracy. Let's also bear in mind that we are talking about two different cultures here. We are talking about a pride-guilt culture in which the comparsion is futile because of our high-technology, information mediums, means of recording history, and journalism standards, that was simply unavailable to people back then. Most people in the time of Christian origins, lived in a time where this was not the case, not to mention that there was a general lack of concern for precision in honor-shame cultures, especially in the 1st century Mediterranean. I have tried to document this in an essay I have written by which I plan to post on Loftus' blog in the near future. I invite you and Jason to take a look.

Steve: Moving along:"For many people ‘extraordinary evidence’ is indeed vague and often allows for critics to move the goal posts in terms of what the bar when it comes to evidence that will be enough to convince them. I, however, will tell people what it is that it takes to convince me that such ‘extraordinary events’ have occurred."And:"I am committed to naturalism, philosophically, but this need not exclude an empty tomb by any means. I am committed to a naturalistic paradigm of Christian origins, something Jason cannot brook.

Steve: The Resurrection is only extraordinary given his naturalistic presumption. And it demands extraordinary evidence given his naturalistic presumption.

Oh, I see, so anything goes with you, Steve? So do you accept the sightings of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, the various sightings of Bigfoot, all the alleged stories of UFO/alien abudction, of various psychics who claim to predict future events? The resurrection is not only extraordinary given my "naturalistic presumption". I could be a Deist and believe that a supernatural Creator exists and still not believe that the resurrection happened due to a lack of extraordinary evidence, any other reasons or criticisms (like bibical inerrancy aside). I was even willing to qualify my remarks to: supernatural claims require supernatural forms of evidence. So, Steve, I guess you believe all the claims made about UFOs, Virgin Mary sightings, psychics, the lost civilization of Atlantis, astral projections, and all of that? I guess if you watch Most Haunted on the Travel Channel, then you really do believe that Derek Acorah really gets possessed by the "spirits" that supposedly haunt a given place?

Steve, my sarcasm aside here, how do you go about differentiating between any claims you're willing to accept and those you reject?

Steve: Assuming naturalism, then any alternative explanation is more likely than a miraculous event like Resurrection.

Not necessarily. Natural explanations require naturalistic forms of evidence. Supernaturalist explanations require supernaturalist forms of evidence. That's the epistemological axiom I work with. Naturalism need not be presupposed or assumed from the get-go.

Steve: All that MG has done is to beg the question in favor of naturalism. It’s not the evidence for or against the Resurrection that’s setting the bar, but metaphysical naturalism.

I have? I wasn't even defending naturalism. Being committed to philosophical naturalism isn't the same thing as defending it and even Steve knows that. I have just told Jason that I am committed to philosophical naturalism and naturalism is my conclusion thus far. I am willing to believe that the resurrection happened if supernatural forms of evidence were given to me, such as the risen Jesus appearing to me like he allegedly did to Paul on the road to Damascus or to doubting Thomas. That would be a step in the right direction. Of course, such a Being would have to help me confirm that I am not hallucinating the whole thing.

Steve: And where’s his argument for naturalism?

Oh, good grief! Where did I say I was giving one? I was only defending my hypothesis of visions, which a Deist, a pantheist, or other religionists can accept. Heck, even Muslims can accept my hypothesis. No naturalistic presuppositions are necessary here. Steve, I'm sorry, did I burn your straw man there? (I'm teasing Steve; just teasing you there)

Steve: Continuing:"Price points out well what is the problem with critics like Jason. He points out parallels between gospels like Mark and legendary accounts of immortals and suggests that Talbert’s research points to the gospel resurrection narratives as being legendary in nature.

Steve: MG would do well to read David Aune’s detailed and devastating review of Talbert.

I have also read Talbert's response to Aune; have you?

"Continuing:Robert M Price (who Jason will probably arrogantly scoff at if I know him like I know the back of my hand) has the following to say about critics like Jason:"The research done by Talbert and others makes the set of alternatives proposed by the apologists (i.e., ‘’hoax or history’) a false one. It is considerations like this which make works like Andersons' The Evidence for the Resurrection hopelessly out of date. In this book, and a large number of others like it, the apologists manage to effect a resurrection of their own-- they bring back the deists and rationalists of the eighteenth century as their opponents in debate…New Testament scholarship has long since left both Anderson and Venturini behind, since it has shown at least that the facticity of the resurrection narratives cannot be simply taken for granted. Granted they are not lies, they may yet be legendary." ("Guarding an Empty Tomb" in Beyond Born Again)"[Jason] just assumes that folks like me or just like the critics of old. Sorry buddy, the shoes do not fit and no amount of shoe-horning on your part is going to change that, Jason. Price is right; New Testament scholarship has left the likes of Anderon and Venturini behind and I agree with Price that scholarship has shown that the facticity of the narratives cannot be taken for granted. Jason is simply wearing the old, warn out shoes of Anderson and McDowell in this case. It is sadly, Jason, and not me, who is stabbing at a foe long since dead.

Steve: This criticism is about to boomerang on MG’s head, especially when he proceeds to issue a laundry list of Bible contradictions.

We'll see about that!

Steve: The funny fact of the matter is that MG is the one who’s operating with a precritical, 18C paradigm of what inerrancy should like look.

Oh, really? And what would a modern paradigm of inerrancy look like? (I have read books on biblical inerrancy you know, Steve. I have, for instance, read a lot of Norman Geisler's book Inerrancy)

Steve: 18C literature acted as if the Gospel writers were mere stenographers, recording speeches verbatim and reporting events in minute, chronological detail.

You think I view inerrancy as being a "mechanical-dictation" process? Bzzzzzzz! Wrong Steve!

Steve: But the litany "contradictions" which MG regurgitates from the lips of traditional literature of infidelity dissolves under the lens of genre criticism, narrative criticism, redaction criticism, and the like as we make allowance for the literary conventions and historiographical techniques of the 1C AD.

Oh Steve, come on, man! If it makes any difference, I haven't even read the traditional literature of infidelity such as Robert Ingersoll or David Strauss, if that's who you have in mind.

Steve: MG is the one who’s stuck in a time-warp.

Hmmm..I guess then that Norman Geisler and the late Gleason Archer are/were stuck in the same time warp as me. I have been reading some social-science commentaries on the gospels as well as a book by Abraham Rihbany on the world of the Oriental and their attitudes towards precision.

Steve: By contrast, Jason can readily defend inerrancy by appealing to contemporary NT scholarship.

Guess what, Steve? I can readily refute inerrancy by appealing to contemporary scholarship. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you told me what "taditional literature of infidelity" I am regurgitating from the lips of? Care to cite any examples?

Steve: MG likes to cite socio-rhetorical scholars. Well, what about Craig Keener and Ben Witherington, to name a few?

I am quite fond of Ben Witherington. He's a refreshingly honest scholar and I really enjoyed reading his material in The Christology of Jesus. As for Craig Keener, I am not to keen on him (dare I pun?)

"Finally:At 10:19 AM, September 03, 2006, John W. Loftus said..."If anyone believes what the people at Triablogue say then we are all totally ignorant about everything here at DC. And yet they betray themselves by dealing with what we write on a daily basis. Why spend so much time dealing with the arguments of a stupid site, if DC is one? They cannot have it both ways, for if they regularly argue against us, then they think we are intellectually worthy of their time.

Steve: A non sequitur. DC is simply a convenient repository for stupid arguments against the faith. Since the only objections are stupid objections, DC will do as well as anyone else.

Steve, maybe my criticisms of Jason were misplaced. Maybe you're the one with intellectual arrogance here. But, I have definitely proposed a friendlier, more civil, and respectful debate offer? Will you take it up if Jason declines here?
Nice try, Steve. But I cannot really give you a good mark for your Freud impersonation here. I have seen better. But let me know when you get your degree in psychology!

Matthew

Kirk Cameron Goes Bananas!

* I normally don't call anyone "stupid," and I'm still not going to, but I am going to say so regarding the ideas presented below! *

A cousin brought this to my attention about a week ago, and I have not been able to stop laughing at the sheer stupidity of it since. When I get depressed, I just think of this and I feel better! A friend of my cousin's wanted to argue apologetics with him and brought him to the webpage of former atheist and actor, Kirk Cameron, and boy did the laughs begin to roll!

When he told me about it, I thought it was a joke, but it isn't. It's for real, and to this day I cannot think about it without at least cracking a smile! The most egregious error from Answers In Genesis doesn't begin to compete with this!

Watch the video where Kirk and his co-host argue that a banana is, "an atheist's worst nightmare!" The banana, an atheist's worst nightmare!. Behind my hysterical laughter, I only have a few things to say to Kirk or whoever wrote this numbskull-ish material...

What about pineapples, Kirk? They have virtual "spikes" on them and are damn hard to get into! And what about coconuts, Kirk? They are very hard to get into, and in fact, you basically can't get into them without a good hard surface to crack them open with. You can even konk someone over the head with one and it'll be an effective weapon. If god wanted man to have a convenient eating experience, why didn't he make all our natural food products like the banana? What about other food products like oranges and apples, where getting into them is not quite as convenient (in the case of the apple, you've got to stop eating before you get to the core because the seeds of the apple are poisonous)? And bear in mind, we are not even considering poisonous plants and fruits, nor are we considering having to chase down bison, spear them to death, cut them up, carry them back to camp, cook them, and eat them!

Besides, what about grapes, Kirk? People choke on them all the time. My brother, a medic in the army, struggled to free a grape that was lodged in the windpipe of a soldier. The man ended up dying it was so tightly stuck in there. Imagine, death by grape inhalation! Do an internet search for accounts of choking on grapes and you will see it happens to hundreds of people a year!

I won't carry on because of the mind-blowing stupidity of this idea. I'll just end by saying this is as moronic and simplistic as what an old Pentecostal woman once argued at me with, saying that since God made the river just big enough for the riverbed, therefore, we have evidence of him!

I dare say unbelievers and most believers will have a good laugh at this!

(JH)

Does Atheism Lead Back to the Superstitious World of Pantheism?

I have long been a student of world-views and have been interested in which ones historically led to the next one, and so forth in the West [For a great discussion of this see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic World-View Catalog (IVP 2000)]. I know that Deism historically led to atheism, and atheism leads some people to pantheism or New Age philosophy. I just don’t think it has to. I have to stop this slippery slide somewhere, and so I do so at atheism. I just don't think atheism leads back to the superstitious beliefs of pantheism, with its omens, crystals, holistic healing, astrology, automatic writing, psychics, necromancy, reincarnation, spirit gods, and the occult. But some argue that it does.

Does this surprise you? C.S. Lewis: “Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are…it is immemorial in India. Pantheism is in fact the permanent natural bent of the human mind; the permanent ordinary level below which man sometimes sinks…It is the attitude into which the human mind automatically falls when left to itself.” [Miracles: A Preliminary Study, Macmillan, 1947, (pp. 84-85)].

According to Douglas R. Groothuis, “the New Age (Western pantheism) and secular humanism (atheism in action) are more like cousins than strangers, and the competition between the two world views is more of an in-house feud than a dispute between opposites. A better metaphor might be to view the One as taking the baton from a once robust but now failing secular humanism so that the race to win Western civilization might be won by a new kind of humanism—cosmic humanism.” [Unmasking the New Age (IVP, 1986, p. 52)]

Why is this? It’s because both pantheists and atheists agree on one basic idea. Both world-views agree that reality is of one substance, unlike the theist or deist who believes there is a creator/creation distinction. Pantheists will say that the One exists, and atheists will say that all that exists or will ever exist is matter. They may use different words like “Spirit” and “Matter.” But they both agree on Monism, that is, everything is One (substance), so why should it matter what word someone uses to describe the One?

They may also both agree that there are no universal truths or absolute standards in ethics, from some perspectives. The pantheist will say that ethics disappear as a category, while the atheist may claim that man creates his own truth or ethics.

They both may agree that human beings have no intrinsic value above anything else in reality. The pantheist will say that we are all spirit beings; incarnations of the One, while atheists will claim human beings are merely highly evolved animals.

They both see humankind’s problem as that of ignorance of our true potential which is hindered by the theistic view of God. For the pantheist, this ignorance hinders the Cosmos from being One, while for the atheist this ignorance inhibits scientific progress, creates class struggles, mass neurosis, intolerance and environmental disasters.

They both see the solution to be the same too, from opposite poles. The pantheist’s solution is to exalt ourselves as the gods we truly are, while the atheist wants to dethrone God as creator. “Gods in Disguise,” or “Naked Apes,” all reality is being ultimately equalized.

Death too, is seen the same, from some perspectives, as the end of personal existence. For the pantheist, that which is reincarnated is just another incarnation of the One, while for the atheist death is the end of the individual as it is known.

“The key problem for the secular humanist is the genesis of mind in the universe. How can mere matter in motion produce mind? How can inanimate chance give birth to animate purposeful beings such as animals and people? Lifeless matter could never transcend itself. Thus, philosophical evolutionists asserted that consciousness emerged from latent potentialities in matter. Matter is not lifeless, but spiritually potent. This latent consciousness (mind) becomes actualized in evolution and conscious of itself in man. The difficulty of matter producing mind disappears, but what is left is more than materialistic humanism. Materialism evolves into pantheism.” “In the end, the supernatural is not really supernatural, but another dimension of the natural.” [Unmasking the New Age (IVP, 1986), pp. 53-54]. Or, according to Charles Hodge, “If matter becomes mind, mind is God, and God is everything. Thus the monster Pantheism swallows up science and its votaries.” [quoted by Groothuis, p. 54]. In other words, once matter is all there is to account for consciousness, then matter is consciousness is some sense of the word. And if that’s so, matter has some very unusual characteristics, in that it can be aware of itself and can think. So matter could possibly be described as being “alive” in some sense of the word, and atheists are pushed in the direction of pantheism.

As an atheist I feel the general force of this argument, but in the end I must reject it. I’ll share a few of my reasons and open it up for discussion. In the first place it is scientific investigation and reason which leads me to atheism. It is what has worked to produce technology, space flight, and micro-surgery. It has been used to basically eliminate polio and tuberculosis from the industrialized world. But when we look at the possibility of abandoning the scientific pursuit in favor of returning once again to superstition we abandon the very things that have produced what we now experience. Returning to witchdoctors and acupuncture and crystals and tea leaves is simply not an option to modern scientifically thinking people. It is to abandon what got us here in the first place.

The thing that probably separates atheism from pantheism is the belief that this universe exists by chance. Once someone accepts this he can no longer have any leanings toward pantheism, contrary to the Christian critics. There is nothing in a chancistic universe that can lead to the idea that nature is "alive" even if we have evolved as conscious thinking human beings and can reflect upon this chancistic universe. This is the non-sequitur. Among others, Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained and Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, are attempting to explain consciousness by non-purposive explanations.

Besides, pantheism is just unbelievable to me. Pantheists claim everything and everyone is One. The One is what we may call “God.” There are different “in house” arguments within pantheists but I must simply reject their whole worldview outright, although people are not being irrational to believe it, for rational categories fly out the window from their perspective. If God is the changeless absolute and we are God, then why must we go through the process of attaining enlightenment in order to reach the awareness that we are God? Doesn’t that require change, something the pantheist God does not do? Moreover, if all distinctions are lost in God, then what is it that distinguishes between an unenlightened person and one who is enlightened? Why bother being enlightened when the unenlightened person is just as much God as the one who is enlightened?

Then too, if all is God, and God is beyond spirit-matter dualisms, then everything we experience with our five senses all throughout our entire lives is simply wrong—an illusion—Maya. It’s hard to believe a world-view that says everything I experience all my life is nothing but an illusion, although I understand it, especially as a philosophy instructor, when we consider that we use filters to see and hear reality. With our eyes and ears, we do not see or hear the whole electromagnetic and sonic spectra. What is visible or audible to us is a small portion of reality. We don’t see cosmic rays, gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet or infrared light, and we don’t hear radar, radio, television and ultrasonic waves. I liken reality in my classes to “white noise” coming from a weak TV signal. But I still cannot believe “reality” is nothing more than the filters themselves.

Pantheists also say God is beyond our concepts to describe. Their goal is to go beyond all conceptual viewpoints. But that seems to me to be a contradiction, because when they describe God or this process they must use concepts, and the end result is that God becomes void of any meaning at all.

Furthermore, the whole concept of reincarnation is an extremely depressing thought to easterners. To see why I reject reincarnation see here.

"The Only Objections are Stupid Objections..."

Steve Hays over at Triablogue has responded to a comment of mine by saying: "DC is simply a convenient repository for stupid arguments against the faith. Since the only objections are stupid objections, DC will do as well as anyone else." see here. [Edit, since I linked to Steve he deleted his original comments and instead commented on this post of mine.]

There are a whole host of Occidental thinkers throughout the ages who have rejected Christianity, including Bertrand Russell, while nearly all Oriental thinkers have rejected Christianity. But all of our objections are stupid ones? Really?

Hays believes that Calvinistic Christianity (his brand) is intellectually superior such that all one needs is knowledge to see the truth. This statement of his tells more about him and probably his team members than it says anything about his case. He's certain that he's correct. But subjective certainty says nothing about his case. No wonder he treats anyone who disagrees with him with such distain. All the rest of us are stupid, even those Christians who disagree with his brand of Calvinistic Christianity. Such an attitude is extremely sophmoronic and naive. He will never consider any argument against his faith because he has already presupposed that they are all stupid objections. And he calls on us to become educated and intelligent in order to see the light. But this attitude of his reveals such an ignorance that he is the last one to offer advice on intelligently evaluating our objections.

But Hays has a monumental task ahead of him to convince people of this, since Christianity is losing ground in the marketplace of ideas. His predicted response is that all such people are stupid for accepting the objections to Christianity. If I ask why should God place a premier on intelligence or in a proper education, he will respond that God grants people the ability to see the truth but hides it from those who are perishing. So in effect, we offer stupid objections here at DC because God has allowed/decreed us to believe stupid things. And so Hays & Company treat us as if we are stupid.

This is not someone I care to have a conversation with. I only want conversation/debate partners who will treat me as a dignified person who has sincere objections. Hays & Company cannot do this. They can no longer be taken seriously as serious conversation/debate partners because of their idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible along with their intellectually superior attitude toward people who disagree with them.

What has probably never occurred to Hays is that it is quite possible that the evidence for Christianity is much weaker than the objections against it, and I can argue this based on his own Calvinistic grounds. It's quite possible that the total evidence is against Christianity but that Hays' God simply makes/decrees him to believe against the evidence. That would conversely make Hays' arguments the stupid ones which are subsequently accepted by stupid people who believe them. Since this is very possible given his Calvinistic God, perhaps he ought to look once again at our objections. But this time he ought to do so seriously.

Or, Steve Hays must show me why I'm wrong when I argue for this here, and here, based upon his own Calvinistic theology. It's his choice. But as of yet I have not seen Hays & Company argue against what I wrote.

Green vs Engwer: Defending Visions

Green Answers Engwer: The Argument over Visions

On this blog, I have put forth an essay series on the visionary origins of Christianity. I have decided to make it a five-part series, beginning with an essay on visions and four subsequent posts defending objections to my visions. Jason Engwer of Triablouge has seen fit to compose a rebuttal of what I have written on the subject of visions. In what follows will be a point-by-point rebuttal to what Mr. Engwer has written.

Read more »

I am a Freethinker First, and an Atheist Second.

Layman wrote the following things about Robert Price and Acharya S. in the comments section here:

The irony here is that these two heroes of skepticism are atypical of what most online skeptics might expect. Heathen Dan is right that Acharya S is a new age prophetess. Robert Price is more of a materialistic skeptic, but he is also an ardent conservative warhawk who defends Bush's foreign policy.

My response:
Let me state for the record that I am a freethinker first, and an atheist second. No freethinker faces a potential excommunication or heresy trial for not abiding by the party line as far as I'm concerned. I left Christianity partly over this party line attitude. Acharya S. was a Blog member here for a week until she recused herself because of her critics, and I have invited Bob to be a member here with no luck yet.

Where I agree with people, I agree. Where I disagree with people I disagree. That's it. For instance, I do believe Jesus was a historical figure in the 1st century, unlike them. But I learn from everyone.

The goal here at DC is to Debunk evangelical Christianity. This could be done by a Deist, a new age pantheist, an agnostic or an atheist. Where we agree we agree. Where we have our own disputes, we will dispute. Christians do the same thing when it comes to differing views of Calvinism, eschatology, baptism, pentecostal gifts, church polity, and so on. But unlike them such disputes do not undercut a common goal we have when it comes to Christianity.

I (along with Ed Babinski) do not put up barriers between freethinkers so long as we share the same goals. Where we disagree we will disagree, but our commond ground is still that we are freethinkers. We are not hamstrung by religious dogmas and creeds and scriptures that define whether or not we are allowed in the group. We just ask that people are able to back up their beliefs and defend them in areas where we share common ground. Even if someone is way out of bounds with what I think can be rationally defended, I can still say, "but she makes a good case against Christianity...she makes me think."