Edited: Responding to the "Great Silence" On Amazon

The "Great Silence" edited his Amazon review. Now it begins with something false:

Edited to add : if you ever consider writing a review of one of Loftus' books, even a reasonable one like below, first read what Loftus and his cronies will regard as fair comment on such review. See the insecure smear "article" on Loftus' blog in response to this review. So, before you comment on anything Loftus writes, know that not all these paragons of rationality allow criticism or fair comment. I really have no idea why his publisher would allow him to conduct himself like this.

You know what? This is one thing that really grates on me. He is anonymous. Get it, anonymous. We don't know how old he is, where he lives, or if he's really a "he". I am a real person. This is my name. You can find out about me if you want to. But look at him, defending his honor and his name by smearing mine. This post below is the only thing I wrote about his review. It's still unchanged. How in the hell can I smear someone if he doesn't have a name? So tell you what, my faithful cronies, one and all, far and wide, vote his review down.. ;-) It's not true. It's the "Great Silence(r)" who wants to silence me from commenting on his review. It was that way from the start. I'm dogged by so many stupid people that sometimes it just makes me ill.

In an attempt to censor me from commenting on Amazon reviews, the "Great Silence" (an anonymous confessing Catholic) showed up. He(?) says it's unprofessional for me to comment on Amazon reviews of my books. Nice try but I'm not biting. Some people actually like discussing a book with the author, and I oblige them sometimes. It offers a chance to learn more by doing so, good or bad. It produces one or two more rounds of counter-argument and counter-counter-argument, which can better help people in their search for the truth. He prefers the professionalism of other authors who don't respond to reviews on Amazon. However, they could be seen in a different light than one of praiseworthy professionalism. They just might view themselves as too good to lower themselves to the rank-in-file commenters on Amazon. Who knows?

Armin Navabi: Ex-Muslim Turned Global Atheist Activist

Armin Navabi has quite the powerful story. When he was just 12 years old he tried to commit suicide by leaping off the top floor of his middle school. He was not successful. Instead he broke several bones in his body and was put into a wheelchair for 7 months. He did it to avoid suffering forever in hell. For as a Muslim he believed that if he died before the age of 15 he would not go to hell. He calculated his risk and acted on it. Navabi says, “So that means that if you die before age 15, you die pure and you go to heaven...Why would anybody stick around and gamble potentially burning for eternity? The most logical decision is to quit this game that I never chose to play, early, and just go directly to heaven.” Who has the balls to act that logically at his age? Armin Navabi, that's who.

In a recent post about Navabi, Kristen Hovet tells of his painful deconversion:

A few years went by and Navabi’s faith began to flounder, regardless of the strong influence of religious teachers at his school. He felt ashamed for doubting Islam, but trusted that his god was a god of reason and would surely deliver. “But it didn’t go that way,” he says. “I went to hunt for evidence, and I didn’t find anything.” He read voraciously, concentrating on his own religion, other religions, and history, and came to the conclusion that all religions are manmade. But he did not arrive at this conclusion painlessly.

“It got to the point where I was begging God for evidence. I cried. I was like, ‘God, I’m going to lose faith in you. So, if you’re out there, show me something! Anything!’” By the age of 18, Navabi had given up. He knew he was an atheist and that there would be no going back.

Hovet writes, "Now, at the age of 31, a lot has changed from his experiences in Iran to his current life in Canada. He is the founder of the Atheist Republic website and the Atheist Republic Facebook page, which alone has over one million likes – making it one of the most popular pages of its kind."

Congrats go out to Amin Navabi for a job well done! We probably won't find anyone so passionate or logical as he is. To read more of his story and how he went to being a global phenomenon as an atheist activist click here.]

"They Burn Witches Here" A True Story by Kent Russell

Here is a story fit for Halloween about supposed modern witches. The full title of this powerful and bizarre story is, "They Burn Witches Here: And then they upload the photos to social media. A journey to an island caught between the ancient world and 2015."

Having studied the phenomena of witch hunts myself for a chapter I wrote in Christianity Is Not Great, I was very interested in reading this first-hand story of witch hunts in "modern" Papua New Guinea.The descriptions could well have been about the witch hunts in Europe from about 1450-1750 though. It opens with the brutal murder of a girl accused of witchcraft named Kepari Leniata:

Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion

This is the title to my next anthology as chosen by Prometheus Books. It's a book honoring Victor Stenger's writings, who is one of the New Atheists in that his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist,was also a NY Times Bestseller. The book will include his last essay, which he submitted for it before he died. My publisher wanted a smaller book this time around, so it's to be about 380 pages. They just announced it'll be available on July 26, 2016. You can pre-order it online!Although I'm not done celebrating the release of my recent book, here we go again. Below, for your consideration, are a list and description of the excellent contributors (in alphabetical order).

Pew Research: Fewer People Believe in God in the United States

Philosopher Stephen Law On the Boogeyman Called Scientism

Here's Another Excerpt from My New Book, Posted by the Friendly Atheist

LINK, with 242 comments so far!

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about my new book.

This is a book that has a two edged sword to it. It tells wanna-be apologists how to argue correctly for their faith. In doing so they'll also learn that if they argue correctly they wouldn't do apologetics at all, because by doing apologetics correctly they will learn Christianity cannot be defended at all. You really should read it. It's really good, and I don't just say so myself.

Comments On the Official Release Day Of My New Book

The comments have to do with my book How To Defend the Christian Faith. First, by Lazarus:

Hi John, I'm a Catholic of the open-minded-lets-see-how-strong-my-faith-is type. I have received your latest book, and will start reading that today. I found your other books to be some of the very best atheist arguments out there, if not (yet) completely convincing. Your own essay on animal suffering is the single most devastating argument that I have ever read against my faith. I still don't have much of an answer against it. Well, let's see how you go with this one. I like the starting premise - an apparent Christian apologetics book that will most likely conclude that it's all a fool's errand.

Edit: He later added:

Your chapter on the five schools of evidence / apologetic argumentation is brilliant. That is the type of information that very few people would really get to engage with.

This one is from Phil Torres on Facebook:

I've read about half of this book by John W. Loftus so far, and I can tell you that it's fantastic. Exceptionally well-written, very thoughtful, and quite authoritative. I'm looking forward to reading the rest and posting a review on Amazon!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Apologetics

Link

#1 In Hot New Releases In Atheism!

#1 In Hot New Releases in Religious Philosophy

Maybe I can now call myself a philosopher?

The Kindle Edition of My New Book, My Best Book, My Most Unique Book is Now Available. BUY!

On Christian Theology and Absolute Truth: A Thought

The entire Christian Systematic Theological system is established on pure superstitious paranoia being doctrinally presented tens of thousands of different ways by each denominations under the rubric of Absolute Truth. 

You Can Now Read Peter Boghossian's Foreword To My New Book

At last. If you've wanted to read Peter Boghossian​'s wonderful Foreword to my new book in its entirety, here it is, posted on the Richard Dawkins site (RDFRS). Enjoy and spread the word. While you're there click on the link to buy it. At the RDFRS site you can also read James Lindsay's review of it, which I linked to earlier. It's a really good day for me. I think I'll spit some worms.

Ken Ham's Apologetics Is a Tacit Admission He Doesn't Think the Evidence Exists to Believe!

In an editorial review of Ken Ham's book, How Do We Know the Bible Is True?, we're told that Ham's book "approaches the issues from a presuppositional point of view, whereas most works on apologetics come from an evidentialist perspective. This doesn’t mean that we don’t provide any evidence for our positions; it means we start from the Bible and show why the evidence makes sense in light of Scripture and cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic, atheistic worldview." LINK. In my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, I have a chapter on apologetic methodology where I argue that if the evidence existed then no other apologetic method but evidentialism would be used by apologists (chapter 5).For if the evidence existed then apologists would never have come up with any other method. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So Ken Ham's presuppositional apologetics is a tacit admission he doesn't think the evidence exists to believe!

Introducing the X-Risks Institute (for the Study of Extremism)

What will the future look like? The further upwards one moves from the basement domain of physics, the harder it often gets to predict long-term trends. Nonetheless, we have some fairly good clues about what to expect moving forward. Moore's law, for example, enables us to anticipate with some degree of accuracy, at least on a timescale of decades, how the development of computer hardware will likely proceed. And many nanotechnology experts concur that it's only a matter of time before personal nanofactories become as common as the personal computer (or even more so, given their potential for self-replication).

But technology isn't being developed in a vacuum. This is a crucial point that constitutes, in my view, a major weakness in a lot of (otherwise good) work being done by secular futurists. To my knowledge, virtually no one is asking questions about the important relationship between advanced technologies and religion, the latter of which is one of the most pervasive and influential cultural phenomena in the world.

Ahhhh, the Mind of the Believer

The following discussion took place on the Facebook Wall of Paul K. Moser with a guy named Jonathan Parsons. It shows my readers what it takes to believe, and it's not pretty. Moser was liking all of this guy's comments. Why is it they don't get it? That's as baffling to me as the existence of a two-headed person in a circus (and unfortunately they do exist). See this yourself. What do you think? How would you try to convince someone of the science that lies behind cognitive bias studies, when he tries to skirt the evidence like this? [FYI: I could answer them. I just chose not to.]

Dr. James Lindsay Reviews My Latest Book

He just wrote a review of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.Here are the first and last paragraphs that sandwich the meat of a really nice review:

Four years ago I wrote in my first book about what I called The Problem of Apologetics, making the case that the very existence of apologetics--lawyerly defenses of religious faith--is a major strike against the believability of the contents of any faith tradition employing them. In considering and formulating that set of ideas, I rapidly concluded that religious apologetics don't deserve serious consideration, and as a result I thought it wasn't possible for me to take them any less seriously. I was wrong. In his new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, John W. Loftus managed to convince me that the amount of respect I should give to religious apologetic arguments isn't zero, as I had concluded; it is less than zero.

Those who wish to defend the Christian faith should read How to Defend the Christian Faith with utmost seriousness, ponder its contents, and ultimately find something better to do with their time as a result. Others should read it to get a full sense of just how bad the case for Christianity really is. As I argue extensively in my newest book, Everybody Is Wrong About God, the time has come to give no serious consideration to the entire theistic enterprise, and How to Defend the Christian Faith shows us exactly why. The case is hopeless; it's time to move on. LINK.

More Than 20 Teachers and Employees Were Let Go at Cincinnati Christian University On Oct. 23

After just 18 months as the President of Cincinnati Christian University, Ken Tracy resigned. Due to a serious financial crisis more than 20 teachers and employees were let go. CCU is trying to keep this news quiet for now. I'm wondering if this crisis is due to suspicions that CCU had traveled down the liberal path too far, as was reported by Lee Mason of the The Christian Restoration Association in 2013? If anyone knows more let us know.

------------

EDIT: Jack Cottrell responded to a question abut "doctrinal stability" with this:

I am always concerned for doctrinal stability. That is my life's work. And this doctrinal stability is always threatened in one way or another. The issue discussed in the article by H. L. Mason is no longer a presence on the CCU campus.

A Reflection On Randal Rauser: Some Final Thoughts On An Interesting and Paradoxical Personality, Guest Post Written by Tristan Vick aka The Advocatus Atheist

Way back in October of 2013 I sat down and read Randal Rauser’s book The Swedish Atheist the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails and then, as is my habit, wrote a series of brief reviews about my impressions on my philosophy of religion blog The Advocatus Atheist.

Initially, I think the thing that struck a chord with me about Randal was that he didn't seem like he was rehashing all the same old Christian apologetic fanfare. Rather, there seemed to be some genuine thought behind his arguments, and I found that rather refreshing (for a religious apologist). Randal is articulate and approaches perceived problems in Christianity differently than other apologists (heck, he even admits there ARE theological problems in Christianity that need addressing – so kudos to him).

I Highly Recommend "The Faithless Feminist"

Check out Karen Gorder Garst​'s site "The Faithless Feminist." She tells us:

It was not a simple decision...when I left behind my faith.

However, I could no longer ignore the historical and social truths that surrounded me.

For me, the Bible became a book written by men that reinforced a patriarchal view of society. I began to identify as an atheist.

I could have left it as a private decision shared only with friends and family. But I became troubled as I continued to see the reach of religion into women’s private lives. I reached out to other women who had left religion behind and asked them to write about their journeys.

I am currently in the process of getting their 18 stories published in a new book.

This website is intended to continue that discussion with posts not just by my authors and myself, but by others who want a forum to discuss current events on the intersection of women and religion or other topics relevant to “faithless feminists.”

I highly recommend her site. Read this guest post by Shanna Babilonia​, who discusses five reasons why organized religion might have problems with educated women.

You Want Polls and Statistics? Bernie Sanders Is the Only Democrat Electable Who Wins In the General Election

H. A. Goodman, writing for the Huff Post Politico Blog, argues: "Bernie Sanders is the only electable Democrat for president, and also the only person setting the Democratic agenda in terms of ideas and policies in 2016." In fact, "Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election." If you think otherwise then deal with his polls and statistics.

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

In another post I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Bernie Sanders Can and Will Win!

Like I've said, Bernie Sanders will win the democratic nomination. The enthusiasm is growing and they're now saying he can win. LINK. Onward we go. It's too bad a few important atheists have said he doesn't have a chance. Apparently they don't understand the importance of social media, crowd enthusiasm, and a huge number of small individual donations. When it comes to donations, people who donate to a political campaign are much more likely to tell others about the candidate and to get involved in other ways. This is not just a grass roots movement of voters. It's a grass roots movement of activists. Come on. Be on the right side of history.

Why Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky are Both Right

Sam Harris recently appeared on Kyle Kulinski’s radio show to discuss his views on “progressivism, torture, religion, and foreign policy.” The impetus behind Harris’ appearance was to defend himself against the accusations of Glenn Greenwald and (the increasingly execrable) CJ Werleman, both of whom had previous public discussions with Kulinski.

What You Need to Know About Bernie Sanders Supporters, by Staks Rosch

I've found one secularist/humanist/atheist who is a big supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, and has been so since May 22nd when he predicted Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Now THAT'S some foresight! Who did this? Staks Rosch did, who writes for the network I co-founded, Skeptic Ink Network. His most recent post is titled as displayed above, LINK. I am very happy to join him in this goal and bid others do so as well, publicly, passionately, intelligently, with footwork and with money. I join Rosch in saying Sanders will win the Democratic Party's Nomination. Bold? I think not. The Bernie Sanders's movement is being conducted by passionate people who want nothing short of a political revolution. It's an idea whose time has come. It's a grassroots social media movement that's opposed by very influential people with obscene amounts of wealth. It's a modern-day Davy and Goliath tale with a twist. In this story a bunch of little people overthrow a bunch of big people. Kudos Staks! Go Bernie! [For more click on the "Bernie Sanders" tag]

Jimmy Kimmel Asked Bernie Sanders If He Believes in God

Where's the Secular/Humanist/Atheist Support for Senator Bernie Sanders?

My temporary goal is to help Senator Bernie Sanders win the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the U.S. When I first approached an important atheist thinker about this goal I was told, "Sanders has a zero chance to be president, zero." Well as you would guess, that didn't discourage me in the least. As I've said, I like those odds! ;-) I like proving the naysayers wrong, AND THEY ARE WRONG!

So let me tell naysayers why I think this is the most important goal we can probably pursue right now, and why more secularists, humanists and atheists should back Bernie's candidacy. After all, we're a strong important voting block that if fully engaged could make this happen. And if we make Sanders the Democratic Party's nomination then people in the middle will have to vote for him in the general election, since the Republicans only have nutcases vying for the same high office. If you read just one post from me on Sanders for President read the rest of this one.

Why Bernie Sanders Is Attracting Conservatives

This is a grassroots movement that will attract more and more conservative voters, explains Rick Perlstein of The Washington Spectator. LINK. Sanders explains:

Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . [is] to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”

Sarah Silverman Endorses Bernie Sanders Who Has Always Been On the Right Side of History

A Recent Review of My Co-Written Book "God of Godless"

This Christian review quotes Randal Rauser and I throughout his review, ending by saying:

Rauser is perhaps not the best (or at least, not the more forceful) advocate for the Christian position that could have been featured; nevertheless, this is a creative, cordial, well-presented exchange of viewpoints, that will be of great interest to anyone (on either “side”) interested in such debates. --Steven H. Prop, LINK

Bernie Sanders Called "The Amendment King"--"one of the most effective members of Congress"

“I’m a progressive, but I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” Hillary Clinton said at the first Democratic debate, in response to a question from moderator Anderson Cooper about whether she defines herself as a moderate or a progressive.

The implication was that progressive Bernie Sanders is too far to the left to accomplish anything—all of his ideas are pie-in-the-sky. You have to be able to find the bipartisan, “warm, purple space” as Clinton said earlier this year, to get anything done. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie was super-impressed by this rationale, saying Clinton has “skilled use of bureaucratic power.”

The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Not only has Sanders gotten a lot more things done than Clinton did in her own short legislative career, he’s actually one of the most effective members of Congress, passing bills, both big and small, that have reshaped American policy on key issues like poverty, the environment and health care. LINK.

Numbers: 71 Billion Reasons to Tax Churches

LINK.

Satan as God's Management Executive

Recently, I released an ebook called The Problem with "God", which looks at the issues inherent with the nature of God seen in classical theism: omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent. There are a whole number of reasons why it is problematic. I have written a good deal on this topic over many years of blogging, so thought I would put this to good use and compile many of the posts, together with some original material, into one easily digestible anthology at a reasonable price. I also talk a little about Satan and hell, because these entities and ideas, if existent, must make sense in light of a God who could get rid of them with the omnipotent click of the fingers. Here is a short little hint of the issues apparent with this kind of God, and the idea of a nemesis.

Bill Maher Supports Bernie Sanders

What Would The Democratic Presidential Candidates Look Like If They Wore Their Sponsors On Their Sleeves?

Just follow the money (scroll down). The average contribution to the Bernie Sanders campaign is around $30. That's because this is a grassroots movement to revolutionize how politics is done. We aim to make government work for the people. The filthy rich have way too much power. Democracy is about sharing the power. Billionaires with lots of money should not be able to sidetrack the democratic ideals we love for their own self-interests. If we want a democratic America everyone must have equal representation as much as feasible. As it stands, billionaires try to control the election process and in so doing they can nullify hundreds of thousands of votes, and more, by what they do with their money. That's not equal representation. THIS MUST END NOW! If you are tired of the filthy rich manipulating us you must vote for Bernie Sanders.

How and When to Vote for Bernie Sanders

I signed up to help get Bernie Sanders on the ballot in Indiana. We need 500 signatures of registered voters from each district to do this. See if you can help your state achieve their ballot requirements. Keep in mind that if your state doesn't have open primaries, you may be unable to vote for Bernie Sanders unless you are registered as a Democrat. The big battle for the Presidency will take place in the primaries. Democrats will have no other choice but to vote for Sanders if he wins the Democratic nomination, since the Republicans are all nutcases. Register to vote and see how and when to vote right here. I would love to see a Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders Presidential battle, a billionaire against an intellectual who is against that which Trump represents.

Seth MacFarlane Supports Bernie Sanders, Here's Why You Should Too

Family Guy creator and comedian Seth MacFarlane gave a great speech introducing Bernie Sanders. He tells us the moment Bernie Sanders won the debate.

Far from fringe: A historian explains why the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders is an American idea

Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, so what? That's an American idea, so says Bernard Weisberger.

My New Intense Passion, I'm Getting Into Politics

I appreciate all of you, my many readers, very much! You come from different backgrounds and are interested in different kinds of discussions having to do with Christianity. I've tried to give you something to chew on every couple of days or so, and when I don't, other team members thankfully do so.

After every book of mine gets published I usually feel a strong urge to quit blogging, at least for a time. So I was thinking about taking another break, this time a long one. Having grown very tired of debunking Christianity and the ignorant Christan attempts at defending the indefensible, it has gotten boring for me to write on Christianity after almost ten years of making it my focus.

That was then. This is now.

I have a new passion. I'm going to change my focus. I'm getting political. Yep. That's correct. I'm getting into politics. If you are a regular reader of this blog you should understand my change of focus.

Evidence that Big Media does not want Bernie Sanders to win and what this means for his campaign

Polls show Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary debate hands down. Big Media declared otherwise. If anything else Big Media is out of touch with the people. Now It's being argued that these people don't count, that they don't vote, or they are too young to know better. I'm just one person, an intellectual, and I say these polls express my impression of the debate, that Bernie Sanders kicked butt.

Regardless of who won, there are a lot of people who disagreed with Big Media on this. What do you think most of these people will conclude when they see Big Media declare something they consider absurd, that Clinton won the debate? It will be considered strong evidence of what Bernie Sanders is saying. So what do you think many of these people will do after that kind of overwhelming evidence? They will be motivated. Big Media just handed Sanders what his campaign needed. Of course, Sanders put Big Media between a rock and a hard place. If they had declared Sanders the winner, his campaign would be kicked into high gear. So either way they responded it would help his campaign.

Negotiating Book Titles With My Publisher

In case you don't already know, authors/editors don't get to unilaterally choose the titles to their books. They are negotiated with their publishers. So which title for my forthcoming anthology do you think is better of the following two:

Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World’s Largest Religion

VS

Christianity Under the Microscope: Scientifically Testing the World’s Largest Religion

Go Bernie Sanders!

So I was sitting here wondering where I should watch the Democratic presidential debate. Then it hit me. I'll betcha there are like-minded fans of Bernie Sanders who are getting together to watch it. So I ran a search, found a home and invited myself over. Little did I know but that Bernie mentioned people like me who were getting together to watch the debate.

Bernie won, hands down. While Hilliary and the others didn't do poorly and would all make good presidents, Bernie has lit a fire of hope in many of us. He's asking for a political revolution. Nothing less than that will get us moving again and meeting the needs of the American people. Go Bernie!

The Stages of Losing Christian Faith and Discovering Reality

1.  Denial - In this stage the believer is confronted with facts that attacks both the credibility of the so-called “truths of the Bible" and the Christian faith.  Here the believer often counters with apologetically programmed or canned responses.

My Book Is # 1 in Religious Philosophy Books

There is a Religious Philosophy category of books, and as of today mine is ranked #1.That's not too shabby I suppose. What interests me are the top 100 books in this category. Scroll down through them. Looks like some good books are in the pipeline, and others of interest. Here are four of them having to do with suffering:

My Latest Book is Now Being Shipped. It Just Might Be My Best One Yet!

If Theism Is Dead, What Then? James Lindsay Responds.

Recently I wrote a blurb for James Lindsay's new book, Everybody Is Wrong About God.I said:

Lindsay correctly argues in this book that theism (or “God”) is dead, even though most people don’t realize it yet, echoing the words of Nietzsche’s madman. Lindsay surprisingly goes on to argue that if theism is dead then so is atheism. For without theism we shouldn’t be atheists either, just human beings living in a post-theistic secular society where the relevancy of theism for our lives is beneath serious consideration. Lindsay calls us to completely rethink both theism and atheism, and he informs us what this means and how we should proceed into the future. This is a very thought provoking book, sure to be controversial. I love it!

Privately though, I emailed him some concerns:

Richard C. Miller's Book On the Resurrection Is Original and Significant

M. David Litwa recently reviewed the book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity, by Richard C. Miller, calling it both original and significant.

Description: This book offers an original interpretation of the origin and early reception of the most fundamental claim of Christianity: Jesus’ resurrection. Richard Miller contends that the earliest Christians would not have considered the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ resurrection to be literal or historical, but instead would have recognized this narrative as an instance of the trope of divine translation, common within the Hellenistic and Roman mythic traditions. Given this framework, Miller argues, early Christians would have understood the resurrection story as fictitious rather than historical in nature. By drawing connections between the Gospels and ancient Greek and Roman literature, Miller makes the case that the narratives of the resurrection and ascension of Christ applied extensive and unmistakable structural and symbolic language common to Mediterranean "translation fables," stock story patterns derived particularly from the archetypal myths of Heracles and Romulus. In the course of his argument, the author applies a critical lens to the referential and mimetic nature of the Gospel stories, and suggests that adapting the "translation fable" trope to accounts of Jesus’ resurrection functioned to exalt him to the level of the heroes, demigods, and emperors of the Hellenistic and Roman world. Miller’s contentions have significant implications for New Testament scholarship and will provoke discussion among scholars of early Christianity and Classical studies. Full review here.

10 Ways Right-Wing Christians Are Destroying Christianity

LINK.

The World WILL NOT end on October 7

Camping's followers live on

I have written a  newspaper column on why those who believe the world will end on October 7 do not understand their Bibles. Because of space constraints in the newspaper, I would like  to add a further explanation for why using 1,600 days is arbitrary. One must read the newspaper column first to understand my explanation here.

According to an essay by Chris McCann, a promoter of this end date, he can substitute a measure of time for a meaure of physical dimension in Revelation 14:20 because of what is said in Psalm 39:4-5 (King James Version). Note his reasoning:

“If their blood is flowing out of the winepress for the space of '1,600 furlongs,' we wonder if it is possible that God is indicating that the life of the wicked will go on for a period of time of 1,600 days. Is that possible? Can we understand 'furlongs' to represent ‘days’? So we take that question to the Bible, like we took all the other questions and we search the Bible to see if we can make that kind of spiritual substitution. When God is speaking of a 'space' of furlongs, can we understand it as 'days'? There are actually several verses that provide Biblical justification for making that kind of substitution. For instance, it says in Psalm 39:4-5:

JEHOVAH, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am. Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah.”

However, making such a "spiritual" analogy between Psalm 39:4-5 and Revelation 14:20 only highlights how poorly and arbitrarily McCann chooses which numbers to use.

First, the biblical author is speaking of HIS days (“my days”), and not those of anything else in Psalm 39:4-5.

Second, McCann fails to tell us why he chose the number of Revelation 14:20 to signify the number of days after May 21, 2011, when there are many other numbers in Revelation that one could choose (e.g., 5 months of torture in Revelation 9:5).

Third, McCann fails to understand the nature of Hebrew poetic parallelism, wherein a line can simply restate or go beyond a previous line. In this case, “nothing before me” seems to be a further description of a “handbreath.”

That is to say, a “handbreath” seems to be a further description for a small or even zero amount (“as nothing before me”).

If so, one can just as well argue that there will be a ZERO amount of days (not 1,600 days) between May 21, 2011 and the end of the world.

One should not let these apocalyptic interpreters forget that it is atheists who have been 100% correct in predicting that those end dates will fail, while it is believers who have been 100% incorrect. In other words, atheists (and other skeptics) have been the best "prophets" when it comes to these end dates.