John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 5:1

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). In this fifth chapter Beversluis writes about the birth of Jesus. This is part 1 of 2 parts. I've highlighted a few gems from him.

CHAPTER FOUR: A PREGNANT VIRGIN:

Matthew and Luke are the only Gospels that record the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1-23 and Luke 2:1-19). Mark says nothing about it and starts his Gospel thirty years later with the appearance of John the Baptist on the scene. The Gospel of John is, as always, a case unto itself. It starts with a famous (and Hellenistically flavored) passage about “the Word” (logos) that existed “in the beginning” and goes on to say that this Word was not only with God, but was God (John 1:1). The only allusion to the birth of Jesus is the subsequent remark that this Word “was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:11)—a remark that is so oblique that anybody unfamiliar with Matthew and Luke would never guess John was talking about the same person whose birth they record in their Gospels. John has no interest in the so-called “baby Jesus.” He sees his birth in cosmic metaphysical terms—as the incarnation of a pre-existing celestial Logos who not only was God, but who also the Creator of universe (“All things were made by him; and without him was not made anything that was made” (1:3). This heavy-duty (and stoically-influenced philosophical) terminology is completely foreign to Matthew and Luke who are comparative lowbrows concerned only with various factual details about the story.

Read more »

Why I Became An Atheist

I'm John W. Loftus, the author of the book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.

It's unfortunate that the subtitle to my book is a bit misleading. Skeptics think "a former preacher" never knew much to begin with, while Christian philosophers think "a former preacher" cannot challenge them. But my book is being recommended by Christian apologists like Drs. Norman Geisler, James F. Sennett, Mark Linville, Dan Lambert, and Richard Knopp. It's being used in apologetics and atheism classes in both Christian and secular colleges.

My book is being hailed as the "best atheist book of the decade," a "tour de force," the "golden standard," containing the "definitive refutation" of Christianity that stands "head and shoulders above all others." It's being described as "mind-blowing," "a 428 page monster of reason and logic," "awesome," "comprehensive," "fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring." Readers are saying it's "a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity" containing "a crushing cumulative case," which is "invincibly fatal" to the faith.

I don't claim these recommendations are deserved. But that's what readers are saying. If what they're saying is even partially true, then don't let the subtitle mislead you. Just get it and judge for yourself.

Here's what they're saying:

First, a few recommendations from Christians:

 ----------------

Dr. Norman L. Geisler, Christian apologist and author of The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics: "John’s book is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face.”

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

Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "I think his book by Loftus is an important contribution to the current intellectual defense of unbelief and appreciate it for the seriousness with which it takes faith and the intellectual case to be made for it. Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."

In a published review for the Winter 2010 Stone-Campbell Journal Sennett wrote: "Loftus presents a compendium of well-reasoned arguments (wrapped together nicely in a steadily developed “cumulative case”) against the central beliefs of Christianity. His arguments are not the easily-refuted caricatures so often offered in Bible college textbooks and Sunday school materials. They are the genuine article – clear, well-articulated statements of plausible arguments by one who finds them overwhelmingly convincing. I dare say very few preachers, teachers, and Bible students have its likes on their shelves. And it should be there."

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

Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: “Of the spate of books coming from the so-called 'New Atheists' that have appeared in the past few years—Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al—John W. Loftus’s critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today’s premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist.”

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

Roscoe on Amazon wrote: "I was a Christian for 26 years, two of which I was on staff with Young Life Ministries, after reading this book I willfully set my "faith" down. This book helped me realize that my God was a myth and that the Bible was indeed a product of man and not God. When doubting Christians ask me what one book they should read, I say without hesitation, Why I Became an Atheist by John Loftus. I currently have two of my Christian friends reading his book and they are stumped."

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

By "Fox" on Amazon. This book changed my life: "As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.

When I picked up this book I was 100% certain that the Bible was the infallible word of God. When I finished it, I was 90% on my way to complete Atheism. All it took to get me to 100% were a few You Tube videos about the "big bang" and evolution. Once I realized that these "theories" were actually equatable to scientific certainties, I was a full-on Atheist."

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

By rowley32256 wrote: John's book "is the "Gold Standard for Atheist Apologetics. As a believer, I found this book by far the most impressive justification I had ever read of atheism and commend it to fellow theists who are under the mistaken impression that atheists are necessarily narrow-minded, ignorant or irrational."

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

The following recommendations are by non-believers :

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

Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry April/ May 2010: "Doubting Christians beginning to doubt will find this book a juggernaut. If you seek an encyclopedic compendium of arguments against almost any imaginable defense of the Christian faith, this is your book. The reader seeking a comprehensive disproof of Christianity as contemporary evangelicals defend it can do little better than to consult this volume."

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

Dr. Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness Without God: "John's book addresses almost every conceivable argument for Evangelical Christianity in extraordinary and sobering detail. Every important aspect of intellectual Evangelical Christian belief comes in for critique, and often in more depth than you'll find in any other pro-atheism tome. Indeed, unlike, say, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, Loftus is a fully-informed insider who knows what he's talking about. He was fully immersed in making the very case for Christianity that he now tears down. He was trained by the best, is well-read in the field, and gets all the nuances that apologists accuse pop atheists (like Harris and Dawkins) of missing."

"One of the best things that Loftus contributes to the field of atheist philosophy, which I think is required reading for everyone, on both sides of the debate, is his Outsider Test. Given that, and his thorough scope and erudition, I doubt any honest, rational, informed Evangelical can remain in the fold after reading this book. Even though any Christian could pick at bits, the overall force of his case is, IMO, invincibly fatal." To read more see this post.

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

Dr. John Beversluis, author of C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: "No review can begin to do justice to an ambitious book of this scope or to the sustained theological, philosophical, scientific, textual, and historical critique of Christianity that it contains. Suffice it to say at the outset that I have never read a book that presents such a massive and systematic refutation of the claims of Christianity, and I have seldom read a book that marshals evidence (from such a wide variety of disciplines) and documents its claims in such painstaking detail."

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

Dr. Valerie Tarico, author of The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth: “What is unusual about Loftus is his breadth and depth of research in defense of the Christian faith before finally rejecting his faith. Loftus applies himself in this book with the same intellectual rigor he had applied to defending the faith, and effectively dissects those very same arguments. I found myself marveling at the impressively contorted reasoning used by apologists through the ages in defense of their received traditions. They are worth reading from the standpoint of cognitive psychology alone.”

-------------------------
Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True wrote:

I want to give two thumbs up to John Loftus’s book, Why I Became an Atheist. Despite its title, it’s far more than the story of Loftus’s journey from Christian minister to outspoken atheist. It’s really a thoughtful and well-documented dissection of religious arguments and theological claims. And there are two nice chapters on the “problem of suffering,” in which Loftus takes on and destroys the pathetic arguments offered by the faithful for why a good and powerful God allows gratuitous suffering. Link

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

By Johnathan Pearce (on Amazon U.K.): "A tour de force in the world of philosophy and theology. This far outdoes the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens et al, because it argues against theism using a theistic viewpoint. It is a much more capable and thorough approach than work from other such writers and offers serious food for thought. The Problem of Evil chapters are absolute winners, and should be read by anyone who might believe in an omnipotent/scient/benevolent God. Should be on the bookshelf of every critical thinker." 

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

David Van Allen, webmaster of ex-christian.net: "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion. While the book starts out explaining some of his experiential reasons for leaving Christianity, the volume goes far beyond a mere personal testimony and dives deeply into the elemental contradictions of Christianity. Loftus deals evenly with the issues, carefully explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. Loftus' coverage of the problems inherent in the claims of Christianity is comprehensive. Much of what he wrote sounds like an echo of many of my own introspections except expressed through the well oiled mind of an academician."

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

David Mills, author of Atheist Universe: "John W. Loftus is to atheism what Tiger Woods is to golf, or what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Loftus has provided, in this superb and entertaining volume, the crown jewel of the new atheist movement. As much as I admire and enjoy Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett, Loftus is, far and away, my favorite author on this riveting subject. Loftus' esteemed reputation within the freethought community is indeed richly deserved. But this book exceeded even my highest expectations."

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

Dr. Hector Avalos, Biblical scholar and author of The End of Biblical Studies: “Why I Became an Atheist combines a dose of Augustine's Confessions with a cauldron of unremitting rationalism to yield one of the most potent antidotes to Christianity on the market today. If there is such a thing as the New Atheism, then John W. Loftus is one of the standard bearers. Loftus is a former Christian evangelical apologist who became an atheist, and he tells us why in a detail and a depth worthy of the best atheist writers today. It is a well-written, informed, and potent critique of religion and Christianity.”

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

Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism ranks the book among the best books on both sides of this debate. He goes so far as to say it's the "best atheist book of the decade" which is extremely high praise given that he goes on to recommend books by Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis.

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

Christopher Hallquist, president of Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: “The Outsider Test for Faith chapter should earn Loftus a permanent place in the history of critiques of religion.”

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

Edward Tabash, Chair, First Amendment Task Force, Council for Secular Humanism: “This is a wonderful book! I believe that there is no ex-theist who has done a better job of profoundly refuting the claims of religion. You are one of the most precious intellectual treasures an otherwise benighted society can have.”

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

Dan Barker, author of Godless: "John has taken the claims of Christianity seriously, diving in with both feet (full immersion atheism!), unflinchingly examining the exact sources that believers urge us to ponder. When you read Loftus's penetrating analyses, you have no choice but to discard the truth claims of Christianity. As a former fundamentalist minister who has followed a similar path from apostle to apostate, I empathize completely with the deep struggle Loftus had to make in order to shed his former cherished beliefs. I respect his scholarship, but more than that, I admire his courage. There are many treasures in this book, as well as provocative and controversial arguments, all presented with a crystal-clear and brutal honesty that is rare in religious scholarship. Loftus is a true freethinker, willing to follow the facts wherever they happen to lead." 

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

Michael Shermer, Publisher of Skeptic magazine, and the author of How We Believe, The Science of Good and Evil, and Why Darwin Matters. "There is trend sweeping American culture today on the God question, with commentators on all sides ringing in with their opinions and theories about whether God exists or not, the origins of morality with or without God, and the origins and importance of religion. What is unique about John W. Loftus's book is his perspective: a one time Christian apologist who changed his mind and became an atheist. Here we get both sides of the debate between two covers, an honest and honorable look into the soul of belief and what it means to be a nonbeliever."

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

Jeffery Amos, Blog owner of Failing the Insider Test: "In the last year I've devoured numerous books on religion. My rankings are based on their relevance to the question “but is it true?” In order of best to worst:

1. Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity– John W. Loftus. Head. And. Shoulders. Above. All. Others. If your book shopping is based on my recommendations, stop reading my blog and go buy it right now.

This is the best refutation of Evangelical Christianity that I have read. Most of his arguments are a one-two punch of philosophy and biblical analysis. The first hit shows how (insert doctrine of choice) is meaningless/contradictory/impossible and the second hit undercuts the support for the idea actually being true. His philosophical analysis is consistently stellar - he dismantles all the little things in theology that you are supposed to learn but not think about. His biblical arguments switch between the rifle and shotgun approach - he spends the better part of a chapter on a few individual problems, and with others issues his gives a long lists of problems with little elaboration." See here to read more.

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

Jason Long, author of Biblical Nonsense,and The Religious Condition: "John's book is the book I wish I could write. It is probably the best comprehensive book of the issues I’ve read. If you’re looking for an in depth scholarly discussion of apologetic views, by all means, read John’s book."

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

Joe E. Holman, founder of www.ministerturnsatheist.org, and author of Project Bible Truth: A Minister Turns Atheist and Tells All: “The book's central strength lies in its information-rich content. John speaks the language of competent and well-known Christian scholars and apologists of both liberal and conservative affiliation, employing their own words against them, demonstrating that they themselves recognize the grave position they are in when facing the critical eye of a skeptical, modern world. The Outsider Test for Faith is one of those chapters that says what every doubter of religion has always thought but perhaps never said so well. The chapter is an absolute jewel. This work covers some ground that is seldom touched on in other comparable freethought works.”

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

Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God: “John W. Loftus has written an important book that should be read by every Christian who cares about truth and reality. This is not the angry rant of some disgruntled former believer with an axe to grind. Loftus is thorough, fair and convincing. As a former Christian minister and apologist who became an atheist, he knows both sides of the belief question very well. The insights and detailed information contained in this book make for enlightening reading. The chapter on superstition in the Bible was nothing less than mind-blowing. I highly recommend this book."

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

Dr. Frank R. Zindler: "In the cracks between the spaces in time I have been reading your magnum opus and am enjoying it a lot. You produce a crushing cumulative case. Bravo!"

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

Ken W. Daniels, author of "Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary," wrote: "As a former evangelical missionary who lost my faith nearly a decade ago…I believe the process could have been cut significantly shorter if John's book had been available to me years before my crisis finally came to a head. The value of this volume lies…in its bringing together in a single accessible package most of the important criticisms that have been advanced against the Christian faith (and theism in general) since the Enlightenment.

I found Loftus' treatment of the Atonement to be particularly incisive. I have not read a more succinct and effective rejoinder to the penal substitution theory than his.

John's book is an unremitting battery of helpfully organized arguments against orthodox Christianity. Well done, John!

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

Jeffrey Mark, author of Christian No More: "John Loftus is not only a former preacher as the title says, but a trained theologian with advanced degrees. He spent enormous amounts of time learning and perfecting the philosophical arguments that he would later come to refute with this book. Loftus meticulously breaks their arguments down and shows why, when given careful consideration, they fall apart, ultimately leaving no God, no Jesus, and no Holy Spirit. The problem with many atheist vs. Christian debates is that the parties involved have drastically different training. But Loftus, on the other hand, is in a unique position, as he can see eye-to-eye with the Christian theologians. He knows and understands their arguments and can speak their language. This book will change minds. Already many people have let go of their beliefs as a result of this book, and surely many more will."

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

Dr. A.M. Weisberger, non-theistic philosopher and author of Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism: Loftus writes with great honesty and candor about his experiences from both sides of the theistic/nontheistic landscape. His chapters on the problem of evil offer a fine overview of the complex historical debate over the obstacle that evil presents to rational theistic belief. His writing is admirable for maintaining conceptual accuracy while engendering accessibility for the non-technical reader. Highly recommended -- both as a valuable sourcebook for all involved in religious debate, and as a good read.

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

Dr. Robert M. Price, author of The Reason-Driven Life, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and The Paperback Apocalypse. “In this fascinating work you will witness the profound processes that led John W. Loftus out of a deep but finally wrong-headed commitment to Christ and the Christian worldview. There is no way the book will not be of great help with your own journey. For years, apologists have thrown down the gauntlet. Now it is being picked up--by their own students!

 ----------------

Mike Tenenbaum, author of Blessed Assurance? A Demonstration that Christian Fundamentalism is Simply False: "I found this book to be very thoughtful, intelligent, well written, and, what can I say, it was a hard book to put down. I also have written a book critiquing Christianity. But I have to say, if you're going to only read one book on the matter, read John's. If you're interested in a second, maybe check out mine. lol ;) But having been immersed in the faith for myself for many years, and since becoming an atheist, having read many books along these lines, I have to say that John's book sets the gold standard."

 ---------------------

Keith Parsons: "WIBA is a serious book that deals with serious arguments. It is two or three cuts above most of the "new atheist" polemic."

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

Peter Phua, writing for a CFI Blog said my book, "...outlines a comprehensive series of arguments - both philosophical and historical - against the truth claims made by the Christian religion."

"Loftus shows great breadth in the topics he covers, and he discusses the important issues at hand with an appropriate degree of depth, succinctly addressing the best replies to his arguments. The problem of evil is dealt with particularly well. Loftus does not straw-man his opponent's arguments, rather, he summarizes them in their strongest form and takes them head on. It's a book I highly recommend for current (and former) Christians who seek to familiarize themselves with an excellent contemporary summary of the strongest criticisms against the Christian faith."

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

Jeffery Jay Lowder on the Secular Outpost: "I give this book two thumbs way up. In addition to courageously sharing his personal story, Loftus applies his considerable training and expertise into developing a cumulative case against Christianity and for atheism. I cannot think of another book like it on the market. Loftus is clearly familiar with the work of evangelical apologists like Copan, Craig, Geisler, and Moreland, as his book is filled with references to their work and objections to their arguments. In fact, his book might best be described as a “counter-apologetics” textbook. Anyone who reads this blog (The Secular Outpost) but has not yet read Why I Became an Atheist should do so.

 -----------------

Skeptic Dave wrote: "Loftus has succeeded in giving us a very nice all-inclusive overview of every possible card the Christian apologist will play, and refutes them well. Naturally, would you expect anything less from someone who used to play all those cards?" It is a "428 page monster of reason and logic."

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

Dr. William Harwood, author of Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus: “Loftus wrote his book primarily to explain why he ceased to be a believer, but its main value is that it spells out the falsifying evidence that finally cured him and will cure anyone who reads it. Loftus has brought together sufficient evidence of religion’s Achilles’ heel to cause all but the most intransigent believers to ask themselves: Could he be right?”

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

Fintan Amphlett on Facebook wrote: "I would honestly rank your book alongside the best I've ever read of Hume and Russell."

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

A. Hawkins: “If there was one book that I would recommend to a Christian to make him see his religion from the outside it would be this. It's written in a language that a Christian would understand. I believe that John's approach is the best and more notably I think it will have the greatest affect on the Christian. The writing and argumentation shows many years of dealing with the debate at the highest level. Come on Christian, read it. You won't encounter a better attack of your faith."

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

Jennifer Weisbrodt: "'Why I became an Atheist'" by John W. Loftus is excellent from cover-to-cover. This is one of my absolute favorite books that deals with Atheism and I will continue to suggest it to others and use it as a source-book for my own future reference as well…this book is fresh, audacious and thought-inspiring, and I recommend it to all."

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

Sarah Schoonmaker wrote: "Loftus’ book offers the college level a solid introduction to Atheist arguments, while offering thorough responses to popular Christian Theist claims. This resource introduces Atheist objections to Christians, which many have never dealt with them. For even the seasoned Christian apologist, this work still presents a solid challenge.

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

Chris Knight-Griffin: “If you have questions about your faith, read this book. Those nagging questions are addressed and exposed. Every skeptic should have this concise reference book on the desk, dog-eared, tagged, and highlighted. I’ve read Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, and Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. The other books hit the target but John’s book hits the bulls-eye. I doubt anyone with faith could walk away from this book with that faith intact. Awesome book!!!! It is honestly everything I've been looking for so far in my ‘quest’ for knowledge. Thank you!”

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

Andrew Atkinson: “I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler’s works along with the writings of Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, J.P. Moreland, Richard Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan, etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler’s school to study apologetics and philosophy. This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. John’s book was one of the first I read. It was the first skeptic book I read that made me seriously realize that I could be dead wrong! I think John has written by far the best overall refutation of Christianity in print. John’s book is much more accessible, it covers a lot more arguments, it has the best chapters on the problem of evil you can find, it is more interesting to read, it refutes more apologetic arguments then any other book, and it addresses more central issues.”

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

Greg Meeuwsen: “I have read numerous publications on this topic, but I don't believe I've ever seen as many great reasons to reject religion in one place. John’s arguments are numerous and rock-solid. The level of research and brutal logic applied to the Bible is absolutely stunning, as is the sheer number of examples given. There is "no stone unturned", as Loftus takes on nearly every apologist angle ever conceived. This book will give more insight into scholarly unbelief than you ever thought possible.

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

By D. Weatherford (Spanish Fork, Utah): "This is the best all-encompassing critique of Christianity that I have been able to find so far (and I have read A LOT)....if you want a convincing interpretation of the findings of biblical scholarship, archaeology, and philosophy, this is the book you are looking for...the book is so great that I will likely use it often as a reference for further study. Highly recommended!"

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

Stephanie wrote: "I have read numerous books regarding the subject matter you covered in your book and by far, John, yours is the best one for Christians to read. There is no drug we can give a Christian to get them to see how irrational Christianity and all other religions truly are. However, in my opinion, this book is next best thing."

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

R. Baldwin (Panama City, FL) wrote: "Definitive Refutation." "After reading the slew of atheist works published in the last 5 years or so, I was pleasantly surprised by Loftus' comprehensive refutation of every supposedly rational support of Christian positions. This book saves me a lot of research because of Loftus' knowledge of the Bible, the theological and philosophical arguments of contemporary Christian apologists as well as the great Christian theologians and deist philosophers of the past. Only a former pastor and Christian apologist could have written a work of this depth. Every Christian should read this book and judge for themselves whether their arguments stand up to a true spirit of objective analysis. Every skeptic, freethinker, agnostic or atheist who already observed the fact that agnostics and atheists have the best arguments on their side will enjoy the clarity and power with which their point of view is expressed in this book."

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

Kirby Wiese of Vacaville, CA, wrote: "I've been studying religion for most of my life...I've concentrated on Christianity, since that is what I was brought up on, and since I have to deal with it every day in some way living in this country. Having read the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al I wanted to let you know that, in my opinion, while those books drive nails into Christianity (and religion in general) your book drops a ton of bricks on it! I think your handling of the problem of evil would convert any CLEAR THINKING person away from the Christian concept of God."

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

Dave Perry (Tampa, Florida): "I recently completed reading Why I Became an Atheist and would highly recommend this book to both Christians and Atheists. Loftus is a brilliant thinker who methodically and poignantly addresses controversial issues regarding the Christian faith. In doing so, he demonstrates courtesy to Christians and their faith as he thoughtfully and painstakingly addresses a myriad of apologetic arguments, acknowledging their merits while at the same time exposing their flaws. The book is truly a scholarly work."

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

Stephen St. Clair wrote: "I just completed your book and....To say I found it insightful and worthwhile would be a gross understatement. I have yet to read ONE book that addresses all of the issues more cogently (and accurately in my opinion), and I have read a great deal on both sides of this eternal debate/inquiry. Moreover, I compliment you on your efforts to maintain a writing style that made it “comfortable” read. In short, thank you for taking the time to author what should be required reading for everyone."

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

Matthew J. Green: “This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity.”

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

Geoff M. Arnold (Seattle, WA): "Loftus is a scribe: the apologist, the teacher. He was the defender of faith against its critics, and with the detailed knowledge that he acquired in this role, he has become the sharpest critic of religious apology...If you have read some of the authorities that Loftus cites - Mackie, Martin, et al - I would still recommend his book, because he pulls all of the threads together in a compact and accessible manner. If you are unfamiliar with the literature, Loftus may be all you need."

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

Anthony Lawson (Kentucky USA): "I thoroughly enjoyed this book and at times just couldn't put it down. John's deconversion story was very moving and I'm sure rings true for a great many that have gone through the heartache of abandoning the Christian faith. John covers a lot of material in as little space as possible. He deals with each topic adequately and gives the reader references for further reading in the notes and bibliography. All in all one of the best books that I have read on the subject and highly recommended."

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

Paul Harrison: “If you read Christian apologetics, you owe it to yourself to have this anthology of the best arguments against Christian apologetics in your library.”

On Being Passionately Self-Promoting in an Oddly Humble Way

Since David Marshall describes me as "being passionately self-promoting in an oddly humble way," I thought I wouldn't disappoint him by doing it again. ;-) One thing I've noticed is that people are reading my anthologies The Christian Delusion (TCD) and The End of Christianity (TEC) more than my magnum opus Why I Became an Atheist (WIBA), probably because of the wonderful blurbs and contributors. So to help remedy this let me offer just three blurbs about WIBA:

Read more »

What's Wrong With the Courtier's Reply of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins

Trust me, I'm very thankful for the brilliance of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. There's no doubt about that. In some sense they are my intellectual heroes. But the Courtier's Reply as an answer for theology needs to be discussed critically. First off, I do not expect anyone to understand any particular theology in order to reject it. We all do this easily. I doubt very much anyone understands all of the religions they reject. I don't. No one does. We reject them all for the same reasons, because they have not met their own burden of proof. So I agree very much that neither PZ Myers nor Richard Dawkins needs to fully understand the various forms of Christianity in order to reject them all. They can certainly use the Courtier's Reply, and for them it's legitimate, as it is for me when rejecting Hinduism, which I know little about. Christians do not fully understand the other Christianities they reject, so why should anyone expect this from skeptics?

But here's the problem. PZ Meyers and Richard Dawkins, and others, have the clout to recommend those of us who do understand the various Christianities that exist who know how to debunk them on their own terms. But perhaps, and I'm only suggesting perhaps, they are so committed to the Courtier's Reply when it comes to their own lack of understanding of Christian theology that they don't realize this will not do if they want to change the religious landscape. If they do, then may I humbly suggest they recommend the work of Biblical scholars like Robert Price, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman and others like them, as well as philosophers like John Shook, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Keith Parsons, Matt McCormick and others like them. But they can't do it, because they are committed to the Courtier's Reply, and that's a shame. I can embrace the Courtier's Reply when it comes to religions I reject. But given the power and influence of Christianity in particular, they need to recommend and embrace those of us who know it and argue against it. The Courtier's Reply may some day be the blanket response to religion. It isn't yet. Until then let them recommend those of us who do understand the dominant religion of our land, both philosophers and biblical scholars. It takes all of us together with all of our talents, all of our knowledge, and all of our abilities.

More Evidence Christians Just Don't Think

They don't! Not most of them anyway. All they do is defend God not matter what. It's like they are defending themselves or something, and people always do that whenever threatened. We know people create their own religion, their own gospel, and their own God in their own image. We know this! Whatever they believe then God agrees with them about everything. Do you doubt it? Then read this study. So no matter what the problem is they will defend their God because they are defending themselves. Why? Because they are God. God is them. They are one with God anyway. They think the same things. They feel the same things. Argue against God and we are arguing against them. So they take it personally. And nothing we say can penetrate that 200 foot thick impenetrable castle wall around them to fend off attackers. Not even a bunker bomb. Want more proof? Here 'tis.

Read more »

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 3

[First Published 8/3/21] I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). Here is chapter three on "The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke." Do not skip this chapter! It's the most thorough taken-down of the inconsistent, inaccurate, absurd genealogies you will find. It deserves to be studied! I highlighted a few awesome statements of his.

Read more »

More On Being Passionately Self-Promoting in an Oddly Humble Way

Dinesh D'Souza's new book is out, Godforsaken: Bad Things Happen. Is there a God who cares? Yes. Here's proof.In it he does not mention my arguments against a good omnipotent God, even though he has read my book Why I Became an Atheist, and said to me that it contained some things he "hadn't considered before." David Wood's chapter on the problem of evil in Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science,likewise ignores my work. I debated them both so they know of it. It's hard for me not to conclude that they are ignoring it because they cannot answer my arguments. ;-)

Read more »

You Can Now Pre-Order My Revised Book, WIBA

Click here: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.It has 536 pages, a 110 more than the previous edition. It's such a massive revision my publisher is treating it as a new book.

Read more »

Read My Review of John Beversluis's Book, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, in Philosophy Now.

As you can see I highly recommend his book.

Guest Post by Douglas Groothuis on the Problem of Evil

I have a number of Christian scholars I regard as friends that I allow posting here at DC for comment (hit the tag "Christian Scholars" to see a few of them). Doug is writing his magnum opus titled, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Christian Faith, which should be out by August of this year. He emailed me and asked that I publish a short article of his on the problem of evil which appeared in The Christian Research Journal, asking for comment. He'll have a chapter on this topic in his book too.

After reading it I responded:

Read more »

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

I'm done writing and editing books, so I'm highlighting each one of them in thirteen separate posts.

My first published book, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, is my magnum opus! If you don't have it you're missing out on what I consider to be my most important work. Pictured is the 2nd edition published in 2012. The 1st edition was published in 2008. Very rare is an atheist book that gets a second edition!

I'm described as a "Former Preacher" in the title. I'm not just a preacher though. I'm a philosopher with several advanced degrees and plenty of classroom time as an instructor of philosophy, ethics, critical thinking, western literature, apologetics, hermeneutics, and a few Bible classes. I taught for the Trine University, Kellogg Community College, Lincoln Christian College, and Great Lakes Christian College. So the words "Former Preacher" don't fully describe me, even though I was in the ministry for about 15 years, mostly while I was also teaching. I had wanted my publisher to call me a "Former Apologist" but they thought few people understood what that means.

I started teaching philosophy and ethics classes in 1985, first for the College of Lake County, in Grayslake, Illinois. In my first class I lost about half my students. As I think back, it was probably due, in part, because I was a flaming evangelical. A larger factor was because the students could not understand me. Yep, that's right. Being in a Ph.D. program at Marquette University, after earning three masters degrees, I didn't know how to bring the information down to college students. So I thought my teaching career was over before it began. Luckily the chair of the philosophy department told me this happens more often than not for first time philosophy instructors. *Whew*

Over time I became an expert teacher, bringing highly complex ideas down to first year students. I eventually learned how to communicate to the average educated person in the pew. My goal was, and is now, to keep it as simple as possible without being simplistic. The problem with this goal is that there are some elitist readers who think I'm ignorant, for if I was smarter and better educated it would reflect in my vocabulary. Smart, highly educated people, it's assumed, use the nomenclature requisite with their educational achievements.

You can see this same "dumbing down", as the elitists call it, reflected in my writings. While I could use technical philosophical language, and quote from the original Hebrew and Greek languages in the Bible, I found that so long as I was accurate I didn’t need to impress people by writing for the scholars.

This is reflected in a few blurbs for my books.

Read more »

A Response to David Wood, Part 2

In our debate on suffering David Wood mentioned that his “arguments are by no means the only arguments that theists would offer in response to evil." He said "There are entire categories of answers that I won’t be using.” Mr. Wood claimed that the classical theistic position has “probably the strongest response to the problem of evil.” According to Mr. Wood, classical theists (like Thomas Aquinas) didn’t think of God as a personal “moral agent.” When they said God is good, “they didn’t mean that God is an extremely well-behaved person.” In his review of the debate, David said this: “…for classical theists, God is not a person, nor does he have emotions like humans. God isn’t like us at all. A classical theist would reject a concept of God which views him as the sort of being who would come to our rescue when we’re in danger, for this wouldn’t be a changeless, eternal being (and, according to the classical theist, sheer anthropomorphism).”

In our debate, and in his review itself, Mr. Wood mentions this view without arguing for it, so there was nothing I had to respond to, even now. However, I still want to take a look at it.

I'll skip a critque of the classical concept of an eternally unchanging God, since Christians themselves are rejecting such a notion. Suffice it to say that the whole notion that God doesn’t change seems to imply that God never has a new thought, or idea, since everything is an eternal NOW, and there is nothing he can learn. This is woodenly static. God would not be person, of course. But he would end up being a block of ice, a thing. To say he does nothing NEW, thinks nothing NEW, feels nothing NEW, basically means he does nothing, thinks nothing, feels nothing, for it’s all been done. What would it mean for a such a being not to take risks (since the outcome is sure), not to plan (for it’s already been planned), or to think (thinking involves weighing temporal alternatives, does it not?). But if God cannot have a new thought then he cannot think--he is analogous to a block of ice.

The classical theist’s position is defended today by Brian Davies, in his book An Introduction the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford University Press, 1993). Davies questions “whether the theist is bound to regard God as morally good,” and writes, “if the problem of evil depends on thinking of God as a morally good agent and if theists do not have to regard him as such, then the problem is not necessarily a problem for belief in God.”(p. 48) Davies is correct, I think, to say that if the classical theist’s God is not a morally good agent then the problem of evil is a “pseudo-problem,” in exactly the same way that Process theologians do away with the problem of evil by arguing that God is not omnipotent. That’s because in order for there to be a problem of evil theists must first believe that their God is morally good, omnipotent and omniscient in some sense. Lacking these characteristics in a God makes the problem of evil pretty much null and void, although, as I'll argue, there is a price to pay for this view.

Davies makes a distinction between God being known as “good” from God being known as “morally good.” He argues God can be known to be good without also being morally good. What does the word “good” mean when applied to God? Davies writes that “it is implausible to hold that moral goodness is the only goodness there is. There are good chairs, good radios, good dinners, good essays, good books, good poems, good maps, good all sort of things.” So the only way we can know whether or not God is morally good would be to understand the context of the word “good” when applied to God. Theists will typically claim God is a person, and like other persons he should at least be as good as we are when we act good. But Davies argues the phrase “God is a person” “does not occur anywhere in the Bible.” And neither does the Bible say that the Trinity being made up of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “persons” or a “person” either. Even if theists still want to say “God is personal” Davies claims there is something “odd” in thinking God is morally good, “for if we are talking of the maker and sustainer of creatures, must it not, rather, be true that God can be neither morally good nor morally bad?” “To deem an agent to be morally good, we need positive grounds for attributing to that agent virtue or obedience to duty or obligation. And this, of course, means that if something is such that virtue or obedience to duty or obligation cannot be intelligibly attributed to it, we have no reason to think of it as either morally good or morally bad. (p. 49). Davies goes on to argue that God has no obligations or duties to his creature since he is the creator of them all. Only creatures have obligations and duties to their creator and to each other. God is not bound by any moral laws to his creatures. “If anything, it should be said that God must be the cause of duties and obligations, for, if God is the creator, he must be the cause of there being situations in which people have such things. (p. 52).

Roy F. Holland argues in a similar fashion in his article, “On the Form of the Problem of Evil” Against Empiricism: On Education, Epistemology, and Value (Barnes & Nobles Books, 1980). Holland claims that “God is not a member of a moral community, or any community for that matter,” and since moral obligations are only to be found within moral communities, God does not have any moral obligations.

What can be said about these responses to the problem of evil? In the first place, what must be understood about them are that they are all concessionary solutions, that is, they concede that the problem of evil is a powerful argument. So to escape the conclusion of the argument these theists must give up believing God has one or more of the characteristics traditionally ascribed to him, like moral agency, moral goodness, omnipotence and/or omniscience. That’s quite a concession. It’s a concession I’m very pleased to see them admit.

In the second place, the Christian theist has a new problem. It's one I expressed in the debate itself, and it comes from John Beversluis who has argued, that “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.” [C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (Eerdmans, 1985)].

The reason why a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards is because of the kind of God they are left with by conceding the argument from evil. What kind of God are they left with? That’s the question. They have a non-personal God who is not a moral agent. As such this God has no moral obligations to his creatures. This non-personal God can almost be equated with the “Force” of the Star Wars movie (which is neither good nor evil), and as such IT is amoral in our sense of the word, which is the only sense of the word we can rationally know.

This God does not have moral obligations toward his creatures and therefore he can do whatever he wants to us for his own ends and his own glory. If I were to ask whether this God has any obligation to love us, then the answer would be “No.” If I were to ask whether this God has any obligation to tell us the truth, then the answer would be “No.” If I were to ask if this God is under any obligation to help us when we suffer, then the answer would be “No.” Why then does the believer think God loves us, or that he tells us the truth, or that he will help us when we suffer? The believer will answer that God freely chooses to do so. What reasons does the Christian believer have for answering this way? They will answer that God has shown us he loves us in Jesus Christ.

Now there are plenty of reasons for rejecting the claim that Jesus is God, or that his death atoned for our sins, and that he resurrected from the grave. But even if these superstitious claims can be accepted, which are implausible at best, what reason do we have for thinking that God tells us the truth in Jesus, or that Jesus’ death on the cross helps us, or that he will come to our aid when we are suffering? If God has no obligations toward us then what reason does anyone have for thinking Jesus helped us, or that the Bible is a true account of why his death helps us, or why God will help us in our suffering, or keep any of his promises to us? By this very logic God does not have any obligation toward us at all, so even if he did freely choose to show us he cared for us in the ancient past, what reason do we have for supposing he still cares for us? I see none. None based upon the logic of the classical theists viewpoint, that is.

In the third place, what sense can be made that God is not a person when Christians try to understand the incarnation of a purported God-man, Jesus? What sense can be made of such a God-man who both had no moral obligations as a non-moral divine agent, and at the same time had human obligations? How can this purported God-man represent one being, who is both personal and impersonal, who has no obligations and yet has obligations?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, such a concept of God is also inadequate as an object of worship. I might fear him, but then I fear a bully with a baseball bat in his hands too. Such a being is untrustworthy. I cannot believe a single word he speaks. For all that Christians would know, the Bible is not true, the events never occurred, and we would be deceived by this God if we believed it. Nor do I have any guarantees such a being loves me and will help me when I suffer, no matter what I hear him say or see him do. As far as I know from this world, I am just a rat in a maze, or an ant in an ant farm, or a human guinea pig. That’s all, as far as I know, from the logic of the position espoused. I will never worship such a being. If I believed such a Being existed I would probably obey out of fear, but if such a Being could read my thoughts then he would also know I'm rebelling against him as I do.

There is one thing more about this classical view though. It admits what we actually find in the Bible. It admits what I see in the Bible, and the God in the Bible is barbaric.

No wonder then that Christian theologians beginning with Anselm have adopted what's called perfect being theology. Since a proper concept of God must entail he is "the greatest conceivable being," that means God must be omnibenelovent, omnipotent and omniscient. Anything less than this isn't a proper concept of God worthy of worship. However, as classical theology reminds us, maybe God's omnibenelovence cannot be found in the Bible after all! Therein lies the final problem for the Christian theist. Can he have it both ways?

My Encounter With Calvinism

I encountered Calvinism and studied it during the time of my life when I was an Evangelical born again Christian, i.e., having met a theologically conservative Calvinist who shared with me Rushdooney’s, Van Til’s and Gordon Clark’s works published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. I even made two “pilgrimages” to Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania during this period (Westminster Theological Seminary was founded by a former theologian at Princeton Theological Seminary who left that seminary in protest during the "fundamentalist/modernist" controversies of the early 20th century), where I caught a fleeting glance of Cornelius Van Til, talked with a few students, and spent most of my time picking out books in their bookstore. You might think that I would have trouble getting along with those who believed with certainty that miracles (like the gift of tongues) ended during the age of the apostles, and who handed out tracts that stated on the front in bold print, MOURN! GOD HATES YOU! But Calvinism intrigued and even interested me very much at that time.

I attended my friend's "Reformed Anglican" church [a conservative Calvinistic denomination] twice and spoke briefly with his minister. What a “solid” faith, I thought. God “made some vessels for eternal honor and made others for eternal dishonor” simply to bring glory to Himself and demonstrate His eternal “compassion” and eternal “justice.” After the Fall "free will" was just a word (as Calvin and Luther taught). Conversion was up to God. He either bestowed upon people the “gift of saving faith,” or denied it and damned them eternally. In a sense it was a relief, knowing that you were not responsible for anyone else’s salvation. You did not have to plead with anyone, nor devise clever gimmicks to entice them toward the faith as utilized by many Christian youth ministries. [sic] The “absoluteness” of God’s will was emphasized. If someone did not agree, such was God’s will, let them be damned. It was also a demanding faith for those already in it. They had to avoid unclean associations, i.e., anything that might intrude on the “purity” of their theology and behavior. From thence have arisen “Reconstructionist” and "Dominion" Christian movements, consisting of people who would like to see ancient Hebrew laws like the Ten Commandments enforced rather than the Ten Amendments of our present Constitution. (Such folks would apparently rejoice to live in a country were the First Amendment's quarantee of religious freedom was replaced by the First Commandment's "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," under penalty of death.)

I left Calvinism behind after realizing that, unlike the believers I had met, I could

1) Not relinquish the “non-elect” to God’s eternal "justice.” I admitted honestly to myself that heaven would not be heaven for me if such a thing were true.

2) Nor could I conceive of any reasonably good being maintaining an eternal concentration camp.

3) Nor did it seem to me that the doctrine of “total depravity" (both spiritual and mental) of all the "non-elect" appeared true.

4) Nor did the Calvinist rationalization appear true that any and all righteous (and rationally cognizant) behavior manifested by the non-elect was merely “common grace,” without which the world would be a “living hell.”

Speaking of which, why must God's love and even God's "common grace," run out if it was so "common" to begin with? Especially taking into consideration the promise in 1 Corinthians 13 that love was "long suffering," "not jealous," "keeps no record of wrongs," "covers all things," "has faith for all things," "hopes in all things," "endures in all things," and "never fails," but "remains?" (Which is not to deny that true believers have their own ways of attempting to "reconcile" every "question" the Bible's diverse teachings raise, including the above. They wouldn't be true believers if they couldn't accomplish such reconciliations at least in their own eyes. *smile*)

To put some of the questions above in especially stark contrast, take these two dark quotations from the Reformation's two most prominent fathers:

“This is the highest degree of faith, to believe him merciful when he saves so few and damns so many, and to believe him righteous when by his own will he makes us necessarily damnable, so that he seems, according to Erasmus, 'to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than of love.' If, then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith.” [Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s Works, Vol. 33. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, p. 62-63.]

I agreed that worshipping a God who “seemed to delight in the torture of the wretched” would take more faith than I had. Not to mention what Calvin had to say:

“Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?... The decree is dreadful [horribile] indeed, I confess.” [Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book II, chapter xxiii, section 7]

Again, I had to agree, "horribile." Interestingly, I found an ally at that time in C. S. Lewis who appeared to be arguing against such views when he wrote:

“[There are dangers in judging God by moral standards, but] believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshipping Him, is still greater danger... The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict." [Lewis was replying to the Biblical accounts of what he called “the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua” and the account of Peter striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, called ‘Divine’ decrees by those who believe Scripture is without error.-ED.]

Lewis continued: "I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible… To this some will reply ‘ah, but we are fallen and don’t recognize good when we see it.’ But God Himself does not say we are as fallen as all that. He constantly in Scripture appeals to our conscience: ‘Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?’—‘What fault hath my people found in me?’ And so on."

“Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.)... If [on the other hand] ‘good’ simply means ‘what[ever] God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.” [Lewis in letters to John Beversluis]

Lewis put matters succinctly in A Grief Observed:

“The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not ‘So, there’s no God after all,’ but, ‘So, this is what God is really like. Deceive yourself no longer.’"

Even J. P. Holding of Tektonics apologetics, who defends every act of suffering and slaughter directed or performed by God in the Bible in a relatively inerrant fashion, admits that he can no longer believe in hell as a place of eternal "torture." Though Calvin wrote about hell being a place of inconceivable torment, being buffetted about by God's wrath for eternity.

Indeed, besides the lovely notion of "infant damnation" which was agreed upon for centuries by the most prominent Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics, all three groups also appear to have agreed upon the idea of the righteous being overjoyed at the sight of the damned in hell suffering. Orthodox Calvinists and Catholics both defended such a belief for centuries. Such a view was later derided by being called "The Abominable Fancy.")

As for any replies that the description of my personal encounter with Calvinism might receive, I leave my Calvinist friends (or my true believer friends of whatever stripe) with these words:

“The silly fanatic repeats to me... that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice.

"Eh?!

"How, you mad demoniac, do you want me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have of them? Do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to speak otherwise than with my mouth?”

[Voltaire, of course]

On Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" Switching from Evangelicalism to Catholicism.

Evangelical Christians have been bailing ship in the last few decades. They have been moving to "mainstream" versions", "liberal" versions, and Catholic versions. The young ones are a growing group of the "nones" who don't embrace any organized religion at all.

There have been a few intellectual evangelical Christians who became Catholics in recent decades, most notably Francis Beckwith (b. 1960): A philosopher and theologian, he was elected president of the Evangelical Theological Society but converted to Catholicism in 2007.

I did a quick search and found conflicting accounts of the numbers of evangelicals who switched to Catholicism, as opposed to the numbers of Catholics who switched to Evangelicalism, without arriving at a firm conclusion.

Which brings me to Cameron Bertuzzi of the highly popular "Capturing Christianity" apologetics ministry. Ten days ago he announced that he's switching from evangelicalism to Catholicism. It's getting noticed with 76k hits so far.

Read more »

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 1:2

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). The first chapter is the largest one by far at 10,809 words! It was sent to me in two parts so I mistakenly thought I had seven chapters.

There are five parts to it: 1. New Testament Criticism; 2. The Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible; 3. Verbal and Plenary Inspiration: A Semantic Nightmare; 4. What Inspiration Guarantees and Does Not Guarantee; and 5. Back to Thomas Paine. In this installment I'm posting parts 4-5. The "contemporary defenders" he criticizes are Norman Geisler and Josh McDowell.

Read more »