Christian Apologetics Exposed: What the Case of Christian Apologist Randy Everist Demonstrates About Christian Apologetics

This is a blog post meant to illustrate some of the problems with Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is aimed at presenting a "rational basis" for Christian faith by defending Christianity against criticism and presenting a rational basis for their faith. According to R.C. Sproul, "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." This is based on the following verse from the  First Epistle of Peter (3:15) "...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (Wikipedia)

There are conceptual and internal inconsistencies in the Christian apologetic methodology in that faith is the belief without evidence, and knowledge is belief with evidence. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results. The Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard recognized this problem and argued that:

"Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainly. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I don not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith." *

Kierkegaard openly admitted that Christianity was illogical, and in fact a paradox was the center of his faith. This paradox was the Christ. According to Kierkegaard, an "Absolute Paradox" of Christianity was that a temporal being would take physical shape and allow itself, or at least a part of itself, to die a terrible death. Furthermore, the Trinity itself was a paradox, unless it is accepted that any son is his father through reproduction. To accept the paradox of Christian faith was to embrace something without relying upon abstraction, something beyond basic duty to society. At the heart of Christianity is the Christian conception of the trinity--which is illogical.  I posted arguments that demonstrate that this is the case. The Christian apologists cannot provide evidence for the trinity. Their belief in the trinity is founded on faith, and not evidence and reason.

Like the great American pragmatists would say, in particular Charles Peirce, the best way to fix beliefs is NOT via tenacity which is the method of tenaciously holding to ones beliefs no matter what; and NOT by authority, which is the method of going by what those in authority tell us without considering the alternative; and NOT the method of a priori, which is the method of using what is agreeable to a person's reason. It is through inductive, and in particular deductive logic and the Hypothetico-Deductive method--which is self-correcting--that we gain knowledge. When we use a deductive argument, the argument must be valid and the premises must be true, in which case, the conclusion must also be true. If the argument is not valid or sound, then the conclusion does not follow; in which case, one ought come up with another argument, or give up the conclusion. When we use the H-D method, we propose a hypothesis, and then we must present reproducible evidence that supports that hypothesis. If the hypothesis cannot be supported, then the hypothesis is given up. This is what we mean by knowledge, when we say knowledge is based on evidence. The Christian apologist's faith cannot stomach this result. That is why it prefers the aforementioned methods, which do not work as well in fixing beliefs as the H-D method. They use tenacity, ie. they will tenaciously stick to their faith despite the lack of evidence for it, or when there is evidence against it; they use authority, i.e. even when that authority has been proven to be wrong; and they use a priori, i.e. what seems agreeable to their reason when it supports their faith, and not otherwise. So, when apologists claim that they are presenting a rational basis for their faith, they are in fact, putting faith before reason. Their claim to be presenting a rational basis for their faith is only a pretense, for they are not in it to discover truth and knowledge--but only to support their faith based beliefs. Worse yet, when reason goes against their faith, they reject it outright or they use the ad hoc and/or Humpty Dumpty methods in their attempts to rationalize their beliefs and hold to their faith. Let me provide you with an example that illustrates the problem of Christian apologetics when faith comes into conflict with logic, truth, and evidence--when objective reality comes into conflict with subjective reality.

Recently, I presented an argument that proved that the Christian apologist, JW Wartick's blog post illustrated that the Bible makes no sense. Another Christian apologist by the name of Randy Everist commented on my blog, telling me I had not given arguments to support my case, and that I had not provided the proper exegesis of the text--which I actually had done. I answered all his points, and proved that my argument was both valid and sound. I wrote another post pointing out the arguments and exegesis in bold in order to illustrate that his claims were unfounded and that he had not refuted my arguments. His only response was ad hominem --all he could do was ask where I teach, and claim that I am not a "real philosopher." I showed that Randy's replies are those of a "mental baby,' and NOT those of a scholar. Another commenter that goes by the name The Truthful Heretic, made the remark that Randy might be a troll:

"The guy talks of argument in the start, and then thinks this annoying childish way of asking a repetitive personal question, is going to make it look good for him?

I'm thinking maybe he's just a troll, especially because of the "Humpty, Dumpty" as you suggested. Even if not, he is just annoying as hell!

After not being able to refute the argument, and being made to look like a fool, and thereafter trying to use tricks such as using ad hominem as a red herring, he thought he could save face by accepting the Truthful Heretic's potential way out of his predicament by claiming that he was really just a troll. As Randy himself said:

"lol. So which school do you teach at? Yeah, that's what I thought. I AM in fact just trolling, and I never knew how fun it could be! I just have a strict policy of not debating with anyone who is non-serious. Sorry. lol"

Note, that it can be seen from his comment that he has never trolled before, as he did not know how much fun it could be!--thereby telling on himself, that in fact, he was not actually trolling in the first place--he got beaten so bad, in order to save face, he would rather be called a troll! At any rate, Randy's responses to my argument were those of a mental baby or a troll. If his responses were those of a mental baby, then his responses were not those of a scholar. The definition of a troll is:

"In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.    The verb troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.

In modern English usage, the verb troll is a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness." (Wikipedia)

If his responses were those of a troll, then his responses were not those of a scholar. Either way, the Christian apologist Randy Everist's responses were not those of a scholar.

Here, we have a Christian apologist who could not refute my argument that the Bible makes no sense, and as a result, Randy merely resorted to debate tricks such as repeated uses of ad hominem as a red herring. To make matters even worse, in one of Randy's post's called "Debate Tactics" he also said the following:

" Though I do not condone debate tactics for the sake of winning a debate, I do want people to recognize when particular tactics are done to them. We ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right. We rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God. That said, many times atheists/skeptics (and even believers) evince some confusion (or outright dishonesty) when it comes to debate tactics."

Randy Everist claims that "we ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right, and that we rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God"--but his responses and his actions demonstrated, that in fact, he was not concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of  God!  When the argument and evidence went against his faith, Randy Everist, by his own declaration, resorted to debate tricks and trolling--just to save face and to hide from the truth that the Bible makes no sense--and to hold onto his faith.

Randy went ad hoc by pretending to be a scholar who refuted my argument, to claiming he was just trolling after the Truthful Heretic said that Randy might be  a troll because of his inability to grasp the arguments, and because of his use of ad hominem. Randy saw this as a way out of his predicament, and to avoid looking like a fool, and to hold onto his faith, he claimed to be a troll instead. However, through our interaction on this blog, Randy has illustrated what is wrong with Christian apologetics. For them, faith overrides logic and truth--which results in the use of ad hominem and these types of ad hoc responses and Humpty Dumpty Semantics when they cannot refute an opposing argument that would undermine their faith. In the face of logic and evidence that does not support their faith, or if it goes against their faith, they will hold to their faith--no matter what.

Now, let me say something more on the difference between debating and philosophy. The art of debate is usually, but not always housed in the Communications department, and not the Philosophy Department. Let me explain why. Debate is concerned with winning people over to one side or another, and not whether what they are arguing is true or not. Why, a person, if they can get away with it, can use fallacious arguments, or whatever other means (such as avoiding to answer a question that they know the answer to because it would defeat their position) A philosopher--and by philosopher, I mean a REAL philosopher--ought to be concerned with getting at the truth. The definition of philosophy is the study of knowledge, and as a philosopher, I seek truth and knowledge--not just for the sake of knowledge but to increase the overall good. As a philosopher, I use logic and the dialectical process towards that goal. On the other hand, we have Christian apologists, like Randy Everist, who only accept arguments and evidence when they are "in alignment" with their Christian faith and are only concerned with winning a debate. Randy Everest demonstrates the mental baby and troll aspects of Christian apologetics and their lack of scholarship. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against  their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results.  This is one of the biggest problems with Christian apologetics--using any means necessary, regardless of whether it is true or not.

*Classics of Western Philosophy Steven Cahn. p. 1014

Why I Hate Thanksgiving

For most Americans, Thanksgiving is a time where family and friends gather together to "Thank God" for their "blessings" --which I find bizarre.  Traditionally, Thanksgiving is said to have originated with the Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians who are said to have shared an autumn harvest feast in the year 1621, but the roots of Thanksgiving are deeper than that.  Harvest celebrations were common amongst many groups--from the the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who feasted and paid tribute to their gods after the fall harvest to the Puritans themselves who already had  a tradition of providential holidays before they arrived in America, which included days of fasting during difficult or pivotal moments, and days of feasting and celebration to thank God in times of plenty.   I, however, see the Thanksgiving "celebration" in an entirely different light.  Like Christmas and Easter, I see Thanksgiving as a facade, a ruse, a lie--and an insult.  Let me tell you why.

After reading "American Holocaust" by David Stannard, among many other books on the subject, I came to realize that the "Puritans" were nothing short of barbaric, and the Christians who first came to America with the promise of owning land and being free to practice their own religion--did so at the expense of the Native Americans.  Ironically, those Puritans who came for land and the freedom to practice their own religion--took those rights away from the Native Americans.  Their lands, their freedom, and their religions were forcibly taken away from them in the name of "freedom" and the Christian god.   In the beginning, the Indians, being  altruistic, had helped the Christians survive when they first arrived by showing them how to tap maple trees for syrup, and showing them what plants were safe to eat, etc.  Many Indian tribes lived cooperatively, and routinely shared their bounty with others, so this was not an uncommon practice for them.  To repay them for their kindness however, the Christians stole the Indian's food, stole their land, and forced those that survived to adopt the white man's god. This persecution continued until almost all of them were either dead, or living on reservation land which was unsuitable for growing crops or grazing cattle--leaving them a poor and broken people.

In this process, which included many Natives dying because they had no immunity to the diseases the Christians brought with them, many groups of Native Americans were literally exterminated.   So what part did the Christian god play in all of this?  When the diseases that the Christians brought to the New World began to decimate populations of Native Americans, the Christians believed this was due to the "judgement of God" and they also believed this was a sign from God giving them permission to eliminate the Native Americans in other ways as well--as according to them, the Indians were savages anyway, and no better than animals.  The torture and genocide of the Native Americans was caused by Christians who believed they have "dominion" over the earth, and everything on it, and as David Stannard explains in "American Holocaust" this is typically how Christians "dominated" the Americas:

"Thousands of native people were killed, their villages and crops burned to the ground.  In a single early massacre 600 Indians were destroyed.  It was, says the recent account of two historians, "a seventeenth-century My Lai" in which the Christians "ran amok, killing the wounded men, women and children indiscriminately, firing the camp, burning the Indians alive or dead in their huts."  A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a "barbeque."  More butchery was to follow. " *

In reference to the slaughter and literal "hunting" of Native Americans (It was a popular sport in New England for a time), writers of the time expressed their feelings for the atrocities committed against the Native Americans by stating that it was, "God's Will which will at last give us cause to say, How Great is his Goodness! and how great is his Beauty!" and "thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust."**

I encourage everyone who is interested in the history of what really happened to the Native Americans  to read "American Holocaust."  It could change the way you view the world.  I am thankful for my life, and for the fact I was lucky enough to be born in a wealthy country, and I pay it forward by donating to Food Banks, and other charities.  I doubt the small Christian children in Africa who are starving to death are thankful for much in life--which is another reason why I hate Thanksgiving.  Thanksgiving in America is an excuse for gluttony--which is not only one of the "seven deadly sins"-- it is an insult to the starving in the world.  Instead of spending the money on the extravagance of Thanksgiving dinners at home, that money would be better spent feeding those who cannot feed themselves.  That would be a "real Thanksgiving."


* American Holocaust, David Stannard p. 115
** Ibid., p. 116

On the Meaning of Exegesis, and How it Applies to Free Will and Determinism, and the Conceptual Problem It Presents for Christianity--My Reply to a Commenter on This Blog

The only way to adequately respond to a recent comment by Randy on this blog, was to write a post explaining the meaning of exegesis, and how I presented my exegesis in the post. Note, that when one  is NOT applying Humpty Dumpty Semantics to the text, the exegesis need not be all that complicated; and if one is in opposition to a particular explanation or interpretation, they can offer an alternate exegesis, and I will respond in kind.

The original post was a critique of Christian blogger, JW Wartick's  book review on Paul Helm's “Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time,”  I hope it will help Randy and others better understand the argument, and the issues at hand. I look forward to any opposing exegesis of the passages in question.  I will respond in kind.  Note, for the argument to work, it needs only one free will and one deterministic passage which cannot be reconciled.

Below, is Randy's latest comment on my post:

I'm sorry, that's not exegesis. Simply quoting a verse and then proclaiming the verse means what you say it means--when that is precisely the question--is not exegesis. It's question begging. Similarly, appealing to authority won't work--especially because it is neither the orthodox nor majority view of Christianity, nor has it ever been. I'm sorry if you found some of my words too big. I'll answer your argument when you answer my two-part request: first, you have to make an argument (not just an assertion).

Let me remind you of the original argument I presented. According to Wartick, "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." 

This is exactly right, and as a result, WARTICK HAS ILLUSTRATED THAT THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE. First, let me set this out as an argument so that you can see how it works. Secondly, I will show that the bible does espouse responsibility and determinism. Here is the argument:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

Note, P1 is supported by Wartick's claim that "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

Exegesis is the systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage. Definition of exegesis: exposition, explanation; especially : an explanation or critical interpretation of a text. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance. I have set forth the meaning of and explained the meaning of certain Biblical passages both deterministic and free will passages. I gave my interpretation of these passages. My exposition, explanation, and critical interpretation of the passages are based on a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of the biblical passages--thus, it is not just a mere proclamation, it is based on the actual text!

For example, as I stated in my previous blog post: (I will put in bold face and underline my exegesis for you.)

"According to the bible, redemption can come only through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19)"

and,

The bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism via the passages mentioned above, as well as my favorite passage from (Proverbs 16:33),  "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." These, and other passages such as Ephesians 1:11; Lamentations 3:37-38; James 4:13-15; Psalm 139:16 and Matt 10:29-30 support the case for determinism.

and,

"Now, let us consider an OT passage, and a NT passage. First, the OT passage:

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Proverbs 16:33

If its every decision is from the Lord, then the Lord determines everything about the decision.

Now the NT passage:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," Ephesians 2:8

So, with regards to ones' salvation, this is determined by your god Yahweh--it is not of your own doing."

and,

"On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19)"

This is my exposition, explanation, and critical interpretation of the Biblical passages that I offered as either having a deterministic meaning or a free will meaning. I further supported my exposition, explanation, and critical interpretation of the Biblical passages by providing the historical exegesis and arguments from Christian scholars and theologians. I feel no need to reinvent the wheel, and thus provided links to the relevant information in my blog post. I leave it open to the reader to decide for themselves whether to accept my exposition, explanation, and critical interpretation of the Biblical passages that I presented as ether deterministic or free will. If someone opposes my exposition, explanation, and critical interpretation of the Biblical passages that I offered as either having a deterministic meaning or a free will meaning--then let them DO THE WORK AND PROVIDE OPPOSING EXPOSITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, AND CRITICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBICAL PASSAGES AND SHOW THAT, either there are no deterministic passages, or that there are no free will passages, or that somehow you can have deterministic passages and free will passages that espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism. For example: "Wesley insisted on prevenient grace as a solution to two great problems in Christianity: the belief of original sin and the Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Developing the idea based upon the witness of Scripture, Wesley thought that prevenient grace enabled the doctrines of original sin and salvation by grace to co-exist while still maintaining God's sovereignty and holy character as well as human freedom."(Wikipedia) BUT DO NOT FORGET THAT MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON WARTICK'S CLAIM THAT: "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

The Calvinists have a reply to Wesley's conception of prevenient grace as dissolving the problem of the Bible having both deterministic and free will passages. I think that the Calvinists are correct:

"Calvinists have their own doctrine of prevenient grace, arguably closer to the original Augustinian conception, which they identify with the act of regeneration and which is immediately and necessarily followed by faith. Because of the necessity of salvation following this dispensation of prevenient grace, it is called irresistible grace. Wesleyan prevenient grace also contrasts with the Calvinist understanding of common grace by which God shows general mercy to everyone (Matt. 5:43-48), restrains sin, and gives humankind a knowledge of God and of their sinfulness and need of rescue from sin. Common grace is thus said to leave people without excuse. Arminians object that Calvinist common grace leaves people absolutely incapable of coming to God (a point on which Calvinists agree) and thus do not believe it leaves them without excuse.

"Calvinists further maintain that when the Bible speaks of humanity's condition of total depravity, of spiritual death, it speaks of it as an actuality, not a hypothetical condition that prevenient grace resolves for everyone, as they believe the Wesleyan doctrine teaches. Calvinists see all people as either dead in their sins or alive in Christ (Eph. 2:1-5), and they see the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace as creating a third state, neither dead nor alive.[9] Calvinists understand "dead in sin" to mean absolutely incapable of all good, whereas Arminians understand it to mean the state of being separated from God by sin, but capable of choosing God when enabled to by grace."(Wikipedia)

I agree with the Calvinists because according to the bible, redemption can come ONLY through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) The person has no say in it, as the passages says it is not of themselves.--it is determined by Yahweh. Wesley's conception of prevenient grace does not dissolve the problem. Again, if you disagree, DO THE WORK AND PROVIDE OPPOSING EXPOSITIONS, EXPLANATIONS, AND CRITICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBICAL PASSAGES AND SHOW THAT I am wrong. I will respond in kind.

As I said, I feel no need to reinvent the wheel, the following is from the links that I provided from Wikipedia:

"According to Arminius, there is such a thing as prevenient grace, which is divine grace that precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, and if it cannot be resisted, then the person has no free will on this matter.  Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation.

Scriptures used to support the doctrine of prevenient grace include the following:

Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV): "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."

Jeremiah 31:3 (KJV): "...I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."

Ezekiel 34:11, 16 (ESV): "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out...I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak..."

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..."

John 12:32: "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

Romans 2:4: "...the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance..."

Philippians 2:12-13: "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God that worketh in you according to his good pleasure, both to will and to do."

1 John 4:19: "We love him, because he first loved us."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."(Wikipedia)

According to John Calvin, humans are in a state of total depravity, and there is no free will at all due to Divine Sovereignty.

Again, no need for me to reinvent the wheel.

"Biblical support for the doctrine of total depravity:

A number of passages in the Bible are used to support the doctrine, including (quotations are from the English Standard Version except where noted):

• Genesis 6:5: "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
• Genesis 8:21: "And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
• Job 15:14: What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?
• Job 15:15: Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks injustice like water!
• Job 25:4-6: How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? 5 Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes; 6 how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!"
• Psalms 51:5: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
• Psalms 58:3: "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies."
• Ecclesiastes 7:20: "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."
• Ecclesiastes 9:3: "This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead."
• Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"
• Jeremiah 13:23: (NIV): "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."
• Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away"
• Isaiah 64:7 "There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you, for you have hidden your face from us and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities."
• Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand."
• Mark 7:21-23: "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."
• John 3:19: "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."
• John 6:44: "[Jesus said,] 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'"
• John 6:64-65: "[Jesus said,] 'But there are some of you who do not believe.' (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"
• John 8:34: "Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.'"
• Romans 3:10-11: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."
• Romans 8:7-8: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
• 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
• Ephesians 2:1-3: "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (our depravity being emphasized in the concept of being "dead"; only something external -i.e. God- can give a dead man life)
• Titus 3:3: "For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another." (Wikipedia)
  

"According to Calvinism, those who obtain salvation do so, not by their own "free" will, but because of the sovereign grace of God. That is, men yield to grace, not finally because their consciences were more tender or their faith more tenacious than that of other men. Rather, the willingness and ability to do God's will, are evidence of God's own faithfulness to save men from the power and the penalty of sin, and since man is so corrupt that he will not decide and cannot be wooed to follow after God, God must powerfully intervene. In short, Calvinism argues that regeneration must precede faith. "(Wikipedia)

Biblical support for the doctrine Divine Sovereignty and Irresistible Grace:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God," Ephesians 2:8

John 6:37,39: "All that the Father gives me will come to me.... And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day."[ESV]

John 6:44–45: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.... Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me."[ESV]

John 6:65: "(N)o one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

"Proponents of Arminianism argue that the word "draw" (Greek: ἕλκω, helkô)[12] as used in John 6:44 does not require the sense of "drag", though they admit this is the word's usual meaning (as in Jn. 18:10; 21:6; 21:11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas. 2:6). They point to John 12:32 as an example: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." Arminians interpret this to mean that Jesus draws all people to Himself but some are able resist this drawing since, if the call is truly irresistible, then all must come to Christ and be saved. They may also note that in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 38:13, when Jeremiah is lifted out of the pit where he was left to die, this Greek verb is used for the action which his rescuers performed after he voluntarily secured the ropes under his armpits, and that this rescue was certainly performed in cooperation with Jeremiah's wishes. Therefore, they may argue, even if the semantics of "draw" are understood in the usual sense, this should only be taken to indicate the source of the power, not the question of whether the person being drawn independently desires the drawing, or to indicate that the drawing is done irrespective of their wishes.

Calvinists argue that (1) the word "draw" should be understood according to its usual semantics in both John 6:44 and 12:32; (2) the word "all" (translated "all people" in v. 12:32) should be taken in the sense of "all kinds of people" rather than "every individual"; and thus (3) the former verse refers to an irresistible internal call to salvation and the latter to the opening of the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles, not a universal, resistible internal call. Some have asserted on this basis that the text of John 6:44 can entail either universalism or Calvinism, but not Arminianism.[13]
Arminian William Barclay argues that "man's resistance can defeat the pull of God" mentioned in John 6:44, but commentator Leon Morris contends that "(n)ot one of (Barclay's) examples of the verb ('draw') shows the resistance as successful. Indeed we can go further. There is not one example in the New Testament of the use of this verb where the resistance is successful. Always the drawing power is triumphant, as here.""(Wikipedia)

External links:

Pro

• "Of Effectual Calling" from John Gill's Body of Doctrinal Divinity
• "Concerning Efficacious Grace" by Jonathan Edwards
• "Efficacious Grace", section 3.14.4 from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology
• "On Regeneration", a sermon by Charles Spurgeon
• "Irresistible Grace" by John Murray
• "Efficacious Grace", chapter 13 from Loraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
• "Regeneration Precedes Faith" by R. C. Sproul
• "Irresistible Grace" by John Piper
• Many articles on irresistible grace by various authors
  

Con

• Sermon #58: "On Predestination" by John Wesley

• Sermon #128: "Free Grace" by John Wesley

• Irresistible Grace

• Prevenient Grace by Gregory Neal

• Calvinism and John 6: An Exegetical Response by Steve Witzki

• Free Grace or Forced Grace? by Steve Witski "

So again, as Wartick pointed out: "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!! There may be one way out of this. Perhaps Yahweh is not able to express himself clearly to the Biblical writers, or the Biblical writers have trouble expressing themselves in a clear and distinct fashion which has led so many passages to being mistaken for either deterministic passages which actually are free will passages; or free will passages which are actually deterministic passages. Ah, but then the Bible would still make no sense!!

The Christian Apologist Blogger JW Wartick Offers Fodder for the Case that the Bible Makes No Sense

The Christian apologist blogger JW Wartick, in his  book review on Paul Helm's “Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time,” states that:

"Helm here turns to compatiblism. He freely admits that timeless creation entails determinism (170). Thus, he denies that humans have free will in the libertarian sense. But this, he argues, does not undermine human responsibility. I don’t think I can do justice to the nuances of his argument, but the basic idea is that Helm argues that just because past actions/events determine our actions in the future, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t responsible for what we do. As I said, this is a really, really watered down version of his argument, but I think this is one of the weaker points of his work.

Why? Because the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism. For consider the idea proposed here. God has created all of time and space as one bloc. Thus, everything I do or have ever done was created by God once he brought the universe into being. Literally, everything I did, I do because God created the universe such that I would do x. So how could it be that I am responsible for doing x, if I never chose to do x. I simply do x because I have to, I have “already” done it, on the static theory. If I could create a time travel device, I could travel forward in time and see myself doing x, and could not prevent it, because God created the world such that I would do x. But the core of responsibility is that I chose to do x. While we punish people for things they do by accident (vehicular manslaughter, for example, or accidentally breaking a window), these things still resulted from prior choices (playing baseball near breakable window/driving carelessly). I simply do not see how any account of responsibility could make sense unless someone can choose to do what they do."

So, according to Wartick, "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." This is exactly right, and as a result, WARTICK HAS ILLUSTRATED THAT THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE. First, let me set this out as an argument so that you can see how it works. Secondly, I will show that the bible does espouse responsibility and determinism. Here is the argument:

P1. If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense.

P2. The Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism.

C. Therefore, the Bible makes no sense.

Note, P1 is supported by Wartick's claim that "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism."

Many scholars, including Christian philosophers from Augustine to Pelagius, as well as secular philosophers, have long recognized the conceptual problem of the idea of responsibility and determinism presented in the bible via the roles played by man and Yahweh in the drama of salvation. According to the bible, redemption can come only through the offering of Yahweh of himself, and if a believer is saved, it is ONLY through Yahweh's grace, and it is NOT of themselves. (Ephesians 2:8) On the other hand, the bible also claims that humans chose to sin in the first place, and are FREE to make their own choices, and it must be their own choice to accept Yahweh's salvation, as the bible is also full of admonitions to repent and believe (Acts 3:19) Thus, we have a contradiction in that according to the bible, everything is due to, and determined by Yahweh; and the claim that salvation is the result of the responsibility of man's response to choose freely. As Wartick points out--THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!

As a result of this nonsense, as I mentioned above, Christian philosophers have battled over this issue for centuries, and to this day we have multiple denominations and groups in which some believe in determinism, and some believe in free will, and some believe both!. The battle has been raging for a long time, as the early Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Pelagius disagreed concerning the issue of determinism and free will, and the disagreements continued throughout history, as noted theologians such as Jacobus Arminius espoused the idea of free will, whereas John Calvin and Martin Luther were on the side of determinism.   All this disagreement is due to the fact that the bible is inconsistent and contradictory on the subject of free will and determinism.

According to Arminius, there is such a thing as prevenient grace, which is divine grace that precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, and if it cannot be resisted, then the person has no free will on this matter.  Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. According to John Calvin, humans are in a state of total depravity, and there is no free will at all due to Divine Sovereignty.


This table, taken from Wikipedia, summarizes the classical views of three different Protestant beliefs about salvation.

All these inconsistent and contradictory views are based on the bible. The bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism via the passages mentioned above, as well as my favorite passage from (Proverbs 16:33),  "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." These, and other passages such as Ephesians 1:11; Lamentations 3:37-38; James 4:13-15; Psalm 139:16 and Matt 10:29-30 support the case for determinism.  For more information and arguments for the case on biblical determinism, see Calvinism.

As Wartick pointed out: "... the idea of responsibility simply does not make sense on determinism, particularly when it is theistic determinism." If there are parts of the bible that espouse the idea of responsibility and determinism then the Bible makes no sense. As I have shown, that is exactly what the Bible espouses--the Bible espouses the idea of responsibility and determinism. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE MAKES NO SENSE!!

Christian Blogger Wintery Knight Illustrates That the Christian God is Egotistical and Sadistic!

 

I had been meaning to post this earlier, but I got caught up in responding to comments made by "anonymous" on this blog. Now that that is done, time to move on.

In this blog post, I will show that Wintery Knight's attempt to answer the problem of evil fails, and that in fact, he shows us that if the Christian god exists, then he is egotistical and sadistic. Once again, the Wintery Knight has written a post in which his lack of thinking skills "hurts my brain." Ouch!! Let me illustrate. This is the conclusion he drew from a paper on the problem of evil:

What the atheist has to show is that God could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness. I.e. - the atheist has to show how a dentist can fill a cavity without using a drill, (or even using air abrasion). That's the burden of proof on the atheist, and Alston claims that the atheist is not in a position to know that. It's not enough to say "I don't see why dentists would have to resort to letting me suffer". The atheist has to prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering. He has to show that you can get the same good result without losing the good that allowing the suffering achieved.
Remember that on the Christian view, the good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life, regardless of their knowledge, wisdom and character. That's what atheists think, though. They think that God, if he exists, is obligated to make them feel happy all the time and not to be actively involved in forming their knowledge, wisdom and character without harming their free will. God has a purpose - to work in the world so that everyone who can freely respond to him will respond to him. The Bible says that allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY. Who is the atheist to question whether God could get all the people who will respond to him to respond with less suffering? How would the atheist know that?
But as I said before, atheist confuse the purpose of life. They think that the purpose of life is to have happy feelings, and they wonder "how could allowing me to suffer create MORE happy feelings?" And that's where the problem arises. They can't get past the idea that God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs.

Wintery Knight's argument does not even get off the ground, because first he must prove a god exists before anyone could show that god could prevent any evil. Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim to prove that claim. It is only when he can show his all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god exists that he can say atheists must show that God "could have prevented some instance of evil that appears to be pointless without losing any overall goodness." What an atheist has to show in this case however, is that the type of god Christians claims exists, i.e. an all-powerful, all good, all knowing god, is inconsistent with a world of suffering--THIS is the problem of evil. If Yahweh is all powerful, and all knowing he could accomplish any of his tasks without the need for suffering--or he would not be all powerful and all knowing. If he was all good, he would want to create a world without any pain and suffering, since it would be within his power and knowledge to do so. But clearly we have pain and suffering. Therefore, Yahweh is not all knowing, all good, or all powerful.

Wintery Knight's analogy in this case does not rid us of the problem of evil--in fact it supports the problem of evil!  Of course, the dentists cannot do their jobs without some pain and suffering, because they are not all good, all knowing and all powerful--they do not have the power and knowledge to do their jobs without some pain and suffering. Now it could be the case that there is no other way to do it given the way our world is, that is, according to the laws of nature. But then, that just goes to show that the dentist is not all powerful--that he is subject to the laws of nature. Likewise, it would also be the case then, that if Yahweh could not create a world without suffering because it is not possible to do so, then he is not all knowing and not all powerful--as there is something he cannot do. Note, some religions, such as Taoism claim that the Tao came before the universe and gods/goddesses. Thus, it makes sense in this case that any such gods and goddesses are not subject to the problem of evil, as the universe and the laws of nature were not created by them, and so, it follows that there may be things that they cannot do given the nature of the universe. However, the Christian god is claimed to have created everything, and therefore, as the bible tells us, is responsible for it all, as it states in Proverbs 16:33 and various other places that "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." Given this scenario, the Christians claimed he created the universe and the laws of nature. Thus, if he were all knowing and all powerful, then he could have created a universe without pain and suffering, and still have satisfied his needs--but he chose not to. This makes the best explanation for Yahweh is that he is egotistical and sadistic, or he did not create the universe and the laws of nature, and he is not all powerful, or all knowing.

The Christians face another dilemma. According to the Christian eschatological view, our pain and suffering is the result of the sin committed by Adam and Eve. But could not Yahweh have created a world where Adam and Eve were free, and chose not to sin? If he could have created such a world and chose not to, then the best explanation for our pain and suffering is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist. Since Yahweh is said to have created heaven without pain and suffering, but not our world, this further illustrates that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.  If Yahweh created a heaven where people are happy and "sinless,"Yahweh could have also created earth in the same manner--but chose to have his children be inflicted by pain and suffering instead. Surely--the actions of an egotistical and sadistic god. Christian apologists have been asked, "How can we be free in heaven and not sin?" Their answer has been that man does retain his free will in heaven, but loses the capacity to sin.  How does this work? We are told by the Christian apologists that the Christian god gives humans a new "godly nature" when they become "saved." They are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and given a new nature. 2 Peter 1:4 states "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature." So, we see that those who are saved are given a nature that is radically different than the fallen nature that is said to be inherited from Adam and Eve. This claim is based on Augustine's conception of original sin. Supposedly, this new nature is godly, agreeing with all the precepts and laws of God, and since they completely obey all God's laws, they would be sinless, as Jesus was said to be without sin, and therefore, he was perfect. (2 Cor. 3:21;Matt 5:17) Now, for our purposes, and with reference to the problem of evil, the most significant point is that this "nature" that is given to humans by god means that they will not sin, but yet, they are still considered to be "free." This hammers home the point that Yahweh could have created us in such a way that we were free, and yet never sinned in the first place--thus, avoiding pain and suffering. He could have created us with a "godly" nature in the first place, but obviously, according to Christians and the bible, he chose not to. Again, the best explanation for this, is that if Yahweh existed as depicted by Christians and the bible, then he is a egotistical and sadistic god because, as Wintery Knight tells us, Yahweh chose to make this world to satisfy HIS needs. He NEEDS to experience the pain and suffering of his children to satisfy some needs that he has. What needs could these be, other than sadistic needs, given the fact he could have created a world without pain and suffering, one in which love and respect is absolute?? All the pain and suffering could have been avoided if Yahweh had created a world in which humans had a godly nature, and thus had free will and no sin in the first place. Truly--a sadistic god.

Now, Christians might claim that if we do not experience pain and suffering, then we would have no knowledge of "good." The first point is that if this was the case, then Yahweh would not be all-knowing and all-powerful, as clearly he could have created us with a godly nature, and the knowledge of good, without having to experience pain and suffering, as this would be something he could not do. Thus, how is it that god knows the difference between good and evil, when according to Christians, he has this knowledge, but has not sinned? How did Yahweh have the knowledge of pain and suffering before the "Fall of Man"? He would have had no experience of pain and suffering, but yet, he knew what it was, and since he is said to be the creator of all things, he created pain and suffering. Thus, he could have created us with a godly nature, and knowledge of pain and suffering and good and evil, without having to have us experience it.

Wintery Knight claims that the "...good aim that God has is NOT to make humans have happy feelings in this life." According to Wintery Knight then, Yahweh is not about giving human beings happy feelings in this life. Now, based on the stories of the bible, and what we have experienced in this world throughout history, it confirms that Wintery Knight is at least right on this one point. It is clear that Yahweh is definitely not about giving human beings happy feelings! In fact, the bible tells us that Yahweh is responsible for misery! (I mean, he did create evil after all, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7) Assume this is true. If this is true, then given the pain and suffering depicted in the bible, and the pain and suffering we experience in our world, it would support the conclusion that Yahweh has no interest in the happiness of humanity. The best explanation for this behavior is that Yahweh is an egotistical sadist.

Wintery Knight goes on to say that "...allowing pain and suffering is one of the ways that he (Yahweh) gets that group of people who are willing to respond to respond to him - FREELY." According to Wintery Knight, people will respond FREELY to Yahweh when inflicted with pain and suffering--this is despicable. The use of pain and suffering in order to make someone "respond" to you is a form a coercion. (Just as the Christians did to the so-called witches" when they tortured them for crimes they had not committed until they FREELY "confessed") As I have shown above, Yahweh could have created a world where people respond to him as a result of their "godly nature." Instead, Yahweh could have created a world in which there would be no need for any coercion of any type--but he CHOSE to use pain and suffering in order to FREELY(?) ALLOW(?) us to respond to him--these, dear Wintery Knight, are the manipulations and actions of an egotistical sadist. Even if Yahweh had not made us with this "godly nature," your god could choose to whisper in our ears, or give us any number of signs--but no, he chose pain and suffering. How bizarre. Not only is it bizarre, but it is contradictory for a so-called "all-loving god" to manipulate his "children" this way. If he were an earthly father who was  abusing and torturing his children in order to bring them "closer" to him--he would be put him in jail. As mentioned in an earlierpost, Christians seem to believe that pain and suffering go hand in hand with love--which had lead to untold amounts of abuse at the hands of people that "love" us. Again--how bizarre, and sad at the same time.

Finally he says that, "...God has a right to form their character, to put them through certain experiences, and to place humans in times and places where he can orchestrate a world that meets his needs, not our needs." What right does Yahweh have to inflict, as I have shown above, unnecessary pain and suffering on humans, because he is god? Is Wintery Knight suggesting that "might makes right"?? Is it the case that something is right because god says it is right, or is it right because it IS right? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.   However, there is a positive reason to suppose that moral notions, even if brought into existence by God, apply independently from God's judgement once they exist. As such, Wintery Knight's claim that Yahweh has a right to form our character by any means necessary would be wrong, as Yahweh would also be subject to the same standards of right and wrong that we are. Otherwise, it would be the case that Yahweh brings moral facts into existence by his judgement. What this amounts to is, is that Yahweh has judged of himself that he is good. Christians however, want to say that it is Yahweh himself that is good--and not that he is good by his own self-judgement. For if it is just a mere self-judgement, Yahweh could be just like the entity that Christians claim is evil-- one whose goal is to create pain and suffering. This entity who is evil and creates this pain and suffering does not become good by a "self-pronouncement" or because someone like Wintery Knight claims this entity has a right to cause pain and suffering. To avoid this absurdity, we need to reject the claim that Yahweh has a right to do whatever he pleases, and that whatever he pleases becomes right. No, there is no such right that makes causing unnecessary pain and suffering "good" by mere self-pronouncement by an egotistical and sadistic god! Yahweh cannot avoid the problem of evil by mere "self-pronouncement"!!!

Wintery Knight says Yahweh "orchestrates a world that meets his needs." Yes, ACCORDING TO WINTERY KNIGHT, YAHWEH NEEDS TO HAVE LITTLE CHILDREN RAPED AND MURDERED.  HE NEEDS TO HAVE WOMEN BEATEN TO DEATH BY THEIR HUSBANDS, ETC. Again, those are not the actions of a loving god, but the actions of an egotistical sadistic god.  I have shown above that the atheist has no need to prove that there is a way to, as Wintery Knight says, "prove that there is a way to make the cavity go away without ANY suffering."  For as I have shown above, this is the case according to Christians and the Bible--Yahweh could have choose to make the cavity go away without any suffering--but chose not to.  Yahweh could have prevented every instance of evil, pain and suffering without losing any overall goodness. Otherwise Yahweh is not all knowing, all powerful, or all good!

Dear Anonymous: Part 3 - The Real Meaning of Love

This is the third part of a three part series of posts in response to a commenter at the blog post below:
A Critique of Richard Dawkins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You asked me if I knew what love is--and I believe I do. Love is honor, respect, caring, teaching, and nurturing. I have all of these in my life, and I am grateful for that. There is no reason to love anyone if you know you will not be loved in return. "Loving your enemies" as Christians claim to do, will most likely end in tragedy.   Christians may claim to love their enemies, but for most Christians, this aphorism is quite meaningless, as they have tortured and burned literally millions of their so-called "enemies"--including the innocent medicine women, vilified by the church as "witches." What would America be like if the President "loved his enemies"??--most likely it would not be the America we know today. Loving ones enemies is a trick the power mongers use in order to manipulate the masses into conforming to their will. Love the master=love the enemy. No--loving ones enemy will do nothing to make the world a better place to be.

It is the Capitalist/Christian matrix which promotes such ridiculous paradigms--this needs to change in order for humanity to survive. My goal is not to increase the hate--it is to make those who deserve to be hated take responsibility for their actions. My goal is, as you say to "rid the world of the Christian menace," as I have already explained that the Christian doctrine of salvation leads to moral laxity, and a corrupt society. People such as Harris, Dawkins, myself and others are not espousing despair and hatred, nor are we promoting it. As Shirley Phelps might say, "To what end?" To what end would someone like myself want to promote hatred and despair? Your conclusion on this point makes no logical sense. I promote living, as Jesus said, a "perfect" life. He himself said to "be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect."--meaning do what is right the FIRST time, and do not choose to lie, steal, commit adultery etc, because, well, you believe you were "born bad" and can't help but be that way. This is total nonsense, and is a philosophy that yes, I want eliminated. If society was taught they are born perfect, and can choose right--the world would be a much better place for us all. There is a great deal of meaning in living a life in which you can make it better for those that follow you. This is what I do. In the near future I will be publishing a post dealing with the subject of perfection, and the Christian misconception of it.

I have no interest in humility.  As I have already mentioned, humility, like loving ones' enemies, makes one vulnerable to someone else's manipulations. I have pride in myself, and in my words and actions. Pride, after all, is not a vice--but is, according to Aristotle, the means between humble and arrogant. Pride is having the proper amount of self-respect, and if you have self -respect, you will be less likely to be led to do things that are improper and/or dangerous. There is no such thing as having too much pride if pride is having the proper amount of self-respect. Yes, I have pride, and I am proud of that...;) For more information on why pride is not a vice, but a virtue, see the following blog posts:

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 2 

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice Part 3 

You go on to say:

" At the moment, you are the enemy and someone like Craig is only going to debate someone with enough listeners that it would matter for eternity. You don’t have enough of an audience to matter right now. That’s not taking a shot, it’s just that only a handful of people have big enough names to warrant attention in this realm right now. "

I would philosophize with anyone, even a homeless hobo who had no connections with anybody, as I am only concerned with the arguments. If however, WL Craig is only looking for the fame and fortune of debating well known atheists, well--that says a great deal about his character. I would debate him anonymously, as I do not care for "fame and fortune." All I care about is the arguments, and getting people to see how absurd Christian dogma truly is in order to reduce moral laxity and avoid more suffering.

Oh, and if I am your "enemy" as you say--how much do you love me?--lol. I had to laugh..... All the more reason, according to your Christian beliefs, to spend time arguing/debating with me. In philosophy, an argument is a set of premises from which a conclusion can be deduced logically. I am more than willing to spend time arguing/debating with theists--whom I do not even claim to love!

You claim I do not admit when I am wrong--and you are wrong. I put forth arguments and it is up to anyone who disagrees to offer their counter arguments and rebuttals. If they are not successful, that is not my fault. Like in this case, you have not refuted any of my arguments, but have merely tried to dissuade me via a personal attack--which is irrelevant to the arguments. I have no problem admitting when I was wrong, or if I do not know something. I have no idea how the universe was created for instance, but if all we have are theories, I will hold to the "best explanation" until proven otherwise, and the supernatural is always going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any type of phenomena. What I do know are via my experiences, and I know that I get great joy in helping people view the world in a different light. By viewing this life and the earth as being precious, and by promoting an altruistic lifestyle, the only life we may ever know becomes that much better.

And I will never "knock it off" as you so desperately want me to. I will continue to inform as many people as I can of the arguments, contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible, and how Christian dogma leads to moral laxity, and how it promotes suffering in the world.

Again, my thanks for the great fodder. Please feel free to comment anytime, and I will respond in kind.

Dear Anonymous Part 2: Why Your God is NOT Love, and Why Hate Can be a Virtue

This is the second part of a series I am writing in response to a commenter on this blog post:
A Critique of Richard Dawikins and WL Craig

Dear Anonymous,

You claim I am "mad"--which I am not. My job is to educate, which is why I am here. As you say, you are "stuck" trying to make sense out of something written in the OT that is difficult to make sense of.  I am here to help you and others "make sense out of it". My education provided me with multiple explanations for biblical passages--something lay people are unaware of, as their pastors/priests usually only provide them with one, perhaps two explanations. I am here to make sense out of the nonsense by exposing it for what it is, and provide people with alternate explanations, and the knowledge of my religious studies. The bible is what you claim the Quran and the Mormon bible is--stories made up and handed down--which makes it possible that the battles, and many other events depicted in the bible never ever took place. Besides the fact that the Jews are well known for embellishing their texts and have admitted to doing so, the archeological evidence shows that the best explanation is that the battles depicted in the bible never happened. (See The Bible Unearthed) Unfortunately for Christians, this then puts the entire book into question.

If the OT is difficult to understand, and includes events that are difficult to explain as you say, and if we consider that the millions of Christians around the world cannot even agree as to the meaning of the text, your god, if he was real, certainly has not done a very good job of "revealing" himself to his followers. Remember, the Jews were enslaved by other groups of more powerful people, and had learned the attributes of their gods. When they were finally freed, they embellished the attributes of the gods they were familiar with, and created their own based on the gods of their captors.  This is why there are so many striking similarities between the stories of the Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian gods--and the stories of the Abrahamic gods, and contradictions and inconsistencies.  Add to that the New Testament--and what a mess!!  The fact that the stories are a mish mash of different gods from different cultures is a large part of the reason why the bible is so difficult to understand.

You claim I am a hater, so I would also like to explain that hate is not always a vice. Hate can be beneficial to survival. If we hate our enemies, we are more likely to survive being assaulted by them. If women hated their abusive husbands, they would be more likely to leave them, as opposed to staying with them and sometimes dying in the process. Hate can protect us, and yes, I do hate the molesters of little children, the abusers of women and others that intentionally hurt people, and I hate the Christian philosophy that promotes this type of behavior. I hate the Christian philosophy of believing we are "born sinners," and I hate the philosophy of "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--as heinous deeds do not deserve to be forgiven, and love is something that should be earned, and not just given to anyone. Unconditional love and forgiveness is why so many women are murdered every year by their "loving husbands"--because they kept forgiving them over and over again. People that love each other, do not beat them to death, and the women should not forgive them for beating them--they should hate them--and leave them for a better life.  Hate does not have to consume a person.  It is possible to hate someone and be quite logical at the same time.  I do not believe that suffering is necessary to learn anything or, as you and Mother Teresa seem to believe, to bring one "closer" to god. That is utter nonsense. What suffering does do however, is create false hope, in that somehow a magical man in the sky will make things better for them. This is why religion is popular with the oppressed. It gives them "false hope."  It is also contradictory to consider that your god is the cause of suffering (as EVERY decision is from the Lord, {Prov 16:33} and the Lord created evil {Isaiah 45:7}) and is also "all-loving"--how bizarre.  This idea promotes the view that abuse can coexist with love--which is not only false, it has resulted in too many people suffering needlessly.  If you love someone, then you do not abuse them.  The Christian concept of love is bizarre!

Furthermore, contrary to what most Christians believe, their god does not advocate "unconditional love. " In Deuteronomy 7:12, Yahweh makes it clear that he will only love his people, IF they follow all his laws and commandments. This is a CONDITIONAL statement. His love is CONDITIONAL to following his laws.  Therefore, even according to the Christian god, love is conditional.  However, Christians claim that love is unconditional--which is another inconsistency and contradiction in the bible. 

 What's more, according to the bible writers, they cannot keep straight what love is or what it means in the first place. Logic, when applied to the text reveals a god that is love, and not love at the same time--another contradiction.  For according to the text:

"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love." 1 John 4:8

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud " 1 Corinthians 13:4

But then they go on to say:

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, THE LORD YOUR GOD, AM A JEALOUS GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"  Exodus 20:5

Which is a contradiction.  In the logical form of Modus Tollens, the following is the conclusion drawn from the above passages:

IF god is love, THEN god is not jealous. God IS jealous.  Therefore god is NOT love.
Therefore, according to the bible writers, god is love, and god is not love--a contradiction.

According to you, Jesus loved "flawlessly," but Jesus did not love flawlessly when he told his followers to abandon their families to follow him. No--that is not love. He did not love flawlessly when he had his feet anointed with oil--when the money gained from selling that oil could have been used to feed a starving family. No--that is not "flawless" love either.  And if Jesus is Yahweh, then killing innocent babies and fetuses (as explained in this post) is not love either. There are many occasions when Jesus does not love flawlessly, but considering that according to the bible, god is not love and is love at the same time, this is one thing that is consistent with the text--and not consistent with the text at the same time.....how bizarre.

I am enjoying responding to your comments very much, and I hope that they will enlighten you and others, and turn you away from a bad philosophy that promotes moral laxity,  but I must go now. Stay tuned for part 3.