Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus - A Response

I came across a post from John W. Loftus about a video that I had found and posted on this blog last week. He doesn't mentioned this blog by name so I don't know if he became aware of it from here, but be that as it may. Let's step through his response. My comments are in red. I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent him or take him out of context in any way.

I titled this post the same as others so people can see my response to a video floating around about me by the same title.

This is a cut and paste job from an interview I had with the program The Things That Matter Most, along with Pastor Dave Schmelzer. After this aired the director of that program emailed me and said she didn't think the hosts were fair to me, and many agreed...so typical of many Christians. I critiqued Pastor Schmelzer's book right here.

I often hear this accusation but never really see any documented evidence of such behavior. However I have experienced name calling and profanity directed towards me just because I disagree. It seems that name-calling is the only resort people have when they have no real good arguments to use. 

In any case in the interview I said "seemingly absurd," as in beyond the range of what we can understand fully. But this does not allow Christians to drive a whole truckload of assumptions through that small crevice because of Ockham's Razor. Otherwise so can any religious person do so with opposing religious conceptions.

Actually I would like to know what assumptions Loftus is referring in that above paragraph.  

Christians who post this video act as if they are completely and utterly ignorant of existential literature or even the book of Ecclesiastes.

Might he be referring to me? Let's see if he backs up why we don't understand existential literature or  Ecclesiastes.

That anything exists at all “seems absurd.” I am at least honest enough to admit this. Christians parade through the streets like the naked Emperor claiming to know that an three-in-one God exited for all eternity who never learned anything new since he always knew everything, and never made a decision since all decisions were eternal ones, and never had a new thought since thinking depends on temporally weighing alternatives. Honesty demands humility with regard to why we exist and they certainly cannot depend on an historically conditioned interpretation of a set of canonized texts called the Bible for the answers when they shared the same answers as all of the other religions of that time except that they had a different name for their deity.

So who's trying to "drive a whole truckload of assumptions through a small crevice"?   IF you look, Loftus is behind the wheel. He makes the same mistakes about the nature of God that people like Dan Barker make. Namely setting up a straw man argument describing God's nature and then refuting that. The Bible shows that God is triune in  that He is one being in three persons. When God told Moses his name from the burning bush, the Hebrew shows us that God not only does exist, but that God has always existed, and God always will exist. God created time. Therefore He exists outside of it. Any temporal analysis of His decision making and will breaks down. The Bible clearly teaches that God has predestined just about everything. He brought the alternatives and decides which reality manifests and which ones don't. 

  ³Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. ⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— ⁶to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
 ¹¹In him we were also chosen,^[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:3-14

As for the discussion of the reliability of the Bible. Loftus fails to explain why you can't trust the Bible and how it says the same thing as other religions.

We have three choices: 1) Something, anything, has always existed; 2) Something, anything, popped into existed out of nothing; or 3) the existentialists are right that our existence is fundamentally absurd.

At least I can agree with Loftus on choices 1 & 2, but 3 is often restated as the universe being a shared delusion or illusion.

The Christian conception of God is absurd. They just won’t admit it. They cannot harmonize the trinity within itself without denying orthodoxy by reducing it to tri-theism or to a unitary God, nor can they explain the incarnation, nor how the death of Jesus can possibly atone for sins. Several divine attributes like divine simplicity, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are internally problematic and lacking evidence. Discussions of divine simplicity will bring them to an utter agnosticism regarding to what their God is like, or force them to accept some absurd consequences. Go ahead by trying to define these divine attributes. I dare you. Then try to harmonize them when it comes to the problem of intense suffering around the globe, or even the certainty they have regarding their faith.

Loftus so far hasn't even defined the Christian God as the Bible reveals God. And he can't admit it. The Trinity teaches that there is one :"what" - being - and three "whos" - three persons. Loftus and others are confused because when we project our human experiences the revelation breaks down. For a human point of view there is not difference between "person" and "being" in describing human existence. We use them interchangeably. But face it: if someone asks you what you are, the answer is different than to the question of who you are? There is no internal problem. Three persons can share the one being. 

The divine attributes are difficult if you go beyond what the Bible says. This is a failed and refuted argument because of course because of God transcendence, we can't even begin to understand what God is without His direct revelation - in part this is what the Bible is for.  All of these attributes are described "Omnipresence" just means that God exists everywhere and every when simultaneously. "Omniscience" means God knows everything - complete knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. "Omnipotent" means that God is all powerful, there is nothing beyond God's power. "Omnibenevolence" just means that God is all good. He never makes a mistake. He never does wrong. Some object because they think that means that God would never have to allow anything bad to happen to anyone. This is not what the Bible says. God is not obliged. to do anything. He has chosen to give us mercy the vast number of times while we live. And when disaster does come God has a reason and does not owe us an explanation. Ask Job if you disagree (I mean read the book the answer is there.

The simpler explanation is preferable, and science offers us clues. Paul Davies, Quentin Smith and Victor Stenger have all come up with scientifically acceptable answers.

I got to admit that my background really isn't in philosophy, it's in Physics. And Last I checked the model of an eternal universe - meaning without beginning or end - has been rejected. And what the current model is that everything - matter, time, energy, and space - came out of nothing. - a quantum singularity from a quantum fluctuation. However we agree with that...people who reject God can't explain where the singularity came from. To :Lofuts, :"scientifically acceptable answers" means denying that anything supernatural as a tenable explanation despite any evidence. I've heard of these men but I have seen many physicist , even those who reject God, still agree that a point there was nothing and then there was everything.

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus

Historical Teaching of Purgatory?

Image via Wikipedia

I wrote a post of Tim Staples' debate on purgatory with James White. Read it at: Debate: James White vs Tim Staples - Debating Purgatory. In the comments section I made the challenge for anyone to find evidence that people in ancient times understood "purgatory:" the way Tim Staples does - as a process not a place. Mike R has been kind enough to give me an answer. Let's analyze it.

Mike R said...

Here you Go Marcus, From well before the reformation. Clearly this is a reference to a process, not a place. Straight from Cyril of Jerulalem in the 4th century. It is described as a process, not a place. "The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P.G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (Homily 41 on First Corinthians, no. 8). "

First I'm glad that Mike saw fit to run down a reference however it is not clear to me where the referenece is form. I'll five mike the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a real reference. Because Mike focusedm on Cyril I will to. The quote says:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Mystagogical Catechesis V.9) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar."

Mike claims that Cyril believed that purgatory was a process  not a place. Therefore because someone who lived centruies before the reformation believed it was a process like Tim Staples, then Roman Catholicism has an unbroken and historical theology concerning  Purgatory, right? Not so fast. First The challenge was to show that John Tetzel and Pope Leo X thought of purgatory was a process and not a place...I know for a fact that they did say purgatory was a place. Another thing Cyril's words don't exclude a place...I mean where is the Altar in "his holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar". Where is the altar? It must be in a place somewhere. Okay So now we have Cyril, Tetzel, and Leo disagreeing with Tim Staples  about what purgatory is?! And they can't a be right. Unbroken tradition? Not really.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Roger Skepple: Looking For Love in All the Wrong Places: Is Reformed Theology Antithetical to the Love of God? (An African-American's Journey

As a black Christian, I've got to ask why don't more black people agree with the reformed position and doctrine? As I study and learn more about the reformed doctrine it definitely answers questions I have been asking my entire life - things concerning the nature of God and human free will. The one point in 5-point Calvinism that I have issues with is "L" - "Limited atontement". I'm just having issues with going that far. The other four make sense to me. I really enjoyed this interview with Dr. Roger Skepple on Iron Sharpen Iron. Not only does he explain how he came to accept Reformed Theology, but he also deals with the Biblical texts that are usually raised against Limited Atonement. I liked how he talked about it. follow the link below to hear him out.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Roger Skepple: Looking For Love in All the Wrong Places: Is Reformed Theology Antithetical to the Love of God? (An African-American's Journey

Debunking Christianity: A Real Christian Apologetics Conference!

John W. Loftus has posted an announcement of his upcomming debate against David Wood.  It takes place on March 13th. Lofus has debated David Wood before asnd I plan ot review that debate soon.

Debunking Christianity: A Real Christian Apologetics Conference!

Iron Sharpens Iron: SCOTT LIVELY

Scott Lively has been on three programs on Iron Sharpens Iron. He was on to discuss Homosexuality and how Christians should respond. One of the programs covered his book called The Pink Swastika which is about the part homosexuals played in Nazism. All three programs were very interesting. Check out the link below to all three programs. I'm not too sure if I buy his argument that Hitler was gay...or had homosexual relationships, but I think he presents very compelling arguments regarding how Christians should respond to agenda of gay activists. One important argument he made was that we can't demonize homosexual and ignore condemning heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. I agree...it's all sin and God hates fornication and adultery every bit as much as he hates sodomy. He hates the sin not the people. The other book that Lively wrote and discuss is a textbook on the history of  the gay civil rights movement and how society is affected. He offers the book free or for purpose on his website. These are great resouces.



Iron Sharpens Iron: SCOTT LIVELY

Did Jesus Exist or Was He Just a Myth? - May 4, 2008

Paul Maier was interviewed about the historicity of Jesus. I think I posted some of it before. Maier gives proof of evidence that Jesus existed outside the Bible. This is a great interview.

Did Jesus Exist or Was He Just a Myth? - May 4, 2008