Want to see Matthew Flannagan debate John W. Loftus in America? | MandM

Madeleine Flannagan posted an announcement that there may be debate between Matthew Flannagan and John Loftus. I hope this does happen. I think it would be worth seeing.


Want to see Matthew Flannagan debate John W. Loftus in America? | MandM

Seems like John Loftus is also excited about the prospect. Given what I've seen about Loftus in debate - oral and written - I don't think Dr Flannagan has a thing to be concerned about. All he has to do is be prepared. In his post Loftus said:

And check back for more details. It's only a month away. I plan to trash him [Flannagan]. ;-) - John Loftus

As if that would happen...lol.

A Debate With Dr. Matthew Flannagan is in the Works

Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Recently John W. Loftus posted an article on his blog that I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. He asserts that people are Christians because they have been indoctrinated because we are raised as Christians. If Loftus is correct than we would never expect people who were not raised in a Christian context or culture to ever become Christians. And only people who learn about psychology and anthropology and science would leave Christianity. The problem is that there is too much examples of how none of these things are true. How do you explain people like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel? They were atheists and became Christians. I was raised in church my whole life. Although I've dedicated my career to science and engineering, going as far to earn advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and computer science, and yet I just don't see any evidence that would prove that the Bible is untrustworthy. Loftus himself tried this argument against David Wood in his debate with him earlier this year to which Wood responded that he had been an atheist and was raised an atheist. As long as people like Wood exist, Loftus' argument can't be valid.

Let's step it up a notch, and ask what about people like me who are Christians and were raised as Christians? We all come to God the same way. We have to agree with God that He is right and we have to make the committment to God for ourselves. My father and mother choosing to live lives serving God means nothing for me and my life. It means they get the blessings and rewards but not me after the point in which I had to decide for myself if Jesus is what He claimed to be and if the Bible is true. After researching other religions and examining the Bible throughout my life I find that it more than measures up. Are there things in the Bible that I would change? Yes. This is why I am accountable. But I can't reach that standard on my own. Neither can you. Because it cuts through everyone's excuses and calls us to a higher standard than anyone of us can live on our own, this is evidence that the Bible is true.

John Loftus wrote:

Christians ought to learn about the influences in their lives that cause them to believe as they do. They should study a bit of psychology and anthropology that describe how we think and how foreign other cultures are to one another. I think doing so will cause them to be skeptics. For skepticism is an acquired trait through the process of learning about these things. Doing so will cause Christians to begin to see their own inherited religion as the box it is. I'm a skeptic in part because I have learned through the sciences that I should be skeptical. Skepticism is therefore an acquired virtue. People who are unaware of the cultural influences that shape their thinking have not yet developed this acquired virtue. It requires a certain distance from ourselves and our cultures. But only through skepticism can someone see the cultural box as a cultural box. Until you have the courage and the will to be skeptical, you don't even know you're in one.

I disagree that holding fast to the Bible and its revelations is choosing to be in box. No, rather, holding on to Jesus is breaking out of the box that you don't know just how deep you in. When a person gets saved they have an epithany. They realize just how wonderful and holy God is and then you take a look at yourself and for the first time in your life to you see you as truly are. All apostates and people who walk away from Christianity all have in common that they have not had that experience. When you realize how hopeless in sin you are - drowning your own crap - and crying out to Jesus and He helps you out of it - giving you a new heart and a change of mind. If you have not experienced it you cannot understand it. However, I love the testimony from Isaiah. I didn't have the experience He had where He saw God's glory and he immediately understood his place. I didn't see God's glory but I had the same realization. This is why I understand Isaiah's gratitude for salvation. Isaiah said in Isaiah 6:5 -

"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."

This is exactly how I felt when I got saved. It's not about what you do but what God does for you. It's about the purpose for which God made us not what we think or what we want. Christianity is not supposed to be a religion engaged in fear and manipulation where you try to live a life good enough to convince God to let you into Heaven. Christianity is not about you getting to live any kind of way just because you prayed the "sinner's prayer" at some point but there is no change in their character. Loftus says he understands Christianity but he misses these fundamental points. The proof is his poor showing in his debates against D'Souza and David Wood. Apostates like Loftus merely trade one box for another and they don't even realize it. They think they are free but even more hopelessly enslaved. Christianity is not inherited....it's a gift that not everyone gets.


Debunking Christianity: Step Outside the Box and See it for What it is

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

I've recently commented on a post  by John W. Loftus on his blog. One of the readers of Loftus blog seems to have disagreed with me very much. He responded to my comments by making distinct comments to the points I raised. I've decided to respond in kind. My responses are in red.

Marcus McElhaney, You said, So nothing can be known to exist if it can't be weighed, counted or measured? Is that what you are postulating? Is that what you mean? Personally, I certainly hope that's what John means. What's more, I'll bet that that is how you live your life, too: you demand evidence for everything in your life. Your profile says you're becoming a minister. Does COGIC demand evidence that you are proficient at passing collection plates to pay for miracles?  How dare they demand such proof!  

No. They don't. He obviously knows nothing about Christianity in general or the Church of God in Christ in particular. You cannot pay for miracles. 

Are they suggesting that the Holy Spirit in you must be verified?

No COGIC does not demand verification. Jesus does. 

³⁴"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. ³⁵By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.  - John 13:34-35

If we don't love one another that proves we are not one of  His people. If God did not care for us to know how to verify if we are truly His or not then why is so much information is given in the Bible so that we know what the metrics are?

 ¹⁹The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; ²⁰idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions ²¹and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

 ²²But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. ²⁵Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. ²⁶Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. Galatians 5: 19-26

And there is more. But because I think the reader can read I'll just leave it at these two examples. The point is that God can and does not have a problem with us considering the evidence of our faith...as a matter of fact He told us what to look for.

Compare your profile to that of Harvey Burnett who became a Christian and a COGIC preacherman all at once, no training.  Wow, you don't know anything about the Church of God in Christ. No one becomes a District Superintendant without training. The means Elder Burnett is not just a Pastor! IT means that he is assistant to his bishop and is over several churches.

Marcus you require evidence, verification, and proof as much as anyone else. The primary difference between you and those who take their cues from the real world is your exceedingly poor standard for what constitutes evidence. Whereas you accept things like tradition, revelation and authority as evidence, more reasonable people reject those things as routes to truth since throughout humanity there exist thousands of incompatible traditions, thousands of irreconcilable revelations, and millions of authority figures convinced that none but them know the truth.  

A lot of presuppositions and no evidence. I do not accept tradition, my revelation, or any authority that is not compatible with the Bible. I agree that there thousand of irreconcilable and incompatible worldviews. They can't all be right, but there is one that I have researched that does stand up to objective evidence and not human opinion: the Bible - the Word of the living God..

You say some version of Christian Bible constitutes evidence, though it clearly does not. In other Christianities they say some other version of a Bible is evidence

I know you are referring to the gnostic texts and other early extra-biblical writings. None of them fit the following metric. 

¹⁶All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, ¹⁷so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If anyone disagrees, I really would like to see an explanation of how these texts outside the Bible do fit this criteria. And if  he refers to the textual variants, I'd like him to point out a single variant text that conflicts with historic and orthodox Christian doctrine. .

Then, there is the Koran and numerous other holy books declaring themselves to also be the "truth." Your profile also says that you make a living in the science-based field of software engineering. Your income would not exist if it were not for something far more reliable than tradition, revelation, or authority. Are you also a science-denying YEC? Do you discount or reject the science of radioisotopic dating? Were the YEC's mistaken who claim to have recently found Noah's Ark and also to have determined a 4800 year age of the wood via radiocarbon dating? Are you also correct if you deny it? Then, you contradict your fellow religionists. It's not reliable.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I've written on my blog why I accept the Bible over the Qur'an.  Let me briefly just point out that most credible historian agree that Jesus was crucified. The Bible says that Jesus was crucified.  The Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucified. History conflicts with the Qur'an therefore I've got to throw it out.   I'm not a young earth creationists. Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists. You can be a Christian believe either way - Old Earth or Young Earth. I personally don't find enough Biblical or Scientific evidence to endorse Old Earth Creationism. Even if you think Genesis is speaking of seven 24 hour days of creation that doesn't make the universe 6000 years old. Not all Christians agree with any of your evidence of what a Christian must believe to be a Christian.  That's like saying all Atheists are cannibals because Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist.  Don't be ignorant and stupid.

Russ said...

You said, Assuming it is I have a two simple lines of questions to ask: How can you prove that your family loves you? Answer: evidence, lots and lots of evidence. In societies like the US where daughters are not bought and sold as chattel, the love of a man or woman must be earned through demonstratable behaviors, some evolutionarily engrained and some societally defined. You provide your love interest with evidence, lots of evidence, and your love interest reciprocates with lots of evidence for you. If the evidence is absent you soon lose interest. Then, too, this evidence exchange is not limited to female-male relationships. Also, parents teach their children to behave in ways consistent with how we feel about them. We see how these things play out at church potlucks, weddings, funerals. How do your children know you do not like someone? Evidence. How do you teach your children to suck up to Grandma? You teach them to provide evidence, tangible behaviors accepted in our society to reflect one's feelings. Also, Marcus, we are so susceptible to accepting behaviors as evidence that we are easily duped with them. This is especially the case when we take the behavior of uttering a litany of unreliable words as evidence. Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Jerry Falwell. George Reker. You? Words are weak evidence by themselves and they are even weaker when, as is the case with all all religions, they are spoken without a reliable standard against which their veracity can be assessed.  

The Bible is a reliable standard when weighing the veracity of anyone speaking on the issues the Bible discusses. Just like there is evidence for loving spouses, parents and children, there is evidence that the Bible is true. MY point was simply that the proof of love cannot be objectively obtained by the scientific method.  All truth cannot be substantiated by naturalism.That is not saying that it's not useful and should be ignored but if you base your entire understand of this reality on it, you will miss a lot!

The Bible is a focal point of Christianity but it is not evidence for much of anything. Some people wrote down the prevailing myths, legends, fables, dreams, and superstitions, then peppered it with a big dollop of wishful thinking. Christians do not agree with each other about it, and, as has been pointed out, there exists no way to resolve the disagreements.  
  
A lot presuppositions. Where is your proof that the Bible is not true and just myth, legends, dreams, superstitions and wishful thinking? Where is the beef?

  How much does their love weigh? How long is it? How wide is it? Dumb. Just dumb. These are not the metrics of love, but the metrics are there. We see how love whithers away when Christians by the millions violate their marriage vows, abandon their children, abuse their children and spouses.

So longevity in a marriage is a proof of love? I disagree. But if it helps my parents have been married 52 years. They credit God for their longevity and love. Atheists are no better at being good spouses or parents than Christians without God.  My point is that you cannot scientifically prove love in a laboratory as Loftus claimed was necessary to know emphatically something is true. He did not qualify the comments but seemed to apply it to everything,. Do you really want to apply such drivel to everything that exists? I don't.

You said, Better question is if there is no transcendence of this life and no one has any ultimate value (as many consistent atheists believe) than what does it matter? Ultimate value is a stupid notion. People do not act as if anyone has "Ultimate Value." Assuming no inbreeding, you have or had eight great grandparents. Can you name all of those people who were of Ultimate Value? How about further back to their sixteen parents? Can you name them? Similarly, your great grand children will have little or not interest in who you were. Imagining Ultimate Value does not make it so. We are all generation-centric. When your children are small they look to you for everything. A few short years later that is no longer the case. A few more years and you become a holiday ornament. Tack on too many more and your Ultimate Value ends up in a nursing home being cared for by strangers.  

Such a bleak outlook. What kind of family are you from? Of course I care about all my foreparents - even if I can't know who all of them are. I owe them. I'm only six generations removed from slavery. All I have and I ever will have to be passed  to my children came through them. I'm here...America is here...because of their sacrifices. I'm not the only one into genealogy and understanding past ancestors. Your arguments are completely unable to be applied to all people.  

How do you prove you matter period? How do we weigh, count, or otherwise measure your worth or anyone else's for that matter? Sure would like to hear answers for these. Of course silence would also be an answer.

Again, evidence, Marcus. Be honest with yourself. You demand it for all things, but what you accept as evidence is horribly flawed.

May 7, 2010 2:34 PM

I wonder if people like Russ really examine what they think or do they just shoot from the hip. I'm a Christian because I do believe the evidence points to the Bible being true. Nothing else makes sense. If these are Russ' best arguments I'm completely unimpressed. I demanded evidence for the Bible and God gave it to me. If you were honest with yourself you would admit the problem isn't with lack of evidence but in you.I know because the failure is in me also and it took the power of God to change me. He can do the same for you.

As for anyone who want to read some good evidences for Christianity being true, you can refer to series of articles from Apologetics 315 which Brian Auten has compiled essays written by several Christians from all walks of life who give their best arguments in a short essay for why Christianity is the only way. 

Apologetics 315 - Essay Series

Debunking Christianity: How Can We Decide Who Is Wrong?

Debunking Christianity: The Case For "The Case Against The Case For Christ"

This recent post from John W. Loftus is timely. Apparently Robert M. Price wrote a book that has been recently released to refute Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. What does it say about a book that is derided and it's author dismissed by opponents yet I can now name at least two book written to specifically refute it? I think it says that Strobel's book is far more dangerous to his opponents let on. I happen to like Robert Price although I disagree with almost everything I have heard him said. I think I would like to read Price's book because Earl Doherty's work in which he tried to do the same thing was really awful. I think Prices is smarter than he is. I find the timing of this post and the book interesting because Price is scheduled to debate James White this weekend! I'm expecting a blood bath where only only the mercy of God will be Robert Price's only saving grace.

Debunking Christianity: The Case For "The Case Against The Case For Christ"

John W. Loftus gets PAWNED

John W. Loftus posted a question on his blog about how certain are his reader that Jesus rose from the dead on a scale of 0 - 100%? Of course the comments section is heated with folks trying to claim they don't believe because the Bible is unreliable. District Supt. Harvey Burnett from one of the Jurisdictions of the Church of God in Christ posted the following information.

Since your Q and late dating theory FAILS as real scholarship and succeeds as the trash that it is, better dates for the NT narratives are as follows based on much better sources than you use:

*Jude ~ Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*James ~Pentecost, A.D. 47 Jerusalem, Israel

*Galatians ~ A.D. 48 Philippi, Greece

*Gospel of Luke ~ A.D. 50 Corinth, Achaia

*I Thessalonians, February - July, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

*I Corinthians July - November, A.D. 52 Ephesus, Asia

* Revelation Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 Patmos, Aegean

* Romans October - November, A.D. 53 Corinth, Achaia

* Titus ~ February, A.D. 54 Troas, Aegean Sea

*Colossians ~May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

*I Timothy May - November, A.D. 54 Jerusalem, Israel

* II Thessalonians August - December, A.D. 54 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of Matthew May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 Jerusalem, Israel

* Philemon ~A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* II Timothy ~ October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Ephesians October, A.D. 56 Rome, Italy

* Philippians February - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I Peter March - April, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Gospel of Mark June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* II Peter June, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Acts of the Apostles July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* Hebrews July, A.D. 57 Rome, Italy

* I John (severed intro) August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* Gospel of John August - October, A.D. 57 Ephesus, Asia

* 2,3 John A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 Ephesus, Asia

There's more...

For those who don't know :"Q" is a hypothetical source that some think Mark, Matthew, and Luke are copied from. I disagree, but Harvey's comments still stand. I agree with his dating of the New Testament. However, Loftus disagrees. Big surprise. He offered the following "rebuttal":

Hey District Harvey, when do you date John 8:1-11, or the ending chapter?

When do you date Mark 16:9ff?

And have you read any introduction to the New Testament published by Anchor Books, Cambridge, Yale, or Fortress Press? How about Bart Ehrman's Introduction, or those written by Ralph Martin, or L. Michael White?

Have you read Burton Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament?"

I know you haven't. I just know you haven't. Read them and then compare the data and do more thorough research on this, okay?

Loftus makes several assumptions. How does he know that Harvey is unaware of any of their opinions? Loftus and many atheists obviously assume that Christians are ignorant to other viewpoints. I mean we couldn't possibly have seen their evidences and found them wanting, right? Wrong. Loftus asks about those specific scriptures because he knows that they are deemed to no be part or the original texts. Any one who knows anything about textual criticism of the New Testament knows that the dating that Harvey presented will not be covered by those texts he brought up. So how did District Supt. Harvey Burnett answer?

John,

you accept the latest and weakest brand of scholarship on the issue...I don't!

There is no need to accept both late dating or the chronology that you accept to support your critical thoughts on the narratives.

As proof, the scholars you name are mostly apostates...(I didn't get past Ehrman...BUT...) Apostates can't tell me a THING!

Liberal scholars such as the ones that you and Carrier rely on are JUNK! there are adequate and supportable arguments for early dating...

I've been watching Loftus for a several weeks. And my interactions with him haven't been really nice. He doesn't take or give criticism nicely. Some might say that Bennet's response was not "nice" but I disagree. It was apt. And I think he more than answered the way it needed to be answered. I agree an apostate's viewpoint is tainted because they are biased against the text. I know they will say that early daters are biased for the text, but we have strong evidence for earlier dates than later ones.

Here is the original post.

Interview with Robert Price and John Loftus

I found six videos on YouTube in which Robert M. Price and John W. Loftus are interviewed. It was very interesting. I like looking at people's testimonies. How did they get to the point of thinking the way they do? They are apostates. People who claim to have been believers and now disavow Christianity. Why? What made them change their minds? These interviews begin to answer these questions. I have to say that neither of these men are unlikeable. It's nice to see Loftus in a relaxed public appearance in which he is not trying to win an argument.

According to Loftus, he lost his faith because he could not reconcile the Genesis account with what he understood from science. As far as Price, he just seemed to say that he looked at the evidence and was no longer persuaded that they were true.

I find that I disagree. Not because I'm a Christian but because I know that you can come to many different conclusions based on what you expect to find. I'd like to see if Loftus ever talked to Hugh Ross or Jay Richards. Did he ever discuss it with William Lane Craig? I don't know. But there seems to be an arrogance that says "I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong."

As for Price. The man is likable. And I admire the fact that he is willing to say publicly that he knows that the majority of his peers disagree with him but sticks to his conclusions. I disagree with him, but at least he is consistent with himself.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)

Atheist, John W. Loftus fancies himself a debunker of Christianity. "Lofty" aim, huh. Too bad he falls amusingly short. There is a competing blog dedicated to setting John Loftus straight. Someone must really love him in order to take the time...amusing as well. there has been a series of articles critiquing Loftus' logic.

Debunking Loftus: Setting John Straight: Loftus Logic (Part 1)

Debunking Christianity: David Wood vs John W. Loftus: Does God Exist?

I was kind of very disappointed with John Loftus' performance. He didn't use any new arguments when he recently debated Dinesh D'Souza, and it didn't work any better against David Wood than it did against D'Souza. Loftus said that neither he nor David could not completely refute each other, but it sure would be nice to have heard some real interaction with David's arguments. It was good to see David really press John on morality and John's worldview. I wanted to see some newer arguments from John Loftus that has not been used by him or anyone else before. And it was not there. Loftus did not answer anything.










Debunking Christianity: David Wood vs John W. Loftus: Does God Exist?

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus? - Responding to Chuck O'Connor

Image via Wikipedia

I've been having a discussion with Chuck O'Connor in the comment section of the one of the comment sections of John Loftus' blog posts - link at the end. I posed several questions to Chuck O'Connor that he was gracious enough to write answers of his own. I pasted his answers and making my own full responses. The points and has comments are in black and my remarks are in red.

Marcus,

"1. Can you point out an example and show why it showing deceit and dishonesty?

Ted Haggard operating as the President of the Evangelical Churches Association all the while snorting crystal meth and fucking men while demonizing homosexuals.

In asking for example, I wanted to bring up the question why does it matter. How does what Ted Haggard's sins - for that is what deceit and dishonesty are - sins -  invalidate Christianity or bolster atheism? IT doesn't.

2. What criteria are you using to judge truth and honesty? 
A person says what they mean and they mean what they say. They don't demonize a minority while ingesting illegal drugs and paying men for sex.



So? Agreed Haggard is wrong.. So what? How does that validate your atheism? It doesn't. If you could show that Haggard is only following the commands of the Bible instead of outright rebellion, you'd have a point. But the Bible condemns him just as much as it does the homosexual and all who practice sin.

I mean if morality is subject and truth a matter of preference how did you come to your conclusions? And what standard are you using to make your judgements? That is a strawman argument. I never said that.


So there is an objective, higher standard? Many atheist disagree. If you agree with me that morality and truth are objective, then where does it come from?  I made an assumption not a straw man argument. If you don't agree other atheists than I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I should have given you more credit.

Where did that standard come from? The standard comes from living in a democracy where respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law win out.


A standard that in no way can be said to be universal or perfect. Respect for the individual? Seriously? Yes, things are better but no where they ought to be. Rule of  law? More like who can afford the most justice gets justice. These: "respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law" are far from universal. This answer is far from answers the question. Nazi Germany would not accept your standard. What makes us right and them wrong? Communist China is beginning to agree more and more but what makes them wrong and us right? Saudi Arabia and whole bunch of nations disagree with our moral standards and lack of moral standards. What makes us right and what makes them wrong? As for those things that everyone almost universally agrees are right and wrong (adultery and theft  for example), where did that come from?

3. Accusing Christians of lying or deceit is accusing us of being sinners. So?
I never accused you of being a sinner. I don't believe sin exists. It is a mythological concept that has no relevance outside of primitive justice customs. It is a byproduct custom of ancient religious people looking to create order in barbaric times.

Lying and deceit are defined in the Bible as sins. Sin is rebellion against God at the core - transgressing God's standard. It's just as valid today as it was when Adam disobeyed God because neither God or those standards change.

The Bible says the same same thing.

The bible is a book of ancient myths.

In order to assert this, you have to show that a story in the Bible did not happen...not that you don't believe it could happen.  You are making a claim that the Bible says things happened but they didn't. Can you prove that? You could say that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it did happen, but if you are claiming it didn't you can't just say that without proof. The best you can say and be honest is that you don't know for sure.

We know. We agree. That is why we trust Jesus and ride his coattails because we know we are not good enough on our own. We agree it is wrong to lie. Why do you say it's wrong to lie?

I don't say it is only wrong to lie. I illustrate the lies of Christians to implicate their hypocrisy. They "ride the coat-tails" of the divine yet do not behave in an accountable way for their own behavior. Always blaming a mysterious supernatural "sin" state that allows them to absolve themselves without changing. It is your pretentiousness and that I judge.


See? I never said that you believe that lying is the only morally reprehensible behavior one can engage in. I used it because it's the most ubiquitous. Everyone lies and knows its wrong. "Sin" is not a scape goat to use to absolve yourself. It is name given to that part of all of us that fails to toe the standard that our conscience knows is there. Sin bring condemnation not absolution. The Bible challenges us to change not give us an out. When I talked of "riding Jesus' coattails", I was referring to the fact that none of us can do enough to balance the debt we owe because of our sins...not that you get to live any kind of way you want and get off scott free. If you continue sinning constantly in practice. that proves that you are in Christ. Chuck accused me of suggesting he believes something he doesn't, hasn't he done the same to me here? Yup. What kind of Christians does he talk to? What Bible is he reading if he thinks that is what Christians think?

I say it's wrong because it reflects poorly on God and it's disobedience.

How does the lies of a finite being impact an infinite omni-powerful character in any way at all? Your theology is incoherent.

This question means that Chuck does not understand who God is or what sin is. God is infinitely Holy. Anything that isn't Holy is an affront to God's being. Chuck's understanding of humanity and God is incoherent, not my theology. Look at it this way: When your children commit a crime, it reflects on you, your person, your teachings, and your character. It hurts you. This is exactly the same thing with us and God. God is personal and relates with us...like how a parent relates with their child.

4. How do Christian sinning invalidate or falsify the Bible?
Christians lying doesn't falsify the bible in any material sense it simply falsifies the claim christians have when they state an authority to revealed morality within. If the bible is magic it seems that its efficacy is variant and can't be seen as predictable or real.

Christians are not claiming an "authority to revealed morality  within." I am arguing that the revealed morality is written on our own hearts and seared into our consciouses and in the Bible. Even if a person does not have all of the revealed truth..we are responsible for what we do know - for what we do have. Where does Chuck get the idea that the Bible is magic when it says that we should have nothing to do with magic?  Just because people cherry pick, twist, and subvert scripture does not mean that it's not predictable or real. It is consistent and makes sense if you let the text speak for itself and not read your own biases into it. One sure way to tell if you are applying bias is to see if you can find a passage that refutes what you just assumed the text is saying.

One more thing Marcus. I was a lay-minister, missionary and evangelical christian for the past 7 years. I know the bible and your superficial theology. I practiced it.

The last thing I have to say about Chuck's comments is that apostasy is proof that he doesn't understand the Bible, my understanding of, and that he did not live it consistently.  If he was truly born again, God will reclaim him and if he was not, I hope he will be in the future. The way Chuck describes sin or salvation is not the way the Bible does. As for my authority to say such thing, another way is to ask the question: "Who died and elected me and other born-again Christians to the right and position to have salvation and proclaim the Gospel? Jesus! And He validated it with His resurrection!

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus?

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

YouTube - The Absurdity of John W. Loftus

John W. Loftus was a guest on the radio program "The Things That Matter Most". In it we get to see the contortion Loftus has gone through to deny God's existence. It's shocking to me that he has gotten to the point that at the beginning it really wasn't "nothing" but positive and negative energy canceling out with a 60% chance that the universe would come into existence on it's own. WHAT? Scary indeed.






YouTube - The Absurdity of John W. Loftus