Why did Satan quote Psalm 91 to Jesus?

7 Lucifer Season 3 TEASERS & Cast Reponds to Show's Backlash

Here are interesting interview clips of the cast of Lucifer television series. Yes, they were trying to promote season 03 but they were asked an interesting question: Does the show put Satan in a too favorable light?

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

It's amazing to me the lengths the readers who follow and ascribe value to John Loftus' blog will go through to excuse the failure of John Loftus' arguments. This posts as well as a few of the comments go a long way in answering the questions I have about whether or not Loftus' supporter really see the failure of his arguments or not. Short Answer: they don't. I think it is because he tells them what they want to hear and believe. Consider the following.

I have said that Dr. Randal Rauser is not being intellectually honest when it comes to his faith. This does not mean I think he's doing anything unethical or immoral. It means his faith blinds him from being honest with the arguments to the contrary. Let me try, yet once again, to persuade him to throw off his blinders with what I consider one of the dumbest rejoinders to my arguments I think I have ever heard. I do so in hopes he will see it for what it is, and then take seriously that this same blindness affects how he treats other arguments against his faith. I hope in vain though. Dr. Victor Reppert endorses what Rauser wrote, so hey, he's no different. Faith makes otherwise brilliant people stupid, and I mean this.

So if Dr Randal Rauser and Dr Victor Reppert are blinded by their faith, what is that blinds John Loftus?

They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say.

I think jealousy might be part of Loftus' problems (besides sin) because of the derision of Ph.D.'s. Loftus does not have one while Reppert and Rauser do have them. Does that mean that Loftus' opinions are stupid or lack more weight than theirs? Nope. His arguments fail on their own merits.


Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.

In The End of Christianity John W. Loftus describes the following Christian belief which he finds very implausible:

“That the highest created being known as Satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God … and expected to win. This makes Satan out to be suicidal, inexplicably evil, and dumber than a box of rocks.” (100)

So how could any creature be so dumb as to rebel against the supreme omnibenevolent creator of the universe? John definitely has a point: that is definitely implausible.

 I have seen Loftus make this argument more than once on this blog and to be honest I don't see how rejecting Jesus, as Loftus continues to do, is any smarter. It's the same thing as what Satan did. 

But now consider the following statement John made in his blog:

“If I was convinced Christianity is true and Jesus arose from the grave, and if I must believe in such a barbaric God, I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God. I would fear such a Supreme Being, since he has such great power, but I’d still view him as a thug, a despicable tyrant, a devil in disguise; unless Christianity was revised.” [The source of this quote in context can be read here at the very end.]

Let’s spend some time chewing on this passage.

According to Christianity, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent (that is, perfectly good). And worship is, minimally, the ascription of proper worthship to that deity. Incredibly, if that being exists John will refuse to worship that being. Thus we can paraphrase John’s position as follows:

“If I was convinced that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God existed I would refuse to recognize the worship of that perfectly good God and would instead treat him as a despicable tyrant.”

Now wait a minute. John’s accusing Satan [Emphasis his] of being dumber than a box of rocks?

Rauser has a valid point. If Satan was dumb enough to go against an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent  God - the God of the Bible, and Loftus is declaring that he would not worship the God of the Bible, then why not come to the same conclusion that Rauser did. I'd say that everyone who rejects God has something wrong with them. And since we all have and only God's saving power has blessed some of us to see the truth of our own stupidity.

In the comments below Rauser's post BlueDKnight said:

This is an uncharitable reading of Loftus. Charity would have us try to interpret him as saying that the God depicted in the Bible seems barbaric/despicable for letting certain things happen, and perhaps for actively doing certain things. Loftus is not saying he would go to battle with such a being and expect to win, which is what he attributes to Satan. He is simply saying he wouldn't worship him. Indeed he even says he would fear him (e.g., a despicable tyrant is not someone you fight, but someone you might privately fear).

This is a weak "gotcha" kind of thing.

Loftus had made a career in trying to "debunk" Christianity. His stated goals put him in opposition to God. He's fighting God all the way and of course he expects to win. He won't but just like Satan he's going to give it his best try. It's not a "gotcha" moment but another example of a bad argument from John Loftus. 

Clamat said to Randal,

You were eager to suggest John is “dumb as a box of rocks,” and figured out a way to do it: By reading without a reasonable measure of sophistication or honesty. Good luck with that.

John did not write “if I were a Christian.” John did not write “if God were omnibenevolent.” Had John written “If I was convinced God is omnibenevolent…God would be a barbaric, despicable, tyrant against whom I would rebel,” that would be inconsistent and difficult to defend. But that’s not what he wrote. You pay John the respect of assuming he’s not ignorant, why won’t you pay him the respect of assuming he chose to use particular words for a reason? To the extent those words may be ambiguous, why not read his words charitably (!) to determine the meaning he intended and argue against that meaning, instead of one you simply impose?

Agreed that Loftus was not agreeing that God was omnibenevolent but that was not the point Rauser was making. Satan rejected the God of the Bible. Loftus and other atheists do the same thing. One is just as stupid as the other. 

The initial, unstated question of the blog post was whether John would believe God exists if he was convinced “Christianity was true,” i.e., if he was convinced “Jesus arose from the grave[.]” The answer was yes, “I would believe, but I still could not worship such a barbaric God” because that God is demonstrably not omnibenevolent, rather he’s “a devil in disguise.” Would your position be any different had John had written: “If I was convinced [the fact claims of Christianity are] true and Jesus rose from the grave…I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God[.]” (Do you see what I’ve been doing here? Using John’s actual words to determine what his other actual words were intended to mean? Ah, context.)

Sure wish Loftus and other would read the Bible with the same level of  "sophistication" and "honesty" they demand when other critique what they write. Belief in the Resurrection means that you will worship the God of the Bible. You cannot have one without the other because you will see God's omnibenevolence.  So we are back to rejecting God being a really stupid, stupid thing to do. 

The charge stands: You are narrowly reading a single phrase from John’s post entirely out of context and according to your unilateral definition of a single word in that phrase, in an effort to demonstrate an inconsistency in John’s thinking. No such inconsistency exists.

Rauser's charge does indeed stick because of the inconsistency of Loftus' misunderstanding what it means to worship and believe the God of the Bible.

With these two comments I don't have anything to add. They nail it. articulett has some great comments on Rauser's blog as well.

Although these rebuttals were written a year ago as of now, Dr. Victor Reppert recently said of Rauser's post that "This is a nice critique of Loftus."

When will these two Christian apologists become intellectually honest with their faith against the arguments to the contrary? The very fact that they feel led to concoct stupid straw man versions of our arguments, the very fact that they do not even try to understand what the arguments are, is a telling sign that they are most emphatically deluded.

Maybe providing good contrary arguments would help. Good luck finding some.   I think that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of just how bad off we are without God. The logic presented here illustrates how bankrupt intellect is without God's resources.

If instead they are seeking traffic from my links to their blogs when responding to such drivel, then this is a breach of their ethical responsibility. That is, if they knew this rejoinder to me was a non-sequitur and yet posted it anyway for the hits, I do charge them both with being unethical. How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone at that point? You are willing to seriously weaken your own credibility for hits.

Non-sequitur does not equal an argument for which you have not defense against. No one should forget that. 

So which is it boys? Are ye stupid or unethical?

Christian, if you want someone who does not purposely misrepresent the arguments for faith before criticizing them, if you want someone who cares about truth rather than playing intellectual chess games, then do not listen to either of them. Listen to me.

I have found some very valuable insight from Loftus - of what not to do. 

Now boys, was it worth the hits?

Amazing how he does not even see that they are trying to help him. No one wants to see other people go to hell ignorantly. Paul was right
 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:18-32


Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me

Come and Get it: Temptation in the Bible.

At the blog post, linked to at the end of this post, a discussion on whether or not has again broken out if the Bible has contradictions or not. I again challenged Ryan Anderson to provide a single example. He responded with:

Just for fun (not that witnessing you debase yourself is fun...)

How about James 1:13 vs. Genesis 22:1

Obviously the authors are talking about different gods, but I'd "love" to hear your desecration of language and common sense.

Yes, let us indeed have some fun. First, let's look at what the text (KJV) says,


1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said , Behold, here I am.- Genesis 22:1


Versus


13 Let no man say when he is tempted * , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted * with evil, neither tempteth he * any man: - James 1:13

So Anderson is saying that both passages seem to be referring to two different gods one who tempts humans and one who doesn't. I think that he is mistaken because he is assuming that both passages are talking about the same kind of "tempting:". This assumption cannot stand. Compare this with the NIV:

22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied. - Genesis 22:1


Versus


¹³ When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; - James 1:13


Hmmm...The NIV translators use :"Testing" not "tempting:" in Genesis22:1. Which is correct?  Well let's look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 22:1


The word is   and it means:

to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

1. (Piel)
   1. to test, try
   2. to attempt, assay, try
   3. to test, try, prove, tempt 

So both translations are correct but given the context the text is referring to testing Abraham, not to do evil or to find out what Abraham would do but improve him like the way burning silver ore purifies it. When God tests us its for us to succeed ultimately, not fail.  In James, the context is definitely concerning temptation as in temptation to do evil in the context of the passage. Look at verses 13 and 14.

¹³ When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; ¹⁴ but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:13-14


The shortest and most complete definition of evil is: That which transgresses and contradicts God. In obeying God you can't do evil. Which is why it is silly when people try to argue that God's laws are whimsical or that He can change His mind. As if what's evil today, would please Him tomorrow. Therefore the words here the KJV translates with the English Word tempt can't be the same concept. IF Ryan had bothered to read further maybe he would have realized what "tempt" means in James 1:13-14. 


So for completeness let's look at the Greek of James 1:13-14. The word translated "tempted": is  .It means:

1. to try whether a thing can be done
   1. to attempt, endeavour
2. to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
   1. in a good sense
   2. in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
   3. to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
      1. to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c
   4. of the temptations of the devil
   5. after the OT usage
      1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
      2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
      3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

We can see how the word is used in the Old and New Testaments. James 1:13  is definitely referring to how God does not get people to sin. And in Abraham's case it's about demonstrating and increasing  his character. Today we don't use the word "prove" the way the definition above does but we must still see that is what God does even today for His people.

So, Mr Anderson, your mistake is that you don't understand what the authors of the Bible were talking about and not that they contradict each other.

What had happen' was.....: Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star

Check out the following link for a really great Bible search engine in various translation:

http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/

Answering Muslims: Islam's Secret Santa

David Wood has done it again. Watch his argument showing a fundamental inconsistency in Islam that I was not aware of.



Answering Muslims: Islam's Secret Santa

FacePalm of the Day #128 - Debunking Christianity: Christians are morally compromised

John Loftus posted a video clip from a debate in which Dan Barker debated Dinish D'Souza. Loftus seems to think that Barker was able to show that Christians are inconsistent because we would condemn evil acts committed by people but don't condemn God in the Bible. I'm amazed that Loftus would post this considering that he and Barker both lost their debated to D'Souza.




Barker makes some serious mistakes in his reasoning. First let's just agree that it's wrong to break into a person's home and destroy all they have and kill their children and then blame the devil for his actions. However, Barker goes off the rails when he tries to argue that God is just like such a person because of all that happened to Job and then God said:

3 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” Job 2:3

I am familiar with Dan Barker, and have never been particularly impressed with his exegetical skills. This is a great case in point.God is not saying that He didn't have a reason to put Job through all Job went through. God is not saying "Devil, I'm only allowing this because you told me to do it."   God is in control of these scenarios. Yes, the Devil is given as the agent for all of these catastrophes the befell Job but he isn't the one in charge. For example:

 ⁴ “Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give all he has for his own life. ⁵ But now stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
 ⁶ The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.”- John 2:4-6

Look the devil clearly says that God is in control and God then tells him that Job is in his hands but that he's limited. The Devil may be like "a roaring lion roaming to and fro seeking whom he may devour" but he  is on God's leash!. I know that the next question this bring up troubles some. Why would a good God allow a perfect and upright man to go through so much disaster and heartbreak. The story challenges the presuppositions on which the very question rests. Recall that throughout the book, Job was accused of sin by his three friends because they don't think for a second that God would allow Job to suffer like that unless it was a punishment for sin. God chastised the men.

⁷ After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. ⁸ So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” ⁹ So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job’s prayer.- Job 42:7-9

What we learn is that bad and terrible things can happen to you, through no fault of your own, but God has something good in mind for you even if He sends the calamities.  Like Job can hold on to our faith in God:

¹⁴ Why do I put myself in jeopardy
   and take my life in my hands?
¹⁵ Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him;
   I will surely^[a] defend my ways to his face.
¹⁶ Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance,
   for no godless person would dare come before him! - Job 13:14-16

 And I love this scripture:

²⁵ I know that my redeemer lives,
   and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
²⁶ And after my skin has been destroyed,
   yet in my flesh I will see God;
²⁷ I myself will see him
   with my own eyes—I, and not another.
   How my heart yearns within me!  - Job 19:25-27

Who says that there is no resurrection in the Old Testament? It's right there - plain as day - before Moses! The suffering that Job lived through helped him to see the world a lot differently than most people.

In our suffering we get to know God better. We learn more about Him and ourselves. Although the devil might mean it to destroy you, God will turn it for our deliverance. 

And what did Job get out of all of this:

 ¹ Then Job replied to the LORD:
 ² “I know that you can do all things;
   no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
³ You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
   Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
   things too wonderful for me to know.
 ⁴ “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
   I will question you,
   and you shall answer me.’
⁵ My ears had heard of you
   but now my eyes have seen you.
⁶ Therefore I despise myself
   and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:1-6

Job understood God better. It wasn't God saying "I'm bigger. I'm boss". God wasn't bragging. God wasn't pushing him Job into the ground and grounding him into powder. God was explaining who He and who Job is. - who and what we are.  It's not bragging if it's true....and it is.


Debunking Christianity: Christians are morally compromised

Related articles

• The book of Job (walkinstep.wordpress.com)
• Joy Comes in the Morning (brokenbelievers.com)
• where does the sin consciousness come from ? (briancoatney.com)

The Temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) « Psalm Trees

Stephen Notman has written a great exegetical piece on Matthew 4:1-11. I really enjoyed it. Take a look at it using the following link.

The Temptation of Christ (Matthew 4:1-11) « Psalm Trees

Related articles

• The Last Temptation of Christ (okinawaassault.wordpress.com)
• Overcoming Temptation. (greatriversofhope.wordpress.com)
• Fasting - Five Weeks Down, the Rest of My Life to Go (tokickapigeon.wordpress.com)
• How to Overcome Temptation Using the Example of the Temptation of Jesus (lnger.wordpress.com)
• How in light of MATTHEW 4 8 and 9 can a person knowing that Satan is the ruler and owner of all kingdoms serve a country when jesus was no part of this world (wiki.answers.com)

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 1

John Loftus has been posting several posts he calls "Reality Checks" in which he takes an aspect that he believes most Christians believe and then tries to dispute it based on trying to show that it doesn't make sense. He has been promising to make post summarizing his points. Today he published the first 30. My comments are in red. My approach is to agree that some people who call themselves Christians believe what he says, but what I wanna ask is: "Does the Bible say the same thing?"

Below I've put together all thirty theses (so far) that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

Why does Lofus think that God never made a decision? Where does the Bible say that God is simple or doesn't make decisions? That is something people say If God is omniscient and made everything that existed, does exist, or ever will exist how can there be something that He does not know? How can anything be new to him? We don't choose our own ontologcal nature. God is,. Never changes. There is no need for Him to choose His nature. Why does this make God seem unreal? Why would you want to worship a god that needs to take risk? Supreme being means not having to risk failure. In God there is no failure. I realize some people think that God can't be omniscient because he is bound by time. God made time. Why would he be bound by it? As for agreement in the Godhead the Bible agrees.  I'm not going to pretend that I understand how the Trinity works, but the Bible says the Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God. And that God is one. One Being. Three persons.  Being and person are not the same thing.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

The Bible agrees that God is spirit and does not have a Body and created everything out of nothing. However it does not say that God "experiences a sequence of events in time". We do. God is. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  In other words, God is eternal.  

Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. - Isaiah 26:4

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

Excuse me God does not need anything. God certainly doesn't need anything from us. God does not just deserve praise for saving the people who believe and punishing those who don't believe. God deserves praise, honor and glory for who God is. In addition people do not believe just because they are born at the right time and the right place. If that was the case everyone born in Christian homes would be Christians and those not born in Christian homes would never become Christians. And again the Bible disagrees with Loftus. Paul told the Athenians that every single person was born in the place, at the best time, and under the best circumstances for that person to best find God. 

 ²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' - Acts 17:24-28

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

When people make this argument, I've got to ask if you think that Satan was so dumb and stupid to start a war that he could not even hope to win, then why do you commit the same act of stupidity in rebelling against your creator?

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam and Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

The argument that there are some people people would not have sinned under the same initial condition  is silly because if that were true we would not sin now. However, we all sin and fall short of the standard of Holiness. Sure Adam and Eve failed their test, but we continue to fail in our tests. We are all sinners. 

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

 ⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.  - Romans 8:5-8

We deserve hell. Those who are spared and their sins forgiven are given an undeserved gift.

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Bible are not talking about real people or real events. And if you really compare the Bible to other Ancient Near Eastern Literature you will find significant differences. For example, the proportionate ratio given for the ark that Noah used to survive the flood would have made it uncapsizeable and seaworthy while the description pf the craft the survivors of the flood used  given in Sumerian texts would not have worked.

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

I think that number seven is really weak. No proof is given that the Bible represents superstitions, different perspectives (or what they are), or what is meant  by evolving theologies. More details need to be given.

8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

I don't know any Bible-Believing Christians who would agree to number eight. I do know that some scholars disagree about the Exodus, the extent of David's reign, and Luke's report of a world-wide census, but Loftus misrepresents that it's agreed by all experts that these things are not facts. This is not true. There is evidence that such things are true. As for the unverifiable miracles, assuming that they aren't true is also disingenuous. Loftus also ignores the facts reported in the Bible that most scholars and experts do agree.  For example they agree that Jesus really was crucified. 

9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

I don't know any where in the  Bible that claims that  reported miracles in other cultures were lies or hoax. The Bible is clear that Satan deceives people Remember: Pharaoh's magicians were able to turn water to blood and make their staff turn into snakes.  How do we know when a miracle is from God or not?

¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. ⁵ That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 13: 1-5

Realize "testing" doesn't mean tempting them to do evil, but allowing them to be  exposed so that they will know what the counterfeit looks like.  

10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

There is no problem of miscommunication. God did forsee that there would be false prophets and liars. We are warned throughout the Bible. In addition to Deuteronomy 13:1-5 we can add

²³At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. ²⁴For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. ²⁵See, I have told you ahead of time. - Matthew 24:23-25

¹²And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. ¹³For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. - 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

Loftus does not know what faith is. At no time does the Bible condone blind faith. The Bible disagrees with Loftus.

¹¹Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Acts 17:11


 ¹Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1

12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

People often cite this as though it means something. They again ignore Acts 17:24-28. And another relevant passage is Romans 1:18-32

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 ²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 ²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 ²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The  Bible also tells us that obeying the laws leads one to Christ. We know that if one follows what God has given us you will be led to Christ.

¹⁹This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. ²¹But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - John 3:19-21

13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.

That's a bold statement. Completely erroneous,  but bold. Here is one single example: 

⁴¹Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. - John 12:41 

What did Isaiah see? Who did he see? When?

¹ In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. ² Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. ³ And they were calling to one another:
       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
       the whole earth is full of his glory." - Isaiah 1:1-3

Isaiah saw the Lord. How is it that Isaiah saw God? John is saying He saw Jesus. John is explicitly calling Jesus God.

14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

Jesus' virgin birth was not sexual. Alexander's mother was supposedly impregnated by a snake. Hercules' mother had sex with Zeus who had taken human form (how would that be a virgin birth?). Dionysus came out of Zeus' thigh (how does that even compare to Jesus?). I've done some research on just how close these examples really parallel Jesus. Take a look at these. In case you don't want to take the time to look it up yourself I'll save you some time: They don't.


15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

 The Jews believed that God could take human form.  Recall that Abraham saw God  (Genesis 18). These are called theophanies. The Old Testament is full of examples. Jesus is not the same as the Greco-Roman gods taking human form.  Don't forget the Greco-Roman gods had bodies and were not spirits. Jesus was not an example of God minus. But Jesus was God plus an uncorrupted sinless human nature. Jesus is what we should strive to be. He is what God is transforming a believer into. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God incarnate

 ¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians

Image via Wikipedia

I have found this interesting link from Twitter and I am so glad it was pointed out. Atheists like Richard Dawkins are having a field day between the fact of the devastating earthquake in Haiti and Pat Roberston's ignorant remark. Dawkins is reported in the article to have said:

Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonized theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who 'see God' in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti , or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.
Where was God in Noah's flood?....

Dawkins is saying that Roberston saying that Haiti deserves what happened shows the correct Christian understanding of what happened/ I completely disagree. Again, there is no proof that Roberston's idea saying that Haiti made a deal with Satan for their independence, but I'm amazed that this quote makes me think that  Dawkins agrees with Roberston!  That is the only reason that i think that it's hypocritical for Christians to aid Haiti.  The article's writer makes a great point. I quote it as follows:

Bertrand Russel, the famous 20th century atheist, once challenged what a Christian would have to say at the bedside of a dying child where God had not intervened to heal. But what is the atheist’s response? Too bad. The only natural response from atheism is "Tough luck, Haiti." The suffering is not even tragic or evil, it just is the way it is because there is nothing transcendent. There is no good, there is no evil, there is no tragedy in Darwinism. There is only survival and natural processes that bring death or spare us for now. Nothing more.

I agree. By helping Haiti, Atheists are acting against their worldview, not Christians. Christians are following their worldview because we believe that God demands that we help those who need it. We know that it is right. But as an atheist, many agree that we should help Haiti. But why? I mean what happened to "Survival of the Fittest" and "Natural Selection". Why should we not allow those who are strong enough to survive this and  let the weak die? I have an answer for this, however atheist don't unless they abandon their worldview. I welcome their hypocrisy because it does nothing but helps Haiti in general and my in-laws in particular. We need to help Haiti because that is the right thing to do that God wants us to do. Thanks for the help, Richard Dawkins.

Stand to Reason Blog: Dawkins Lectures Christians