Mel Gibson explains the first canonized saint: the Thief on the Cross

Mel Gibson explains the first canonized saint: the Thief on the Cross. No baptism, no works. That man was saved by faith alone. pic.twitter.com/W4Q22QOqwk

— 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ (@sola_chad) September 5, 2025

Quote of the Day: R.C. Sproul

 

“Abraham believed God and God counted him as righteous. Not on the basis of any works … but on his 𝙁𝘼𝙄𝙏𝙃 𝘼𝙇𝙊𝙉𝙀.” -R.C. Sproul pic.twitter.com/IYlDSRPW3f

— 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ (@sola_chad) July 31, 2025

Does Faith Cause Regeneration?

Responding to "DeCalvinizing Ephesians 2:8"

Leighton Flowers has posted a video about how he understands Ephesians 2:8 and he definitely does not look at it the way I do.

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—  Ephesians 2:8

It really comes down to question about what does the scripture says is the gift? Is it saying that grace to be saved or is it the faith? Leighton Flowers is arguing that the gift of God is the grace to be saved not the faith because he believes that every individual has enough faith to believe.

I'm interested in Flower's argument because he tried to use Greek grammar to make his argument. However, I have heard people who see this passage as teaching that the faith is a gift also use Greek grammar to prove their point. I think the confusion comes from where one start. If you think that every person has enough faith to believe then you would think that it is the grace (God's unmerited favor) that is the gift of God. I read this as both the grace and the faith by which the grace is applied both come from God because there is no way we can argue that everyone has that kind of faith apart from God giving ti to them.

Jesus said

44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44

Recognizing the Gospel

Today we will be considering what the Gospel is and what it isn’t so we can think about what to share and how to share it.

There are a lot of different ways to approach this but I want to start by looking at Acts 15. First a little background – start with verse one. 

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. – Acts 15:1-6

We can see here that people have called the nature of the Gospel into question from the beginning of the Church even while the people who actually been with Jesus personally were still alive. Some important things to point out is that people wanted a Gospel based on what they thought was important. In this case: what they saw as the basis of Judaism – the Laws of Moses in general and the custom that all men must be circumcised in particular. Every single heresy and cult begins with corrupting the Gospel.
Look at the form of the argument given in verse 1: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This is a pattern.  “Unless you are ________, according to the custom taught by _______, you cannot be saved.” The only difference between all other heresies is that they just fill in the blanks differently. For example, historically, Mormonism had said “Unless you are a Mormon, according to the custom taught by Joseph Smith, you cannot be saved.” In Islam: “Unless you are a Muslim, according to the custom taught by Muhammad in the Quran, you cannot be saved.” You can summarize every worldview and every religion in a similar way. 

Just like the First Century Christian, we have to combat heresies today because they lead people away from God. Let’s take a look at what the Apostles did. They held on to what the Gospel fundamentally is. Look at verses 6-11

⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Peter starts by showing what God has already validated that Gentiles did not have become Jews to be Believers by treating Gentile believers no differently than the Jewish Believers. Peter defines the Gospel: Salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus. This is the same as taught throughout the New Testament. Paul, Peter, James, John, and all those following Jesus taught this. More importantly Jesus said of Himself!

²³ But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” – John 8:23-24

The first century church was just stating what Jesus had already said. We must do the same today. Therefore let us define the Gospel the way we are supposed to. It is stated in various ways but always the same thing: We all deserve death because of our sin but we are saved from sin and death by faith alone though Jesus alone, according to Scripture alone. Here is one of my favorite ways of stating the Gospel and what it means to us.

²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20

People try to deny and avoid the Gospel. Part of witnessing is disarming their defenses and pointing them back to Jesus. One objection that keeps getting raised is the fact that we come to Christ by faith. The world objects to the Gospel by trying to redefine faith into something the Bible never tells us to believe. “Faith” is not believing something or anything despite a lack of evidence or contrary to reality. God does not condone it nor commands it. Many people you may find yourself witnessing to might try to use this objection. Don’t fall for it. Also we have to know what “Faith” is for ourselves. Let us look at an example of what real faith looks like and how it should be applied.

⁶ Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. ⁷ For we live by faith, not by sight. 2 Corinthians 5:6,7

We know from Hebrews that Faith is trusting in God, but not without evidence. Or continuing and deepening relationship with God is part of that evidence. What we need to focus on right now is why is “Faith” contrasted by the sense of “sight”. We know from Hebrews 11 that faith is the evidence of things we cannot see.  This points out how unreliable our eyes and how we process that visual information we get from them truly is. Ironically the sense of sight is the faculty we rely on most but the most easily fooled. This is why we are told to hold onto our faith and trust in God’s word not on what we see or think.  Our eyes are not ultimately trustworthy. I’ve got some proof of that. 

Look at this image: All the hearts are actually the same color. Our brains fill make the hearts different colors

http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/AIC2009.html

We live in a 3D world, right? How do you know? Do you see in three-D? Nope….not with our eyes. You cannot project a 3D image on a 2D surface – which is the on the back of the eye. Our minds fills in the third dimension because we know it should be there. This is also a blessing of having two eyes instead of one – perceiving depth and distance – it’s not a coincidence. But let me show you how easy we can be fooled if we go on our eyes alone

See 2D moving image that look 3D. (Yeah, I could have chosen other images but I want to make sure y’all were paying attention.)




Such effects are everywhere. In all our media. Taking advantage of how our brains work so our  minds think we are seeing what really isn’t there. Here is another example.  

 So the take-home point is that you can’t trust your  eyes alone to understand reality. This why the Bible says we need faith! Here is another example of such an effet!
Let’s look at two quick videos on how some of Brothers in the Lord are doing witnessing.


Let’s look at two quick videos on how some of Brothers in the Lord did some witnessing.

Old School – Dr SM Lockridge

Current  – Dr James White  and Ivey

This is what the people we witness to have to deal with – the Gospel. We all do. No matter what. As you sit in your seat today, what have you done with the Gospel? Have you gladly accepted it? Do you live by it? Is it more precious to you than anything else? If you cannot answer “Yes” to any of the above questions, you need to find out why you can’t and make some changes so that you can. Jesus loved us so much that He proved it. We cannot do any less. 

Recognizing and witnessing the gospel online version from Marcus McElhaney

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Nathan Phelps (Apostate Son of Fred Phelps) On Faith

John Loftus posted the following quote from Nathan Phelps who is the son of Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church who turned away from his father's teaching and unfortunately did not turn to God.

 Here's what I don't understand. When pressed reasonable religious folks concede that faith is what justifies their notion of god. But they all spend sooo much time learning and regurgitating all these biblical arguments that "prove" god. It seems to me if you're going to invoke faith, just stop there. No need to reason it out or rationalize. In fact a more consistent position would be to spout some gibberish then end with "therefore god!" Am I wrong?

Yes, he is wrong. But given the teachings of his Father of course he would not know what Faith is.  I wonder what is John Loftus' excuse for not knowing what Faith is? Given scripture none of us have a good excuse for mistaking faith for believing something despite evidence that something is not true. No one in the Bible was ever asked to believe God despite evidence and without verification. Rationalization is not necessary when you have evidence. The same is true now. Born-Again Christians do not reason backwards. Everyone comes to faith through God revealing himself to them. External scientific and historical evidence just adds to the evidence you already have. Given that the Westboro Baptist Church does not teach Biblical truths, its not surprise that he missed it. You can turn your back on Westboro's heresies without turning your back on God. In fact if we want to find God you have to turn our backs on their heresies and our own..


Debunking Christianity: Nathan Phelps (Apostate Son of Fred Phelps) On Faith

Debunking Christianity: Christians Do YOU Have Real Faith or Not?

Loftus recently posted the following video about parents who refuse to get their sick and dying children medical intervention because they think that it's medicine is unbiblical.


I agree with Loftus on the point that it's wrong to not give your children medical attention however he is wrong about faith. Parents who do such are not doing such out of faith. It's not real faith. God does not hate doctors nor does God require us to avoid medical attention. It's not an all or nothing. God can use doctors and medicine to heal us. Luke wrote two books  in our Bible and never gave up his profession. Remember when Jesus said

¹¹ When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
¹² On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ¹³ But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’^[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” - Matthew 9:11-13

If Jesus was against Medicine than why didn't he denounce the medical field? Instead Jesus says sick people need doctors. John Loftus faceplants again.




 Debunking Christianity: Christians Do YOU Have Real Faith or Not?

Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?

There is truly a God! How else can you explain John Loftus actually posts an article that I have to mostly agree with. Wonders never cease.

In the wake of Pope Benedict resigning and the desire for a new one to replace him, we need to consider the evidence that Peter was the first Pope. But as Austin Cline argues there isn't any. Given that the early Catholic Church lied with forged documents like the Donation of Constantine and the Testimonium Flavianum (inserted text into Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews concerning Jesus), any claim of theirs, including the one that the earliest disciples were martyrs for Jesus, must have evidence for it.

Loftus over reaches his claim that the Catholic Church forged that text in Josephus. I mean the whole passage is not a proven forgery nor can any prove that there was malicious intent involved or what the motivation involved at all. His point that the Catholic Church did lie about a few things is well taken is true. The thing is all the evidence of forgeries has squat to do with the Bible or whether or not the claims of Christianity are true.

In fact, I'll betcha in the Vatican records themselves the priests who have access to them already know Peter was not the first Pope, that there was no such office. So the Catholic Church is lying to us this very day.

I don't know what is in the Vatican records. but what I do know is that no one in the Bible would agree that there is such an office as a "Pope" and that Peter did not think of himself that way according to the Bible.

It's just another case of liars for Jesus, something that both Richard Carrier and I have documented before. It's never seen more clearly than in the Catholic Church cover-up of pedophile priests. All they can do is stonewall, obfuscate and lie in defense of the indefensible, whatever it takes. They have lost all credibility when it comes to their faith. None is left, none.

 Hold on there. It's irrational to think that covering up pedophile priests is the same a saying that Peter was the first Pope without being able to prove that.  Both arte bad but have nothing to do with one another.

 But then that's what we see when it comes to faith in general, no matter what the religion. With faith, almost anything can be believed. With faith, people can believe without any evidence at all. With faith, people can even believe against the overwhelming evidence. In fact, with faith, people can even justify lying to defend what they need to believe. It's pathetic. Yes, it's THAT bad.

Again, Loftus demonstrates that he does not know what "Faith" is. And if this is the kind of faith he had when he thought he was a Christian, he was doing it wrong and has traded one delusion for another. Yes, it truly is pathetic.

I dare say that if Christians went back in time to the start-up of the early church they would almost all blast its rise as nothing more than a number of harmful pious cultic frauds, by leaders who sought power over others.

Judging the early Christians by the kind of clergy that Loftus himself was? Not good, Mr Loftus, not good. I don't think that Loftus' accusations apply to the writers of the Bible, nor can Loftus show that it does. Before Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire there was precious little power to be had. I mean for about 300 hundred years from the beginning becoming a Christian leader would not gain you power or wealth but suffering and  death. 

Let's take a step back and look at Loftus' argument. Let's say he's right. The Catholic Church lied about Josephus writing about Jesus. It lied about Peter being the first Pope. Transubstantiation is wrong. So what? Even if Loftus is right about faith, and he is not, it matters nothing about whether or not the claims in the Bible are true or not. Loftus being right would not make the Bible right however it does make the Catholic Church wrong.

Debunking Christianity: The Catholic Church Is Lying to This Day: Was Peter the First Pope?

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Christianity and the Virtue of Unreason

I'm simply amazed that many Atheists can't seem grasp the point that God does not expect or condone mindlessly accepting anything. I found this interesting post on Debunking Christianity where J.M. Green attempts to explain that the Bible teaches you to turn your brain off. In this article I see very little understanding of what "Faith" is and what we should remember  is that if you see the Bible saying two different things, then instead of stopping at crying "Contradiction" and conclude that the Bible is nonsense you should at least consider the possibility that you don't understand one or both of those passages.

"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's not use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland

Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:29 (ESV)

The article starts off attempting that Jesus was telling us that it's okay to hold conflicting things as true like the "advice" Alice was getting in Wonderland. Jesus was not talking about believing something despite conflicting evidence therefore this comparison is a straw man at best and a lie at worst. 

Recently I was talking with a friend about her experience as an atheist who has relocated to (according to the Pew Research Center) the 3rd most religious state in the U.S. – South Carolina. She said the thing that struck her was how much pride religious people seem to have in taking things on faith. “It’s like the less evidence that exists for a certain belief--the greater their triumph for still managing to believe it.” She said. “It seriously amazes me. The less you think, the more virtuous you are.”

I agree that  there are Christians who do not reason about their faith. They don't think critically and don't know what they believe and haven't a clue about what they believe and why they should believe it. This is not how it should be. The Bible does not tell us you are more virtuous if you don't think.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Act 17:11

So look the church in Berea was honored for thinking critically. They were honored because they checked Paul's preaching and teaching against the Jewish Scriptures. Now I am sure people will argue that there isn't a way to vet the standard they were using but that ignores the fact that had Paul preached teachings that conflicted with the Hebrew scriptures, the Bereans would automatically know Paul was wrong. It was evidence.

Even though it is somewhat shocking when we encounter someone who blatantly rejects reason and evidence, in favor of a subjective belief, fundamentalist Christianity does much to foster this mentality.

Let's see if Green can back this up. He is claiming that in order to be a Christian, you have to reject reason and evidence. This is simply not true.

The John 20:29 quote above, has Jesus placing a higher value on those who believe without evidence, than those who are able to verify by sensory evidence.

Let’s state plainly what Jesus was saying: “To believe based on what you can personally verify is ok, but if you make a leap of faith and believe based on hearsay, then you are truly blessed.” This is some of the worst advice that one could give, seeing as how all sorts of nonsense from bogus cancer cures, to Nigerian email scams, rely on people’s unquestioning acceptance of claims without proof. Essentially, Jesus is placing a spiritual premium on being gullible and naïve. Credulous acceptance of any and all claims is a virtue. Mindlessness is next to godliness. P. T. Barnum’s sucker-born-ever-minute had just been granted sainthood.

That does not plainly nor accurately represent Jesus' words.  Jesus was talking to one of his Apostles, Thomas -  who walked with Jesus, knew Jesus died, and was talking to Jesus after the Resurrection. That really changes the context of Jesus' words. Here we have a man who predicted his own death and Resurrection. Thomas and those first generation Christians all had a lot of extraordinary evidence. However Jesus is not telling us that those who will believe and not have had the opportunity to put our fingers in our his wounds will not have other evidence to draw on.

The Old Testament also promotes this attitude, as evidenced in this popular Bible verse:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5 (ESV)

The Old Testament is not promoting an attitude against critical thinking but instead regarding how unreliable our own senses and reasoning powers - something that many atheists would readily admit. 

But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble. - Proverbs 4:19

Everyone is wicked. Without God we are all in darkness. We stumble around in that darkness. That is why it is a bad idea to lean on your own understanding.  It does not say "Don't lean on evidence."

In the New Testament, the writers of the Gospels shrewdly muddy the waters by claiming that people refused to believe despite witnessing Jesus performing miracles. This of course, goes hand in hand with the Christian refrain that atheists know God exists, but simply choose to deny this. Why provide evidence if some people aren’t going to believe anyway?

The miracles are indeed evidence. Even Jews who hated Jesus admitted that Jesus performed miracles. They tried to explain them away. I'm not just talking about Jesus' contemporaries but also the writers of the Talmud in the medieval times and other secular ancient sources. The evidence is the there. In Romans, Paul does tell us that atheist suppress the knowledge that God exists but also why  the rest of the Gospel that distinguishes Christianity from other religions is rejected is told to us by Jesus.

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:16-21

In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of a rich man who ends up in the torments of Hell and begs Abraham to send someone back from the dead to warn his brothers so they don’t end up there too.

Abraham replies that the man’s brothers have the writings of Moses and the prophets, and that should be enough. The rich man, recognizing the value of evidence in persuading people, insists that if someone is raised from the dead that will make his brothers take notice. Abraham replies that even then, the brothers would still not be swayed. In other words, why give them evidence, if they won’t believe anyway.

The writings of Moses and the prophets are evidence. It's just so bright that the rich man's brothers would cower away - like Green does. Abraham's words in the parable are proven true every  time someone rejects Christs - after all Jesus returned from the dead and they refuse to listen.

Of course Abraham’s assertion that a book is all the evidence needed is ridiculous, but this is how it works in the fantasyland of Christianity. Christians have a Bible filled with miraculous, unprovable claims and they believe those claims, simply because they are found between the covers of that book.

There are plenty of provable claims in the Bible.  For example the Bible makes claims about people, places, and events that can be shown to really have existed. Had nothing ever been shown to be true, then Green and others might have something. Truth is saying that there is no evidence of the Bible being true is a lie

The Apostle Paul does his part to promote evidence-free belief:

For we walk by faith, not by sight.
2 Corinthians 5:7 (ESV)

Actually Paul is quoting the Old Testament and he is not saying  that faith mean belief with absence of evidence.

And, let us not forget the unnamed author of Hebrews who devotes the whole of chapter 11 to the praise of mindless belief.

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

Who needs evidence when belief itself becomes the proof?

Green is suggesting that something can only be real if you can see it and has just thrown science under the bus.  Ever seen a proton?  Electron? What color are they? How do they smell? What texture do they have? According to Green's "logic" nothing that you can't answer these questions about exists for real. I'm not willing to do that. I want to know how many people are going to comment that Green does not know what "proof" means like they do whenever a theist has the audacity to speak?

In a revealing admission, after enumerating the assorted exploits of the heroes of the Jewish faith, the author of Hebrews says:

And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
Hebrews 11:39 (ESV)

Get that folks? All these people died (some of them in horrible ways) without ever seeing the result of what their faith promised them. The golden carrot on the stick dangled just on the other side of death, as it still does. And, since Father Abraham doesn’t like the idea of sending anyone back from the dead to verify the state of the afterlife for us, you just have to devote your life to your religion and its invisible god, in the hope – or should I say in ‘faith’ that there will be a life after death, and that heavenly carrot will be waiting for you.

I wonder why Green didn't quote the whole passage in context.

 ³⁹ These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, ⁴⁰ since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. - Hebrews 11:39,40 (NIV)
 

So the reason why the Old Testament saints didn't yet receive the promise is because of those of us who have come after them. It is God's intention that we get it all together. Also look at the the translation Green uses to make it seem like the Old Testament saints get nothing.  Look at what comes after in the passage. 

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, ² fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. ³ Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. - Hebrews 12:1-3

In the Christian faith, mindlessness is next to godliness. To trust reason and require evidence is to imperil your very soul. Blind belief becomes a feat of spiritual strength to be admired and emulated. Strap a Bible to your head and send your brain on a suicide mission for Jesus; become a mind-martyr for the cause.

Now that is just a lie. No where does the Bible tells us to do that.

I have both seen and experienced how Christianity encourages people not to ask too many questions and not think too deeply. There are certain invisible boundaries and if you stray beyond them, you will reap the negative social consequences. Faith provides pseudo-certainty and doubt is a disease. Voice your doubts aloud and you soon will become a leper to be avoided in the city of faith.

I keep hearing people saying that is what Christianity is, but that is not my experience. I wasn't raised that way. Some people teach that way although the Bible does not talk that way.

¹⁶ Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
    stop doing wrong.
¹⁷ Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.^[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.

¹⁸ “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
    says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
    they shall be like wool.
¹⁹ If you are willing and obedient,
    you will eat the good things of the land;
²⁰ but if you resist and rebel,
    you will be devoured by the sword.”For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. - Isaiah 1:16-20
 The fundamentalist believer is happy to make use of reason, and science selectively in service of promoting their religion, but the moment these tools reveal flaws in their belief system, they slash the ties and float free, soaring on the wings of faith, unencumbered by rationality.

 I would like to see Green prove that. The burden of proof  is on him. Where is the mind of the skeptic? How does he know he is right about that?

Critical thinking does not always provide easy answers, let alone soothing ones. For the believer, the retreat into dogmatic belief is like a warm, soft security blanket they can wrap themselves in when facts and reason provide cold comfort. Doubt is disparaged and demonized by religion, but doubt is actually a valuable tool, guarding against self-deception and delusion.

There is no evidence that the Bible teaches us to not to critically think. What critical thinking should do is lead you to the conclusion that doubting God is stupid. If you don't come to that conclusion how do you know you have come to the right one? The Bible tells us that you have fallen into self-deception and delusion.  You have nothing to go on to prove that the Bible is false. 

Recently, I was discussing with a family member, the tendency of the Bible’s god to kill children for their parents’ ‘sin’, “Do you think it is ever right to kill a child because you are angry at their parents?” I asked

“Well, uh, ummm… God knows what is best, and I trust him,” was the response.

That is a bad answer. Green's question is predicated on a false presupposition. First  Green does not understand how bad sin is and further Green conveniently attempts to make an emotional case out of it. For example, he seems to be suggesting some adults sinned so God just killed their children. This is not what happened. The whole nation was destroyed according to scripture. And what about the 400 years God gave them to stop sinning before He sent Israel in to destroy them? Sounds like mercy to me. Ultimately Green doesn't want an answer. He really only wants to rationalize his rebellion against God.

Later, another family member wondered aloud why humans have body hair. I gave a science-based reply. Their response? “That’s not the answer I was wanting to hear.”

To me, that was very telling. Fundamentalist dogma has decreed what truth is and the mind must be subjugated to this dogma. Alternative evidence and answers must be rejected, using the ‘shield of faith.’ You see, faith is the immune system that protects the God virus from potential threats which might cause it to weaken and die. Despite all the technological and scientific advances in our world, it would seem that the Queen of Unreason is still the tyrant who rules supreme in the Wonderland of religion.

The only dogma I think Green has managed to demonstrate is that the Bible Bible teach one to believe things without evidence or against evidence. What he has managed to demonstrate is to show that he does not know what "faith" is.  He isn't the only one. I'm amazed that people who bring up this argument and even try to base it on Hebrews 11 always invariably fail to recognize that not one of them had blind faith. Each and everyone one of them had an encounter and a relationship with God. Let's just pick one of them:  Gideon.

³² And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, - Hebrews 11:32

Gideon was a man who wanted evidence that God had called him to do the work he was called to do - defeat the Midianites. God did not get mad, but gave him what he needed.  Read his story - Judges 6,7,8

Written by J. M. Green

Another one to add to the prayer list.

Debunking Christianity: Christianity and the Virtue of Unreason

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?

Apparently John Loftus' last post on science and religion provoked enough of a response that he felt that he needed to post another in response to someone who disagreed with him.

I haven't found another blog like DC where intelligent Christians and atheists meet to debate the issues. I like it. Perhaps one of the reasons is because of comments like the one from a Keith R.:

Hi, John, I’m a long time reader and sometime commenter on DC. Of the many atheist and theist blogs that I follow I would have to say that you are the best at consistently coming up with interesting topics and arguments even though I disagree with almost everything you say.

I've heard this from others several times before. There aren't too many people out there who understand the mind of the believer and who blog on a daily basis like the writers here at DC (including Hector Avalos, Harry McCall, Jonathan Pearce, Phil Torres, and the articulate articulett). Just the same, Keith R. disagreed with my recent post, Enough of This Utter Nonsense, On Knowing the Supernatural. He wants us to think of science as a metal detector, and as such, it cannot detect anything that isn't metal. Hence, there are things that science cannot detect, supernatural things. *POOF* Therefore a trinitarian incarnational atoning resurrecting ascending and soon to be returning God exists. Get this? Neither do I.

While I would not throw Keith R out of the church for taking his position, mine is a little different. I would not say that science is incapable of telling us anything about God  I would say that science is incapable of giving us the kind of detection and evidence that Loftus thinks that he needs.

Keith (may I just use your first name?) argues that "science should be viewed as a metal detector. It does a great job of detecting metal objects just as, by analogy, science is great at studying the natural world." But it cannot detect anything else except metal, soooo, "science’s inability to detect the spiritual world because it is designed to study the physical world doesn’t mean that the spiritual world doesn’t exist or that science is to blame for not detecting it." Link.

*cough*

According to the Bible, the natural world points to God. Studying it shows us that God does exist. It is true that that you can't get the Gospel out of it, God's triunity, or the purppose for creation. That is why we have history, archaeology,  many other pieces of evidence, the Bible, and personal relationship.

I've heard a lot of analogies like these from believers. None of them show anything significant at all. What this particular analogy conjures up in our heads is the prior knowledge we have that most things in the universe are not made of metal. There is water, sand, dirt, all sorts of animals, plants, rocks, and gases. We know this. So the analogy plays with our heads precisely because we have prior knowledge that most objects in the universe are not metal. This is clearly stacking the mental deck in favor of that which Keith wants us to consider. His analogy would therefore more accurately be stated like this: If all we had was a metal detector then how can we know if non-metallic objects exist in a world where all we ever experienced are metal objects?

I'd argue that it is possible to know that the supernatural does indeed exist and those who don't experience cannot conclude that there is no God because they don't detect  God. 

So let's go back in time. The ancients agreed upon four elements in the cosmos: earth, water, air, and fire (some included Aether, the mysterious element). These elements referred to the phases of matter: earth is equivalent to solid, water is equivalent to liquid, air is equivalent to gas, and fire is equivalent to plasma. No metal is specified here. As science has progressed it has discovered 117 elements to date.

Um...excuse me. The Bronze Age is ancient times. Metal was known. And many such paradigms would consider metal to be one kind of "earth". Hasn't Loftus ever watched Avatar the Last Airbender  which is based off such conceptions.

So if Keith wants a proper analogy to science it would be an Element Detector, not just a metal detector. And what detects the elements? Our five senses, along with the many instruments scientists have produced to enhance them, beginning with the telescope and the microscope. So to put this into perspective Keith is asking if there is an element that we cannot detect with our Element Detector. Think about this, please! The only way we have for detecting elements is with our present Element Detector. If there is any other reliable way I'd like to know what it is. Faith in a private subjective experience has a proven track record of repeated failures. All we have to do is look at the difference between our reliable Element Detector compared with faith as an "element" detector seen in these two world maps.

The "Element Detector" is not just our five senses and other technological instruments. It's our perceptions and reasoning  powers - hardly reliable. The funny thing is I keep reading Loftus as saying that our minds and perceptions are flawed and easily biased  yet he loves to pretend they are good enough to conclude that there is no God.

What more can I say at this point? If there is a supernatural "element" who wants to be detected by us there is no other way but to provide our senses with objective reliable data. We cannot detect that which is undetectable. It is impossible for us to do anything different if this supernatural "element" expects us to be reasonable people.
 
By what standard doe Loftus know that he is "reasonable"? The thing Christianity posits is that without God calling us Himself, we cannot know Him. We can only know of Him.

Private subjective experiences by contrast, do not count for anything at all. Even if someone had one, he or she should doubt it as an unreliable brain fart.

It's interesting how Loftus jumps to the conclusion that something is wrong with a person if he/she experiences God but does not consider the possibility that it his faculties that have failed.

Such experiences happen during a trance-like moment of mediation, or prayer, or singing songs of worship to any and all supernatural "elements" from the beginnings of human civilization.

That's not how the Bible describes a single encounter with God. It's doesn't describe any of my  experiences or anyone I know. If this is what Loftus experienced, this might explain why he was never born again.

Just think of the trance-like state that believers would attain during the cadence-like rhythmic beating of the ancient Aztec drums as a high priest gutted a virgin on the altar, in sacrifice to Xipe Totec, so the sun would rise the next day, or the rain would come. They knew with certainty that their god existed and that he wanted them to sacrifice that virgin based on the same private subjective experiences Christians have today. Yep, the same exact ones. If this isn't what's going on in the heads of believers of all shapes and stripes, then what is?

Not the same at all. I don't have to go my own subjective experiece. God would not tell me something that would conflict with any of the messages He gave us through His Word. If my thoughts or conclusions conflict with the Bible (and that has happened), the red flag is waving. I know that I need to re-align myself with what the Word is. An Apostate is one who refuses to do that.

So it isn't the case, as Keith opines later, that his God doesn't want us to have absolute knowledge of his existence lest he force us into believing.

Many Christians take this viewpoint because they believe that God willed for humanity to choose God of our own free will without intrusive influence. While this position is not one that salvation hinges on, I don't agree. Without God we cannot choose Him. (John 6:44;Romans 8) .

The case is far far less than this. His God has not given us ANY evidence of his existence at all except for private subjective experiences and the 2nd- 3rd- 4th-handed written testimonies from ancient Christian believers who had private subjective experiences.

That is not true. We have creation. We have moral laws engraved in our minds. We have Jesus' Resurrection. We have the Bible which is extremely more reliable than Loftus likes to pretend. 

Keith simply does not think of his God as a reasonable one, for a reasonable God who wants, no demands, reasonable belief should give reasonable people what reasonable people need to believe. I am not demanding anything of God. I am a reasonable person who needs what Keith's God is not providing. I am not alone. His God doesn't even abide by the parable of the Lost Sheep. He's losing many of his sheep every day and is doing nothing objectively to keep them in the fold.

Loftus is  incorrect. No one is reasonable - at least on God's level. I want to know what makes Loftus think he is reasonable? And why does he think God owes him to provide the evidence he thinks he wants? I'd argue that if God did, it would not make a single difference in Loftus' decisions. God does abide by the Lost Sheep Parable.   To argue that God doesn't care about a single one of his sheep is to assume that there are sheep going to hell. That's not possible. God's not loosing a single sheep. John Loftus and other unbelievers should consider the possibility that maybe because they don't hear his voice is because they are not His sheep. The failure is not in God but in us. Jesus said the following:

¹⁴ “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ¹⁷ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” - John 10:14-18

And Jesus also Said.

²⁵ Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, ²⁶ but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷ My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸ I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all^[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are one.” - John 10:25-30

Debunking Christianity: Should Science Be Viewed As a Metal Detector?

High Five of the Day - He Lives: Just a thought, and I've said it before

David Heddle's blog continues to impress and inform. I really wish that people who continually get what Faith is wrong would really read and understand what it the Bible is saying Faith is instead of continually building and complaining about straw men they have imagined. I've argued much the same thing and if people will not listen to me, I hope they will listen to Dr David Heddle. He wrote:

I don't actually know what faith is. It is not simple intellectual assent--i.e., belief. The bible speaks of some who believe but are lost. Nor is it "blind." Hebrews 11 has the faith hall of fame, and lists people who did not need blind faith for they saw and spoke to god. Abraham's faith was hardly blind, with the exception that he had faith that God's promise of redemption would be fulfilled in his future. If blind faith was the ultimate virtue, Gideon (who demanded physical proof) would stand condemned--instead he shows up in Hebrews 11 as a faith hero. Faith (πίστις), I think, is closer to trust than to believe. As Grudem puts it, which works for me, it's coming to God and saying: "I got nothing."  

No, i don't think any one of us truly knows what "Faith" is. We learn and grow into it as we mature in God. This explains why Atheists constantly get this wrong.

He Lives: Just a thought, and I've said it before