Thursday, May 24, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: In Defense of the Non-Ethics of Christianity

It's always gratifying when someone who disagrees with you decides to continue the conversation. This is in response to a follow-up article responding to my criticisms. Good. Let's see if there is improvement. 

In this post, I am going to build upon one of my previous posts, namely, The Non-Ethics of Christianity, in order to further illustrate how the Pauline version of Christianity that has been adopted by the majority of Christians in our society (and many non-Christians as well) leads to moral laxity. I will use two examples of Christians who purport to undermine my case, but who in fact, support my case, and illustrate why the Pauline version of Christianity leads to moral laxity.

In case, it wasn't clear before, it cannot be shown that Paul's teaching contradicted Jesus' in the slightest. Paul said very clearly that he would never agree that we should ever be morally lax. 


In my previous post, I cited the fulfillment passages of Matt. 5:17-20, to show that according to Jesus, believers are suppose to follow all of the laws and that they are to do the right thing.

Hmmm...where does Paul say that we shouldn't do the right thing? Further, what does Paul believe the right thing is?

Marcus McElhaney of the "What had happen' was.... blog responded:
Take some time and really reflect on what Jesus said. Is Jesus talking about dietary laws? What about the law about picking up sticks on the sabbath? Or what about the ceremonial laws no one can follow now that there is no Temple nor Tabernacle? No, no, and no. Jesus tells us what he's referring to and what does it mean to be more righteous that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in verses 21-48. See how everything He talks about can be traced to the words in the law but Jesus takes them a step farther so it's not just about doing the right thing. It is also about desiring and thinking the right things.
So far, Marcus seems to be in agreement with me in that all of the laws apply. He even goes further and claims that it is not just about doing the right thing, but one is to even desire and think the right thing too. So far, we are in agreement.

Well no, I don't think we agree. I don't think so because there is no indication that the writer believes that all the ceremonial laws apply today or not. Which is it? If they do, then we have Jesus contradicting himself when he declared all foods clean. I don't accept that at all. Jesus made a distinction between the ceremonial laws and moral laws.Why wouldn't you?

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. - Mark 7:18-20


So, no I would not say that all 600+ laws found in the Torah is for us today. The moral law is. Don't forget the persecution the Jewish religious leaders used to try to lie on Jesus because they didn't think he obeyed the Sabbath laws because he had the audacity to heal people  on the Sabbath and improve their lives. The nerve of him.

Next, he quotes me:

"The belief that Christians do not have to follow the laws came from Paul. According to Paul, Christians are in essence, "lawless." This makes "sin" something of a paradox because a sin is defined as a transgression against God's laws--but there are no laws!"

Marcus responds, with a corresponding Bible passage:
Paul never said that. Funny how in the 21st Century the same charge is being brought up as was tried against him when he was alive.  
7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! 9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. - Romans 3:7-9 
Now, we are coming to where I and Christians like Marcus split ways. I argued that according to Jesus you are not free from the law, i.e., not free to do anything, and it is possible to be perfect.

Jesus did not teach that we can be perfect (I'm assuming that "perfect" here mean "sinless"). In Matthew 5:17-20 does not refer to sinless perfection. Does anyone think that if people could be sinless that Jesus would need to be crucified to atone for our sin? If we weren't so hopelessly enslaved to sin, we would not have needed a propitiatory sacrifice. I wonder why there isn't any refutation on the way I explained what the passage above says. Oh well, If you didn't like what Paul wrote, you will like what Jesus said even less. 

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 8:24

However, Marcus, following Paul, adopts the opposite view. Paul claims you can do anything and that you are under the power of sin and so will do anything, good or bad; but you ought not do bad things because not everything will be good for you; but then again you are under the power of sin and so can not help yourself;....--the great Christian paradox and dilemma begins!

Romans 7 and 8 lays this out much clearer. Paul is making the case for why Jesus is essential and why we need Jesus. I disagree that Paul teaches that you should control yourself because not everything is good for us. No, we do good because we Love God and that the reason Jesus redeemed us was so that we can do the good works that God has set up for us to do! 


For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:8-10

Marcus continues:
"Who really thinks they are perfect in their choices and they do make the right choices. Most people don't make the wrong choices on purpose. They do what they think is best for them. The problem is that we don't know better than God does about what is best for us. We are flawed. Broken. That's not saying that we never do anything good. But when we do, that was God, even if we don't know it or recognize it coming from Him. We are responsible for our sin because that is what we want to do. It's hard to accept that we are so messed up it took so much to redeem us, but that is the good news: God loves us that much. So how do we sum up ethical Christianity: 
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galatians 5:13,14" 
Well, Jesus thought you could be perfect and make right choices and that it is possible to do so.

Really? Where did Jesus say that? We have no hope of doing so 100% apart from Him. Remember that if you break one law, you break them all. All of us deserve hell. Jesus came to save us from that.

Jesus said nothing about being flawed and broken and therefore unable to be perfect and make right choices! To paraphrase Marcus, If a man tortures a child and then he is sorry for it, I mean, REALLY sorry for it, then as long as he agrees/believes in God/Jesus, "hell is off the table." (As he notes later on in his post.)

Hell is off the table because Jesus took the punishment for all of our sin. If you die in your sin you will be in hell right along with the man who tortured a child and never repented.  It's not just being sorry and I pointed this out in the post - you must repent - that means stop and do good instead.  We are all sinners and no better than the "man who tortures children". Jesus said no one comes to the God except through Him. Why?

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

Who is good?

According to Mark 10:17-19, Jesus said no one. That means no one is righteous either. Which is why we need a savior!

Now note, Marcus goes on to say that:
"...then you do all you can to never do it again - trusting God to forgive you.
Meaning, its NOT that believers DON'T do it again--only that they TRY not to. Why, there are probably sexual molesters and serial killers that feel real remorse for their crimes, and they try not to do it again--and in the Christian system, as long as they are sorry and they truly mean it, and TRY to be good--that's all that matters. THIS, according to Paul's perversion of the text.

How can Paul pervert a text he wrote?  But leaving that aside, this is where you can't understand what Christianity is without God. The Holy Spirit helps you to stop sinning. The article's author seems focus on big sins like the crimes people  are going to jail for or executed for.Those are not things you can do by accident. Can you accidentally murder someone? No. If you have to try not to murder people or try not to molest people then you have not been born again.

According Jesus however, believers are not free to do whatever they want.

True believers in Jesus don't do what we want. We do what Jesus wants. 

According to Jesus, they are to follow all the laws and and the prophets and you are subject to judgement according to the laws. Jesus commands: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48

The Greek "perfect" does not mean sinless. I means mature, perfect, and complete. 

How did Jesus tell us to be fulfill the Law and the Prophets?

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”
32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.- Mark 12:28-34

Marcus makes reference to Matt 5:21-48. But now note how MARCUS PROVES MY POST, as he illustrates the Christian confusion and dilemma. He states that:
"...it's not just about doing the right thing. It is also about desiring and thinking the right things."
But then he goes on to tell us that believers CANNOT do the right things, as you are not "perfect," you are flawed and broken!

Actually I said that everyone - all humanity is broken.

But it is even worse than that. Marcus has already alluded to another problem within Christianity. As Marcus said above:
"That's not saying that we never do anything good. But when we do, that was God."
In other words, God determines who is good and who is bad--God is responsible. God even decides who believes and who does not believe!

But we are accountable.

In my previous post I said:

"Unfortunately, today we live in a society full of these "born sinners"--people who believe they were born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things--which explains the chaos. However, if Christians cannot help but to sin, do they really have "free will??" Not according to the Bible--but that is for another post."

Marcus goes on to say in response to me:
I have to ask...who said you have free-will? It's not just Christians who cannot help but sin - everyone does. Romans 8:5-8 lays out the fact that we are unable to be anything but hostile to God on our own and cannot choose to do differently. IF you truly had free will then you would be able to choose to never sin and always do the right thing 100% of the time in all circumstances - without God. Good luck with that. In the following Socratic dialogue, is where the article truly goes off the rails.

So, according to Marcus, not only is humanity incapable of following the laws and doing right, but no one, including Christians, cannot help BUT to sin, because as he stated, we have "no free will." Believers are "god's robots" according to Marcus, doing evil things because, well, as the bible tells us, "...EVERY decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33)

I thought I was clear, but I'll say it again: apart from the power of God in our lives we are not capable of following the law 100 percent of the time. That's not an excuse because we still accountable to the standard God has set.  You are a slave to sin and Jesus is the only way out.  But again if you had free will, why do you still sin?

  If they cannot choose to do differently, then it is YAHWEH'S fault that they do evil things. This is further supported by the Bible, as Isaiah 45:7 tells us that Yahweh created evil.  Therefore, according to Marcus, believers cannot do the right things, as they are not "perfect" and worse yet, believers have no free will to do so!--it is all up to God!

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:14-24
This is inconsistent however, with the last statement Jesus made in the passages Marcus cited from Matthew 5:21-48, for in 48, Jesus commands followers to "be perfect!!" i.e., believers CAN do right and keep the laws and they are to do so!

Jesus referred to the moral law not the ceremonial law.  

Lastly, Marcus cites Paul, where Paul claims that believers are FREE FROM THE LAW and that all the laws are condensed into Loving their neighbors as themselves!
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galatians 5:13,14
But note, these passage are also inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. For how does "love your neighbor as yourself" cover keeping the 613 laws and the teachings of the Prophets? It doesn't.

Oh so now Jesus' words is not good enough.  Jesus said that it did fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

Let's put it to the test.

MURDER--anyone who murders will be subject to judgment
KOSHER FOOD LAWS--take the kosher food laws according to Jesus, then, anyone who breaks the kosher food laws will be subject to judgment.
ORGIES--how does love your neighbor as yourself prevent you from having an orgy? Hmmmm--lol. It actually seems to support orgies if you and your neighbors love each other! Let's say two married couples who are neighbors had an orgy together. Love your neighbor as yourself does not rule this out! But now note, such orgies would violate the Old Testament laws concerning adultery.

If you murder a person you have failed to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus declared all foods clean. And as for orgies, Matthew 19 covers that and "Love" is not the kind of "love" that leads to orgies. Jesus quoted the Old Testament so in no way is there a contradiction The kind of Love is agape that Jesus referred to. Erotic love is what gets you orgies. People should really stop mixing categories!!!

“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:18

According to Jesus, not only would such an orgy be ruled out, but these people participating in such activities would have to yank their eyes out and so forth, if they even thought about it.

That really distorts what Jesus said.

So according to Jesus, believers are not free from the law, they are still under "judgement" by the law, and Jesus said they need to be "perfect" as their father in heaven is perfect. i.e, This means they cannot sin, repent, sin, repent, and repeat when necessary. Jesus' supposed sacrifice was a ONE TIME ONLY deal, and Hebrews 10:26-27 confirms this when it states that if believers sin "willfully" after having the "laws written on their hearts" there is no more sacrifice for sins--only the burning fires of hell. No repentance.

No Believer woulds say that you can or should willfully sin. Therefore it shows that Christianity cannot lead to an ethical lax. Don't sell the scope of Jesus' sacrifice too short. It covers everyone who believes in what God had given them who ever has lived, now lives, or ever will lives. Abraham is just as saved as I am because He believed God although he did not have as full a picture of what God was doing as we do today.

Paul, however, was literally saying that the laws no longer apply. This led to debauchery, orgies, and general chaos. This is also why Christians do not follow the majority of the 613 laws or the teachings of the prophets.

Again where did Jesus say we had to keep the dietary laws and the ceremonial laws? Debauchery, orgies, and general chaos came from people's sinful hearts and arguments like "how does love your neighbor as yourself prevent you from having an orgy?"

When I stated that:" ....even if there were "laws" to break, they would be redundant anyway, when anything can be forgiven as long as a believer sincerely "repents. ...making "sins" virtually meaningless."

Marcus responded by stating that:
Let's apply some honesty here. The Bible is very clear that God punishes sin. Saying "I'm sorry" is neither repentance nor a Free-Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card. Anyone who thinks this way does not understand what Biblical Christianity is. True Repentance means agreeing with God that He is right and We are wrong. It means doing a 180 degree turn away from the offending thought and practice we are sorry for. We are sorry for what what we did and not just sorry about being caught doing it. If you truly repent then you do all you can to never do it again - trusting God to forgive you. That's not saying that there are no consequences or repercussions - only that hell is off the table as one of them. God may choose to give you mercy so that don't suffer here and now but there is no guarantee of that. The guarantee is that God will be with you
To paraphrase Marcus, If a man tortures a child and then he is sorry for it, I mean REALLY sorry for it, then as long as he believes in Jesus, "hell is off the table" Now note, that Marcus goes on to say that:
"...then you do all you can to never do it again - trusting God to forgive you.
Meaning it's Not that believers DON'T do it again--only that they TRY not to. Why, many many sexual molesters and serial killers feel real remorse for their crimes, and they try not to do it again--and in the Christian system, as long as they are sorry and they truly mean it, and TRY to be good--that's all that matters. THIS, according to Paul's perversion of the text. So Marcus McElhaney is not following Jesus, he is following Paul's perverted Christianity which claims you can only try to be good, you can't really be good--but it doesn't matter, because as long as you say "sorry" to Jesus, you still get to go to heaven, as hell, as he says, is, "taken off the table! And if hell is "taken off the table, then Marcus is being disingenuous when he stated that "God punishes sin." If "hell is off the table," then there are no consequences for sin.

No God does punish sin. Something all who deny God will understand the full measure of that that means. What is being forgotten is that when God saves you, you are made new. You change. But it's a process. Somethings you immediately stop in your sinning and you know it's not all you. But there are somethings that take time. For some people its acting cruelly to others out of angry - breaking the law to love others. For some people it's esteeming other higher than yourself. I'm following Jesus, because Paul followed Jesus. A believer doesn't go to heaven because of his/her own righteous but because of Jesus. He makes your righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees.

But it is even worse than that. Marcus would have us think that Jesus must be a fool, since Jesus said to follow the laws and to "be perfect", so Jesus must be a fool according to Marcus since Marcus is following Paul's perverted version of Christianity that states you are under the power of sin and have no free will. Even the great Christian philosopher Pelagius understood Paul's version of Christianity led to "moral laxity." It is my guess that Jesus would NOT be pleased.

Jesus is Lord and Master. If you have Jesus, if you are born-again then you are free of sin and death. That is what Jesus taught. That is what Paul taught. Pelagius was a heretic. I wouldn't base any arguments on him.  The confusion is that I didn't say we have no will of our own. We do  but it's just inclined to do evil. And without Jesus we can do no better. You will die in your sins and in hell you will lift up your eyes.

To illustrate how deep this perversion runs, another Christian posted this comment on this same post. I claimed in my post, and maintain that we CAN do what is right. Keeping in line with Marcus and the Pauline version of Christianity, the following Christian commenter wrote :
" I'm sure it's a nice thought to take responsibility for your own actions, but whether you live like a saint or a devil it won't matter in the slightest."
This illustrates the fact, that as a Christian, doing good or doing bad has NO RELEVANCE--for as the commenter said, that "doesn't matter" I guess because since they believe in Jesus they believe you will be rewarded with heaven, or, as Marcus stated, hell is "taken off the table" anyway, and thus, whether Christians are a saints or a devils, it makes no difference!

It has no relevance from the stand point of getting you into right standing with God. On our best day our righteousness is no better use than a used tampon. If you want to please God it makes a difference on where you put your faith - in your own good works or on Jesus. That's all I and the commentator are saying - not that you should go and do bad because it doesn't matter. Honesty please. 


All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. - Isaiah 64:6

Both Marcus and the Christian commenter above represent the Christian position I set out in my post, and as I argued, it is this Christian position that leads to "moral laxity" Now, the difference between me and them is that I take being a "saint" as opposed to being a "devil" as VERY serious. Which is why I live a "saintly" life. And by saintly, I mean I do not commit adultery, murder, torture young children, and so forth--I take responsibility for my actions, and I am not looking for some loophole or reward for any bad behavior.

You can't be a saint without Jesus. I don't  "commit adultery, murder, torture young children, and so forth--I take responsibility for my actions". Never have.  Neither would any born-again Christians live like that. Takes more than that to be a saint.  But you are still a sinner - deserving hell (as do all of us). So what's the difference? Simple. Jesus isn't a loop hole. He is the only answer.

 "What does it matter whether you are a saint or a devil?" Christians should ask that question to all the little girls, boys, and young women who are abused and exploited by "devils" in our society. What a silly and absurd position Christians hold--a silly position that leads people to do EVIL things.

Jesus doesn't just command you to be a saint. He says that he will never leave us or forsake us and if we trust in Him we will never fail. That is the position not the one the author of this post misconstrues.

Hey Even the comments were amusing.
  • I have debated Marcus before. He is not very well versed in philosophy, but will happily quote the bible to you to... prove the bible. Stubborn, yes; logical, no. As a Calvinist who adheres to Original Sin he is frustrating in his inability to listen or understand philosophical points. And that is being kind

    This whole post hinges on what the Bible says and the author I have been responding to fails to accurately and careful address what the Bible actually says. You are really so stubborn to just understand the Bible in context. Real sad. I told you I'm not a Calvinist. I'm not an Arminian either. As for the Philosophical faceplants you kept raising, I don't have accept your silly premises or supposition. And if you haven't seen this meme, you should take this to heart in a tongue-in-cheek way. 


  • A is for Atheist, I am a professor of religion and philosophy.
    By what I had read on his blog, I would tend to agree with you.  I wanted to put this out anyway, just so others would have a better understanding of the arguments, and to see by example how literally stupid Christian philosophy is. I really do enjoy dialectical process.  Jesus however, if he had a grave, would be turning in it right now...lol

    Jesus is Alive. And ready to give you life and free you from your imprisonment.And before you dismiss Christian philosophy, you should at least get it corr
  • andreas schueler
    So Marcus McElhaney is not following Jesus, he is following Paul's
    perverted Christianity

    => I have to remember this one... "You follower of Paul´s perverted Christianity!"  :-D 
      In the NIV the word “evil” does not even appear: “I
    form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create desaster; I,
    the LORD, have created it.” A charitable reading of this passage certainly
    doesn’t arrive at the conclusion that the author wanted to express the idea
    that God is an evil being. 
    => Really ? "creating disaster" is not evil  ?
    It doesn´t really matter which translation is the most accurate one (almost complete list here: http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.ht... )
    all translations describe Yahweh as a moral monster. 

    You'd have to first prove that Paul perverted Jesus' message and that has not been done here.


Debunking Christianity: In Defense of the Non-Ethics of Christianity

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why John 3:16 is a Lie in Its Biblical Context


I have noticed several people who constantly comment on Debunking Christianity. Since John Loftus has decided to....uh...step back...a few of them have contributed some articles. This one by Harry McCall is quite bad. I think it's one of the worst articles I've ever seen on that site. I think the first four comments made on the article is very important to look at because it shows the mentality of people who have bought into such truly illogical thinking.

Lets compare this famous evangelical Gospel tract verse cited in the late Gospel of John with both the older Bible traditions themselves as well as the New Testament itself.

First the verse from John 3: 16:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Lofty goal. Let's see if McCall can make this  charge stick. Huge hint: he doesn't.

Deception 1:For God so loved the world,…” but 1 John 2:15 believers are told that God wants them NOT to love the world: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Thus, on the one hand we are told God loves the world in John’s Gospel only to be again told in John’s Epistle for Christians NOT to love the world. Since - in both cases the Greek for word here is κόσμον, one is totally fed a flat out contradiction in these two New Testament books.

Secondly, if God really loves the world, he would not have destroyed it in the Flood of Noah. (Love and destruction are totally antonyms!)

Let us look at the first comment from Harold815.

Harry,
This is some really bad exegesis.  I think that your problem here is that your bias towards Christianity is getting in the way of an accurate analysis of this text.  John you’re the biblical scholar your can explain to him what is wrong with his exegesis.  I mean this is really bad.  A hint, you have to allow your context to explain the passage.  This is the flaw in your first “deception”. The context shows that there is no deception here at all.  You seem to be taking everything literally in the Bible.  This is a bad thing to do and will not help you understand or get to the deeper parts of a Biblical passage.  You need to do some studying of hermeneutics.
-Harold

I think Harold815 is exactly right except that I doubt that John Loftus' exegesis would be any better than McCalls' exegesis. One of the first rules of good hermeneutics is to look at the context. It should be obvious that in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:15, "Kosmos" or "world" are not referring to the same things. John 3:16 is referring to humanity  (or believers if you are a Calvinist) and in 1 John 2:15 "world" is referring to the sin of the world and the evil that people do. Also "love" and "destruction" are not antonyms. You can't have love without justice. And don't forget that it took Noah 120 years to build the Ark and during the time Noah tried to get the other people to repent and they wouldn't.

Deception 2: “…that He gave His only begotten Son,…” Yet in Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew plainly states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered: Even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of the Gospel of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surely had the LXX which clearly again states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”.

This same Hebrew syntax is also found again in Job 1:6 האלהים בני which also supports Genesis 6:2 in that God already had male children. However, in the LXX this verse is changed to: …“ἰδοὺ ἦλθον οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆναι ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου καὶ διάβολος ἦλθεν μετ' αὐτῶν”. Thus, by the mid-third century BCE, בני (sons) has become οἱ ἄγγελοι (angles) and השטן (the accuser) has become διάβολος (the devil).

While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus; they need to read and believe their Bibles more! With all the effort by Christian apologists to make Jesus’ birth special and totally different from God’s other sons found in Genesis 6:2 and Job 1:6 by pointing out that Jesus was God’s “only begotten son” (μονογενῆ / monogenē), this “mono” (one / only) + “gene” (generation) is also used as the suffix that gives the book of Gene-sis it name. But this enforces the lie by not taking the fact that God already had fathered sons much earlier making them just as divine / semi-divine as Jesus was himself. While Greek authors love New Testament to quote the LXX for proof texts to prove Jesus was divine, sometimes the Old Testament can be a source of embarrassment as in the case of God’s own sexual philandering!

One must remember that Jesus' position as "Son" is not a sexual one! The same is true as in Genesis 6:2 and Job 1:6. This particular argument is heard most often from Muslim Apologist. It doesn't help them either. Newer translations are more clearer rendering μονογενῆ in English as "one and only". The Bible very clearly explains why Jesus is higher than Angels in Hebrews. Strike two.

Deception 3: “…that whoever believes in Him shall not perish,…” The problem posed here is the fact that orthodox Christian dogma states, as based on both Jesus and the New Testament, that the soul of the non-believer will suffer for eternity in the fires of torment (see: Mark 9: 44 - 48). However, the Greek word used here is “ἀπόληται” which clearly means “to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, perish”. So just which part of the New Testament contains the lie? According to atheists and John 3: 16, all the non-believing humans who die are simply destroyed; meaning they have at death no eternal soul (Also the Belief of Jehovah Witnesses). Fact is, we could say that John 3:16 supports the atheist view of life!


Um..no way. The Bible does not use  ἀπόληται to equate to annihilation. No where does the Bible lead us to think that anyone ceases to exist once God brings us into existence. Strike 3


Deception 4: “…but have eternal life…” The propaganda sold in this verse is to an ancient world which has its Sitz im Leben (Life Situation) in an ancient society where the average person making it to the age of 30 was considered old and a time when a simple abscessed tooth could mean certain death! The promise sold in John 3: 16 is that the average person to be just like the Egyptian Pharaohs or a Roman Caesars (working miracles and never dying spiritually or having an eternal after life). Thus, Christianity now offered the poor masses that they to though belief in Jesus could achieve godhood themselves! To argue that “ζωὴν αἰώνιον” (life eternal) simply means that the dead believer lives forever with a theos / god in some heaven is reading much later Christian dogma into verse.

Now Mormon theology creeps in to McCall's eisogesis. No where does the Bible promise anyone godhood. In Christian theology no one is promised to a god in the slightest. There is a lot more to being God than just eternal life and there can only be one God.  Strike 4

Secondly, when one considers the older Hebrew eternal life in the stories of Enoch, Moses and Elijah (along with the Greek story of the miracle worker Apollinus of Tyana who also is claimed also to have worked miracles and to have never died); the claim of eternal life in John 3:16 was given even far more credence than it was accorded as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire in order to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of competing religions which also offered promises of hope. In the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow rival religions with a godhood / miracles and eternal life for all who believed.

No where does the Bible tell us Moses had eternal life on Earth. He died. As for Enoch and Elijah they didn't die but none of them were ever a god. Enoch and Elijah simply experienced the same kind of rapture described in the New Testament when Jesus returns.  Apollinus of Tyana is a real bad example. Read this post - http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2009/09/bible-defended-is-there-connection.html - to being to understand why. Here the whole argument continues to dissolve.

With verses like John 3:16, which promised one could live eternally like any god, coupled with wonders ) working miracles (τέρατα Acts 2:19), signs (σημεῖον Matt. 12:38), and mighty works (δυνάμεσιν Acts 2:22), the Christian sale pitch was on for converts. After all, this god status of working miracles was even promised to fateful believers by Jesus himself in the same Gospel: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. John 14: 12.

Jesus never taught that we can be like god. All He promised was eternal life with Him not that we can gods. The job is taken. The works we do is not on our own volition but according to obeying Him. Again context, context, and again context.

Conclusion: With regards to John 3:16, we must understand that hope need not be true (as this verse certainly is not when place in both its Biblical and historical doctrinal context). It only needs to be a sales pitch of hope! Thus, as with the old circus con-game: Everybody who plays (Who believes); is Everybody is a winner! (Has Eternal life (meaning godhood itself)).

 It's more than just hope. We can expect Jesus' words to be true because he authenticated it with his own Resurrection.


2nd revision by Harry McCall

I can only hope for a third revision correcting the exegetical mistakes everywhere in this piece. If you are going to criticize the Bible, then at least have the decency to correctly state what it actually says. Now turning attention to the rest of the comments which just add fail on top of more fail.
  • GearHedEd
    Q: What would the Bible be without contradictions?
    A: A more consistent fairy tale.

    First you have to show that there are contradictions which McCall failed to do. 

  • articulett
    Why does there need to be exegesis at all-- this is supposedly inspired by the creator of the universe, right? Why would the creator of the universe need humans to tell other humans what he was really trying to communicate?
    You'd think an omnipotent being could communicate clearly and would take care to mitigate against differing interpretations, no?

Debunking Christianity: Why John 3:16 is a Lie in Its Biblical Context

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

"Gay Christianity" Refuted! By Dr James White

Dr James White has painstakingly and thoroughly responded to a video by Matthew Vines on Christianity and Homosexuality. Vines discusses in his video (about an hour in length) why Christianity should not be at odds with monogamous homosexual marriages. You can see the original video below:




Dr White actually played the audio from the video and responded to each of Vines points over several podcasts - totaling up to 5 hours of response. You can listen to single mp3 file containing that response. Follow the link below to hear/download the mp3!

"Gay Christianity" Refuted!

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

He Lives: Two Theologians on "How old is the universe?"

Spinning Earth Pictures, Images and Photos

Dr David Heddle compares how two theologians answer the big question "How old is the Universe?"




Dr R.C. Sproul




Dr Al Mohler





Follow the link below to read Dr Heddle's remarks.

He Lives: Two Theologians on "How old is the universe?"

Confident Christianity: Lee Strobel Interviews Mary Jo Sharp

I love Mary Jo Sharp's ministry and here is an interview of her by Lee Strobel. Truly awesome! Check it out!

Confident Christianity: Lee Strobel Interviews Mary Jo Sharp

Monday, May 21, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Here is a sad little article that attempts to explain how Christian see the laws of the Old Testament. The article alleges that there is contradiction between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught and that Christians have a corrupt ethical code. 

Most Christians believe they have no laws to follow, since according to Paul, Jesus died to save them from the laws--so where does their "ethical code" come from then? Not the 10 commandments, because they were part and parcel of the "laws" that Jesus died to revoke. (It was MEN that separated them into categories later.) Jesus however, said "ALL the laws, and ALL the prophets MUST be followed until heaven and earth disappear." (Matt 5:18) So do Christians even have a moral code, and if so, where does it come from? Do Christians follow Jesus, or do they follow Paul? The answer is--Paul. Let me explain.

I'd like to clearly state that there people who call themselves Christians who would agree with the way the above paragraph. They would agree that Paul and Jesus are in conflict and some would also agree that the laws in the Old Testament are not binding on us today. Jesus is quoted so let's look at that passage for a moment.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20

Take some time and really reflect on what Jesus said. Is Jesus talking about dietary laws? What about the law about picking up sticks on the sabbath?  Or what about the ceremonial laws no one can follow now that there is no Temple nor Tabernacle? No, no, and no. Jesus tells us what he's referring to and what does it mean to be more righteous that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in verses 21-48. See how everything He talks about can be traced to the words in the law but Jesus takes them a step farther so it's not just about doing the right thing. It is also about desiring and thinking the right things.

The belief that Christians do not have to follow the laws came from Paul. According to Paul, Christians are in essence, "lawless." This makes "sin" something of a paradox because a sin is defined as a transgression against God's laws--but there are no laws!

Paul never said that. Funny how in the 21st Century the same charge is being brought up as was tried against him when he was alive. 

Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. - Romans 3:7-9

This was evident when Paul first began preaching, as his followers began having orgies, and participating in all sorts of debauchery--because they believed they had no laws--so he had to backtrack a bit and tell the Corinthinas that well, you can do anything, but not everything will be good for you. (1Cor. 10:23)

The Corinthian church was not a Jewish church - they were primarily gentiles who would not have known about the Laws of Moses. I mean they weren't having orgies and abusing the laws because they didn't think they were free of them - the just went one doing what they were doing before they became Christians. This really gets into the point at which the church stopped being culturally Jewish and became open to everyone.  Re-Read Galatians and Acts 15 for more about this and pay attention to who it is the leader in the church....it ain't Paul or Peter.

Hmmm..... Unfortunately, even if there were "laws" to break, they would be redundant anyway, when anything can be forgiven as long as a believer sincerely "repents." There is no punishment for the "sinner" (as long as they don't get caught by the "secular" police!!) and no compensation for the victims under the Christian system either--making "sins" virtually meaningless. This is why Christianiy in and of itself is immoral and unjust.

Let's apply some honesty here. The Bible is very clear that God punishes sin. Saying "I'm sorry" is neither repentance nor a Free-Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card. Anyone who thinks this way does not understand what Biblical Christianity is. True Repentance means agreeing with God that He is right and We are wrong. It means doing a 180 degree turn away from the offending thought and practice we are sorry for. We are sorry for what what we did and not just sorry about being caught doing it.  If you truly repent then you do all you can to never do it again - trusting God to forgive you. That's not saying that there are no consequences or repercussions - only that hell is off the table as one of them. God may choose to give you mercy so that don't suffer here and now but there is no guarantee of that. The guarantee is that God will be with you.

Unfortunately, today we live in a society full of these "born sinners"--people who believe they were born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things--which explains the chaos. However, if Christians cannot help but to sin, do they really have "free will??" Not according to the Bible--but that is for another post. To explain the insidiousness of Christianity and their lack of real ethics and morality, take into consideration this wee bit of Socratic dialogue. In a conversation between a Christian and Jesus--according to Paul's version of Christianity:
I have to ask...who said you have free-will? It's not just Christians who cannot help but sin - everyone does. Romans 8:5-8 lays out the fact that we are unable to be anything but hostile to God on our own and cannot choose to do differently. IF you truly had free will then you would be able to choose to never sin and always do the right thing 100% of the time in all circumstances - without God.  Good luck with that.  In the following Socratic dialogue, is where the article truly goes off the rails. 
Sinner: "Jesus, I know I shouldn't, but I really want to have sex with my neighbor's daughter. She's only 6, but I want her so bad."

Jesus: "You know that would be wrong, but we both know you are a born sinner. So we both know it would be wrong to rape that little girl, but your sinful nature will compel you to rape her anyway, so go ahead. I have your back. When you are done with her, just come back and see me. Explain to me what you have done, and tell me how sorry you are for doing it, and I will forgive you. It will be like nothing happened at all, and you will still get to live with me in paradise forever."

Sinner: "Thanks Jesus! I'll be coming back to talk to you in a few hours! I gotta go, she'll be getting out of school right away, and I don't want to miss her!"

Yes people, THIS is Christian ethics and morality. I don't even have words to explain how sick this philosophy is.....

No, people, THIS is not the Jesus of the Bible. Consider that Jesus talked more about Hell than He did about Heaven and said that if a man calls his brother a "fool" he is in danger of going to Hell. Or that lusting after a woman in your mind is just as bad as Adultery. I find it really hard to think that Jesus would just say "Oh sure, molest a six-year-old girl, I'll forgive you." when just lusting after one who is not your spouse of the opposite sex is enough to send you to hell.. A little honesty would be nice. 

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Matthew 5:22

I often wonder what society would be like if people were taught they could be "perfect" in their choices, and that yes, they CAN make the right choices. What if they did not have a "fall guy" to take the blame for them? What if they had to take responsibility for their OWN actions? I doubt I will find out within my lifetime, but maybe someday...........

Who really thinks they are perfect in their choices and they do make the right choices. Most people don't make the wrong choices on purpose. They do what they think is best for them. The problem is that we don't know better than God does about what is best for us. We are flawed. Broken. That's not saying that we never do anything god. But when we do, that was God, even if we don't know it or recognize it coming from Him. We are responsible or our sin because that is what we want to do. It's hard to accept that we are so messed up it took so much to redeem us, but that is the good news: God loves us that much. So how do we sum up ethical Christianity:

13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galatians 5:13,14

Cathy Cooper

Debunking Christianity: The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Facebook vs. Google [infographic]



Facebook vs. Google [infographic]

Saturday, May 19, 2012

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

Here is my denominations official statement on Same-Sex marriage:

COGIC-seal-med
Official Statement
of the
Church of God in Christ, Inc.

Regarding Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions
 
The President’s position regarding “same-sex marriage” has set off a “firestorm,” unlike any other debate in our civil society, perhaps, since the civil rights unrest of the mid-20th century.   The advocacy for same-sex marriage, while in conflict with our nation’s long-standing moral posture, has indeed, created opportunity for the Church to communicate our unequivocal position about God’s design and foundation for humanity, the biblical mandate for heterosexuality through the bonds of matrimony and, the centuries-old understanding of the only acceptable means of procreation, habitation, and the establishment of the family.

The President suggests same sex relationships and male-female relationships committed to by oath before God and/or witnesses, where formal documents are signed before a civil or ecclesiastical figure.  It further implies that both are equally good and valuable.  In addition to this, it suggests that both equally contribute to the good and advancement of a society.  From a fundamental view of scripture, the same word should not be used to describe both same sex and heterosexual relationships.
Fundamentally, traditionally, and historically, marriage has functioned to unite a man and women together in facing the challenges of life, to sanctify sexual involvement, to authorize the conception of children, provide an environment for the protection and development of offspring and to strengthen and sustain the family unit.  Historically, the sexual coming together of husband and wife produces children who are the fruit of both their bodies and are united by blood to their brothers and sisters.  This coming together of husband and wife is the means by which the world has been populated, and the human race sustained.

A husband, wife and children are the bedrock of a society which also mirrors the universal Church as a microcosm, or domestic church, out of which God’s values are modeled, nurtured, and disciplined.  This divinely-inspired family framework, pronounced in Old and New Testament scripture, is without compromise.  To tamper with the foundation is to disrupt the order God intended.  This order is the intended structure by which all humanity is expected to govern their lives.

The human body is designed by God as male and female to anatomically accommodate individuals of the opposite sex in the conception, bearing, and nurture of children; the human body is unquestionably designed to accommodate individuals of the opposite sex, not of the same sex.

The Holy Bible, which is the authoritative Word of God, clearly prohibits sexual relations between members of the same sex.  Though it does not isolate intercourse between individuals of the same sex as the only sin, it designates this and a series of other activities as sinful behavior from which the Christian is to abstain

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. NKJV (See also: Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:8).

The Bible indicates that there is nothing that can excuse or eliminate the sinfulness of sexual involvement between individuals of the same sex.  Neither so called “marriage vows”, civil unions, nor homosexual drives or passions are recognized by the Bible as justifications or acceptable excuses or rationale for sexual acts between individuals of the same sex.  Sinful desires and inclinations must be resisted and overcome by the power of God in Christ Jesus, and by power of the Holy Spirit who strengthens our minds and our wills.

Our vocabularies are made up of thousands of words because there are so many distinctive entities and concepts to be referred to.  Each word designates a category of entities which are unique to that word.  Specific words are most useful when they reflect identical images, and when they do not create conflicting or unclear images in the mind of the speaker and the hearer.  The Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).  To define marriage otherwise is to dilute and destroy its usefulness as a word which denotes what is highest and best about human society.

While we are committed to proclaim and support the tenants of the Bible, and also to persuade others to do so, we recognize that in a free and democratic society morality cannot be legislated.  We oppose violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of sexual orientation. We do not feel that it is necessary to legalize same sex marriage to provide the civil benefits and civil rights to all regardless of sexual orientation.
 
We proclaim the value and worth of every human being regardless of sexual orientation.
But, we passionately and unapologetically, defend the right of faith communities to maintain the integrity of their message, mission and identity.  We welcome to the church all people who seek to serve and know God and His Word.

I agree.

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

Bring it On: Debunking Christianity: Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

John Loftus is now saying that he's tired of talking to Christians and frustrated in talking to us. 

I have no more desire to engage Christians. They are deluded, all of them. I have never been more convinced of this than I am now. I have better things to do. I spent 39+ years of my adult life on a delusion. If I add the years of my childhood that's almost my entire life. Yet this is the only life I will ever have. It's time to move on, or at a minimum take a very long hiatus. I just finished what may be my last book, on The Outsider Test for Faith, to be published by Prometheus Books early next year. How many times do I need to kick the dead horse of Christianity? I don't think I need to say anything more. If what I have written isn't good enough then nothing is good enough for some Christians. What I intend to do is turn this blog over to a few qualified people. I'll still be a part of it and I suppose I'll post something from time to time. But I see no reason to waste large chunks of my time on this delusion anymore.

Why is he so frustrated? He has said in several posts that Atheism is winning and Christianity is loosing ground. If this is true, then why quit? I am detecting crocodile tears. If you are really winning why quit or take a hiatus, why not press the attack? Simple...he is not winning.  Personally, I'm disappointed. I mean the more Loftus tries to debunk Christianity, the more he helps us. The more he opines, the more the gospel is preached.

Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong—not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is that you may be fully restored. - 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

Thanks, John Loftus. Say it ain't so?!!! We'd miss you! One comment on the post that I thought was telling was this one:

Wow. I suppose I'll need time to digest this. Although i utterly understand your frustration, I would imagine you might start seeing it as a job, rather than a calling, or something. The problem is it doesn't pay enough, admittedly. Is there any way of making it pay financially?

Calling? By whom? For what? How does a non-Christian even begin to answer questions like this one. 

Debunking Christianity: Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: The OTF is the Solution to Religious Diversity

John Loftus has again provided a summary of the Outsider Test of Faith (OTF). Let us work through his "logic".

I want people to see the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) as the solution to an incredible amount of religious diversity. This is a problem that needs a solution. No other methods have worked before. If people cannot find solutions to problems within a business they hire solution specialists who offer ways to solve it. Mediators find ways to bring people together by offering ways they can see their differences in a better light. That’s what the OTF does. The goal is to offer a fair test to find out which religion is true if there is one.

I don't really think that the OTF is a bad idea, initially. I think that it has never been fairly applied on Debunking Christianity. Let us see if this post shows any more fairness.

The OTF grants that a religious faith can be reasonable and asks believers to test their faith with it, just as it grants that non-belief is reasonable and asks non-believers to consider the religious options available.

How can a belief that there exist one god or several gods be consistent or simultaneously reasonable with the belief in no gods? Hint: it isn't.

It grants the possibility that one particular religious faith could pass the test, just as it grants the possibility that none of them do. To be a fair and objective test it must allow that any conclusion could result from taking the test, and the OTF does just that. If someone disagrees he or she will not only need to find fault with it, but also propose a better test. What’s the alternative?

I have no problem with the test but the issue is how do you make such a test? How do you run the test? How do you measure success or failure?

The skepticism required by the OTF is expressed as follows: 1) It assumes one's own religious faith has the burden of proof; 2) It adopts the methodological naturalist viewpoint where we assume there is a natural explanation for the origins of that religion, its holy books, and it’s extraordinary claims of miracles;

Why is number 2, reasonable? If a religion does not agree that there is a natural explanation for the origins of that  religion, its holy books, and it's extraordinary claims of miracles it believes in then it's not a fair test unless you can show that naturalism does indeed explain these things. I thought the whole point of OTF was to show that the the methodological naturalist viewpoint where we assume there is a natural explanation for the origins of that religion, its holy books, and it’s extraordinary claims of miracles not to assume them from the beginning.

3)  It demands sufficient evidence, scientific evidence, before concluding a religion is true; and most importantly,

Is something only true if it can be weighed, counted, or measured? Can science be used to substantiate everything?! I don't think so. Somethings we all agree are true, but  have no scientific basis for believing it. Well, I guess fair tests aren't really what Loftus is looking for.

4) It disallows any faith in the religion under investigation since it cannot leap over the lack of evidence by punting to faith.

In order to apply number 4, you would need to correctly define what faith means. Something Loftus consistently fails to do. 

Believers may object that if they assume the skepticism of the OTF it will automatically cause them to reject their religious faith, and as such, doing so unfairly presumes its own conclusion.

You cannot rationally grant that Christianity or Islam may be true and then say that everything about testing them can only be explained by naturalistic evidence. That is assuming failure without really weighing the evidence.  Fortunately for Christianity there are naturalistic evidence, but there is much that is considered from such a myopic viewpoint.  

But I think not, not if there is objective evidence, sufficient evidence, for one’s religious faith. For if it exists then even a skeptic should come to accept it.

But there have been many who began as skeptics and upon examining the evidence from the outside, became born-again Christians. If Loftus is correct, then everyone who examines the evidence would be staunch atheist and never Christians.

Many people are convinced every day about issues when the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created us as reasonable people then the correct religious faith should have sufficient evidence for it since that’s what reasonable people require.

This one always gets me. Observation and the Bible always bear out that no one - not one of us - is reasonable enough or understanding enough to figure this out. We are all broken and fallen. Why should you assume that your intellect is enough to even know what sufficient evidence is?

Otherwise, if this evidence doesn’t exist in sufficient quantities then God counter-productively created us as reasonable people who would reject the correct faith.

We reject Christ not because of a lack of sufficient evidence but because of our own sin and hatred of God. And even if you are saved now, you once were a hater of God and God's ways.

It also means that people born as outsiders in different geographical locations will be condemned to hell (however conceived) by God merely because of when and where they were born.

Hogwash. Everyone is born in the time and place where we can best find God. Re-read Acts 17.

This doesn’t bode well for an omniscient omnibenelovent but wrathful kind of God. Even apart from such a God concept the only way to settle which religious faith is true is to rely on sufficient evidence.

Again, I don't think any one of us is capable of deciding what sufficient evidence is and what it is not. If you cannot see God as God is (or even  as the religion you are testing sees God), how can you correctly apply OTF. Loftus does not know the God of the Bible. His god indeed fails the OTF because his god does not exist. His god is a concept not a being. A god that knows everything but how to apply justice and mercy. A god that has much of the same limitations we do. This is not the God of the Bible - not the God of Christianity. Utter failure.

Debunking Christianity: The OTF is the Solution to Religious Diversity

Friday, May 18, 2012

Marvel Girls on Film: Are These Your Female Avengers? - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

You probably already know this, but I loved the Avengers movie.  The thing is I would have liked to have seen more characters including female ones. With the big reveal at the end of the movie, it's obvious that the Avengers are going to need more recruits to deal with what is coming - why not add some women?! Comics Alliance has posted a real good article regarding who should make the cut from the comics. Take a look.

Marvel Girls on Film: Are These Your Female Avengers? - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Has marriage evolved? | True Freethinker

Check out Mariano Grinbank's analysis of this graphic:



Has marriage evolved? | True Freethinker

What Kind of Geek are You: The Sacred Order of Geeks

If you could put yourself in one of these categories, which one would it be?

The Sacred Order of Geeks


Share this infographic on your site!

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Fistbump of the day - What had happen' was.....: My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

I thank God for my brother-in-Christ Mariano Grinbank. He sent me the following e-mail.


Dear brother,

I am preparing a series on that preposterous “Marriage =” graphic and noticed that you wrote, “the Bible does mandate that if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her.”
I would urge you to reconsider as this is simply not the case. The Biblical punishment for rape is the death penalty.
I will run it down very quickly and then give you a link to the details.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 pertains to different litigious, judicial scenarios and so ch. 22 envisages various scenarios from adultery and rape to un-married consensual sex. Verses 28-29 deal with consensual sex between two unmarried people:
If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.
The Hebrew “taphas” refers to catching, handling, taking hold, grasping, etc. and “shakab” refers to laying down. He comes across her and they come together in consensual sexual relations, this is clear from the context of all of the scenarios within the chapter. In fact, verses 25-27 deal with an actual rape and so “taphas” is not used but rather, “chazaq” which is to force.
Verses 28-29 are basically about what we would call a shotgun wedding.
Here is a rundown of all of the relevant portions of the chapter.
Deu 22:22 "If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die--the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. 
This is adultery.
Deu 22:23-24 "If a young woman [who is] a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 
A betrothed woman who had consensual unmarried sex. That “she did not cry out in the city” means that if she had been attacked by a rapist she would have cried out and would have been heard within the close quarters of the city.
Deu 22:25-27 "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; [there is] in the young woman no sin [deserving] of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so [is] this matter. For he found her in the countryside, [and] the betrothed young woman cried out, but [there was] no one to save her. 
This is rape. He accosted her outside the city “in the countryside” where she could not be heard when she cried for help “cried out, but [there was] no one to save her.” Thus, only the rapist is executed.
Deu 22:28-29 "If a man finds a young woman [who is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. 
We think that the particular translation of “seizes her” is force but it is not as noted above in the Hebrew differences.
Here are some of the details:
 
The post-in-question is:

What had happen' was.....: My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

I didn't even realize that I had made this mistake.  I thank God for laying it on Mariano's heart to help me out. In retrospect and in light of Mariano's explanation I wish I had written:

"...the Bible mandate that if a man has consensual sex with a virgin girl, he has to marry her and not divorce her." Mariano has been much clearer than I was in this sentence and has managed to help me see the scripture even clearer. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 can't be referring to rape.