Second Responding Post to Jonathan Pearce on the Veneration of Jesus' Tomb

Jonathan Pearce wrote a blog post making a point that a lack of veneration of Jesus' tomb as evidence that there was no tomb from which Jesus rose from the dead three days after the Crucifixion. I disagreed. You can read the original response I posted at the end of this post. There has been some back and forth in the comments section on that post. Pearce's latest comments brought up some issues that I think takes more space than are appropriate for the comments sections which is why I started another blog post. I had written: Better folks have already ripped such arguments [that there were no guards at the tomb] to shreds, It's been 2000 years do you really think that none of those ideas have been trotted out or answered before?

"ripped to shreds"? By who?

Please don't tell me you refer to Craig who all but admits agnosticism in his article, and this is the article which is used to defend this position by so many other apologists!

I have seen much of the same muddled thinking on the Debunking Christianity blog many times. Do people like Pearce really believe that William Lane Craig is the only Christian scholar that  has ever lived? Dr William Lane Craig is indeed brilliant and respected and correct in much of what he says and teaches but he doesn't speak for all Christians and he is not right about everything. The Bible is right. God is right. You, me, and him are only right when we obey God and speak the truth.  I find it shocking that Pearce is not better acquainted with the work of Christian scholars. 

No Offense intended but in addition to William Lane Craig, I'd count Gary Habermas, Timothy McGrew, Mary Jo Sharp, Michael Licona,  Darrel Bock,   Craig Evans, James White, and J.P. Holding as knowing more about the Resurrection than Pearce and whose scholarship carries considerable more weight! If you want to see such anti-Resurrection arguments, you can start with them and branch out. There have been many people in the past 2000 years ripping such drivel to shreds.

Why would Paul, Peter, John or any of the first Christians would venerate a tomb of a man they knew to be alive and had told them to get busy doing evangelism?

One would assume that all the Apostles would have known the whereabouts, as well as the various Marys and Salomes and others who the various Gospels disagree as visiting.

Disagree? How do the Gospels disagree? If I tell you that Sally, Jane, and Martha went to the store, but tell another person that Martha went to the store how is that a contradiction? It might be a disagreement but it's not a contradiction. So we don't know how many women were at the tomb Easter morning. So what? 

We don't have their names or titles. That does not mean they were not there. Not worth basing an argument against the Resurrection on.

The fact that the evidence points towards Joseph of Arimathea being fictional should lead one to conclude that his tomb most probably is too, especially given the utterly improbable scenario of sentencing a man to death and then asking the people who sentenced him to death for the worst possible crime to release his body for an honourable burial!

Evidence? How does Pearce know Joseph of Arimathea was fictional? He can't  prove that. There is evidence that tells us Joseph of Arimathea was a real person. And we know that if a man had enough clout he could ask for the body of an executed person. Josephus was allowed to stop the execution of  his three friends who were being crucified.

 A tomb to which women seemed to know, visit but have NO WAY of being able to roll away the stone, and no forethought to find a way, but HEY, luckily angels are on hand to help.

That really is a really not the only assumption you could make. They would have known the soldiers had been  placed there at the tomb. I would think they thought that they could ask the guards to open the tomb for them enough to enter and take care of Jesus' body. 

 A tomb to which they are travelling to anoint an already anointed body. A tomb at which guards are incredibly unlikely to be posted, who contrive to be bribed (a fate worthy of execution) to deny the most incredible thing they ever would have seen (and yet not be converted by).

Miracles themselves are not enough to convert a man from a sinner to a child of God. With all the evidence around us of God's existence and power, people still continue to disbelieve. Why would the guards be better or smarter than Atheists today? Wait. Maybe some of them did become Christians because of the experience. Pearce is wrong. We can't say one way or the other.

Around which an earthquake unattested by any other source takes place. And during which, according to Matthew again, a parade of resurrected dead Saints swan around a municipal city without anyone else noticing or reporting it.

I wonder if Pearce ever really read the Gospels. The texts do not tell us how far outside of Jerusalem was the earthquake felt. And other people around Jerusalem did notice the dead saints walking around.

⁵¹ At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split ⁵² and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. ⁵³ They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and^[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people. - Matthew 27:51-53

And so, this tomb, the most holy place on earth (for if that happened now, given that Graceland, without bones, is venerated; and given that other such places, with no body or bones, are venerated such as Međugorje; Basilica of the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida; Lourdes; Shrine of the Three Kings; Mount Tabor; House of Peter; Mount Carmel; Nazareth; Bethany (resurrection of Lazarus)!!!; the Jesus Trail; Galilee etc etc), is forgotten for 300 odd years. And this is not odd to you. This, with all the other odd information, half of which I have not mentioned, is not odd?

I find it odd that you would think that Pearce would imagine any of those places as holy. Venerating a place or an object does nothing to deepen my relationship with God or helps anyone. I'm sure the first Christians thought the same way. Notice that in the New Testament there is nothing and no one venerated but Jesus Himself. We don't see all the fodder examples Pearce props up until Christianity becomes the state religion and people join bringing in their paganism without being converted.  And some people compromised and added other ideas and concepts into Christianity in order to get converts. You know...same thing happens today.

You are exhibiting an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance here. Wow!

That said, nothing I say will ever convince you as a dyed-in-the-wool, head-in-the-sand sort of person.

I just find it sad that people such as yourself spend so much time accepting possible over probable so that your belief-system is a tapestry of possibilities absent of any kind of strong plausibility.

 I often wonder if people like Pearce ever really stop and think about what they believe. On one hand admitting that Christianity may be true but rejecting it because in their opinion it isn't plausible. Further opining that they can't reason it as being probable. Hello!? A miracle, by definition, cannot be probable. So you cannot use that determine if it's true or reasonable. I don't think my head is in the sand. I have sifted through evidence. Studied a lot of Science and History, and I have concluded that the Bible is true. And if that makes one who disagrees a liar, then they are a liar. I have to say that one who find  arguments like the ones Pearce uses compelling should look very closely without the arrogance of thinking that you get to determine what is enough evidence and just look at what God has provided for us objectively. You will find that Jesus was right. 

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 3:19-21

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

The Science of Star Trek [Infographic]

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

Jonathan Pearce wrote about question of why Jesus' tomb was not venerated.

Any other ad hoc (Christian) rationalisation is simply not good enough - it doesn't answer the question well enough, the question "Why was the tomb of Jesus, God incarnate, not venerated?

Let us even use the the same definition for veneration he uses.

By veneration, I mean the worship or religious and spiritual respect given to (dead) people or places deemed as important to the religion or cult. In Catholic traditions, veneration of Saints has been a long-held tradition.

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why would worship at the place where he was buried. He is not there! On top of that there is the first commandment that would mean it is a bad idea  to worship anything else or anyone else other than God.


Definitely this is a failed argument!



Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry

It amazes me how people confuse what the Bible says versus what people say the Bible says. There is a difference. Worse is when people choose to reject God based on those erroneous teaching. This particular post I am responding to does exactly this: Denying Christianity because of stupid things people who either pretended to be Christians taught or just got God wrong. In some cases, they were really Christians who just got the concept of sexuality wrong. Instead of just pointing out what is wrong here let us look at what the Bible really says.

For the most part, Christians have always felt uncomfortable with their sexuality. In this post, I will explain why this is so, and why the attitude Christian society has towards the human body and human sexuality has led to sex being viewed as something "dirty," and that the human body itself is "filthy."
The Christian view that humans are "born sinners" and that the body is filthy, and sex is "dirty" then leads people to act on their so-clalled "sinful nature"--which has inevitably contributed to the development of the porn industry.

 It does not follow that being a sinner is followed by sex being filthy and dirty. Just because church clergy tells you that sex is immoral and should not be enjoyed does not mean that the Bible says the same.This is why You need to know the Word of God for yourself.

"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” - Genesis 9:7

So how does it make sense that God would condemn sex when he told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. He even told Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply. The command to Noah was given after people were sinners. No where in the Bible does God tells us to go and sin. Also notice no where in the Torah do we see anything for sacrificing for the sin of having sex with your spouse.

How could this be you might ask? It all began with the "Eve whore" in Genesis --who is blamed for luring man into partaking of the forbidden fruit.

 The Bible does not blame Eve for our sin. It's Adam's fault.

¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  - 1 Timothy 2:13,14

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —

¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.- Romans 5:12-14
The forbidden fruit then became a metaphor for human sexuality, and sexuality then became to be viewed by Christians as an indulgence that is immoral and potentially dangerous. But why?

That is not what the Bible says. The metaphor does not hold and no way to substantiate it from the Bible.

 In the story of Adam and Eve, Yahweh told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit--but they did anyway. After they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they then realized they were naked, and shamefully covered themselves with leaves they had "sewn" together. (How they knew how to sew, and where they got the needle and thread from is not explained in the story.) Through Augustine, this instigated the view that somehow the human body is dirty and shameful and should be covered, and sex is somehow an immoral act. However, this is not main context of this story at all, as I note in another post --it is a red herring. The original authors of this story, and theologians of the past and present would have us think the "shame of nakedness" and the "original sin" of partaking of the "forbidden fruit" were the focus of this story--but they are not. The real focus of this story is the transition from a matriarchal society to a patriarchal one, which allows the demonization of women, as traditionally, Eve is blamed for the "Fall of Man."

Augustine was a great theologian and I admire the way God used him, but St Augustine is wrong if he did indeed teach that the human body is shameful. The Bible does not tells us that sex is immoral. The Bible says you should not engage in immoral sex. God does not hold Eve responsible for the sin compromising the whole human race. That was on Adam. Re-Read Romans 5. Of course men have tried to pass the buck. Even Adam tried to blame Eve, but God would not have it.

That Eve was scapegoated and women were vilified by the Abrahamic faiths is explained by one of my favorite philosophers, Mary Daly, who was a feminist and theologian who taught at Boston College. In her book "Gyn/Ecology, she explains how an "all male homosexual trinity" claimed to be responsible for all of creation; and the "Virgin Mary," who was but a vessel that could only be validated by a man, has helped lead society to where it is today concerning attitudes towards sex and women. It was through these myths that the Bible writers sought to eliminate the goddess. Men, jealous of the creators of life, sought to vilify women, thereby elevating their own status--and they did so via such myths. Unfortunately, this vilification has led those in Christian society--whether they claim to be Christian or not--to view sex and women as immoral and dirty.

 Imaginative. But hogwash just the same. So why have some Christians and others in  Abrahamic faiths vilify women and blame them for their own lack of self control. The Bible tells us. Men love darkness rather than light and would rather blame women rather than take responsibility. Really sad.

Most people believe that this is how it has always been--but this is not the case at all. In fact, in Africa, before the introduction of Christianity, women walked around half naked, or completely naked, and nobody paid any mind. They were not lusted after as "Eve whores,"--as their body and their sex was completely natural for them. It was through the Abrahamic faiths that the natural act of sex became something unnatural. This then leads down a rabbit hole, where men blame their own urges on the "Eve whore" as they themselves believe that everything from masturbation to sexual enjoyment in general is "dirty"--making women the scapegoats.

Yup some people have thought this way and continue to think this way but that is not what the Bible tells us is true. The Bible tells a man to enjoy his wife. Love her. Satisfy her. And for a wife to do the same for her husbands.

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
    running water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs overflow in the streets,
    your streams of water in the public squares?
¹⁷ Let them be yours alone,
    never to be shared with strangers.
¹⁸ May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
¹⁹ A loving doe, a graceful deer —
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love. - Proverbs 5:15-19

¹³ Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. ¹⁴ You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

¹⁵ Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.^[a] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

¹⁶ “The man who hates and divorces his wife, ” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”^[b] says the Lord Almighty.

So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful. - Malachi 2:13-15

.

This view of the "Eve-whore" was then promulgated throughout our society in general--resulting in perverted views of human sexuality. It is our antecedent beliefs that influence how we "see" things, and it is the results of these beliefs that has not only suppressed women, but has also promoted the view of women as dirty "Eve-whores." (Note, that there are no derogatory terms--at least I do not know of one--that denigrates men for participating in sexual acts--but there are MANY such derogatory terms for women.)

Agreed our society does have perverted views of human sexuality but those views do not match the one the Bible admonished us to have. That is the problem.  The Bible does have derogatory terms for men who engage in sexual acts outside monogamous marriage like  "fornicator", "adulterer", "sinner", and others. Why don't these come up anymore? Simple instead of our society being ashamed of such evil, we revel in it. We celebrate it. We display it. Our society's condemnation is well-deserved.

I do not view sex as something "dirty," nor am I a hedonist.

Neither does the Bible.

I believe that sex is completely natural and is an expression of love that should not be taken lightly. I also believe that when people commit to each other, they can have a fabulous sex life. Christians however, with their perverted view of sex, do not see it that way. Not only is sex in marriage no longer a "forbidden fruit" for many Christians, (i.e.,boring) but wives themselves are viewed as somehow "pure," so quite naturally, this then leads to adultery where the "born sinners" seek out the "Eve-whores" to satisfy their "sinful" urges.

What? You mean men are not capable of controlling those urges and give themselves to one individual woman? You mean they need the help of God to change how they think and to best treat their wives in and out of the bedroom? Exactly the point the Bible is making. It's the most fabulous sex life you can have - God's way. It is isn't the Bible's depiction of sex that is perverted, it is human beings that have perverted and some of them were in the church when they perverted it.

  (They could never do that with their wives they say.)--which has also been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. Unfortunately, women, who believe they are now liberated from the bondage of men, are also now participating in the same way that men are--but that is a subject for another post.

The following doesn't refer to just homosexuality but to all who wanna do this their way:

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:28-32


Therefore, the perverted views of sex resulting from the influences of Christianity has been a contributing factor to the development of the porn industry. So Christians who whine about the sexual immorality in society should take a look in the mirror.....
_______________
Cathy Cooper

Twice she make a point that teaching people that sex is dirt and immoral although we are all hardwired to need it contributed to sexual immorality and porn in our society but fails to make it stick. I mean after all historically goddess worship always seems to include some kinds ritual sex or orgies. An awful lot like some of the porn we have today. If she was correct you wouldn't see anything like that until Christianity had become a major religion had it been a major contributing factor. Further the problem with sexual immorality in our society is indeed due to us. Many "Christians" will preach against gay people having sex but won't say a word about people living together and having sex as long as they are a man and woman. This is no less a sin. 

On the other side, I think that anyone who would argue that God hates sex and expects us to hate it too never really read the Bible. The book Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs) is full of erotic imagery and language. Hot stuff it is but this failed argument it isn't.

Debunking Christianity: Why Christianity has Contributed to the Development of the Porn Industry

Periodic Table Adds Two More Elements

Thank God for science!!!

Flerovium and Livermorium  were made by the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory here in America.

Flerovium (Fl) and Livermorium (Lv) will now be 114 and 116 on the periodic table now, respectively.

Wow, didn't know such atoms could be stable enough to exist. 

Now, I'm gonna have to buy a new Chemistry textbook!

Periodic Table Adds Two More Elements

Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted another awesome lecture by Dr Timothy McGrew.This time Dr. McGrew raises and refutes argument against the Gospels based on alleged historical errors.  


Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315

Debunking Christianity: Are the Differences Between the Christianities Insignificant?

Ever seen a silly argument that no matter how many times it has been refuted or who did it, the argument is never abandoned? The argument is that the differences in beliefs regarding God, gods, Heaven, Hell, Salvation, Bible, prayer, miracles, and many other subjects is so varied among those who call themselves Christians that there is no consistent message so it should be totally rejected. There are people who have actually bought in to this lie. John Loftus and Russ are too examples of  people who teach people to believe this is true. In this article, Russ attempts to prove it true. Fails, yes, but tries anyway.

Here at John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity it's been emphasized many times by blog post authors and commenters alike that there exists no such thing as a Christianity, there being instead many Christianities. In fact there are so many Christianities with so many differences between them that the word "Christian" is useless, even for the purposes of rough outline, as a guide to what someone self-identifying as Christian thinks or believes about their own religion. This includes what they believe about gods, heaven, hell, the Bible, prayer, and miracles. In response Christians have maintained that of course there is variation in belief among the various Christian groups, but the differences are insignificant, subtle alternative interpretations. In this post I'm going to share with you an essay from Harry T. Cook which demonstrates that the differences between those calling themselves Christian are anything but insignificant.

The counter argument is not that there are not significant differences among those who call themselves Christians. AGREE!!! The disagreement comes from the question: Why is merely claiming to be a "Christian" enough to be counted as a Christian without looking at what the person believes? At the very least, the Bible should be the standard by which to judge if a person is a Christian or not.  Some might argue that the Bible is not a consistent standard but I reject that and one who would make such a charge would have to show how  mainstream Christian doctrine that is contradicted by a group who is not mainstream are both supported by the Bible. For example how does the Bible simultaneously teach that Jesus is the Archangel Michael (the Jehovah Witnesses) and that He is higher than all the Angels? Like that will ever happen.

The blurb from his website says:

Harry T. Cook is an Episcopal priest, journalist, author and peace-and-justice activist. His area of research is biblical studies, especially 1st Century Greek texts.

He is a noted preacher and public lecturer, and his writings are published in books, newspapers and other journals. Each week, he publishes a topical essay. To receive these by e-mail, add your name to the mailing list below.

Nothing in that to distinguish Harry from any run-of-the-mill Christian cleric, but use the essay to judge for yourself whether Harry effectively distances himself from the Christian clerical herd. As you take in Harry's words ask yourself how any Christian can be honest and still claim that the differences between Christian groups are insignificant.

I want to know how anyone can honestly reject the authority of Scripture and still claim to be a Christian? You shouldn't, at least with a straight face.  It's only been in the past few years but the Episcopalian Church has in several ways distanced itself from being Christian in the historical sense. This is a real bad example and it gets worse.

Atheism in America
By Harry T. Cook 5/4/12

Recently a United Methodist minister in Florida named Teresa MacBain "came out," as it was said, confessing she had discovered over time that she is, after all, an atheist. The audience before which she bared the soul she probably doesn't believe in was on its feet in a hot second, roaring in lusty cheers at her evident emancipation.

How can someone consistently self-identify as a Christian minister and simultaneously as an Atheist? Isn't the like being a married single person or a little pregnant? Yup, a logical contradiction.

I can think of nothing more effective than working in a congregation to turn a clergy person into an atheist -- or simply to drink. You're lucky if the atheism does it first.

You can't be born-again and have a real relationship with a living being and then through the problems of dealing with others come to the conclusion that the living being isn't really living. It's like having a crppy and thankless job and then concluding that your wife does not exist because your life wouldn't be so hard if she existed. I don't think that works especially according to scriptures in the New Testament I wouldn't expect anything less...er....more. Oh yeah, but they reject the authority of the Bible so no help there.

It depends on whether one is consulting a dictionary or a lexicon in determining what exactly being an "atheist" means. The dictionary, tracking usage, will tell you that an "atheist" is one who denies the existence of any deity. The lexicon says merely that an "atheist" is an "a-theist," i.e. "not a theist." There's a big difference.

Good point. There is a major difference. 

I should very much like to know whether MacBain is a dictionary atheist or a lexicon a-theist, or if she even has that worked out yet.

 Few people bother to make such careful distinctions especially when you don't really know what you believe.

I publish not only these essays on Fridays but also a weekly exegetical (look it up) analysis of biblical passages that will be heard in many churches on the following Sunday. The series is intended for working clergy who may not have the time, resources or inclination to conduct the research necessary to make adequately intelligent comment upon the bible readings. Mirabile dictu, non-clergy readers outnumber the clergy on the subscription list.

My point in telling you this is that I hear from many of the clergy who read my weekly publication. They express thanks for my non-ideological analyses and for allowing the passage in question speak for itself without trying to torture it into conformity with a catechetical precept. These clergy are a-theists in that they have found it impossible finally to credit the church's official theistic formularies.

If one  comes to the conclusion that the Bible is not foundational to thought and practice, how do you even think to call yourself a Christian? Why would anyone still consider you a Christian. 

A number of clergy readers who have done the research and the thinking for many years have come to see that the church's insistence on a seriously outmoded theism is a sure path to intellectual bankruptcy.

"Theism" is that philosophy of religion that posits the existence of a living deity, however unavailable to sensory apprehension, which is supposed to be responsible for the creation of the universe and of all that is proper to it. This deity is said by theists not only to be open to communication with human beings but desiring, even demanding, of it. Prayer is the medium through which such communication is to be effected.

You mean because that's what the Bible reveals to us?  Because He Loves us. Yup! 

Through prayer, the theist believes that he can bargain with the imagined deity to alter natural outcomes, providing such prayer is sufficiently intense and sincere. He believes that "God answers prayer." That is the point at which some intellectually honest clergy, in whose company I am presuming MacBain to be, just have to stop and think.

Yes, let us stop and think. Where does the Bible tells us that the outcome  and purpose of prayer is to get God do what we want. Now this is truly an imagined deity and not the God of the Bible.

Such clergy wrestle with biblical texts and the ideas that flow from them and sooner or often later awaken to the absurdity of it all. They realize that they are not theists. Some of them evidently decide the only alternative is to embrace dictionary atheism that they seem to take as utter and purposeful denial of the existence of the god on which their particular religion or denomination has based its creed.

No one should be a dictionary "theist" but a Biblical believer. 

I do not know if MacBain is at that point. My guess is that, rather than a dictionary atheist, she is a lexicon a-theist -- more properly an agnostic. She clearly came at one point to see that theism is dead. It does not compute in and therefore cannot compete with a world now understood in light of the observations of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein.

Oops.  How do Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud and Einstein have anything to do with showing how the Bible is false? It does not.

I wish MacBain had not joined forces with the professional atheists who are as blockheaded as those who persist in the advocacy and practice of theism. Like her, I preached to Methodists for a brief time many years ago, and whether or not they knew it, they were not on the receiving end of theistic doctrine. They were listening to an agnostic speaking, one who did not insist on the revealed truth of the impossible-to-know.

I don't think that Harry Cook understands what Biblical theism is and is not. An agnostic denies the revealed knowledge of scripture every bit as much as the atheist because he/she denies that the Bible does reveal truth.

Much later, after the appearance of my first book, Christianity Beyond Creeds, I was confronted by a member of my congregation thus: "So, you don't believe God exists?" My answer was, "No. I don't know enough to believe such a thing." His rejoinder: "Then you believe there is a god?" My comeback: "I don't know enough to say that there is or that there isn't. So I concentrate on what I know and continue to push out the boundaries of my ignorance into knowledge and from there, when possible, to belief."

Translation: No, he is not a Christian. 

That, of course, makes me a dictionary agnostic: "One who is not committed to the existence or the non-existence of God or a god." (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 23, column 2). The word "agnostic" in its non-religious, lexicon state means merely "one who acknowledges not knowing."

 Translation: Agnostics are not Christians.

Agnosticism should only enter the bloodstream of every institutional religion, beginning with Roman Catholicism whose corporate leaders falsely and egregiously claim to possess the revelation of all relevant truth -- especially about human sexuality and reproduction freedom. Agnosticism should only cool the fevered minds of Islamic jihadists and ultra-Orthodox Jews and of homophobic Anglicans and other Protestants bent on either conversion or damnation of gay and lesbian persons.

Without Jesus, everyone is damned to Hell. Therefore the point of being a Christian is not conversion or damnation. That is out of our hands and in God's instead. We are just supposed to obey him. And the Bible tells us what that looks like.

Teresa MacBain has taken a good first step. Now one hopes she will not substitute doctrinaire dictionary atheism for doctrinaire Methodism, whatever that might be. There's stuff we just don't know -- or at least not yet.

Agnostically yours,

Harry Cook

© Copyright 2012, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.

Can a Christian be honest while saying the differences between the Christianities are insignificant?

Russ Rogers

Can an Atheist be honest and admit that people who deny the Bible as the authority in defining "Christianity"? Judging from Debunking Christianity it doesn't seem like it. The Bible doesn't say that we know everything.  There is a lot we do not know. But there are things that have been revealed. For example, the Bible tells us how God reconciled us to Himself! That is the point: How do you put aside the enmity your sin put between you and God? You don't.  God does that through Jesus Christ.

Debunking Christianity: Are the Differences Between the Christianities Insignificant?

'How It Should Have Ended' Examines 'The Avengers' Movie [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I love the "How It Should Have Ended" web series. The latest one looks and spoofs the Avengers. There be spoilers ahead but hilarity will ensue!





'How It Should Have Ended' Examines 'The Avengers' Movie [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Related articles

• The Avengers Return To Comics!

  ---

• 5 Avengers Comic Book Stories to Read Before Seeing 'The Avengers' Movie

  ---

• The ComicsAlliance Free Comic Book Day 2012 Rundown

  ---

• The Avengers A Comic Fans Movie!

  ---

Siri, Why Don't You Understand Me? [infographic]

Siri, Why Don't You Understand Me? [infographic]

Hulk Trashes Loki [Animated GIF]

Everyone! I've done my best not to spoil the Avengers movie for anyone who has yet to see it. But lo it has been almost a few month but if you have not seen it, here is one of many reasons to go see it!!!

'Nuff Said!

Hulk Trashes Loki [Animated GIF]

8 Famous Computers with a Pathetic Amount of Power - Topless Robot

I really like this article! It helps put into perspective how computer power has exponentially grown over the past 60 years! Yes, the smartphone in your pocket is not only smaller, lighter, and several orders of magnitude more powerful than the computers on this list but you would not have a smartphone if not for these!

8 Famous Computers with a Pathetic Amount of Power - Topless Robot

Can Anyone Play Dr. Bruce Banner? (Editorial)

I recently read an editorial article arguing that any actor of the appropriate age can play Bruce Banner and the character that really matters is the Hulk.

Bruce Banner is not like Tony Stark, Thor, or Steve Rogers. Each one of the aforementioned characters are inseparable from their super hero identities. As Tony Stark said “I am Iron Man”. So because of this, the actor portraying each one these characters has a lot to do with the personality of that character. I firmly believe that no one can be Tony Stark other than RDJ. RDJ has infused his motor mouth wit coupled with his own dark history of drinking into a character that demands nothing less and has thereby branded his own personal stamp of ownership into the Iron Man armor. Chris Hemsworth doesn’t just look the part of Thor but has cemented a real sense of authority and honor into the god of thunder. We were all leery of Chris Evans as Captain America given his track record with other CBM’s but he managed to hit it out of the park by imbuing Steve Rogers with perseverance, selflessness, and tough as nails innocence. As for Bruce Banner, he’s no Dos Equis man. Can you honestly say that anything remarkable stood out about him between the 3 different actors that played him? I don’t think you can and I think that’s the way it is supposed to be. Banner is unremarkable, unassuming, and in control. For God sakes the man actively tries avoid stress and conflict…the very things that make any character interesting. While the Hulk is a demanding, out of control force of personal and urban destruction. The attractive tension between Banner and “the other guy” is that one is so boring that you probably wouldn’t notice him unless he bumped into you, while the other is so engaging that the world has no choice but to take notice. The Hulk and not Banner over stimulates our interest levels and that is why just about any male actor with talent and the appropriate age can play Bruce Banner. 

I don't think I agree. The reason why the first Hulk (2003) film didn't do well is that I believe it was too cerebral. It attempted to introduce the Hulk as not a separate character but as an embodiment of part of Bruce Banner's psyche and anger that he had suppressed for so long including the the fall out of the memory of and emotion about the murder of his mother. So much so it was a multiple-personality disorder taken an exciting extreme. This was done very well in the comics of the 1990's but it just didn't seem to click for movie audiences. The 2008 version had a lot more action but definitely treated Hulk and Banner as separate entities but only hinted at more. In Avengers, I'd say that Banner had come far enough that he and the Hulk had come to a kind of acceptance of one another but still treated Hulk as "the Other Guy" - which still could fit the multiple personality disorder. I think both Norton and Raffalo did a fine job, but both brought a different take on Bruce Banner yet valid interpretations from the comics. Remember Bruce Banner is not an idiot, he is a genius. Both Edward Norton and Mark Raffalo managed to show that. I don't think any actor can pull that off. One things that made the Marvel brand of characters so unique with respect to the way genre was handled before was that non-superhero alter-ego was more important than the superhero. For example: Peter Parker is just as important character as Spider-man. It's the same with Bruce Banner. If Bruce Banner as a character fails, then so does the Hulk.

Can Anyone Play Dr. Bruce Banner? (Editorial)

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Yahweh is Proven to be a Pernicious, Lofty, and Fickle God

Just when I thought no one was worse at understanding what the Bible says than John Loftus, posts like this one start getting posted here too.

This is an excerpt from a book that we have written which is near completion, and was inspired by a heated online conversation we had with a well known Christian. In this excerpt, it will be proven that Yahweh, touted as the “ultimate and only true god,” is nothing short of a fickle, and pernicious god, with an added air of loftiness about him when it concerns the subjects of knowledge and wisdom. To prove this, I can show where in the Bible Yahweh views wisdom as being good, and also views it as being bad.

This post doesn't name the "well-known Christian" but I think I will try to track down the whole conversation because I get the feeling that he was almost misunderstood as badly as the Bible itself. For example,  she seems to think that when wisdom is described as good and when wisdom is described as good that it's talking about the same kinds of wisdom in the same contexts.

Wisdom is good:

“Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” Prov 4:7

“ Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.” Proverbs 3:13-15

"if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives it liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." James 1:5

Wisdom is bad:

“ For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.” Ecclesiastes 1:18

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Cor 1:18-19

To add further proof to my claim that the Christian god Yahweh is pernicious fickle and lofty, I will cite additional passages from Corinthians:

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” Cor 1:25-29

To understand the point I am making, keep in mind the definitions of wisdom :

1. “The quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.

2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.

3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts”

I thought that when one is defining a word, one should not use that word in the definition. 

These passages show that Christians worship a god who chooses the foolish things just to shame the wise. He did not choose the foolish things because they are good; he chose them because they are NOT good--and he did this to nullify things that are good, just so he could be number one—top dog.

No. You have to answer this question: For what does God  choose the foolish things of this world for? And what those things are? She quote the whole passage of 1 Cor 1:25-29 but what does the passage discuss? Knowledge? Is that what is being discussed? No. Paul is making a distinction between the world and people God chose out of the world. No one is good. The point is that God chose them and us even though the world would reject the chosen as unworthy.

Therefore, I can conclude from this that the Christian god Yahweh is fickle, pernicious, and lofty. This is just so bizarre, treacherous, deceitful, and monstrous, perhaps there is no worthy adjective I can use to describe it.

No, there are more appropriate adjectives: wesome and merciful. God takes people who are small, weak, stupid, poor, unworthy, ignored, disenfranchised, shunned - and chooses them to lavish His Love and mercy.  God did this to nullify those who arrogantly assume that they are center of everything - not the good. God makes us good.

Just look at the passage again from the Christian Bible, which is the authority of Christianity:

“But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise and the things that are not to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.”

The bible proves once again not only how contradictory it is, but more importantly, it shows just how fickle and pernicious the Christian god Yahweh is.

So where is the perniciousness? The Contradiction? None Existent. Paul is very clear on what he's talking about. He's referring to conventional "wisdom" of the world - you know: the rejection of God.  

I once asked a well known Christian who also happens to be a Mormon,...

Hold up!!!! Mormons are not Christians!

...if the Christian god Yahweh could be considered pernicious, fickle and lofty in regards to wisdom, and this is his part of his reply to me:

“In some Bible verses, God can come off in the manner you suggest. In others He comes off differently. It all depends on which verses you are referring to and what your interpretation is. If you use certain verses of the Bible to prove that God is evil but choose to ignore the verses in the same bible that prove that God is great, you my friend are now cherry picking. “  

This well known Christian admitted to me not only that Yahweh is capable of evil, but Yahweh is also pernicious, lofty and fickle.

Mormons don't accept that God created the universe - merely arranging what is already there.  They also don't believe the Bible is inerrant so of course they would agree that God comes off differently depending on particular Bible passages.

These are not the qualities of a wise human being, let alone qualities of a supposed “ultimate creator of the universe.”

Of course those are the qualities of a unregenerate human being - we are all sinners remember? It does not describe the God of the Bible.

 It is Yahweh himself who admits to being responsible for the evil in the world; therefore it would be logical that he would also be capable of evil, as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god could be capable of no less.

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

Controlling and managing evil does not equal being capable of evil.  Asserting it does not make it so.  

There are Christians who state that the Bible should not be taken literally, and claim it is nothing but a collection of wise sayings and teachings. These same Christians also say that since the Bible has stood the test of time for over 2000 years, it must also contain some wisdom in it.

What Christians are she talking to? Oh yeah, Mormons. 

But as it was stated in the first chapter, Christianity only became popular through brute force, not because it is right in its teachings, or that it is the one true religion.

It took on a brute nature when Emperor Constantine made it a crime in the Roman Empire not to be a Christian in the 4th Century. It had been a crime before that to be Christian. When you have people coming into the church who have not been born-again of course you are going to see conversion through brute force in many cases but not necessary. It also does not show that Christianity is not true even thought it does not show that Christianity is true either. There is plenty of other evidence we can call upon.

 
 Something does not become wisdom just because it has been held as a popular belief for thousands of years; just as we now know that even thought the world was thought of as flat for thousands of years, we now accept that it is not.

The flat earth argument is not real good example. 

To say that something must be worthy just because of its popularity, would be fallacious. In truth, the Bible contains very little wisdom,...

Guess she hasn't read Job, Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes. 

....as even the 10 commandments which are the supposed moral guidelines that the “perfect” god Yahweh dictated to Moses are inherently flawed. (The real 10 commandments said to be contained in the Ark of the Covenant are in Exodus 34, and contain a verse about no cooking a goat in its mother's milk.  Nothing about not raping or molesting children--but cooking goats.)

So because the Law specifically does no mention that it's wrong to rape or molest children, it is flawed? Isn't that silly. On top of that there are about 613 laws in the Torah and not all 613 laws were in the Ark. The Ten we talk about aren't even the greatest commandment and it would include prohibition against raping anyone. Recall that rape was a capital offense.

Even when it comes to Yahweh being all-loving"  the Bible is wrong, which the following passages illustrate:

 "Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

If, as these passages state, that love is patient and kind, then Yahweh is neither of those things; as he is portrayed as a jealous, angry vengeful god in the Holy Bible:

Love is not  jealous of other people. God is not easily provoked to anger but abounding in love in patient. Don't forget that the God gave the people of Noah's time 120 years to repent. He gave the people of Canaan over 400 years to repent before they were wiped out by Joshua and his forces. Lastly he hasn't destroyed us and giving us the time to repent. 

“(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.” Deuteronomy 6:15 KJV

The claim that the Christian god Yahweh is an “all-loving” god can be easily refuted using the classic logic formula of “modus tollens”, which is: “If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore, not P.” Using this formula it could be stated that:

P1. If Yahweh is all loving, then he cannot be jealous. 

P2. Yahweh is not, not jealous. 

C. Therefore, Yahweh is not all-loving. 

There is a difference in being Jealous of someone. That means you want what someone else has that does not belong to you. This the kind of "jealous" that is being referred to in 1 Corinthians 13. There is another kind of "jealousy". This kind is wanting what belongs to you that someone else is trying to take - being jealous for something is not equivalent to being jealous of someone. Many atheists erroneously conflate the two.

This is just one example of the many contradictory attributes Christians have bestowed upon their god. The evidence of Yahweh's pernicious nature makes it clear that there is little wisdom to be gained by embracing his teachings or emulating his actions.
_____________________

Cathy Cooper

Contradictions that critics introduce so that they pretend  the Bible is not true and that they can just ignore god and pretend they have logical reasons to do so. Of all the scriptures that talk about wisdom I'm surprised that the following was omitted:

¹³ Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. ¹⁴ But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. ¹⁵ Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. ¹⁶ For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
¹⁷ But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. ¹⁸ Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. - James 3:13-18

Gee I wonder why?

Maybe Loftus should appoint an editor for the the site to vet the articles.

Debunking Christianity: Yahweh is Proven to be a Pernicious, Lofty, and Fickle God

MIT Students + iPad = Future

You must watch the video below to see just where we are headed in technology. I see no reason why this can't be done an Android device as well as tablet! I want one of these with a customizable API.




MIT Students + iPad = Future

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Bible Believing Fundamentalist Peter Ruckman, PhD Lectures on the Bible

Harry McCall has posted a link to a video that mocks Dr Peter S. Ruckman and seems to think that he is representative of what Christian Fundamentalists believe.

If Dr. Ruckman makes more sense than his enemies (as noted at the video’s end), it’s only because his enemies are Christians!
Listen and Learn!! .






From his web page: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Alabama and completed his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy in Bible at Bob Jones University. Reading at the rate of seven hundred words per minute, Dr. Ruckman had managed to read about 6,500 books before receiving his doctorate and still he manages to average one book a day. Dr. Ruckman stands for the absolute authority of the Authorized King James Version and will debate any scholar who tries to find any textual problems with it. In 1965 Dr. Ruckman founded Pensacola Bible Institute and runs Bible Baptist Book Store in Pensacola, Fla. HERE.

Pointing to a proponent of King James Only-ism and criticizing it as proof that Christianity is rather stupid and short-sighted. Christians who have bothered to study anything in reality recognize that a translation can't be held as a standard. It's just simply wrong. The translators of the KJV recognized themselves that their translations was not inerrant. We need to go with the Greek and Hebrew texts whenever there is a question as to what the meaning is. Ruckman indeed has lost many debates on this subject. Trotting Ruckman out as an example of what Christians believe is akin to arguing that all atheists think like Jefferey Dahmer. A really pathetic argument. It is also like the animated gif above - trying to arrest a drunk girl and ending up on suspension.

If you want to see how Christians really think about the garbage things that Ruckman believes, read this following response by Dr James White: A Response to Dr. Ruckman

Debunking Christianity: Bible Believing Fundamentalist Peter Ruckman, PhD Lectures on the Bible

Surprising No One, 'One Million Moms' Is Mad About Gay X-Men - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

There has been much media attention given to the X-Man Northstar marring another male character in the comics next month. I think that the commentary by Chris Sims of Comics Alliance should be taken notice of. I respect Chris Sims and enjoy his commentary on culture and media. I don't always agree with him but I like the way he expresses himself. At times he's really insightful. In this case he weighs in on the "One Million Moms" group attacking the move by Marvel and calling for parents to boycott.

He quotes the group's website:

Children desire to be just like superheroes. Children mimic superhero actions and even dress up in costumes to resemble these characters as much as possible. Can you imagine little boys saying, "I want a boyfriend or husband like X-Men?"

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/05/25/one-one-million-moms-mad-about-gay-x-men/#ixzz1w2p7La5E

I agree with Mr Sims that this is really stupid. Neither reading a book or watching a movie or television makes you gay. Really, really stupid.

I also agree with Sims that the lesson we should get from X-Men and other superheroes:

What they teach you is that you should use your abilities to help the people around you and make the world a better place rather than just throwing your weight around to be a bully. And they teach you that when the world hates and fears someone just because they're different, it's the world that's wrong.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/05/25/one-one-million-moms-mad-about-gay-x-men/#ixzz1w2pnoNO0

The thing I disagree with is that pointing out embracing a behavior or actions that go against a person's well being is bullying and hatred.  Unfortunately, Christians have not given gay people the love they deserve. Homosexuality is no worse a sin than lying or stealing or murder, but often Christians tell Homosexuals that what they are doing is the worse possible sin you can do. That's not what the Bible says. God doesn't hate homosexuals. God calls all of us to repentance and holiness. Not just homosexuals. We all have sinned not just homosexuals. How is it hatred to tell someone that God loves you and has better for you if you just trust God and obey God. God has got the best for you.God will improve your life. You don't have to settle for less than the very best God has for you. 

The following verse applies to all of us.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. ² Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is —his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Romans 12:1,2

But you can't do it without God and God will help you if you give yourself to God.

Surprising No One, 'One Million Moms' Is Mad About Gay X-Men - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Welcome to the World of Christianity

Harry McCall has posted a summarizing of what he thinks is what are the absolute truths of Christianity. Has he succeeded? Not at all. Take a look at what he thinks you believe if you are a Christian. 

As a Christian, you are now following THE supreme God who created the universe. Here are the absolute truths that make your God special:


A. Your God is omnipotent (Having unlimited power and authority). B. Your God is omnipresent (He is present everywhere). C. Your God is omniscient (Having total knowledge). D. Your God commands billions of angels of which just one could destroy the world. As a Christian, you are now part of a large and diverse group totaling over 2.2 billion members that has a yearly worldwide budget totaling approximately one half of a trillion dollars. However! On the other side is God’s arch enemy and now your enemy too: Satan. Satan leads a small army of fallen angels (called demons). A. Satan has limited power (Only what little control God gives him). B. Satan has no earthly members (Just a few "Dabblers"). C. And most of all, Satan has no budget because he has no income from tithes and offerings. BUT YET: According to God's own word the Bible - especially the Book of Revelation; God with all the above supreme attributes is now actually losing a battle He created by putting the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden and by casting Satan and his demons out of Heaven to earth. Moreover, God has even sacrificed His only begotten Son – Jesus - to defeat Satan and sin. At the end of the age, all of humanity will one day stand before your God at the Great White Throne Judgment to give an account of their lives. If they are non-Christians, then they must tell this all knowing God exactly why they as simple mortal sinful creatures with limited understandings screwed up; after which they will be cast into a Lake of Fire whose smoke rises forever all eternity to fry in torment forever. HOW ARE WE TO MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE? It's a Divine Mystery (A theological term coined by the Catholic Church).

One good thing that we can say in McCall's favor is that at least he does attempt to read the comments of those who disagree with him. Of course reading them and understanding them are not the same thing. He next quoted one of them

Below is the response to this 2006 post here and the supposedly refutation by the TRIABLOGGERS Christian apologetic blog: "It's amazing how many unbiblical assumptions these apostates are able to cram into the Biblical narrative. You see, these apostates love to fluctuate in and out of internal critiques. They'll do a post like this one where they appear to be taking Biblical data into account (consider the "statistics" that were cited), but then they'll push aside everything the Bible says about the subject only to insert their own atheistic presuppositions. But of course the Bible disagrees with atheistic assumptions!"
Harry McCall

McCall does not seem to understand what unbiblical assumptions he uses in critiquing Christianity. Let's look list a few of them he committed in the paragraph above.

1, No where does the Bible tells us how many angels there are. 

2. No where does the Bible tells us how many demons there are other than 1/3 of the angels rebelled against God and followed Lucifer.

3. No where does the Bible describe Satan as God's archenemy. To be an archenemy you'd have to be a threat. The Devil has already lost this. 

Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” - Revelations 12:12

And the Bible also tells us that Jesus' victory blindsided Satan. He didn't know that Jesus' death sealed his defeat. 

⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. - 1 Corinthians 2:7,8

4.  Judgement Day isn't about you explaining to God why you messed up the life and time He gave you. It's when you will be held accountable for the things you have said and done. You will be judged. And if you are clothed in the rags of your own righteousness instead of Jesus' you will be going to perdition.

5. You won't need to explain or give an excuse for your own corruption and imperfection

for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust. - Psalm 103:14

6. We are not supposed to make sense of it apart from God allowing us to understand it. If you can't understand any of it, it's because you are too carnally minded and God has not put His spirit into you. McCall illustrates this with every post he writes. 

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

If you are going to talk about what the Bible teaches you should get it right. Here is a comment from this post:

NenoDecember 

Why did god feel the need to prove anything about his character to himself or to anyone? Why could he not have been satisfied to know this about himself and leave it at that? Why the need to create a world and conscious beings to whom you can show your glory? Was he not satisfied to just know it about himself? Is he not all-sufficient? Why does he feel the need to create these very real people to show his glory to and expose these very real people, who he loves, to sin and evil and then send these very real people to hell? Isn’t he really just doing all of this for himself while real created beings burn in hell and suffer unending misery for all eternity because of it? This is not a divine mystery--it is divine psychopathic, ego-maniacal selfishness with a touch of stupidity.

Paul answered you

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 9:19-24

Debunking Christianity: Welcome to the World of Christianity

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: From a God in a Box to the Universal Sky God: Eternal Blessing and Suffering for All

Harry McCall has post a fairly lengthy article attacking Christianity by taking a nuanced view of history trying to make it seem like the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of  the New Testament and that the concepts of Heaven and Hell have changed and therefore we can't trust the Bible. I highly recommend reading the whole thing for a laugh. However, instead of responding to him point by point I think want to only discuss one of his ideas and point out its only the tip of the iceberg about how wrong he is.

McCall writes:

Remember, this was not the Universal Sky God of the New Testament, but a small localize god who only had a contract (covenant) with Israel alone.  Thus, we find Israel’s great King David worried that Box God does not have a house to live while he does, but like a homeless bum, Box God  has to live in a tent:  the king summoned Nathan the prophet. "Look," David said, "I am living in a beautiful cedar palace, but the Ark of God is out there in a tent! (2 Samuel 7:2).

McCall thinks that in the Old Testament, God is only the god of the Jews. He's wrong. Israel is God's special possession but God consistently represented Himself as God over everyone!  None of the scriptures McCall brings up says that God is not God of everyone!

God said the following to Abram:

² “I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.^[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you. ”^[b] - Genesis 12:2-3

If the goal was to bless everyone all over the earth, then Yahweh can't only be concerned with Jews only.

This undermines the whole article!

Debunking Christianity: From a God in a Box to the Universal Sky God: Eternal Blessing and Suffering for All