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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who needs evidence when belief itself becomes the proof?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by J. M. Green

Another one to add to the prayer list.

Debunking Christianity: Christianity and the Virtue of Unreason

Agnostic Skeptical Centrism. - knowledgeequalsblackpower: Dr. Mae C. Jemison ...

 Here is a really great post from tumblr. I did not even realize that we have had that many black women in space. I think we must make sure that everyone knows this so that even young girls can know they can be Astronauts if they want to be Astronauts.

knowledgeequalsblackpower:
Dr. Mae C. Jemison
Stephanie Wilson
Joan Higginbotham
Dr. Yvonne Cagle
As we admire these women this month, we must also remember how difficult of a journey they must have had. And we must make a commitment to make the journey easier for little Black girls who are interested in science.
In her book Swimming Against the Tide: African American Girls and Science Education, Sandra Hanson explodes the myth that black girls are somehow disinterested in science due to hyper-religiosity or “culture.”   Hanson found that, despite significant institutional and societal barriers, there is greater interest in science among African American girls than in other student populations. She frames this seeming paradox in historical context, stressing that “Early ideologies about natural inequalities by race influenced the work of scientists and scholars as well as the treatment of minorities in the science domain.  Racism is a key feature of science in the United States and elsewhere.  This has a large impact on the potential for success among minority students.  Early work on science as fair has not been supported.”
Hanson outlines some of the obstacles that confront budding African American women scientists from elementary school to the postgraduate level.  Stereotypes about girls of color lacking proficiency in science, the absence of nurturing mentors, the dearth of education about people of color who have contributed to science research (i.e., culturally responsive science instruction), and academic isolation often deter youth who would like to pursue science careers.
…
Conservatives who disdain “liberal multiculturalism” in higher education dismiss such concerns about diversity in hiring as handwringing.  According to this view there is only one standard academia should use; objective and unbiased, untainted by affirmative action.
Yet white students are beneficiaries of cradle to grave affirmative action.  White students grow up seeing the dominant image of rational, trailblazing scientific discovery (from films like Dr. Strangelove to 2001: A Space Odyssey to Close Encounters to The Right Stuff) as spearheaded by courageous rugged individualist generally white males.  They are socialized to believe in a template of “purely” meritocratic success and individual achievement. Meritocracy becomes gospel and lucre.  They can take it to the bank and use it to repel the less qualified savages.
…
While she was at UCLA Devin Waller was the only African American woman in the Astrophysics department. On the first day of her upper division classes she recalls being asked by male students befuddled by her presence whether or not they “were in the right class.” Since peer networking and study groups in science departments are largely white and male, white academic success and scholarly legitimacy in science become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For black women in white male dominated professions, showing vulnerability and having any kind of public failure are simply not options. Like many women of color Devin’s approach was that “You kind of go in there and set a precedent. Everything you do is watched. You have to establish yourself as intelligent. There were no black women in my classes. No one who looked like me.”
Not having anyone who looks like them as a faculty member, administrator and/or mentor influences the sense of isolation, anxiety, and burnout that students of color often experience in science disciplines.  As an Electrical Engineering major Kimberly Bryant, founder of Black Girls Code, a nonprofit dedicated to developing African American girls as computer programmers, also found herself “feeling culturally isolated” during college.  On her website she argues that  the “dearth of African-American women in science, technology, engineering and math professions…cannot be explained by, say, a lack of interest in these fields. Lack of access and lack of exposure to STEM topics are the likelier culprits.”
In her autobiography Find Where the Wind Goes: Moments from My Life, Mae Carol Jemison (the first black woman astronaut and first woman of color in space) reflects on how, after professing interest in being a scientist to one of her teachers, she was told to set her sights on being a nurse instead.  As a sixteen year-old undergraduate at Stanford University, Jemison was practically shunned by her physical science instructors.  Although her experiences occurred during the sixties and seventies, the dominant view of who is a proper scientist has not changed and nursing is still a more acceptable aspiration for black women who are culturally expected to be self-sacrificing caregivers for everyone in the universe.
Read more
Agnostic Skeptical Centrism. - knowledgeequalsblackpower: Dr. Mae C. Jemison ...

Which Religion Contains God?

I came across the following graphic.

I have to disagree. What Jesus said means that you can't take that position and follow him.

Shore's analogy fails because Jesus said that the rain comes down on the just and the unjust. God is definitely not with the unjust so having water in your cup doesn’t mean you have God. If you want to argue that Jesus is wrong, then you have to deny that God is in Christianity and you have to abandon Shore's statement. Shore is wrong. Jesus is right.

Answering Muslims: Is Muhammad the Prophet Like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18? A Reply to Zakir Naik

Some Muslims are desperate to find legitimacy in the Bible that some try to argue that Deuteronomy 18:18 is about Muhammad. David Wood and Sam Shamoun take down  Zakir Naik on this topic.



Answering Muslims: Is Muhammad the Prophet Like Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18? A Reply to Zakir Naik

Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio

There is a recent debate floating around the Internet between William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg. Rosenberg was really angry and had neither the evidence or debating strategy to back it up. I watched this hoping to hear something new but neither side brought up anything that has been offered before.  Craig didn't need to bring anything new because the opposition doesn't seem to require it.


After the debate a vote was taken about who better argued his case, and Craig was voted the winner.

Truthbomb Apologetics: William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg Debate MP3 Audio

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: 5 Obviously False References in the Bible

From time to time, Debunking Christianity posts essays and articles written  by various people. This one by Joe E Holman is about presenting five things in the Bible that he thinks are obviously wrong. Holman does not seem to be an authority on history or the Bible and I think his essay is just an attempt to demonstrate that one does not have to be a scholar to see that the Bible is flawed. However Holman does not demonstrate that the Bible is false, instead he demonstrates what failure looks like. I'll try not to be too hard because professional scholars (and those who think they are scholars) don't do much better.

As the ages march on, it is a delight to find fewer attending churches and more making time to sit around doing other, more enjoyable things come Sunday. But even while classes full of growing students are satiated in going to their professors for answers instead of their priests, the age-old debate on the existence of God / validity of [insert religion here] somehow still rages on. The question should by now be settled, but those states where the collective IQ hasn’t exceeded 57 still have people who are clinging tightly to mom and dad’s hard-shell faith to define us.

Get the feeling that Holman thinks that people who believe the Bible are stupid?

However, it is a breath of fresh air to know that the seeds of doubt are first planted, not by scholarship or by secular parenting, but by common sense questions and healthy brains at work. Below are 5 biblical mentions that are in that camp known as “It don’t take no gosh-darn edjamucations to see this ain’t right.” Some things in God’s holy book are wrong simply because they defy any real level of sense. We begin the countdown with...

I'd argue that rejecting the Bible is a failure of common sense. Let the fail begin.

#5) The Global Flood of Noah: Quite a number of kids in Sunday school ask their teachers how Mt. Everest was once covered by water according to Genesis. One of the first apostates from the Church of Christ I tried to rescue as a preaching student asked the same question. After never getting a good answer (and not settling for bad answers), this individual drifted away, but like me at the time, most students just accept that it’s true because of those rapid-fire biblical assurances that go: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4) See? It sounds so reassuring!

It's a shame when people who have questions about God and His word can't get good answers because they do exist. It seems stupid to think that it's only been now that some people have been asking and answering such questions recently. 

As any geology student can tell you, we know how much water is in the earth, on the earth, and frozen on the earth. It is not enough to cover Everest. Atmospheric pressure would be 1,000 times higher if it was. But if you still believe in the global flood, I have a nice song for you to listen to and sing your kids to sleep with. It’s educational!

Today, there is no enough water on earth to cover Mount Everest. How do we know that this was true when Noah was around? With continental drift being a reality, how do we know all the continents were not significantly closer than when Noah was around?  The Bible does not give us enough information to date the flood or Creation. We do not know. Therefore,  Holman has failed to show that Noah's flood is obviously false.

And as with all absurd biblical notions, the ideas don’t drop their absurdity with themselves; they spill over into other things, like, well, perhaps atheist Charles Lee Smith put it best in his 1929 debate with CoC’er W.L. Oliphant…

“How many of you here believe that the Chinaman, the negro and white man are descended from two Jews of six thousand years ago? Such differences would require one hundred thousand years to develop.” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, p. 119)

Not many of us today, Mr. Smith, because thanks in part to your efforts, we now have accepted that such a position would be as absurd as the flood itself.






Mr. Smith was incorrect. Adam and Eve were not Jewish and again we don't know if it was 6 thousand years or more according to the Bible. Yes, indeed much to be embarrased about. 


#4) 22,000 Oxen and 120,000 Sheep are Sacrificed in One Week: One of the things that makes reading to understand the Bible such a challenging task is that it is a book of excesses and/or exaggerations that, frankly, defy rational thought. In 2 Chron. 7:1-10, we find one of many such passages that should induce a chuckle or two...

“4Then the king and all the people offered sacrifices before the LORD. 5And king Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep: so the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.” (vs 4-5)

This was the celebratory feast following the completion of Solomon’s temple (5:1-2). The feast lasted one week. Doesn’t give a lot of time to carry out 142,000 stomach-turning animal sacrifices that would a) deplete their sacrifice stock for a long, long time to come, b) would be a shameful waste anyway, and c) would be impossible to carry out. This problem seems to almost have been recognized by the author...

“7Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD: for there he offered burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the brasen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offerings, and the meat offerings, and the fat.” (7:7)

This has Solomon somehow making arrangements to keep up with the workload of 5 oxen and 24 sheep being sacrificed every minute around the clock for a week straight! Rather conservatively estimated, you’d need 4 feet high and over 22 acres to put the chopped up carcasses down on (which I’m sure would smell just delightful in noonday heat!)

Why would one needs to assume that they were just being laying down in an area. They were burnt offerings which means that they were never all laying in the same area at the same time. Fail number 3. Are we really to assume that Solomon was personally offering the sacrifices with his own two hands?  The was a whole tribe of priest handling that. Many men. They would have been able to sacrifice 5 oxen and 24 sheep  and more every minute.

But “answer men” blowhards like JP Holding come to the rescue and say that this didn’t happen in a day, but throughout the year, despite the fact that the last 2 chapters focus exclusively on events of the dedication, on Solomon’s prayers, songs, and sacrifices at the feast. He says: “Thus, if we object to the numbers, or even to the ‘economic impact’ this would have had on Israel, this matter is resolved: If they were not all killed at once, and kept reproducing, this amounts to an economic boon for the average Israeli as Solomon redistributes his own wealth.”

The problem is that it does seem that the sacrifices being discussed were during that week long feast. But there is nothing in the text to take issue with.

Ah, count on the theologians to keep the magic of theism happening even when the gods and their scriptures can’t do it anymore! It just doesn’t make much sense to say that the altar couldn’t handle all the sacrifices and offerings if this was a standard year-long event now, does it? Read chapters and 5 through 7 and THEN come and tell me you get the impression this was over the course of a year.

So what?  Several hundred priests could sacrifice and offer that many offerings over the course of week. More failure.

And even if we stretch out prep time for sacrifices to, say, over a month earlier, it doesn’t really help too much. Any rational person reading these verses will conclude the same.

Rationality does not explain why Holman has come to his conclusions.


#3) Egypt Endured 40 Years as an Uninhabited Country: It is one of the less talked about passages for sure, and just as obviously untrue. But the Bible says it, and in so affirming, it even mentions animals not being there…

“8Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. 9And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. 10Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. 11No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. 12And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. 13Yet thus saith the Lord GOD; At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people whither they were scattered: 14And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation; and they shall be there a base kingdom. 15It shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. 16And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, which bringeth their iniquity to remembrance, when they shall look after them: but they shall know that I am the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 29:8-16)

Some believers have the nerve to say that the current events in Egypt are the beginning fulfillment of this prophecy since it certainly has never happened at any other time...but it’s a little late, I’d say. If there was ever a time to pull out the “that ship has sailed” line, it’s here. At no point did Egypt go uninhabited for 40 years.





My my.  How novel. A book of prophecy that contains prophecies that has not occurred.  Just because Egypt has not ever been uninhabited for 40 years does not mean that this won't ever happen. This is a really bad example. It means that Holman believes that this will never and could never happen.
 
#2) The Waters of Bethesda: An angel came down to stir the waters of a pool in Jerusalem to miraculously heal whoever got in first. It left an aged man helpless since he was never fast enough to get in due to his immobility...

“2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years. 6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?” (John 5:2-6)

One wonders how the administering angel justified such a tactic of handing out God’s blessings in such an unfair system, but why isn’t this pool still around today? At what point did the angel close up shop and cease from stirring the waters? Why can’t we examine it? Was it when the veil of the temple was rent in twain? We’ll never know, but what we do know is that it never happened.

Another Fail. The pool John discusses has been found. It existed. This means that you can't categorically discount the story. The pool itself is a ruin, but that does not mean the story did not happen.


#1) Jesus’ Death Made Zombies Walk Around in Jerusalem: Think I’m just being colorful in my description? Nope, I’m not. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we find a passage with such brazen boldness in its fabrication...

“50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Matthew 27:50-53)

Tell me this isn’t describing a first century zombie event and I will tell you I'm Cinderella! Although, the zombies are sort of uncooly just witnessing for Christ instead of eating the flesh of the living and causing a holocaust worth falling asleep watching on the Sci-Fi Channel.

This did not happen. Nuff said. But what good would it have done anyway? If the ultimate resurrection had not occurred and would not occur for a long time, why this “get up and walk into the holy city” maneuver? Or were the Old Testament saints released from the Hadean realm and went on into heaven after walking around the city like my grandfather believed, clearing out the “lobby” of the saved for the Christian righteous to come? Or did the writer of Matthew (like some other believers of the time) believe that this was the resurrection (see 2 Timothy 2:18)? That’s the thing about Bible belief. We can only wonder…and wonder and wonder.

Holman has a much wider definition of "zombie" than  I do. Given the fact that the people were recognized by people that must mean that like Lazarus, a few days before, they had just recently died. Also recall that they could not have been dead long given the Jews is practice of digging up loved ones and putting them in ossuaries.  Funny how atheists like to make things overly complicated.

So while the scholars will keep us stimulated with tit for tat in raging debates between believer and non, we can in the meantime look at the silliness of these examples and wonder how and why so many are ready to base their entire careers around preaching fairytales.

(JH)

The only thing silly in these examples is Holman's inability to explain why they are obviously wrong. 

---------------------
 When he’s not reviewing movies, Joe can be found wasting away at his website.

Given his poor exegesis of the Bible, Holman will stick to reviewing movies.

Debunking Christianity: 5 Obviously False References in the Bible

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith

John Loftus apparently thinks that there are no bad reasons for rejecting the God of the Bible. He posted a very lengthy blog post attempting to elaborating on his delusion. Let's look at a couple of quotes from his attempt at reason.

But I have to confess here and now, up front and center, that there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. I don't expect people to agree. It's a conclusion I have come to from everything I have learned. Again, there isn't a bad reason to reject the Christian faith. Since there might be one I'll leave it up to someone to suggest it. Otherwise, my claim stands. 

 Of course there is an obviously bad reason to reject Christianity. It's so plain and it shows that Loftus does not really even consider it a possibility. What if it's true?  If it is true, and I believe it is true, then that would be an extremely bad reason to reject Christianity. Loftus says he has come to the conclusion that the Bible is not true due to over 40 years or studying it. It's sad that after all that time he does not understand what Christianity is. Loftus does repeat in this article what he believes the Christian faith is.

Keep in mind that my target is evangelical, conservative, Bible thumping Christianity, the kind that would accept this Doctrinal Statement (or DS):

There is an omniscient, omnibenelovent, omnipotent God who sent Jesus to atone for the sins of all who believe in him. This same God desires everyone should be saved and that no one should be lost (See 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

Evangelicals believe more than this DS, but at a minimum they believe it. Calvinists need not apply.

 Obviously, Loftus has an Arminian perspective on salvation and seems to want to think that Calvinism should be ignored. Neither 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9 nor any place in the Bible tells us that God has chosen each and every individual human being for salvation. Considering that he does not know God and never knew God  it is no wonder he doesn't understand what the difference is between what some people say they believe and what the Bible says. Loftus thinks that the God of the Bible is obligated to save everyone and because not everyone believes that is proof that God does not exist. He is frustrated because that is not the God the Bible reveals to us.

Loftus keeps giving us reasons to pray for him not good reasons to reject the God who bought us - those who believe and are being saved. Loftus illustrates the following:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. - 2 Peter 2:1


Debunking Christianity: There Isn't a Bad Reason to Reject the Christian Faith

Debunking Christianity: Can We be Good Without God? August Berkshire vs James Kunz

This is an interesting Debate that was recently posted on the Debunking Christianity blog. Both men did a pretty good job on their own. I do think that James Kurtz brought things I have really wished  that more Christians bring up in debates on this subject while August Berkshire seemed to just summarize the "best" arguments of atheism on this subject.




Kurte made some points that should be deeply considered:

1. Damage to the physical brain does not show that there is no soul.
2. Free Will is part of this discussion
3. God gives unbelievers the ability to do moral action and recognize morality just like God does to unbelievers
4. God gave us life so God has every right to determine when and how those lives end.



Debunking Christianity: Can We be Good Without God? August Berkshire vs James Kunz

Answering Muslims: Refuting Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Jesus

Now here is a gem. David Wood and Pastor Joseph discuss Shabir Ally's teaching regarding Jesus' Crucifixion.  Amazingly, the majority of Muslims deny that Jesus was crucified on a cross by the Romans despite this being a fact of history. How does Shabir Ally reconcile this with Islam? Really badly. This point is the main reason to deny Islam. The Quran says that Jesus did not die the way everything we know says He did. David Wood does a real good job in laying this out.


Answering Muslims: Refuting Shabir Ally on the Crucifixion of Jesus

Life by the Numbers | It's Okay to be Smart | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube

This is fascinating. The earth is full of life. The video doesn't include much about plant biomass, but these facts are fascinating.


Life by the Numbers | It's Okay to be Smart | PBS Digital Studios - YouTube

A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto - YouTube

Video Description: Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto has created a beautiful, undeniably scary time-lapse map of the 2053 nuclear explosions which have taken place between 1945 and 1998, beginning with the Manhattan Project's "Trinity" test near Los Alamos and concluding with Pakistan's nuclear tests in May of 1998. This leaves out North Korea's two alleged nuclear tests in this past decade (the legitimacy of both of which is not 100% clear).

Each nation gets a blip and a flashing dot on the map whenever they detonate a nuclear weapon, with a running tally kept on the top and bottom bars of the screen. Hashimoto, who began the project in 2003, says that he created it with the goal of showing"the fear and folly of nuclear weapons." It starts really slow — if you want to see real action, skip ahead to 1962 or so — but the buildup becomes overwhelming.

http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/


A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945 - by Isao Hashimoto - YouTube

World Battleground, 1000 years of war in 5 minutes - YouTube

World Battleground, 1000 years of war in 5 minutes - YouTube

The Duggars, Abortions, Holocaust, Jim Bob Duggar, Pro-Life, Quiverful

Jenni Mair has posted an article suggesting that the Duggar family that is the subject of a reality show about raising 19 children are horrible people against women and in conspiracy to destroy society because they think that there is a huge parallel between the Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany and the 56 million abortions each year. I wonder if Mair knows what a holocaust is. Maier wrote:

There’s nothing I hate more than people who have the audacity to compare the Holocaust to anything that’s not the Holocaust. It’s not a synonym for “something I don’t like” and it’s not a word to toss around for political reasons. It’s an event in recent history that resulted in the systematic murder of six million people. SIX MILLION LIVING AND BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS.  People who had jobs and lives and families and histories before being enslaved, tortured and murdered.
To compare their lives to the lives of developing fetuses disgusts me. You want to be anti-choice, fine be anti-choice. But don’t make inane comparisons that attempt to say that what happens during abortion is anywhere near what happened during The Holocaust. It isn’t. At all.

Read more: http://www.crushable.com/2013/01/30/entertainment/the-duggars-abortion/#ixzz2JV1LuXV9

I agree that "holocaust" should not be used lightly or casually. But when you look at what abortion is, I'm not sure one cannot make such a comparisons. Just look at what was written and ask how does this not apply to abortion?

It’s a repeated event in recent history that results in the systematic murder of Fifty-six million people. FIFTY-SIX MILLION LIVING AND BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS.  People who could have had jobs and lives and families and histories but instead were tortured and murdered.

Maier attempts to avoid the weight of this by claiming that the lives of "developing fetuses" are not worthy of being compared with the value of the six million who were killed by the Nazis. Why? I believe that a person is a person from the moment of conception and worth just as much as any human being at any stage in life. Why? Even prior to birth, a human baby is capable of feeling pain and responds to his/her environment. Some methods of abortion actually does cause pain and I see no reason to think that it's not torture. As a human being I am not qualified to determine the value and worth on one person over another. Many people passionate about protecting abortion rights say that it because they care about women, but I never hear them explain how do they propose to help women who have been traumatized emotionally and physically due to abortions. Both the woman and child suffer.

The Duggars, Abortions, Holocaust, Jim Bob Duggar, Pro-Life, Quiverful

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Mindlessly Quote-Mining the Bible is Not Thinking

John Loftus posted the picture on the left. The fact that he endorsed  such a lack of thinking leads either the conclusion that Loftus is either dishonest or ignorant to what"quote-mining" really means. Instead of continuing to mock and ridicule Loftus, Let's instead assume that he is merely mistaken and not a dishonest. Therefore let's help him and anyone else who may be confused:

Quote-Mining:

Quoting out of context or "quote mining" is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Source:Engel, Morris S., With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (1994), pp. 106-107ISBN 0-312-15758-4

Therefore we see that quote-mining is invariably associated with twisting the quoted material out of context. Obviously the Bible can be quoted in context and it is the only way you can really find out if it is true or not. That is of course if you care about if its true or not. Of course, given that Loftus engages in quote-mining on occasion maybe he doesn't care about if the Bible is true or not.  For example check his recent post here. I show how he quotes the scripture out of context here.

Debunking Christianity: Mindlessly Quote-Mining the Bible is Not Thinking

Debunking Christianity: Did God Want Us to Fall Into Sin?

Today, John Loftus posted the following YouTube video. It's one of the videos created to parody Christianity to the point that it seems to make it crazy to believe Christianity. The problem with the video is that it makes assertions and draws conclusions that are inconsistent with what the Bible believes. The video assumes that God set up Adam and Eve for failure and actually desired for humanity to fall into sin.  The video then sets up a provocative question by asking what would the earth be like had Adam not disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. The picture being painted rests on several assumptions. I'm going to focus on the ones that jump out that are in direct contradiction with the Bible. First the lie and then the truth.

1. Had Adam and Eve had obeyed God, humanity would overpopulate the earth in endless orgies.

It was never intended by God for men and women to have different than heterosexual and monogamous marriage relationships.

⁴ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’^[a]5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’^[b]? ⁶ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” - Matthew 19:4-6

2. Human anatomy and the created order is the same as it is now. 

Sin changed everything. I see no reason to assume that if Adam and Eve were not limited by sickness, pains or mortality  as we that they had any of the unpleasantness that comes with life now - like having excrement that stinks.

3.  Our experience of free will and reasoning is the same as what Adam and Eve had before the fall.

When people claim to have free will it always amazes me. If we had free will we should be able to choose to not sin. We cannot. We sin on purpose and not on purpose. Consciously and unconsciously. Everyone who had come into the world as a descendant of Adam is a born a sinner - enslaved and some never become aware of that and many deny their chains.  Bottom line is none of us know what it's like to not have to sin no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in. Adam and Eve knew because they were perfect. You and I are no near close.

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

4. Childbirth was always intended to be painful.

We do not know what child birth would have been like had Adam and Eve had obeyed God. None. The Bible does not tell us. The pain and suffering that comes with it only came into being after the curse of sin and death came over us.

¹⁶ To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

Thanks, Adam and  Eve.

5. The serpent tried to talk Adam and Eve out of  disobeying God. 

The serpent did not try to help Eve. He tricked Eve into questioning God's single command and convinced her to distrust God. This the exact tactic the devil employs against us today and this exactly the lie that the maker of the video has fallen for. The things is that all who reject God has fallen for this lie.

 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

² The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, ³ but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

⁶ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. ⁷ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. - Genesis 3:1-7

Additionally, something I have a huge problem with is the idea that God does not have a good reason for allowing Adam and Eve to be tested in their obedience and know that they would fall would not have a good reason for it. Think carefully. We know every single human being is so unique that one cannot have any other mother or father than the biological pair you have. We also know that you could not have conceived at any other time than the time you were conceived. Hold this thought as you consider the following passage:

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’^[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.' - Acts 17: 24-28

The Bible very clearly teaches that your existence and everything about it is due to God's intervention in His creation. You exist because of the plan God has in mind and He put you at the time and place where you can best find him. And it's not just about you. Think of all the people you interact with and who you affect and they affect you. God's taking all of that into account also. This includes not just the good things we do but even the bad. For example, would you still exist as the person you are now had there been no American Civil War? World War I?  Vietnam?  Could you even be able to know all the causes and effects? Not away. You'd have a better chance to understand and explain gravity...and no one has been able to do that either. Personally, just the little bit I know about my family histories and world history, I wouldn't be here without a lot of people's pain and suffering. That's a humbling and sobering thought. That makes us all responsible and accountable. God allowed evil because He has sovereign reasons to allow it and one of them is because He loves the "you" that you are. If things had not gone exactly the way they have, that "you" would not exist, and neither would all those you are connected to. Instead of trying to figure out why God allows evil, one should remember if God were to obliterate evil God would have to start with us.  On top of that praise God because that Evil is on the leash. Evil is under God's control and God's purposes are good in all that God does.

Remember this example. Joseph experienced much evil and suffering that wasn't his fault in any way. It started with his brother betraying him and selling him into slavery. How did Joseph respond?

¹⁹ But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? ²⁰ You intended to harm me,but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ²¹ So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:19-21

This is true even about Jesus crucifixion. When Adam sinned, God wasn't thinking "Oh, crap! What am I going to do now?!"  Jesus was not plan B. Or like a bubblegum or duct tape holding something together that was broken.


Debunking Christianity: Did God Want Us to Fall Into Sin

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

Here is a lecture given by Astrophysicist Hugh Ross. It is based on his book, Why The Universe Is the Way It Is. I admire Dr Ross and his work a great deal. I don't agree with everything he says but I appreciate even the way he argues for and explains even those.He makes a great case for Intelligent Design.








Why The Universe Is The Way It Is - Part 1 - YouTube