It’s entertaining when would-be christian apologist names his blog something that he fails at. This is the case at “bold apologia” when an apologist won’t let comments show. Adam, the fellow there, is quite sure he can argue that his god isn’t a monster. He unsurprisngly fails.
My response that I’m quite sure will never show up. I could be wrong, but that’s not the way to bet. (BTW memes at the end)
My response to him (nothing much new):
It’s notable when a Christian tries to excuse their god’s supposed actions and make the typical claims of “context” when there is no context that excuses this religion’s nonsense.
Adam, I am an atheist, and was a Christian. I devote energy to show how your religion lies and fails since its claims cause real harm. So consider than when you try to claim that atheists shouldn’t stand against your nonsense.
It’s entirely amusing when you try to claim people don’t deserve an apology for the harm that your religion has caused. There is no love in your response, just a need to excuse your god’s actions.
The argument made by the atheist isn’t a “highly selective reading of ancient texts”, but nice try. The actions of your god and David, in 2 Samuel have no context that shows them in anything but how they are literally wrote: a god who has a ridiculously bad track record in its “chosen” people. David is a rapist and a murderer. Your god, rather than killing David, murders his child and threatends to have his wives and concubines raped.
This is a complete endorsement of rape as revenge, and this god attacking everyone but the person responsible. This is an invented god reflecting the society that invented it. Again, it’s just a incompetent deity who can’t admit it was wrong. Attacking innocents is just pathetic when it comes to your god.
It’s typical that a Christians have to blame the victims of their god, in order to excuse it. That’s what sycophants to tyrants always do. This god directly participates in this act, since it kills david’s son. No one else does.
Again, you try to excuse your god when it commands and commits genocide. Again, you try to claim that it isnt’ this god’s fault, and show that this god must simply be impotent to actually do what it wants, being subservient to human actions.
You try to claim the language is “hyperbolic” but you also claim that total warfare was perfectly fine since it was “of that time”. These are contradictory claims: which is the one you want to go with? Your god declares it is a timeless moral prescription, since it says to kill the combatants, and commit literal genocide, which the UN defines quite well:
“Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.“
Your god approves of this genocide, to the point of demanding its share of the girls, etc. You try to whitewash your bible. Again, you have nothing more than “but but my god couldn’t command anyone to be different than their tribal standards”.
There is no strawman argument made. As usual, you, as a Christian, want to ignore these problematic verses in your set of books written by ignorant humans. That Christianity has changed what it considers moral, that means christain claims about objective morality coming from their god are simply lies. That christnaity today is completely different from what the bible god demands just shows you make things up.
The core teaching of christainity is that if you disobey its god, you are killed or worse. So your claims of christainity just being peace and light are simply false.
“Progressive revelation” is nothing more than an excuse used by Christians to try to blame humans for what their bible has their god doing. Why would this god find it needs to evidently hide its “true character”? It supposedly has the power to require obedience and we see it repeatedly forbidding actions and killing people if they don’t obey. That you have to create excuses for this god’s approval of genocide, slavery, etc, is notable.
There is nothing to explain why Jesus wasn’t simply sent down right after this god’s failure in Eden, so all you have is more just-so stories to explain why your religion’s book is so terribly flawed.
Jesus and your god, per your bible, never said slavery was wrong. We have both in Leviticus 25 and 1 Peter 2 that it’s perfectly fine to have slaves as long as they aren’t the “chosen” people and that slaves should never try to gain their freedom. Then we have where the Christian church said that any non-christian can be enslaved in the doctrine of discovery, etc. Again, curious how your god is so impotent when it doesn’t enforce things like “don’t have slaves” but is ever so concerned with what people eat and wear.
History does show how Christian morality has repeatedly changed and poof goes Christian lies about objective morality. Christians embraced a notion of equality that wasn’t making people equal other than in some magical way. No actual efforts were made to end slavery by your imaginary jesus. This jesus has no problem in telling parables where it’s fine to beat your slave even if they did nothing wrong. Christians had no problem with serfdom, no problem with enslaving others peoples, up until just a little over a hundred years ago.
Nothing in your religion shows any “inherent dignity” of human beings, considering how your god repeatedly kills humans for things they didn’t do.
During the reformation, Christians murdered each other over whose nonsense was the “truth”, so reformers aren’t what you try to whitewash. Christians were anti-slavery despite what their bible literally says about it.
As usual, you try to make the typically false claim that christainity somehow created wester civilization, when it did not. Those ideas of equality, freedom, love, human rights, were around far longer than this religion. So your “historical trajectory” is no more than a cult changing its mind. No “divine revelation” at all.
Again, you keep repeating “context” and have yet to show any exists. It’s always amusing when a christian accuses someone of “cherry picking” when that is all they do, picking and choosing what parts of the bible they want to claim are the “truth” and what their god “really meant”. It’s even more fun when you try to claim an appeal to emotion fallacy is made when that’s all you’ve done, Adam. As is typical, Christians generally have no idea what logical fallacies are, and consistently misapply accusations of them.
The bible is indeed a collection of text written at various times, in various genres and they consistently contradict each other, belying the false claims of Christians about objective morality, an unchanging god, etc. That christains have to claim that their god just couldn’t bring itself to demand slavery be stopped, but oh dear, it was ever so important that people not wear mixed fabrics is patently ridiculous.
No ”progressive revelation” just an invented excuse on why this religion constantly revises what the ”truth” supposedly is. There is nothing “ethical” when it comes to religions trying to lie about their history and trying to whitewash their god.
Then you go into your false claims about others, bearing false witness against Dan (the atheist the OP was responding to). No wrestling with god, you just add that in. This god claims it creates evil, so you also have quite a problem there. Your language is no less confrontational.
You repeatedly claim everyone but you are wrong and that they don’t read the bible with “humility” and a desire for truth. That’s a lie, Adam. And despite your claims about the bible, it teaches a god that is unjust, unmerciful, and never redemptive. This god murders people for things they did not do or have control over. Is that just, Adam? Is that merciful or redemptive? This god makes some humans so that they cannot accept it, and then damns them for no actions of their own. Again, is this just? Merciful? Redemptive?
Every Christian represents their own version of Christ, and attacks the other Christians for being supposedly “wrong”. There is no one correct “representation”.
I suspect, that like me, Dan has had many many Christians praying for him to agree with their particular Christianity. I’ve literally have had hundreds of christains of all versions praying for me to agree with them over the last 30+ years. Curious that, despite the many promises in the bible, all of you Christians have failed miserably. This god claims it hardens hearts so humans can’t accept it, so you guys need to be talking to it.
God must be intimidated by questions, since it won’t answer mine. When I was a Christian, I prayed for help not to lose my faith. Curious how this god never showed up. And per the bible, this god is repeatedly angry, impatient, and has no problem with people perishing, either killing them itself or having its followers doing that. This god, per both jesus and paul, has already chosen who it will allow to accept it, then daming the rest for no action of their own.
So your claims are false per your own bible. A pdf of Adam’s blog post can be found here if any should care to see if I addressed his points..
an addition that came to me last night: A god that is worried about this isn’t omniscient or omnipotent.
“12 You shall have a designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. 13 With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. 14 Because the Lord your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.” Deut 23
Does this god not realize he made people to poop? No wonder such a god has such trouble getting competent mouthpieces for itself.
Club Schadenfreude 
Hi there!
Thank you for engaging in this conversation and sharing your heartfelt views. I truly understand that discussions about faith can evoke intense emotions and may bring up personal pain. I care deeply about your well-being, and I hope that my words may offer both understanding and a measure of peace.
I suspect that there may be unresolved hurt or trauma in your life that contributes to the anger you express. I am not asking you to minimize your experiences or change your opinions overnight. I simply invite you to consider speaking with a counselor or mental health professional who can help you explore these feelings in a safe and supportive environment. Seeking guidance is a courageous step in taking care of yourself and does not suggest weakness.
In any discussion of theology and morality, I also hope you find room to care for your heart. When we learn to address our own pain, we become more capable of engaging with challenging topics respectfully and thoughtfully. I truly wish for you to experience a sense of peace and healing in every aspect of your life.
Please accept this message as an expression of genuine care and compassion. I respect your commitment to exploring these important issues and hope that you may find both comfort and clarity along your journey.
-Adam Parker
LikeLike
Hello Adam, welcome to the Club.
No pain or anger here, but Christians love to try to convince themselves someone is pain to try to ignore what is said by non-christians. Most christains need to claim that the only rejection of their religion is emotional, not based on reason. Nothing shows you care about me at all, and repeating false claims certainly underlines that you don’t.
I do note that you haven’t allowed my comment to show.
That you feel some need to try to claim I am mentally ill is typical and false. I know that seeking help isn’t weak at all and is very courageous. Trying to convince someone that they are mentally is when they are not is very weak and very cowardly. It’s gaslighting, nothing more.
It’s also notable that you can’t actually address my points, but must try to poison the well with false claims that I have not addressed your religion thoughtfully. As for respect, that’s earned, and Christians do tend to try to equate respect with not challenging their baseless claims at all.
You’ve done a great job of showing how many Christians choose to act. There is no care or compassion in your comment at all.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response. I want to clarify something that may have caused confusion. The post you are writing about in this blog was originally in response to someone else, which I used to develop that post in hopes to generate helpful conversation and dialogue as well as model how to respond to that sort of engagement. With that said, your response came across with such intensity that I felt it was more important to pause and express care for you as a person than to continue pressing my position.
That decision was not meant to be dismissive or to suggest that your objections are purely emotional. I understand that many people, yourself included, raise serious intellectual and moral critiques of Christianity. I have responded to these kinds of objections elsewhere in detail, but in your case, I sensed that empathy and respect were more appropriate in the moment.
I am sorry if anything I said felt like a personal attack or mischaracterization. That was not my intent. I do not believe disagreement should mean disrespect, and I still welcome thoughtful engagement if that is something you are open to.
LikeLike
Adam, I know your blog post was written in response to an atheist. You used the typical excuses that so many apologists have used and I responded to show how they fail. I still note that you have not allowed my comment to appear. So much for being “bold”. All you modeled is how christians apologetics fail.
You are welcome to show how I’m wrong in my reply to you here. Where is your supposed context that supports your claims?
You don’t care for me as a person, Adam. This is a version of the love bombing that cults use. You chose to lie about me, making false claims about my mental status, for your own needs. It’s typical for a christian to also try to blame the victim. It was you who made the false claims, not my fault for seeing them as what they are.
Curious how you claim to worship a god that says bearing false witness is a no-no. You sensed nothing at all, you made false claims that fit what you wanted.
and gee, more poisoning the well. Do explain why you thikn i wouldn’t be open to “thoughtful engagement”.
LikeLike
I must begin by stating clearly that my website is not your website. I maintain a structured moderation policy designed to foster thoughtful discussion and to encourage responses to common challenges with well-reasoned arguments. I have deliberately refrained from directly addressing the specific ideas you have presented because I am more concerned about your underlying intentions and the tone you have chosen. Instead of engaging with your arguments, I am responding to the manner in which you communicate, which leaves little room for an honest and respectful discussion.
I have read your responses carefully, and I find it necessary to address several points that contain logical fallacies and inconsistencies.
First, you characterized my efforts as making excuses for a violent god by claiming that I rely on standard responses with no regard for context. This is a straw man argument. I have clearly presented historical and theological context, such as the notion of progressive revelation, to demonstrate that the texts you cite must be understood within their ancient cultural settings. A superficial reading of these texts cannot capture the full moral and theological complexity they contain.
Second, you allege that I deliberately disallowed your comments and that this shows I do not care about you. The moderation policy on my website is applied consistently to ensure a respectful and focused dialogue. It is not a personal judgment against you but a measure intended to maintain productive discussion.
Third, you claim that I made false assertions about your mental state. Let me be absolutely clear: I did not and would not diagnose you or label you mentally ill. I merely observed that your message was charged with strong emotion, and I expressed concern because I believe that dialogue should be grounded in clear thinking as well as respect. Mischaracterizing that concern as gaslighting or manipulation is both inaccurate and an unfair distortion of my intent.
Before you assert that my argument lacks substance, I ask that you first consider the substance of what you have been saying. When you dismiss my explanations by accusing me of whitewashing without first requesting clarification, you are ignoring the fact that I have made detailed points, such as those concerning the Reformation. Rather than engaging with what I have said, you resort to unfounded generalizations and personal attacks. Instead of asking me whether I am ignoring the atrocities of the Reformation, questioning what I believe about the moral complexities of that historical period, or discussing how human behavior is impacted by such events, you simply assume that I am covering up the truth. Such an approach does nothing but derail any chance for honest discussion.
I will not continue to engage with personal attacks or manipulation. This is my final response. I have addressed the logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your remarks, and I refuse to be drawn into a dialogue that bypasses substance for the sake of sensationalism.
LikeLike
Adam, it’s typical that you yet again try to cast aspersions on me to defend your inability to show I’m wrong. The only intentions I have are to show how your apologetics fail. There is no “tone”, just the presentation of evidence for why your claims should not be accepted as true.
It’s also typical that a Christian apologist will try to hide behind claims of “respect” and “politeness” when they have nothing. Do show how the manner in which I write prevents yu from showing I’m wrong.
Again, respect is earned, and Christian apologists often try to claim respect is simply blind acceptance of their claims. That will not happen. And that you have yet to show me dishonest, you are again bearing false witness against me.
Now, let’s see the rest of your responses. Like many Christians, you either have no idea what logical fallacies are, or are simply trying to accuse me of things I have not done.
You do make standard responses and you offer no context that supports the change of meaning you claim exists. The context is the book. What you try to claim is not in your bible nor in the culture or history. For instance, nothing in your bible says anything about progressive revelation. That is a modern claim by some Christians who do not like what their bible says, and try to claim that their god isn’t a monster, but had to supposedly act like one in the older books that they find inconvenient. This ignores the bible’s historical claim that this god is unchanging and the Christian claim that it is unchanging.
There is no strawman argument, since I have not attacked something you haven’t presented. I have shown that your presentation does not work. You depend on the claim that there is some other meaning here, your “moral and theological complexity” which you have yet to demonstrate exists.
I did not allege that you have not allowed my comments. I need nothing but to show your blog, which I have linked to and surprise, no comments there. I never saisit was an attack on me, just what Christians typically do.
You have made various excuses on why you have not, that you were ever so concerned about me, and now that you have “policies”, which seem to be invented after your gaslighting didn’t work. Since I have my own blog, it matters little to me, only being worth mentioning since so many apologists aren’t the brave warriors they claim to be. It shows how apologetics are for no one but those that already believe. From what I can see, you have two comments on your entire blog.
You did make false claims about my mental state. Happily, I control my own blog where they reside:
“I suspect that there may be unresolved hurt or trauma in your life that contributes to the anger you express. I am not asking you to minimize your experiences or change your opinions overnight. I simply invite you to consider speaking with a counselor or mental health professional who can help you explore these feelings in a safe and supportive environment. Seeking guidance is a courageous step in taking care of yourself and does not suggest weakness.
In any discussion of theology and morality, I also hope you find room to care for your heart. When we learn to address our own pain, we become more capable of engaging with challenging topics respectfully and thoughtfully. I truly wish for you to experience a sense of peace and healing in every aspect of your life.“
Unsurprisingly, you can’t show anything in my writing that would indicate “strong emotion” to invent your “concern” around. Now, you again try to claim that I do not have clear thinking. Your concern is pure nonsense, and now you try to act the wounded martyr for being called out on your gaslighting. This isn’t my first rodeo. I can practically set my watch by the reactions of apologists when their claims fail.
Your argument does lack substance. Since I was the one who has written my replies, I have indeed considered them. Your arguments are nothing new and have been made many times by many apologists. They are whitewashing of your bible to try to make its god less violent and ignorant. I asked you to you to answer questions, and you have yet to do so, only wanting to cast baseless accusations.
If I am wrong, Adam, then show that, which would include your clarifications if you have any. Answer my questions. I know you made points and I have refuted them, so show me how I’m wrong. I have engaged with what you said and it’s always rather curious when Christians ignore that this is a written medium where people can check out their claims. Shall I add all of your blog post to mine to show how the points were addressed?
Support your claims, Adam. That’s all you need do.
You have made excuses for the atrocities committed or supposedly committed by Christians and your bible god. You offer excuses. There are no moral complexities” if there is objective morality like Christians claim. Human behavior is always affected by events, and there is still no excuse for genocide. Again, you have a perfect opportunity to offer these explanations here. Why the delay?
And as expected, more false claims made to give you cover for your inability to refute my points.
just as a record:
You claimed “During the Reformation, reformers not only addressed ecclesiastical abuses but also critiqued social practices that were intertwined with traditional authority, including slavery. Emphasizing personal conscience and the moral imperatives of love and equality, they reinterpreted Scripture in a way that contributed significantly to the moral discourse over the following centuries.”
I responded: “During the reformation, Christians murdered each other over whose nonsense was the “truth”, so reformers aren’t what you try to whitewash. Christians were anti-slavery despite what their bible literally says about it. ”
So much for the morality during the reformation.
You claimed “Thinkers and mystics inspired by the redemptive message of the Gospel argued for the inherent dignity of every human being, planting the seeds of dissent against systems that dehumanized individuals.”
I responded: “Nothing in your religion shows any “inherent dignity” of human beings, considering how your god repeatedly kills humans for things they didn’t do. ”
You wrote:”But when we take time to walk through the Scriptures thoughtfully and honestly, we find that the God revealed in its pages is far more just, merciful, and consistent than the critics would suggest.”
and “However, I do believe that when Scripture is studied carefully and approached with humility and a desire for truth, it reveals a God who is consistently just, deeply merciful, and always redemptive.”
I replied “This god murders people for things they did not do or have control over. Is that just, Adam? Is that merciful or redemptive? This god makes some humans so that they cannot accept it, and then damns them for no actions of their own. Again, is this just? Merciful? Redemptive?”
LikeLiked by 1 person