I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life *were* fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. – M. Cole
They were all for Trump, how great he was, how Amanda voted for him and how dare anyone point out how much he was a failure. We can see that right here “On behalf of your friends and family who are sick of listening to you but are too polite to stop you, I’m offering 6 things you can do instead of nursing your irrational hatred for Donald Trump. You believe you’re doing a good thing when you “expose Trump’s vile behavior”. You’re wrong. We prefer Trump’s behavior to your endless bloviation…” You can only see part of his nonsense now. JB is hiding behind a “membership” wall on his blog. How expected.
He also had lovely bits like this too:
“Vote by mail requires you to be stupid. To be clear, the people suggesting vote by mail are quite clever. They might even be geniuses. Vote by mail is a brilliant idea that will have an enormous impact on national elections. Only stupid people think that is a good thing.
Universal vote by mail was created strictly for the purpose of cheating.”
Always good to see that poor JB agreed with Trump….once upon a time
and now we get:
“My target audience for this article is Christians who boarded the “Trump Train” back in 2016 thinking it would take them to where America was great again.
Other people would start this article with, “I hate to say I told you so,” but it would be dishonest for me to do that. I LOVE to say, “I told you so.” Being right about things feels great!”
oh gosh, poor JB doesn’t quite figure out that his blog is a recorded media.
Now, how many quatloos you want to bet he’ll try to claim he was just “joking”?
So, we have a Christian, Andy Bannister, who wants to ask “Why are some atheists so afraid of changing their minds?”. This is a video, and of course, the comments are turned off. So much for being the “confident” Christians that Solas claims on their website, eh?
Unsurprisingly, the video starts off with the usual false claims about atheists, how rude we all are for not blindly accepting what the particular Christian says, that we all evidently can’t come up with anything ourselves but have to repeat what other atheists say (which begs the question “since we are all repeating someone else, who is actually the originator of these things?”), that we have bad grammar and spelling (oh do call the kettle black, pot), and of course trying to be insulting by equating atheist with idiot, in the ever-so clever “village atheist” comment.
We end up quickly in the claims somehow atheists are fearful and this is “why” atheists don’t engage with the “best” arguments for Christianity. This isn’t a new claim, it is just the “sophisticated theology” bit of nonsense that many Christians trot out, that atheists only pick the low hanging fruit to address. This excuse is, of course, dependent on the theist being willfully ignorant about how atheists have indeed addresses those “best” arguments too. This video isn’t for atheists, it is for a Christian to reinforce the false beliefs of himself and other Christians. Apologetics aren’t for atheists, they are for theists.
Unsurprisingly, Andy says that atheists should “properly” examine the claims of the Christian faith. The term “properly” comes up often in apologetics and the definition that is used this context is “in an acceptable or suitable way” not “in an accurate or correct way”. It is nothing more than a code word for agreeing with the theist and not questioning what they say, something that is “acceptable” to them.
Andy goes on to appeal to authority in the form of Alistair McGrath, who evidently must be correct because he has a degree. This fellow, anglican priest at Oxford (who defines atheists as ” I became an atheist – somebody who deliberately and intentionally does not believe in God and thinks that anyone who does believe in God is mentally deficient or seriously screwed up.'”, supposedly received a letter from a student that who became a Christian after reading one of McGrath’s books and the “very best” Christian philosophers. Of course, this student was an atheist, because that makes the story. This atheist never ever read the “other side of the argument” but when he did, poof, he became a Christian. This of course ignores reality since this doesn’t happen every time, and indeed, atheists often become atheists because they did read the holy book of Christianity and realized what nonsense it is and read other books to see that the bible didn’t reflect reality. To see McGrath’s other use of failed apologetics, here is a video/transcript of an interview with him. This is the “quality” of McGrath’s arguments: “Number one, there are a very large number of scientists who are religious believers; and these are not stupid people at all. ” Quite a pathetic start, an appeal to authority fallacy. Here‘s a more thorough take down of McGrath’s arguments. If he is one of the ‘best’, Christianity doesn’t have much to support it.
Andy goes on to repeat the claim that atheists don’t address the “best” arguments for Christianity by recommending these “best” authors like Rebecca McLaughlin. Now, Dr. McLaughlin is one of those with again degrees, beloved by Biologos and is an entirely awful apologist. This is her on her ‘one minute apologetics.” “The Jesus of the Gospels is either God in the flesh or a terrible imposter. There is no middle ground.” That is really all she has, nothing different from Paul saying, yep, we believe becuase we gotta believe. She wrote a book, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion. That’s one assumption right in the title, since we know that Christians don’t consider each other Christians by the millions. Looking at the amazon preview of the book, we see the usual apologetics, that somehow Christianity has dibs on every good human action and is the only thing responsible for human rights, the claim that persecution makes Christianity true, that somehow atheists have no morality, etc. In other words, the same false and baseless claims, nothing new or “sophisticated” here at all.
He also of course tries to claim that atheists don’t read these arguments with an open mind and accusing atheists of being cowards and not “serious”, to again try to claim that we aren’t being honest or brave or seriously considering the material. He also insists that pointing out that a Christian is wrong is being “rude”, doing the typical appeal to politeness when he has nothing else. Nothing like a Christian accusing someone of lying and having no evidence for it.
It is interesting that Andy never mentions what a single one of these “best” arguments are. One would suspect that is because when one of the arguments is dismantled, he can insist that wasn’t one of the “best” ones and then run to the next, never taking responsibility for his claims.
Atheists aren’t afraid of changing our minds. We have no reason to .
As often happens, many Christians want to pretend they are martyrs. They have to, their bible says they won’t get the special prezzies unless their prophecies come true. They have to insist that it was magical that their bible predicts they would be ridiculed for their nonsense.
So, on ol’ Banana Man’s youtube channel, he is trying to claim that NASA was up to something they didn’t mention Buzz Aldrin’s wine and cracker on Apollo 11. Alas, for Ray, Buzz wasn’t a Christian who ignored his bible and didn’t shout it from the streetcorners like Ray et all do, since no one would notice they were Christians from their actions. Incidentally, Buzz was a Presbyterian. He sounds like more of deist now from his book. Can you imagine what ol’ Ray would say if a Catholic did this?
As usual, its always great fun to see Christians lie again when they want to pretend that Christianity is everyone’s religion. The world heard the quotation of the bible on the Apollo 8 mission. Madelyn O’Hare protested it and was quite correct to do so since all Americans and all the world aren’t Christians.
Poor Christians, I do love that they ignore their bible when convenient. Here are a few bits by Buzz in his book:
“In the few weeks prior to launch, when I told Deke Slayton, one of the original astronauts who now ran the Apollo 11 flight crew operations, what I planned to do, Deke balked. “No, that’s not a good idea, Buzz.” He cautioned me, “Go ahead and have Communion but keep your comments more general.” I didn’t agree with Deke at the time but I understood and complied with the instructions. Looking back, he was probably right.”
“I radioed Mission Control “I would like to request a few moments of silence,” I said, “and invite each person listening in, wherever and whomever they may be to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and give thanks in his or her own way.”
“Over the years, I’ve often wondered if I did the right thing, that perhaps I should not have engaged in such an overtly Christian rite, because we wanted to emphasize that we traveled to the moon on behalf of all mankind – Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and even atheists. But I cannot deny history. The truth is the first liquid ever poured and the first food eaten on the Moon were Christian Communion elements. ”
“I don’t go around giving testimony to my faith and when anyone asks about the Communion on the Moon, I tell them I wanted to do something that was symbolic and something that was appropriate to the magnitude of what we accomplished. The best way to do that was to encourage everyone to give thanks in their own way. ”
Buzz believes in a higher power, but he acknowledges that there are good people of every kind. A shame that so many Christians find a need to pretend that only they are important.
Buzz also has no problem in punching conspiracy theorists.
It isn’t Ilya Prigogine lying, it is our friends over Blogging Theology. Now, how did I know to question this false claim? Well, Dr. Prigogine signed the Humanist Manifesto in 2003. Rather unlikely that someone like this would be an authority that a theist would run to, right? It stank of a lie.
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist) Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
The statement is misquoted and removed from context so as to inaccurately simplify and overstate the authors’ statement.
The exact phrase is (see also above): The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred…
Theists are often lazy and almost always making false claims. How pathetic when their holy books tell them not to lie. Poor Paul has failed to listen ““Lying is not permitted except in three cases: a man speaking to his wife to make her happy; lying in times of war; and lying in order to reconcile between people.”” and “
“O you who believe! Fear Allah, and be with those who are true (in words and deeds).”(9:119)”
Tsk, lying just like a regular ol’ conservative Christian.
Over on John Loftus’ blog “Debunking Christianity, he has put up a post from a pastor that John has invited everyone to address. I thought it would make a good post here. And yep, many dead horses will be beaten.
David Geisler seems to be the son of Norman Geisler, yet another Christian apologist. Norm seems to be called a “systematic theologian: which seems to mean no more than christians that do acrobatics to “harmonize” their scriptures to make the incoherent make sense. (and then they proceed to claim each other are wrong in their claims of “reasonableness”). Norm was a biblical inerrantist, a term that Christians can’t quite agree on, since they all have some parts that they want to pretend are literal, some metaphor and some they just ignore since those parts are inconvenient. Bible inerrancy does not mean bible infallibility or bible literalism. Which goes to show just how screwed up these people are in their inventions of their religion in their images. That Ravi Zacharias spoke at his funereal speaks volumes about the quality of Norm. You can see Norm’s very poor apologetics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Geisler#Outline_of_Geisler’s_apologetic_system They end up being rehashes of claims of “necessariness”, which the theist can’t support, the argument from creation assuming that Geisler’s version of the Christian god is the creator, and the argument from morals, which Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants. He also claims that the bible events have archaeological, scientific and historic evidence supporting them; this evidence mostly consists of the bible being claimed as evidence and forgetting it is only the claim.
David seems not to have fallen far from the tree. He seems to argue for the same failed apologetics. He also makes some quite wonderful fails on his own. We can take a look at his claims.
“About me thinking the only way you’re going to change your mind about God and Christianity is if you have some kind of experience like the apostle Paul, I probably should’ve said, is that once you truly understand the depths of what my father taught, and see that what he taught is really reasonable, then it would still take you some kind of experience to get your attention, which would take the work of the Holy Spirit. I apologize for not making that clear that that’s what I meant. I don’t believe that just religious experience in general is a good enough filter for you to know what kind of God, and what kind of religion you should embrace.”
So, we have David claiming that to really believe, there needs to be an event like Paul’s conversion, which Paul himself couldn’t keep straight. So, why doesn’t this god provide this for every single person, if, as many Christians claim, this god wants everyone to come to it. Many of other Christians, of course, claim that this god doesn’t want to give this experience since this god only wants belief by faith. Which Christian is the right one, if any? We also have the problem that David’s father’s arguments are not reasonable and are nothing new, often used by non-christian theists too. Christians don’t accept their own arguments from anyone else, so no reason to accept them at all.
“I’m sure you are very well aware 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches that “the natural man does not welcome or embrace the things of the Spirit of God.” Please note it’s not that the natural man cannot perceive the truth according to Scripture, it’s that he cannot receive the truth. The Greek word is dechomai. It means to welcome or embrace the truth. Furthermore you may know that John 6:65 teaches that only God can draw people to Himself.”
It seems that David might be a calvinist, since he parrots the nonsense they have that only this god can bring people to itself, aka predestination and not free will. Romans 9 agrees with John 6:65: “65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”” Poof goes the claims of free will from some Christians.
“Further, Ephesians 4:18 says people are ignorant because of the hardness of heart. These are just my thoughts about what the Bible teaches is true, backed up with scripture to prove my point. Now I know this is pretty strong language, and normally I wouldn’t even share these verses with someone who doesn’t claim to be a Christian. “But since you’ve been to Seminary I assume you know all these anyways, so I’m not telling you anything new. I’m just trying to explain why I believe the Bible teaches it’s gonna take more than just giving you good evidence and reason for you to take that step to Christ.”
Now why wouldn’t David want to share these verses with anyone who wasn’t already aware of them? Everyone can read the bible, nothing in it is secret. David seems to be afraid of something if non-christians might know these things in the bible. In the bible, one thing consistently causes hardness of the heart, this god. We see this in Exodus many times, and in Ephesians 4, we see it again “18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. “ with, John 6, we see that this god again causes this, with its intentional picking and choosing who can accept it or not. (Deuteronomy 2, Joshua 11, Isaiah 63, John 12, Romans 11, 2 Corinthians 3, also have this god controlling people’s minds aka “hardening” their hearts). Perhaps David is afraid we will see that his god is no more than a tyrant.
“Concerning the Apostle Paul, as I said before, I thought his issues were also more theological since he was a good Jew, who would’ve had a vey hard time accepting the doctrine of the trinity. Now let me try to give you an example to back up my belief about this. In the last two years one of my staff and myself have been talking to this atheist. Over a period of time my staff member answered all his intellectual questions and one day he said to my staff member checkmate!, meaning he didn’t have any more intellectual barriers to faith. But he didn’t become a Christian. Then this atheist friend asked me to help him with a friend of his, who had made some bad decisions earlier in her life but was now having difficulty just surviving physically.”
No reason to believe this story at all. But it might be true. A shame that the only reason David wanted to help is to convert people aka get the external validation he craves.
“So I reached out to a church in the city where she lived and they reached out to her, and helped her physically. Now I got an email from her a couple weeks later and she said “thanks for helping me…I feel like I’m on my way to becoming a Christian.” I should also tell you that our atheistic friend whose name is John also, used to say to us “my Christian friends are nicer to me than my atheist friends.”
Again, convenient story that there is no reason to believe. Humans are usually nice, religion makes no difference. But so many Christians just can’t resist putting in their claims about how everyone thinks that they are so great.
“So when our atheistic friend heard what I did for his friend a few weeks later, I learned that he became a Christian. Now I’m not saying he became a Christian because of what I did for his friend. I’m say that my acts of kindness contributed somehow to him being more open to allowing God to work in his sinful heart and repent.”
And more baseless claims. Christians do love to invent their stories.
“Sometimes I even say to atheists I talk to: “you mean to tell me if I could answer your question to your satisfaction right now about your biggest barriers to Christianity, that right now you would repent of your sins–you would turn around 180°–you would invite Christ to come into your life and ask Him to change you from the inside out as Philippians 2:13 says, and will follow as He taught us to live for the rest of your life?” “
Unsurprisingly, David has to lie and claims that atheists aren’t honest, if they simply say “yes” to this question. Now, I can say yes to his question with no problem. The issue is that his magic spell at the end doesn’t work. I was a Christian and invited this god to help me not lose my faith. God never showed up. David also makes believe that his version of Christianity and “follow as he taught us” is the right way since Christians don’t agree about that at all. David’s excuse for his god being a no-show 40 years ago will likely be “mysterious ways”, despite what he has claimed about how much he knows what his god does and wants so far.
“Now sometimes if an atheist I’m talking to is more honest, they will say no because there’s probably some other areas that are barriers. So when I’m witnessing to a skeptic I always point out there are two questions you must answer concerning Christianity before you become a Christian: First is there enough evidence to believe that Christianity is true? Now that involves apologetics. But then once you’ve decided that it is true, it doesn’t automatically make you a Christian. You have a much more difficult decision to make. You have to decide “do you wanna believe in Christ?” That’s a decision of your will, not your mind, and that does not involve apologetics.”
Per David’s words so far, this not a matter of will at all, it is a matter if this god chose you to be able to accept it. He has changed his mind on what he wants to claim is his god’s MO.
“Now both of these decisions are essential for someone to become a Christian. By the way my father would often say that both the presuppositionalist apologists and the evidentialist apologists don’t understand clearly the distinction between “belief that” and “belief in” That has been my experience in dealing with some of them as well. I also like Bill Craig’s distinction between that we know something is true and how we show something is true.”
This bit is very funny. All apologists are presuppositional. Norm presupposed his god is necessary and that it is only his god that can be the creator. There is no difference between “belief in” and “belief that”. Christians believe in their god, and Christians believe that their god is real. Same idea. WLC is just as incompetent as Norm in his presuppositions. The poor guy’s whole argument about the resurrection is that there was an empty tomb when he can’t even show a tomb exists.
“Romans 8:16 teaches that “the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the sons of God.” As you probably know, Saint Augustine said faith is an understanding step and the understanding step is faith’s reward. I’ll have to say faith and reason still can be complementary, I just have to clarify what you mean by faith, which a lot of Christians don’t do.”
There’s that holy spirit again, which demonstrably from Christian claims, can’t tell anyone the same story twice since all Christians claim that they got their version from the holy spirit. Faith is not understanding, faith is blind acceptance, aka the presuppositions that Norm, David and Bill make to try to claim that their religion is true.
“As for your question about whether I’ve led any Chinese to Christ when I lived in Singapore. Singapore is a tiny little country but I did travel all throughout Asia over 13 countries I did training in. The answer is yes…a lot. Whenever I would preach it’s very rare that someone would not indicate they want to pray to receive Christ, especially if I ended I’m talking about my sister’s suicide, and I’m telling my audience I’m not sure where my sister is because I’m not sure if she was ever a Christian…even though she grew up in the home of Norm Geisler.”
Interesting argument, but it’s essentially the argument from popularity. David forgets that Muslim evangelists do the same things as he does and get converts too. It’s a shame that David has to use his sister in this way, in his sadistic fantasies: “ooh, she might be in hell” and cue the crocodile tears about something that David agrees with. All he has is fear to try to scare people into agreeing with him.
“So that’s why I believe that it’s not always a matter of having enough evidence why people don’t take steps to Christ. In fact, it reminds me of what Jesus said in the parable in Luke 16:31. He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Yep, luke does have this and its because JC claims that his father and he do their best to pick and choose who can accept them, and then damn the rest for no reason. Luke also has this “king” saying that anyone who doesn’t want him as king should be brought before him and murdered by his followers (Luke 19). Many christians very much don’t like that parable since it is rather obvious who the “king” is supposed to be.
“You may be interested to know that my wife grew up with idols in her home. she did not grow up as a Christian home and many in Singapore did not grow up as Christians. I also want to clarify what I said about once you establish the evidence for a theistic God, then miracles are not only possible they are probable when you look at the evidence for Jesus.”
Oh my. Such a baseless claim. David doesn’t explain how this works at all. However, we do know how it works. When you are convinced of a thing, no matter if it is true or not, then you assign coincidence and parlor tricks to this thing as evidence for it, since you now are invested in maintaining your belief that you have some special knowledge and the friendship of some magical being.
“The Cosmological argument establishes that an infinite power exists that created the universe. So once you’ve established that logically then you can build on that argument. I’d like to say you can piggyback off of it.”
Well, that’s what Christians would like to pretend. The Cosmological argument only works if you have the presupposition that there needs to be a creator. We have no evidence that one is needed or “necessary” at all. Only most theists need one. We have no idea if cause and effect are part of the universe’s beginning or existence.
“Afterward you can establish the moral argument for the existence of God. It’s true you cannot start with a moral argument, because you haven’t demonstrated the principle of cause-and-effect that you do in the cosmological argument.”
nope for this one too. That Christians can’t show or agree on what their god wants as morals, we have no evidence or need for an objective lawgiver. What we have are Christians who have no problem with this god doing horrible things and also being horrified if humans did the same things. If it is the actor that determines if an action is moral or immoral, then the action is subjective and thus Christians have a subjective morality, one based on might equals right.
“Then you can hear the teleological argument and conclude that a theistic God exists.”
The teleological argument is the argument from design. Sigh. So, we have David who thinks this can be used to show that his version of the Christian god is the only designer. It doesn’t. It tries to claim that something designed reality, and has no evidence for that at all. It also can be used by any theist and poor David doesn’t believe other theists when they use it.
“You can also add the ontological argument, although David Hume’s criticism is correct that if you start with the ontological argument you cannot get where you want to go. And so we a moral intelligent personal and necessary being sounds like the God of the Old Testament, a Theistic God.”
As you can see above, we don’t have a “moral, personal, and necessary” being at all. I do note that David didn’t try to show evidence for how personal this god is. Good idea on his part, since all he has are baseless claims that other religions use too.
“But when you’re arguing for the cosmological argument I don’t think it’s enough just to argue beginning with the causality argument, because of the criticisms of Hume, but once you understand what act in potency is, and what a contingent being is, and what a necessary being is, then you can establish the current causality argument as well, and it strengthens the cosmological argument.”
All of those things that David mentions, “act in potency” etc are made up nonsense from apologists (Aquinas) who need to pretend that their god exists. Still no evidence that anything is necessary at all. And since the cosmological argument relies on nothing more than opinion e.g. the most “perfect” thing idea, it still fails dramatically.
“Now I’ve already told you my father also has an argument for God based on the argument from being, that we have in the appendix of his book 12 Points That Show Christianity Is True. Now if you’re interested, I’ll send this to you and you can look at that and tell me whether you think it’s valid argument or not. I would be curious to get your opinion I plan to get it presented in philosophical journal sometime this next year, because it’s never been critiqued from an academic point of view. If you have any suggestions I’ll be glad to hear them as to where I should send it. I think I told you my father thought that this argument was one of his most important contributions to Christianity. Hope this is all helpful information for you, maybe not to change your mind, but at least to help you understand the Christian faith doesn’t have to be unreasonable!”
No one needs to have David send his father’s nonsense to them, we can see that on his father’s wiki page. As I noted above, it’s nothing new or true at all. And for his desire to present in a philosophical journal, oh my. All of his father’s claims have been long addressed by academia and all of his father’s claims have been found wanting.
Christians often want their free will but to also claim that everything is their god’s will and that predestination is in play. We can start off with the common definitions of both terms.
Free will: “is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded”
Predestination: equivalent to predeterminism: “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes” – both definitions from Wikipedia.
One can of course try to use philosophical nonsense to try to split hairs but I find these to be quite universal.
Christians claim that Christians are corrupted and their version of their god is the only source of salvation. Verses often cited for each are: 1. Psalm 53:3; Romans 3:12; Ecclesiastes 7:29. And 2. John 6:44; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:19
To set the stage we need to examine these two claims. Both types of Christians claim that humans are “corrupted” and need “saved”. Corrupted by what or who? Saved by what and how?
The bible has that a snake was in the garden, a garden that this god claimed was perfect. This indicates that either the snake was considered necessary aka perfect or that this god wasn’t telling the truth. Some Christians claim it was satan, some don’t, claiming a literal animal. We also have Jews having their own opinions and these even nuttier folks, Noahides, which are either Jews who think that their god gave just Noah a certain set of laws or Gentiles who need an excuse feel extra special and to ignore the laws in the bible they find inconvenient but who find JC as a failure since there is no evidence for the character. Always leave it to humans to find a smaller pond to imagine they are a big fish in.
We have this god insisting that humans not find about good or evil, threatening death on the day that they would eat the fruit. Not death in the far future, death was, essentially, immediate. The snake/satan countered this claim with what was evidently the truth, since neither Adam nor Eve died that day. Eve, with the knowledge of good and evil *equivalent* to that of this god, decided that it was a good thing to give the fruit to Adam, who, having no reason to doubt her, accepted it and ate it. Per some Christians, the knowledge of good and evil corrupted Adam and Eve in some manner. If it didn’t corrupt this god, why would it corrupt them?
We also have the problem that this god, rather than forgiving Adam and Eve right then, starts a several millennium process of pain and misery for no reason. It is for no reason since many, if not most, Christians, claim how forgiving their god is.
Then this god tries to correct things and fails repeatedly, an odd thing for a supposedly omniscient/omnipotent god. It is only after millennia that this god decides it needs a blood sacrifice, like any other Bronze Age god. It is only by a very poor attempt at “reinterpreting” the bible that we get that this god had any idea of doing this sacrifice early on.
It’s honest of some Christians that they admit that Christians don’t agree on some very basic things. They directly contradict each other and since none of them can show that they have the one “truth”, and they cannot do what their bible promises they can do, there is no reason to accept the apologetics from either side for their supposed “truth” and attacks on each other. All they have is baseless opinion that they all claim is supported by their god and told to them by the “holy spirit”. This includes the vastly diverging ideas of free will and predestination.
If this god is picking and choosing which humans can accept it and then damning those it doesn’t choose for no fault of their own, then there is no free will. A controlling force, especially an omnipotent one, eliminates free will, no matter what contradictory nonsence the bible says in other places.
Some Christians, in their attempt to make believe that these contradictory claims are not, illustrate what apologetics is all about, lying and trying to make sense out of nonsense. It is trying to make up excuses why we shouldn’t take the bible as it is written but to try to assign some other intent that we have no evidence for. It is built on presupposition that this god is real and *must* make sense, no matter how much the believer has to add to the mythos, and to differ from his fellow Christians.
Of course, when it is pointed out that this god damns people left and right, then the Christian claims that since the bible says that this god wants “everyone” to come to it, well, that part must be true too! They can’t ignore one part over another since they’ve been told that *all* of the bible is their god’s word, so somehow, they have to make them work together. They can’t accept that the bible is just a set of books by people who didn’t believe in the same things.
The verse cited from 2 Peter 3, arguing for a god that wants everyone to come to it, is problematic for our Christians, either the free will or predestination sides. It’s a great excuse why this god hasn’t returned yet, to try to claim that this god “really” wants to give people all of the time they need to “come to repentance”. The entire passage reads as such: “8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,[b] not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”
As I’ve pointed out before, Christians usually only cite verse 9 and do their darndest to ignore the rest, intentionally leaving out the important context. This causes all sorts of issues with how Christians want to claim the bible is literal in some parts but not in others. How does this match up with the Genesis claims of a seven-day week of creation? How does this work with JC’s claim that he’ll be back within the lives of people he is speaking to? Well, it doesn’t since it flatly contradicts those claims. This god should have been back long ago if days are literally 24 hours periods, but as we know, Christians don’t agree on that either. If this god counts a millennium as a day in its experience, then seven days would have been 7,000 years, and if JC meant he’d be back in the number of millennia that the days of a human generation would be (around 20-30 years) that would be, conservatively, 7,300 days or 7,300 millennia aka 7,300,000 years. This is the very silly number one gets when apologists want to pick and choose what they want words to mean.
Another common verse used as an excuse is from John 12, which causes more problems with its gnostic claims of a “ruler of the earth” which directly contradicts with Christians who claim that everything is their god’s will here on earth. Either this god is responsible for everything or not. Christians can’t cherry pick their way to having their cake and eating it too.
So, having established this background, we go on to the claim that predestination and free will can work together.
If this god is responsible for everything *and* wants every person to be saved, then an omnipotent being can have anything it wants. If this god needs this, it can have everything it needs by definition. If this god picks and chooses, then this god has what it wants and needs. Free will has no place in the bible. A god would have no reason to deny itself. Indeed, it kills people repeatedly because it wants it to happen because an omnipotent god would not need anything. It literally can’t fail at a task unless it chooses to.
There are a couple of verses in the bible that contradict completely free will. They are in Romans 9 and Matthew 13. Both state that this god prevents some people from accepting it before we were even born. Full stop. No exceptions at all. Some Christians accept these verses as stated, some try to claim they mean something else than what is literally written. JC and Paul, if they existed, say that this god needs to show off, so it damns some people so it has something to hurt as an example to the people it chose to allow to accept it. Which makes sense how? Why would anyone need an example made of others if it was so obvious about this god?
The Christians who don’t like such an authoritarian god try to add things to their bible so they can invent a god that is more in their image. They insist that the context is “incomplete”, which is rather embarrassing for a “perfect” god and its supposed words. They insist on ignoring the parts of the bible that don’t work with their new god. The parts about election and predestination are suddenly declared not true, though no where in the bible does it say that somehow those parts are null and void if you just don’t happen to like them. All it has is contradictory verses that each Christian picks and chooses to determine their very own “truth”.
We have the following which says that predestination, not free will is what goes:
“11 In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will, 12 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, might live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit; 14 this] is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God’s own people, to the praise of his glory.” – Ephesians (predestined/predetermined to accept/praise this god)
“15 For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?) Romans 9 (the classic might equals right morality, that no one can question this god for abusing others to impress those he chose from their creation).
This god does not allow people to do what they want and then accept them for what they’ve done, it chooses them before they’ve done anything. And this choice, commonly called “grace” by Christians, isn’t something that people earn. Thus there is no free will, no action that will determine what will happen. And when we go back to the definitions of free will and predestination at the top, we see that there is no free will allowed “all events are determined completely by previously existing causes” aka this god.
Some Christians try their hardest to pretend that if their god knows who we will become out of free will, then his choice of us to allow us to accept him is free will. However, this doesn’t work as soon as this god interferes in what we do. As we see, this god made the choice before we existed to make choices, not the other way around, that this god made his choice after we existed. That would be free will, and this god’s choice being dependent on *whatever* we did with no interference.
Again, predestination: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Free will: is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded
The argument of the Christian only works if the bible is full of lies and this god never interferes.
“I believe that predestination and free will work together in ways that are both glorious and mysterious.”
Unsurprisingly, the Christian will claim that it’s “mysterious” at the end of it all. This is the default excuse when Christian fails.
A couple of years ago, I had a good time showing just how poorly a Christian named Lyle Duell was an apologist and TrueChristian(tm). You can see that original post here. Unsurprisingly, Lyle failed to support his claims and ran away. So much for his “open” letter, eh?
I found yet another one of his posts about atheists and how he is the one TrueChristian(tm) and entertained myself by pointing out how he fails again. He may thank me again for the publicity again, but given that no one follows his blog, I’m sure he is needing attention. He’s still trying so very hard to convince people that only his version of his religion is the right one. And his arguments are as poor as ever, he goes from claiming that it is okay that Christians don’t agree, to that Christians that don’t agree with him are cultists, a very silly analogy, and then this:
“The question arises then, which point of view could be called the truth? The one based on sight, the one based on science or mathematical probability, the one based on personal experience (inhaling the air in the room) or touch? It would be an interesting exercise to figure out which of the forms of knowledge would best reflect the human condition and best serve that condition.”
Hmmm, so we have hundreds of versions (conservatively) of Christianity which are all based on the same point of view, each Christian assumes that the good ol’ Holy Spirit tells them the one truth”. None has any evidence of this. Each Christian disbelieves the point of view of the others.
So the “interesting exercise” is answered that Christians have no knowledge and thus do not best serve any condition since it is all baseless opinion.
Well, we have “Red”, a complete idiot from somewhere around Tucson, Arizona. He/she (I’ll default to he since most idiots like this are guys) appears to be one more ignorant conservative Christian who quotes G.K. Chesterton and does so incompetently thanks to the image that “Red” uses in their gravatar.
On this post, Red commented and wrote: “Was Hitler a tool of God? Yep. God let him crush apostate and atheistic nations. Then the US came in with prayer and sacrifice. then his dreams died, but he sent a half-million SS and Gestapo into the world. Most notably, the USSR took in close to half, and white Muslim nations many of the rest.
of course this is one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a while. Red’s points are:
1. Hitler was a tool…. I mean “tool” of Red’s version of the Christian god.
2. Hitler was allowed by this god to “crush apostate and atheistic nations”.
3. The US somehow defeated Nazi Germany by “prayer and sacrifice”.
4. Somehow Hitler sent a half a million “SS and Gestapo into the world”
5. The USSR took in a lot of these and “white Muslim nations” took in many of the rest.
6. Hitler hated Christianity.
7. There are “private notes” that somehow disagree with all of what Mein Kampf says.
8. No one is right about Hitler except Red.
9. Liberals in the US are anti-semitic.
So, to look through this idiocy, let’s consider each claim:
Per Red, this god used Hitler to cause genocide against the Jews, homosexuals, the disabled, Roma, etc. But Red tries to accuse people for being anti-Semitic. Exactly how is this god not anti-semitic? Poor Red, too stupid to make a coherent argument.
Hitler failed entirely in crushing anyone. And any country he invaded wasn’t an atheistic or apostate nation. The closest one was the Soviet Union and they kicked Adolph’s ass. I’m sure that poor Red would be horrified that the Night Witches, female pilots, helped.
Many nations worked together to end Nazi Germany, more than the US. Poor Red has to lie to make himself feel special. Sacrifice, and not prayer, is what worked. Red is a pathetic liar.
No evidence of this at all. And the US took a lot of Nazi rocket scientists in, so if Red wants to brag about not accepting Nazis, he’s a liar again.
What the heck is a “white muslim nation”? it seems that Red is being stupid again, lying with no evidence to support him.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic Christian. He repeatedly stated how he was this and how he hated the Jews because they killed Christ. For his quotes about this, here you go.
Poor Red, the website that he gave is a private one of a coward who doesn’t’ allow anyone to see his lies unless he approves. “This site is marked private by its owner. If you would like to view it, you’ll need permission from the site owner. Request an invite and we’ll send your username to the site owner for their approval.”
Red must lie and fail just like so many other conservative Christians. He depends on lies that can be shown to be wrong. Poor dear.
No evidence for Red’s lies for this either. In fact, reality shows that Red is an incompetent liar since liberals are very much against anti-Semites like Trump’s “fine people” g. wannabee nazis and confederates.
One more idiot in the conservative Christian ranks shown for what he is. He’s done such a great job in showing that Christianity is crap.
I’ve been chatting with a pastor here. It’s about free will and this is a good succinct discussion showing how free will fails pretty quickly for Christians. I’m expecting this all to vanish on his blog.
Here’s how things have been going (the pastor’s quotes are in italics):
“exactly how is it just to kill a child for the actions of its parents?”
“Isaiah 55:8-9 New King James Version 8 “For(A) My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For(B) as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
“I thought you might try that one. There is a problem with it. If good and evil are objective, and Christians claim that their morals are objective and come directly from this god, how is it that a human killing a child for no fault of their own is evil and a god doing it is good?
It seems you have a morality based on what something is and not the action. I’ve seen that in a lot of Christians, that they claim that this god can do anything it wants with its creations. That is no more than might equals right.”
God has a purpose for everything He does.
“that’s an excuse, Aldtric. How does free will for David’s son work when your god’s “purpose” eliminates it? Your claim of free will doesn’t work if your god can always deny it.
Add that to the fact that your god doesn’t support free will and it seems you’ve invented your own version of Christianity.”
His purpose doesn’t eliminate it. We still have to chose to pursue it. OUR God doesn’t force us to do anything. God knows what we will chose, but the choice is always ours. God used Judas for His purpose because of his choice to betray Yeshua.
“It does eliminate it. how does a dead child pursue its free will?
Your god has removed any choice at all from this dead child. Your god repeatedly forces people to do things. Joshua 11 is a great example. Shall I quote it again? “20 For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts so that they would come against Israel in battle, in order that they might be utterly destroyed, and might receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.” No choice or free will there.
Your god worked with Satan to get its plan to work per Luke. How does working with evil reflect on a supposedly good being? No blood sacrifice, no salvation.”
“Their hardened hearts were due to their unbelief. They chose not to believe in Him and He used that for His purpose. It’s no different than someone who decides they aren’t going to follow the rules on their job. That is a choice. Because of their choice their boss intervenes and fires them. Even though it wasn’t their ‘will’ to lose their job, their choice resulted in losing it. Or, if you have a child that refuses to take out the trash on their own, but after a while you force them to do it even though they don’t want to. They still had a choice to do it on their own.”
That’s quite a lie, Aldtrick since the bible says that this god hardened their hearts, not what you tried to claim.
Not a lie. He intervened and ‘hardened their hearts’ because of their ‘choice’ of unbelief. God is sovereign. He is free to intervene for His purpose at anytime. He also hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but it was because of his unbelief. He allowed Satan to enter into the heart of Judas because of his attitude, but it was still Judas’s choice.
and more lies. Nothing is said about this. You’ve made it up to excuse your god. Nice to see your claim for free will disintergrate, Aldtrick. If this god can intervene anytime, then there is no free will.
Also nice to see you admit your god had to work with satan.
I’m going to make it short and simple. Our vertical relationship with God is the same as our horizontal relationships with one another. God has given us free will to chose or reject Him. As we go about our lives, He intervenes from time-to-time based on that decision for His divine purpose. As parents our children have free will. Children make choices on their on, but sometimes parents intervene based on their choice to obey them.
Again, still no evidence of free will at all with a god that can negate it at any time. You try very hard to try to claim human relationships are the “same” as a relationship with a god. That’s very silly, Aldtric.
when you intervene with a child you limit their free will. If they cannot do what they want, then there is no free will. Just like if your god prevents people from doing what they want.
You are digging yourself in deeper.
One last comment…1 Corinthians 2:13-14
New King James Version
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the [a]Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
and still more failure. Every Christian claims that the holy spirit tells them the “truth” and insists that any other Christian who claims the same thing is lying because they have no evidence.
You are again trying to claim that no one can “really” understand except you. That’s false. We see that all Christians do this since your claims don’t match.
addendum 7/16 at 7:57 PM EDT:
So much for a “last comment”
1 Corinthians 2:14
New King James Version
14 (A)But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yes, so you’ve said. And repeating verses from a failed set of books is not impressive. Paul failed, Aldtric. He lied and claimed that JC would be back soon, e.g. during Paul’s life. It’s always good to see a Christian following a false prophet.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I expected your responses as much as you expected mine. I will be praying that God INTERVENES and softens your heart and give increase to any good seed that’s been planted in you and kill the bad. Seeds of faith in Him through Yeshua the Messiah, Seeds of repentance. Seeds of salvation and seeds of a lifetime of real relationship with Him and much good fruit. Be BLESSTIFIED
It’s always amusing to see Christians trying to pretend that their version is better with the attempts to use “Yeshua” rather than Joshua or Jesus. If you really want cred, then use the Hebrew.
It’s great to see you trying again to try to pretend that your god’s interference with free will isn’t exactly that. Intervene also means “to interfere (come into collision or be in opposition) with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process” You want your god to mind control me and surprise, that won’t happen. Your prayers fail. So, Aldtric, why would this be? That your god loves an honest atheist? That you aren’t a Christian? Or that your god doesn’t exist. Your silly attempt to try to make a brand out of your religion is hilarious. Really, “blesstified”? Ii guess you don’t think that being blessed is enough.
God bless you 😀
And the failed attempt at a Parthian shot.
Which isn’t a parthian shot.
6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
yep, and another excuse given when supposed omnipotent beings fail. Again, nice “One last comment…” Aldtric. Such a quote from JC, who speaks like any charlatan who fails. Like any pyschic or theist, your god suddenly is powerless: “5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” – Mark 6
Why is god so limited by disbelief?
Well, hopefully that is it (I did get a few more bible verses copy and pasted at me). We’re back to Christians trying to be insulting. But still no evidence for their claims.
Addendum 7/18/2020 7:23 EDT
I’m posting because you aren’t the only one who thinks this way. I want my blog to be a forum for discussion. However, I’m not going to keep going back and forth. I will leave you to your reasoning. However, I won’t continue to entertain you blasphemous comments. I have had God answer more prayers than I can count. I won’t begin to tell you about them because you will have another explanation. I do appreciate the fact that you have given me another person to lift up in prayer. I love you and want you to come to know the one and only LIVING GOD, Yah, Adonai, The Lord God of Israel from Eternity Past to Eternity Future, through our Lord and Savior Yeshua, the Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Living Word. I will be praying for you. I only ask that when you are converted, that you strengthen someone else. BE BLESSTIFIED!
I know you won’t keep going back and forth, Aldtric, since you have realized you have nothing.
You try to hide behind claims of “blasphemous comments”, when you can’t show your god exists to be upset. And your god seems to have no problem with what I say, having not smited me yet.
If it is true and you’ve had your version of your god “answer more prayers than you can count”, you are quite a selfish man since you’ve never prayed for anyone to be helped. We have kids with cancer, vets who suffered terrible amputations and brain injuries and surprise, Aldtric couldn’t be bothered to pray for them or this god to heal them.
Yep, you claim you are praying for me. Nothing happens and you failed, Aldtric. How about you pray for people who need it? But of course you won’t since you know that nothing will happen.
Not converted, and you are a false prophet when you claim something will happen. I assume you do know what your god thinks about people who lie and claim that they speak for him, right
I’ll keep updating to see just where this goes. (well, I would but he collapsed in failure).
Unsurprisingly, Christians lined up to get covid money for their churches. The Friendly Atheist has a good article on it here. Now, it’ll be interesting to see if one sect will whine about the others that they hate getting money. I’m guessing other religions also got the same money, so it’ll also be interesting if a mosque or a synagogue got any and if the conservative Christians will take a hissy fit.
They likely won’t, since they all are pigs at the same trough. They do a great job of showing that their god does nothing at all and is indeed the imaginary sky fairy that it is.
The hypocrisy is of course apparent. They don’t want to pay taxes, they don’t want gov’t interference but they want to legislate their lies into law and get money to help them when their god didn’t.