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
“This is a real thing. It’s a chronic problem,” he says of rapture anxiety. “This is a new area of study, but in general, our research has revealed that religious trauma leads to an increase of anxiety, depression, paranoia and even some OCD-like behaviors: ‘I need to say this prayer of salvation so many times,’ ‘I need to confess my sins so often.’”
“Now imagine,” he continues, “You are taught that at any minute, you could be left here on Earth. What does that do to the teenager who just had premarital sex, or even simply took the Lord’s name in vain?””
No surprise here that religion can cause some awful problems.
Always fun to see Christian liars like Stephen Bernard come out with armchair psychology and fail as usual. Here’s what he claims:
“Before I was ever remotely interested in anything religious I noticed something about those I engaged with in the local pubs and clubs that confessed to being atheist. Most of them being atheist or agnostic were either of a wealthy privately educated background or had no father at all.”
No evidence for this, but the typical false claims.
“The former usually had poor relationships with their workaholic fathers who were never around while the latter never knew them. I noticed this even in working class families where the father was either abusive or the sons parents were divorced.”
and yet more baseless claims. I have a great relationship with my dad. Again, it seems that christians are desperate to invent any way they can to cast aspersions on atheists and try to gin up fear to try to dissuade their fellow theists from considering the facts.
“Either way a rupture in the family unit, abusive or absent father is a very common sight to see in atheistic communities. They’re acutely aware of this themselves so when I got a group of them together I asked them how their relationship with their father was going. They all became verbally abusive and refused to answer the question.”
Add this plus the common Christain idea of physical punishment for children, and Stephen’s claims seem quite unsupported.
Here is an interesting bit from a NIH paper that shows that the Christian need to keep claiming this nonsense is based on little but weakly supported claims that are contradicted.
“Although religiosity seems to have beneficial effects for adjustment in child maltreatment survivors, prior research has reported that individuals experiencing child maltreatment are less likely to practice religion. Such findings may be explained by the correspondence hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005), which proposes that individuals who have experienced secure vs. insecure childhood attachments have established the foundations on which a corresponding relationship with God could be built. According to this view, maltreated individuals, who are more likely to have insecure attachment relationships with their primary attachment figures, are less likely to view God as loving and caring compared to nonmaltreated individuals. In contrast, the compensation hypothesis (Granqvist & Dickie, 2005) predicts that individuals with insecure childhood attachment may be more likely to seek God for compensatory attachment relationships. Consistent with the correspondence hypothesis, empirical studies have reported negative effects of child maltreatment on religiosity demonstrating that survivors of abuse tend to have more negative views on God (e.g., Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1989; Kennedy & Drebing, 2002). In particular, Bierman (2005) examined the effects of physical and emotional abuse on religiosity among adults and found that abuse perpetrated by fathers during childhood was related to low levels of religiosity. It is plausible that the image of God as a father led survivors of abusive fathers to distance themselves from religion. However, there is also evidence that maltreated and nonmaltreated children did not differ in their view of God as kind and close, although maltreated children perceived their parents as less kind and more wrathful than did nonmaltreated children (Johnson & Eastburg, 1992). Work is needed to understand the unique role of religiosity in child maltreatment survivors.” Religiosity and Interpersonal Problems Explain Individual Differences in Self Esteem among Young Adults with Child Maltreatment ExperiencesJonathan C. Waldron,a,*Angela Scarpa,b and Jungmeen Kim-Spoonc
“They knew the reason for my question. It branded their conscience like a red hot iron. This isn’t a fine rule for every atheist, but usually the majority have had some sort of troubled upbringing in a fractured family.”
yep, we know why you claim such lies, dear, to do no more than try to cast aspersions and gin up fear for becoming an atheist. No iron was there, only Stephen’s delusion.
“What is the correlation between absentee father and atheism? I think a lot of it has to do with the idea of calling God, “Father”. When you’ve had a terrible relationship with your father or never had one around, there’s an anger present there that if someone should even mentions the word “Father” a strong aversion to the concept soon follows.”
funny how there is no “correlation” at all. Stephen has no evidence for his false claims at all.
“It’s the same with children from a divorced family. Any mention of a “Holy Family” referring to Jesus, Mary and Joseph tickles a part of their brain that makes them go wild. I’ve noticed this in Catholic converts to Protestantism by women. If you dig a little deeper you’ll often find such female converts have had a bad relationship with their mother. In Catholicism we refer to Mary as our Mother and Protestantism removes such a requirement from any convert having to do so.”
Here’s a slightly new twist, a claim that us gals have a bad relationship with their mothers. Alas, Stephen simply lies again. Happily, me and spouse also had/have good relationships with our mothers.
“In the end what Atheists crave is the very thing they have a strong aversion for, a loving earthly and heavenly family with God as their father. They don’t know it. . . well. . . maybe some do. . . but they’ll never admit that is what they subconsciously desire because that would wound their pride and force them to come out of hiding and admit God exists.”
ROFL, poor Stephen, trying to convince himself that he’s so special, and that us atheists “really” do want what he thinks he has. We don’t.
He’ll of course try to claim he wasn’t “really” talking about all atheists as a way to dodge his own false claims.
I’ve found a supposedly new and typically bad theodicy. This is “participation theodicy” by John Buck. I’ve snagged a copy of it here.
the abstract: “
Why does God allow gratuitous suffering to occur?
In this paper, the author puts forward a variation on the greater good theodicy, which rather than suggesting that every evil which occurs brings about some greater-good, the paper instead argues that for any great world God could have created by himself, God’s generosity would instead motivate him to allow creatures to participate in the bringing about of that great world. This scenario would require God to initially create a world that was ‘less-than as great as it could be’ (opening up the possibility for evils to occur), so that the creatures that would inhabit said world could causally contribute towards its achieving of greatness. Such a world would feature the goods of participation that would be lacking in a world God were to create by himself.”
So, it boils down to nothing new, but the old christian idea that it’s okay to hurt people as long as some are “taught” by that harm. I’m happy I’m not so selfish as so many christian.
Oh dear, there is a website called “The Conservateur” which is trying so very hard to lie about the vain not very bright trumpee women. One doesn’t even have to change the writing to make it utter satire (which is, yep, protected by US law). Now, I know, you’ll say, “Vel, this has to be a spoof site, but dear reader, it is not.
Let’s take a look at some of the photos from there:
Poor Lara, who is claimed to have asked for horse at every birthday, but never actual rode it to know how stupid this picture looks to real horse women and men.
Then we get quotes like this “On frequent Fox News appearances and her weekly podcast, The Right View, Lara readily and articulately discusses the pressing issues confronting America. Before media hits, she “asks God to use her as a vessel.””
Hmm, while dressing exactly like this god supposedly says not to. Hmmm. I do love the writing here, nothing like pure sycophancy on the hoof.
Oh dears, no one is paying attention to Lara. Probably because she is just like orange moron senior, having no more taste than he does.
oh look , daisy dukes! (for those of you overseas, this is a reference to the Dukes of Hazzard (ridiculous redneck nonsense) TV show from the 80s where the females were generally in cutoff jeans shorts and midriff baring tops.
Then we can go to the pearl clutching of how Catholics are just be ever so abused. “Across the West, with secularization at an all-time high, there is increasing ostracization of religious people. Over the last few years, religious bigotry has escalated in Europe with the burning of Catholic churches and the terrifying return of rampant anti-Semitism.”
hmm, you mean anticatholicism like this lovely Jack Chick tract that “good conservative Christians” aka evangelicals still pass around?
Catholics aren’t very smart to learn who they are bedfellows with.
And then as lovely example of cultists showing that they are liars, we get this
“So my question to you is, what will it take for you to repeat Jesus’s words, “as You will?” I encourage you to willingly surrender to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then take up your cross and follow Him to Heaven.
All to Jesus I surrender all. “
when gee, this is all about high couture and “culture”. Funny how they seem to forget the whole give up *everything* and follow me. They rely on “Hey, you aren’t asking that where I can hear it, so evidently you don’t want me to.” Wonderfully convenient, eh?
It’s hard to find a single page on this unintentionally hilarious website to that one can’t find some utterly unaware ignorant conservative demonstrating just how idiotic they can be.
“Astrology is not the only trend that attempts to replace or reinvent religion. Practices such as manifestation, witchcraft, voodoo magic, and tarot card reading are becoming popular among young women and teenage girls. Teen Vogue currently has an entire section dedicated to witchcraft, and many variations of tarot cards have flooded the market. Several of my friends and sorority sisters have gone out and bought a deck, (noticeably all secular). It’s clear that people who’ve rejected religion are desperate for spirituality and are looking everywhere but the church.”
and “From the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad to Dolly Parton to Miss USA, there are few things more American than big hair. While there’s nothing better than a salon blow-dry, you don’t have to go to the Dry Bar to get that perfect balmy blow-out. As someone who has dealt with puffy and thick hair my whole life, I have learned to embrace and style my big hair, and I’ve picked up a few tricks along the way! Today, I have you covered on my favorite tips for achieving a little more bounce and volume. I’m giving you the rundown of my at-home hair routine, products, and hot tools to help you style that perfect all-American hair.”
It just can’t get any more ridiculous.
Oh dear, conservatives thanks for being such complete twits.
Well, let’s see what false things a Christian has come up with now. There is a rather nasty Catholic, Trent, who is on Youtube, who has no problem lying and failing in this video “5 Atheist Double Standards“. Again, this is pretty much a typing exercise for me, to waste some time at work since we’ve had a small covid outbreak here in the leadership, nothing to do (and my throat is feeling funny…..arrgh.)
First we have the false claim that Trent says he doesn’t bring this up to “pick on atheists”. He does do that, this being an attempt to cast himself as the innocent. He isn’t. he claims that atheists use “double standards” and “logical fallacies”. That some atheists think they need to apologize for more aggressive ones doesn’t mean that the aggressive ones are wrong.
There is nothing false about how Chrsitians worship a magical being that the bible claims to live in the sky aka “magical sky daddy”. It demands that humans call it father, too. Ridiculing false claims made by people who want to control others by what they claim this being says is deserved.
Trent uses bad arguments too, though he would like everyone to think his are not.
The first supposed double standard is what Trent calls the “ancient document” double standard, which is a common Christian claim that their bible should be considered an ancient document and treated like other ancient documents. Alas, for Trent, all ancient documents are considered “guilty” aka suspect, unless there is evidence to support the claims in those documents. If the claim is that someone was a general, or lost battle, we know that there are generals and battles so there is less reason to consider a document about them to be suspect. If the claims are about magic and gods, they are suspect since we have no evidence for such things.
The bible is under intense scrutiny since it has no evidence to support its essential claims, which include that magic happens, gods exist and one should live according to what ones finds in the bible. It is also under scrutiny since the authors are unknown in most cases, so the author’s intent, cultural background, etc are not known. There is also the problem of it having events that no one could have witnessed but we strangely have records of discussions, events, etc presented as truth.
One cannot use a claim to prove that claim. The bible is only a set of claims and those can’t be used to prove the bible’s claims are true. It’s rathe like saying the qu’ran is true because the qu’ran says it is true. A Christian wouldn’t accept that so there is no reason to accept their claim that the bible can be used as evidence for itself. There is no evidence the bible isn’t a human document.
One cannot use the bible to “prove mundane historical facts” since it is the only source of the claim that Jesus’ existence is a historical fact. Again, it is only the claim, not evidence for the claim. We have no evidence of either magic Jesus or delusional Jew Jesus. There is no evidence that the apostles existed or were martyrs. There is no evidence that anyone noticed Jesus at all as a faith healer, or as a fellow followed around by a literal Roman legion’s worth of men in Roman-occupied Palestine. There is no evidence of a cruxifiction, or of a day that there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and Jewish dead wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. You’d think that maybe Caiaphas would have noticed that.
Yep, people claimed to see Jesus. People also claimed to have seen Elvis when he died too. Baseless claims are wortheless. Trent also has the problem that JC’s own people didn’t even recognize him, so claims of seeing Jesus are highly suspect.
Trent doesn’t want to have to show that Jesus rose without the bible since he can’t. All he has are baseless claims. Trent can use the bible as a starting point, as any historical scholar would, and then support the document with evidence. This is how any historical scholar goes about showing that Julius Caesar existed, that Alexander the Great existed, etc. Until the various books of theh bible are supported by evidence they are not historical documents, except for being a recording on what a certain group believed at a certain time, not that what they believed is true. The bible has no basic facts, they are, again, baseless claims, until evidence supports them.
So, atheists treat the bible as any other historical document and Trent has made a false accusation. We have given it a chance and it has been two thousand years of desperate looking by Christians that has failed to produce evidence to support their claims. Tacitus, Josephus, etc all present claims by believers which is no evidence that what they believed is true. If this is the case, then Trent must accept that any other writings about what believers of other gods believed makes those gods just as real as his. Of course, he won’t. He is as much of a liar about the actions of non Chrsitains as old Pope Leo. Other sources do mention miracles and neither historical scholars, or Christians like Trent, accept those claims as true. Tacitus claimed that a roman emperor did miracles just like jesus. I’m sure Trent doesn’t accept that as true and neither do historians. His bible is hearsay, nothing more. And people die for many stupid things, but Trent has the problem that there is no evidence that the apostles were martyrs, and anyone after then would have been believing nonsense, like any Muslim who blows themselves up.
trent has no “basic facts” more than there are in a spider-man comic book. Which leads into Trent’s next failure, his “spider-man objection”. Unfortunately, all Trent has is that it’s no problem that his bible contradicts itself, makes observable false claims, etc. He and only he knows what the “good” parts are. He doesn’t and again, has no evidence for his claims. He is simply one more Christian who picks and chooses his way though the bible, making what he wants up in his own image.
The writer of Acts, unknown, does get some places right. So? That doesn’t mean the rest of the nonsense is true. Trent uses the logical fallacy of composition here. Per Trent, the bible isn’t a human document, so why is it wrong in so many cases? The bible, and Christians, can show it is true, with evidence. If they can’t show any, then there is no reason to believe them or it. They claim it is true: it’s their burden of truth to demonstrate that, no one else’s.
Trent also claims that Josephus and Tacitus “missed important events”, when he can’t show that these events happened at all. He assumes the events happened when there is no evidence for them. Again, if Claudius expelled the Jews, and it was claimed in a document, that document would have to be supported by evidence since it is just the claim. It’s also hilarious to see Trent try to claim that since the authors of the bible said it was true, then it must be, showing he is right back to that circular argument he claimed failed earlier. He then tries to claim that absence of evidence supports his claims, that there weren’t as many people writing. No evidence of that. Like many Christians, Trent can’t decide if he wants Jesus to be well-known, or to be not known at all, and his arguments are not consistent when he wants to claim that no one noticed Jesus but then turns around and tries to claim gee, they really did notice him. He wasn’t just a “faith healer” as Trent tries to claim.
Jesus turns water into wine at the wedding in Cana
Jesus heals an official’s son at Capernaum in Galilee
Jesus drives out an evil spirit from a man in Capernaum
Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law sick with fever
Jesus heals many sick and oppressed at evening
First miraculous catch of fish on the Lake of Gennesaret
Jesus cleanses a man with leprosy
Jesus heals a centurion’s paralyzed servant in Capernaum
Jesus heals a paralytic who was let down from the roof
Jesus heals a man’s withered hand on the Sabbath
Jesus raises a widow’s son from the dead in Nain
Jesus calms a storm on the sea
Jesus casts demons into a herd of pigs
Jesus heals a woman in the crowd with an issue of blood
Jesus raises Jairus’ daughter back to life
Jesus heals two blind men
Jesus heals a man who was unable to speak
Jesus heals an invalid at Bethesda
Jesus feeds 5,000 plus women and children
Jesus walks on water
Jesus heals many sick in Gennesaret as they touch his garment
Jesus heals a gentile woman’s demon-possessed daughter
Jesus heals a deaf and dumb man
Jesus feeds 4,000 plus women and children
Jesus heals a blind man at Bethsaida
Jesus heals a man born blind by spitting in his eyes
Jesus heals a boy with an unclean spirit
Miraculous temple tax in a fish’s mouth
Jesus heals a blind, mute demoniac
Jesus heals a woman who had been crippled for 18 years
Jesus heals a man with dropsy on the sabbath
Jesus cleanses ten lepers on the way to Jerusalem
Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead in Bethany
Jesus restores sight to Bartimaeus in Jericho
Jesus withers the fig tree on the road from Bethany
Jesus heals a servant’s severed ear while he is being arrested
The second miraculous catch of fish at the Sea of Tiberias
Part 2 – Paul can’t even get his origin story straight and is terribly ignorant about Jesus so there is no reason to think that Jesus appeared to him, or existed.
Trent has number 3 as being that atheists claim that his god is evil but also claim evil doesn’t exist. Hmm, I do wonder where an atheist has that evil doesn’t exist. The silly satan doesn’t but I’m quite sure that evil exists, subjective as it may be. Trent then quotes Dawkins. Happily,atheists, at least me, don’t worship Dawkins. I don’t care what he says. In this case it is plausibly true that the Christian god is the most disgusting literary character ever. It is demonstrably all of the things listed. And Trent can’t show otherwise, unsurprisingly. The bible show quite a petty little god. Then Trent quotes Dawkins again, which has Dawkins saying that there is no morality innate to the universe, which isn’t saying that there is no evil. Evil is a human conception, what hurts us and others.
Of course, Trent tries the argument from morality to defend his god. Alas, not one Christian can show that this god exist or is moral. They all make up what they want to think it considers moral and immoral, and surprise! don’t agree at all. Morality is a human invention, likely starting from empathy, and ending up as laws in civilizations. The less helpful ones discarded, the helpful ones kept. I can happily judge Trent’s god as immoral since my morals indicate this and yep, they are subjective. I can know that I don’t want to be killed by genocide and can imagine another human might want the same thing.
Trent’s morality is also subjective, depending on who/what does an action, not that any action has an innate morality. So he has no problem when his god commits genocide, kills a child for someone else’s action, and tells slaves to never seek their freedom. There is no double standard, just a Christian who lies when he claims that his opinion is “objective morality”. I do love Trent’s attempt to excuse his god’s evident allowing of suffering and his need to be a thought police type. There is no need of teleology, only human desires since the universe isn’t a thing that can care. Happily, no one needs Trent or his god. His worldview is consistent for any sycophant to a petty tyrant, and his morality is nothing more than might equals right: “life i’m not the author of life like god is but god created the whole universe he created everyone and he has the right to give us as long or as little life as he desires because he is the author of life.”
So far, Trent has made quite a lot of hay from his strawmen versions of atheists. He also seems to think that all atheists must think the same. We don’t. Whatever Luke says isn’t necessarily what any other atheists believes. And atheists must provide evidence, just like anyone else. In my own experience, I’ve not run into any atheists who believe in moral objectivity. I’m sure some do. I don’t.
Number 3 supposed double standard is that how dare non-christians point out how many Christians are liars, failures, and generally nasty people and dare to think Christianity is harmful and false because of this. Well, Trent, it’s because your god does nothing to stop this and “once upon a time” it supposedly killed those who didn’t do what it said. It isn’t a comparison between good and bad Christian, it is an observation of your god’s impotence, thus demonstrating your religion and bible lie. Atheists don’t claim to believe the same things; Christians do. Atheists have one thing in common: a conclusion that there is not a god or gods. Trent is an atheist too, btw. Just not a pan-atheist like me. We all have different morals and worldview, and yep, there are some asshole atheists. Not because of atheism, because of them.
“i’ve never had to sign anything like [an anti-sexual harassment pledge} that at a christian conference” That’s because your conservative Christianity doesn’t care if women are sexually harassed or not, dear. Perhaps you shouldn’t have used that as an example.
As I noted before, there is no one Christian morality since Christians don’t agree, and they are all hypocrites when it comes to each other’s “truth”. His attempt to excuse his god’s failure by “there’s going to be bad people in every belief system” is just great since it shows that Christianity is nothing special, and just human invented like every other one.
Amusingly, Trent tries to claim that atheists go around saying “look at this brilliant atheistic scientist or look at this really reasonable atheistic philanthropist aren’t they great aren’tthey such great examples of reason unchained from religion” We don’t and this is why Trent has to claim that it’s “subtle” since he has no evidence for this at all. There are no “virtues” of atheism. Trent just made that up too in his attempt to pretend that everyone acts like ignorant Christians like himself. Happily we don’t.
As for Martin Luther King, he did some good and he was evidently a cheat too. Does Trent want to claim that for his Christianity? He picked and chose through his religion just like Trent.
Trent also tries to claim that if certain people had not become Christians their life would have been different, in evidently a bad way, which he has no evidence for either. Yep, if Christianity were true, and if Christians could agree on what their truth was, we should be able to expect coherence and better behavior than we see. WE don’t see this nor do we see any Christian able to do what Jesus promised, so no reason to believe this nonsense at all. It’s not a gotcha moment at all, just Christians having no evidence for their claims, and then whining when they are asked for some. We can’t identify Christians by their “fruits” at all. As for Trent’s promise of “other reasons”, funny how he doesn’t give them.
Number 4 is “ridiculing christian censorship but excommunicating atheistic heretics” sorry, Trent but we don’t’ have heretics and we don’t “excommunicate” them. That’s a catholic thing. Atheists have many worldviews, and not everyone agrees. So we all go our separate ways and have no problem criticizing each other. Stephen Woodford can keep his beliefs, no one else has to appreciate them or not contest them. He is responsible for his beliefs, no one else is nor does anyone have to respect them. Again, atheists only have one thing common. There is no atheist handbook. And yep, every choice has a consequence.
The point that Trent evidently is trying to make is that how dare atheists make fun of Christians who point fingers at each other and claim the Christians who don’t believe like they do are wrong. He evidently thinks that we shouldn’t be making fun of Christians having contradictory “truths”. Too bad, we will. I do love that he thinks that sex offenders shouldn’t be considered pariahs by atheists, and the only reason he would say that is that the Catholic Church has quite a problem with those. They didn’t consider sex offenders pariahs, so no one should?
what Trent forgets is that his church killed people for not agreeing with them, not only exiling them. We see that there is plenty of freedom of thought in Christianity, look at all of the sects that Trent thinks are wrong! But each sect doesn’t want any freedom of thought, and pretends that only their version is the right one, even the RCC which says that everyone but them has only “part” of the right answer.
Hmm, I do wonder what Trent thinks is “secular liberal dogma”. And where have atheists been “imposing” it? By giving people who aren’t Christians the right not to obey them? Hmm, the RCC and other Christian groups have spent millions in trying to get their imaginary nonsense into law so everyone must obey it.
Then poor Trent plays his last card: a baseless claim that atheists don’t criticize Muslims like they do Christians. He fails here too. Happily, I and other atheists, are quite equal opportunity criticizers. I have no problem telling Muslims they as ridiculous, violent and ignorant as Christians. The reason that Christians get criticized a lot is that they are constantly trying to force their lies on others here in the US. Muslims, not so much. From what Christians have done, we can see that yep, they do want to take over the US. They want people to obey old testament laws (funny how they want the first ten commandments up in courthouses and schools). In texas, we have idiots demanding that “In god we trust” be in every school. Christians have shown they want to make women second class citizens, removing their rights. No one needs an imagination, we see it right now. Trent is quite stupid if he thinks he can lie about this. He lies and claims that every Christian agrees with him and “just doesn’t want to be involved with evil”. Poor dear, other Christians think that what he calls evil isn’t evil at all, and poor Trent can’t show that it is evil. He only has a baseless opinion. Making a cake for a wedding isn’t being involved in it, just like making a cake for a baseball game isn’t being involved in the game. Only the doctor and woman are involved in an abortion, no Christians involved at all.
Funny how Christians don’t want to left alone nor do they want to leave anyone else alone. Currently there are Christians bothering people at the PP office just down the street. So much for Trent’s lies.
Where are the Muslims trying to impose their laws on people here in the US, dear Trent? And then tell me where Christians have tried to keep them out too, since they have. I have also ridiculed Muslims about how they treat people in their theocracies, theocracies that some Christians want too. I would not stand for that here in the US, and advocate for Muslim countries to not be traded with because of their ignorance and violence. Yep, a Handmaiden’s Tale is what they have in those countries and is what Christiansn like Trent want here. If a woman can’t make her own decisions, what does Trent think that is equal to?
In “very christian subcultures” in the US, you *do* have women and girls not having the same education and opportunities as men, with the fundamentalist Mormons, the amish, etc. In the US, Christianity is indeed the biggest threat to women, and other religions are in other countries with their ignorance and violence. Trent’s whataboutism doesn’t make Christianity any better. Christians and muslims have harmed non-christians and non-muslims purely because of their religion. He lies when he has said that Christianity has promoted the “natural right to religious freedom”. We got to see how that is a lie with how Catholics and other Christians tried to strip native peoples of their religion by the sword and by schools, and managed to kill lots, hiding the graves.
All in all, we have lies from Trent. No surprise at all. Good to know that Trent even acknowledges his god won’t protect him when he says he is afraid of criticizing Muslims.
This is a long slog, so fair warning. Not much here is that new when it comes to counter apologetics. I just was amusing myself in responding.
Always good to see a Catholic who has decided to respond to my posts. He didn’t bother reading anything else on my blog, including my introduction. So he thinks I’m called “club schadenfreude”. Really, dear? Tsk. I’m pretty sure I told him I was Vel, when I commented on the false claims on his blog, which of course he banned me from, rather than showing I was wrong. Alas, the self-proclaimed “Catholic of Honor” shows he isn’t so honorable, when he claims I wasn’t being honest or contributing to dialogue. He claims that showing that his claims, and other claims are false is “harassment”. But that is typical for most Christians. If he didn’t like to do ban people, as he claims, no one forced him. It’s always good to see a Catholic trying to blame others for their actions.
Anyway, let’s look at what this “honorable Catholic” has to say. You can also see it here. as a pdf housed here on my blog. He has preloaded his excuses here so he can pretend that no one can hold him accountable for his claims: “Why should you listen to me? I am not a priest, nor saint, nor theologian, nor angelic doctor. I am only a man with a desire to spread the gospel. A member of the laity wit a passion. A sinner trying to fight the good fight. A Catholic of Honor.” There is no reason to listen to him and his baseless opinions at all. But we can indeed counter them.
CoH (Christian of Honor) quotes a fellow Catholic, who makes the claim that a god named Moloch exists, and that abortion has something to do with it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for Moloch, much the same that there is no evidence for CoH’s version of the Christian god. This fellow Christian, Kristor, who I’m sure some of you are familiar with, makes predictions that, surprise, never occur. “Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.”
Oh darn one more failed claim and a Christian who is sure other gods exist. How embarrassing! Then CoH says he agrees, but now it’s just a “metaphor “I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense.” Surprise, Christians don’t agree, not even Catholics.
I wrote this to respond to poor Kristor: “No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god”
CoH doesn’t like this. “Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.”
CoH is upset that I point out how apologetics fail and says I shouldn’t show that they are wrong. He claims “intellectual virtue”, something he’s made up so he can whine about how dare anyone shows that his fellow Chrsitians lie, and says that bluntly, supported by evidence. Yep, one can point lies on the spot and ridicule lies on the spot too. Oh dear, I was “impolite”, aka the typical Chrsitian who has yet to realize that no one has to be polite when it comes to their harmful and baseless lies. The dear ol’ “Mother Church” hasn’t come to terms that they aren’t in power anymore. Then, we have CoH upset that I pointed out that the only humans who are happy with human sacrifice are humans. I said “Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.”
He wrote “I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.”
That he can’t tell simply is that he doesn’t want to admit that I am quite certainly using the term “literally” literally. Then he claims that somehow Jews and Muslims are happy with human sacrifice. They do indeed, if they accept that story about Jephtha’s daughter. I do like how CoH claims that Jews and Muslims worship demons, a lovely baseless and typically bigoted claim by a Christian. That’s quite a lovely “whataboutism” that ricocheted on CoH.
Well, let’s look at the next bit from CoH. “But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. “
Hmmm, the bible never says this. We have this god wanting the humans it chose to be on the city of heaven on earth; only 144,000 virgin Jews go to heaven.
“It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.”
This is the typical morality of Christians, might equals right. We see that CoH has no problem with human sacrifice when it comes to the story of Jephtha’s daughter. Then we have the baseless claim from a Christian and Catholic, making the claim that the children this god murders “go to heaven”. If this is an excuse, abortion would be a sacrament to Catholics, evidently guaranteeing that they automatically go to heaven. This is the excuse used by various people who have killed their children, murdered to “save” them from sin. This is from “Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention” SUSAN HATTERS FRIEDMAN1 and PHILLIP J RESNICK1 “
“Resnick’s review of the world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide (11) found filicidal mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Maternal filicide perpetrators have five major motives: a) in an altruistic filicide, a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child’s best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death); b) in an acutely psychotic filicide, a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill); c) when fatal maltreatment filicide occurs, death is usually not the anticipated outcome; it results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; d) in an unwanted child filicide, a mother thinks of her child as a hindrance; e) the most rare, spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child’s father.”
We also have that “church fathers” say that unbaptized Children go to hell, not passing god, not collecting $200. “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)”
Funny how a Catholic just ignores what he wants. Then he is offended that I mentioned how the Catholic Church doesn’t treat stillborns like children. He claims I take it “out of context” but does not show how. The catholic church is indeed hypocritical if it claims that fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs are children and then says still borns aren’t. If fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs are independently “alive” even if they can’t survive without the woman’s body without which they would immediately die, a stillborn fetus is just as “alive”. It is telling that CoH can only think of serial killers killing children. “As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved.” Well, per Auggie above, there is no reason to trust this god at all.
Unsurprisingly, CoH tries to claim my points aren’t “entirely accurate. They are, and CoH does admit that Catholics don’t agree yet on more things. “I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo.” Aka we just make nonsense up.
Alas, per CoH’s own arguments, he and the RCC (something that poor CoH can’t evidently figure out) do need to start baptizing fertilized eggs. He doesn’t like that conclusion, and tries this excuse: “The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.”
Surely it would be fine with a god that demands “children” be baptized to not send them to hell. Right? Or does CoH admit that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses aren’t children at all? Seems he is.
Science doesn’t show that fetuses are “independent organisms” at all. Again, until we do have the science to have an artificial womb, this potential human being needs another.
I do appreciate that CoH admits that Catholicism and Protestants have different, and contradictory, versions of Christianity, and not one of them can show their nonsense true. “As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything.” He, as usual, tries the baseless claim that only his version of Chrsitianity, and indeed Catholicism, is the only right one. Alas for him, every single Christian claims that they and they alone have “teaching authority”.
CoH kindly lists all of the Christians who don’t agree with him and like him, can’t show that he is even a real Christian, unable to do what the bible has JC promising. He tries to claim that only he has the right “understanding” and dismisses anyone who disagrees with his version. How not new or impressive. “I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere).” Aka, don’t hold me to account for making a baseless claim and calling you liars.”
“I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.”
So, another baseless claim, and attempting to deny that if no chrsitain can show that they have some “right” answer, there is no reason to doubt them all. At best, CoH could argue that there is a right answer, but since he can’t do what the bible promises, he admits his version, and the versions of every other Christians, is wrong.
CoH also mentions the term “bulverism” a term made up by the liar C.S. Lewis, a famous apologist. Bulverism is defined as “The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” “ Alas, CoH accuses me of this but has no evidence I have done this. What I have done is research the claims of CoH and other Christians, no presupposition, and then have presented evidence that they are wrong. From CoH’s own claims, my point ““As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.”” Is demonstrated as true since even CoH admits that Christians make up what they want, insisting that their personal interpretation is the only right one, contradicting their fellow Christians. They make up their god and their religion in their own image, show their internal desires and hates.
Now, if we do want to see someone perform “bulverism”, Christians are great examples, since each presupposes the other Christians are wrong, and then they try to show how. CoH is quite right here “It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.” And he does it repeatedly in his attacks on other versions of Christianity. Here’s an example from CoH’s typing fingers “When Luther first proposed Sola Scriptura, the idea seemed simple enough, but doctrinal controversy seemed to be sprouting all around from its very roots.” You can see the rest here.
Happily, I didn’t try psychoanalysis, I only compared the bible to a method of psychoanalysis. What I have shown is that there are many contradictions in Chrsitainty, and CoH has helped in showing how he is sure that only his version is the right one, which literally (yes, dear I mean that literally, ROFL), contradictions other Christianities.
CoH tries the excuse that I can’t point out contradictions since humans aren’t “infallible gods”. I’m not even thinking that. But gee, poor CoH claims to have a infallible god, and it fails hilariously since it can’t make itself understood, evidently. If there is some truth, an omnipotent, and omniscient, and supposedly good, infallible god must, by definition, be able to make itself clear, and not have to have its followers blame themselves for being at fault.
“we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.”
No need to be charitable to people who can be demonstrated as liars. This is again the Christian begging everyone to not show that their emperor has no clothes.
So what has CoH’s post taught us?
“So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics.”
He has nothing to support his claims and demands “charity” when none is deserved.
“Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization.”
CoH still has nothing to support his claims, and tries to lie that I haven’t done research and have shown that his “system of faith” is no different than those versions of Christianity and other religions he attacks. If he is the one TrueChristain™, he knows, from his bible how he can show this to be true. Unsurprisingly, he can’t do what it promises.
“Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.
Oh dear, an appeal to popularity logical fallacy is all he has. There is nothing historically intellectual about Catholicism, it depends on the same demonstrably baseless claims as any other version of Christianity.
“Bonum Certamen Certemus “which means “We’re sure it’s a good fight.” (translation courtesy of google.) Unfortunately, he’s wrong. And if you are a Christian who likes to claim that Catholics aren’t Chrsitians, your version isn’t any better.
So, last post was about Jon over at nonviolentchristians. He has now claimed the following:
ClubSchadenfreude said, “not up to us to disprove miracles. It is up to you to show that they do occur. Unsurprisingly, you can’t.”
I have experienced miracles. I know they are real.
One scientific survey conducted by Barna Research found that “67% of Americans believe miracles are possible, but among well educated medical doctors 75% believe miracles are possible. 55% of US physicians have seen results in their patients that they would consider miraculous.”
I think that even meets David Hume’s stringent requirements for considering miracles real.
I will say a prayer asking God to show you a miracle, even you can believe.”
hmm, no miracle yet. And this despite his god’s promise that all prayers from real Christians will be answered with what is asked for, no exceptions or excuses, and answered quickly. Now, what is Jon’s problem?
There’s also no quote from Barna as he cited. I’m waiting for him to either admit that or give a source.
Jon Kauffman, over on Nonviolent Christians, has made more false claims about atheists. This is nothing new for many Christians and they do violence to the truth. This is my response.
“Atheists Fail to Defend Their Position.”
Funny how atheists defend their positions often, including me. Now, why would you lie that we don’t, Jon? You may not like what we say, but to declare we don’t?
“I have challenged several atheists to give me good reasons for why I should not be a Christian. To this point they have failed.”
how and why have they supposedly failed? Please do explain.
“I have asked numerous atheists about the resurrection of Jesus. A very common answer I receive is that no evidence exists for the resurrection. I know from my own research that very good evidence exists for the resurrection of Jesus. I have never received a good factually based argument from an atheist as to why I should not believe in the resurrection of Jesus.”
So, let’s take this again. What do you consider as “very good evidence”, Jon? Let me know and I’ll show how it isn’t.
“Some atheists avoid any information that does not conform to their world view. Many archeologists claim that the exodus occurred about 1250 BC. Then they say that because evidence does not exist in Egypt at 1250 BC then the Exodus did not occur. I don’t know why they claim the exodus happened in 1250 B.C. In my limited study of archeology I have found no good evidence for holding the view that the exodus occurred in 1250 B.C.
However, the Bible says that the exodus occurred about 1450 BC and we do find evidence for the exodus in Egypt at that time. I was discussing facts about the Exodus with an atheist, I brought up a piece of evidence. The atheist asked if that evidence came from a Christian. I said yes, he said he would not take the evidence seriously because it came from a Christian. Was this atheist serious about searching for truth?”
Who are these archaeologists? Your problem is that most archaeologists don’t think the exodus never happened at all.
And the bible mentions no dates at all (of course, you can show me where it does if you want to make that claim). It also doesn’t mention who the pharaoh was. Christians themselves can’t agree on who they want to claim as the pharaoh of the supposed “exodus”. You also have that there is no evidence for the exodus at any time claimed by believers. not one trash pit, not one latrine, not one grave, and this is despite the bible gives the supposed route taken.
” I have asked atheists for any proven scientific theories that bring Christianity into question. The response has always been silence. They seem to worship science but cannot use it to support their positions. Curious.”
this is also interesting since science shows that resurrection after being three days dead can’t happen. It also shows that animals didn’t suddenly appear in their current forms, which shows that the two contradictory creation stories also fail. Then we have the magic flood that Christians themselves can’t agree on, and the sciences shows that couldn’t happen as described either since the laws of physics don’t work that way.
“I wonder if some atheists are atheist because of the evidence or because they hate Christianity. I have read blogs where an atheist will search for mistakes made by Christians or search for Christians who do not live by the teaching of Jesus. They write blog post after blog post tearing down these Christians. This in no way demonstrates Christianity is false. It would be much like pointing out the evils of Stalin and the Communist Soviet Union and claiming all atheists are evil and that Stalin disproves atheism”
yep, it would be rather silly to try to lie about atheists when you have no evidence to support that particular lie equating atheism with Stalinism.
Now, Jon, which version of Christianity do you want to claim that atheists supposedly hate? Christians hate each other’s versions so which can we know is the supposed “right” one? You all claim to be living per the “teachings of Jesus” but all of you contradict each other on what those teachings actually are, and you all have the same evidence for your claims: none.
Showing how Christians can’t agree is indeed evidence that Christianity is false since not one of you can show that there is some TrueChristianity(tm) that has this god’s approval. That not one Christian can show that their version is the “right” one and that not one Christain can do what Jesus promised seems to indicate you are all frauds.
now, the question is if you’ll allow this post to appear in your comments. No matter, it will be seen on my own blog.”
Currently my comment does seem to be appearing. I’ll be curious to see if I get any response to my questions asking for additional information.
The first question I asked was about the contradictory claims in Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18 where this god is described as punishing descendants for the actions of their ancestors and where it says this god will never do that.
Unfortunately for span, it doesn’t just “seem” like this god will punish descendants, it says that quite literally. We also have that confirmed in the Christian claims of “original sin”. These are the verses:
“4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[b] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Exodus 20 NRSV
Span uses the Berean Study Bible for his translation. That is claimed to be “. An interlinear Bible to directly follow the Greek and Hebrew texts.2. A literal translation to take the reader to the core of the Greek and Hebrew meanings.3. A modern English translation, effective for public reading, memorization, and evangelism.4. An annotated translation to bring out the full meaning and intensity of the original texts.” Funny how all bibles claim to be exactly this, with the exception of the good ol’ KJV since it is still in Elizabethan English. Christians still can’t agree on what version is the “right one”, and it seems that not a one of them can get their imaginary god’s stamp of approval.
This is what the BSB has “ 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in the heavens above, on the earth below, or in the waters beneath. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments. “
If we look at the underlined words, the father’s descendants are cursed since they are continuing to practice their father’s wickedness which in this case is idolatry. If a son imitates his father’s sins, he will be found guilty in God’s eyes. However, in Ezekiel 18, God makes it clear that if the son sees all of his father’s wickedness but decides not to do them but rather, obey the LORD, he will not pay for his father’s sins. God judges everyone’s personal decisions either to believe in God and follow His Word or to disobey Him and live in sin.
The LORD’s desire is for people to repent from their sins and change their ways and obey His Word.
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live?-Exodus 18:23 BSB”
His bible doesn’t say that the children of the parents who disobey are also disobeying at all. This demonstrates either Span’s ignorance about how grammar works or that he is attempting to lie. What the sentence says is that the children will be punished because of the actions of the parent, not their own actions. If one writes this out without the clauses, it comes out like this “You shall not bow down to them or worship them. I am a jealous God and I visit the iniquity of the fathers who hate me on the third and fourth generations of their children. I show loving devotion to a thousand generations of those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
there are actions by this god in these sentences. This god “visits” (in this context meaning “to afflict with; to avenge (to exact satisfaction for (a wrong) by punishing the wrongdoer – merriam webster which uses this verse as an example)” the iniquities of the parents on the children for the actions of the parents. There is no hate shown by these children toward this god. This god also acts on those that love him, all of them.
Unsurprisingly, span is also wrong about Ezekiel 18. It mentions nothing about a son seeing the actions of his father. “ 1The word of the Lord came to me: 2 What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3 As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.” Ezekiel 18 NRSV
This goes on to mention a son who does bad things, and says that a father wouldn’t be held accountable, and that if a father does bad things, a son would not be held accountable. And again, it repeats “20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.”
span tries to mention Ezekiel 18, where this god claims to be interested in people coming to it. “23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? 24 But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die.”
Now, consider this “3 David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said to David, ‘Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,[a] the child that is born to you shall die.’ 15 Then Nathan went to his house. The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died.” 2 Samuel 12
hmmm. Span still has a contradiction in his bible and we also get to see this god lie when it comes to David’s son.
The second response is even better.
“The second question:
“If this god hates Satan, why does it show off to satan like a [the phrase was removed for being disrespectful] and allow a family to be murdered?”
God gives all of His creatures free will. For example, God has allowed you (clubschadenfreude) to mock and malign God without being judged immediately for your contempt. You and the rest of the atheists are very fortunate.”
the phrase removed was that this god shows off to satan like a besotted schoolgirl. Poor god, just so impotent and fearful, it can’t take being described accurately. My question here is referring to events in the book of Job. It’s no surprise that span didn’t quote that here, since it shows he’s wrong again. There is no mention of free will, and a complete disregard for free will when this god says that satan can do whatever he wants with these humans “The Lord said to Satan,[g] ‘Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!’” Poof goes their free will. And alas, for span, this god doesn’t allow me to do anything at all. This imaginary god can’t do anything, and all poor span has is an impotent threat that will never come true. I’ll never be judged by his bogeyman at all.
“The third question:
“If this god hates satan, why did it allow satan into the garden? or couldn’t it keep it out?”
God’s judgment on Satan and his fallen angels will take place at the end of the world when they will be thrown into the Lake of Fire with those who refuse to put their trust in Jesus Christ.
God allowed Satan to test Adam and Eve to see if they would choose to obey God or listen to Satan. It is no different for us today. We are given the choice to follow Jesus or to follow Satan through atheism, cults, and the occults.”
Span tries to claim that an omnipotent and omniscient being has to “test” people for some reason. Being omniscient means you don’t have to test someone; you know already what will happen and what people will do. This depowering of a god isn’t anything new for Christians to do. They just don’t think their excuses through.
“The fourth question:
“If this god hates satan, why did it need satan to have its blood sacrifice by torture work?”
I’m not sure what she is trying to say with this question. It doesn’t make any sense. I will try anyways.
I’m assuming she is referring to Jesus’ death on the cross. So what she is asking is, why did Jesus need Satan to put Him on the cross? Jesus didn’t need Satan to put Him on the cross. There is no such reference in Scripture even remotely to that effect. Judas Iscariot opened up the door to Satan by being a thief, see John 6:70-71, giving him access to his life. Satan hated Jesus and wanted to stop Him since Jesus was reclaiming the souls that Satan had captured to do his bidding. When he saw that Judas didn’t give his heart to Christ and was stealing from Him, Satan saw his opportunity and took it.
This is for the second part of her question. The reason Jesus had to die on the cross for the sins of the world was that sin brought about death for all mankind. The payment for our sins was for someone sinless, Jesus Christ, to die in our place and pay our debt in full. God had to deal with humanity’s sins first before He could forgive them. Once God punished sin, forgiveness can now be extended to all.”
Poor span, he can’t grasp what I’ve asked here. If this god hates satan, why does it need satan’s action for its plan to come true? In the gospel of Luke, there would be no blood sacrifice by torture of Jesus if there wasn’t a betrayal done by Satan. No blood sacrifice, no salvation. So, yep, this god needs satan. Judas didn’t open up anything at all. That’s a common false claim by Christians who haven’t read their bibles, but believe the mangled version given to them by priests and pastors who don’t like when this god works with its archenemy. This claim that somehow satan took over also shows that free will is again not in the bible. If humans can be taken over, poof goes free will. As for why JC had to die, it was to make god happy, nothing more or less. And there was no payment since there was no loss. It’s also unsurprising that, again, span must depower his god. By definition, a god doesn’t have to deal with anything, especially when it put the rules in place.
Then we get to the most interesting response:
““If this god hates satan, why does it kill all non-christians and then free satan to corrupt the christians that are left?”
“This question is misleading as it is incorrect from the start, assuming that everyone will be a Christian at that time. The question is about the End Times, in the Book of Revelation when Jesus comes down to fight against the Antichrist and his army. The non-Christian she refers to is the Antichrist and his army who will come to fight against Jesus Christ and His saints. So, the non-Christians are Satan worshippers, who received the mark of the beast. After the Antichrist is defeated, Jesus throws him and the false prophet into the Lake of Fire, and Satan is chained up and thrown into the bottomless pit for the time that Jesus rules on earth. When Jesus wins the battle, He comes down and reigns for a thousand years with His saints, and true peace permeates through the world.
When the thousand years are over, Jesus lets Satan loose for a short time, and it becomes apparent in Revelation 20:7-9, that even though Jesus will be here on earth physically, people will still refuse to believe in Him. So not everybody will be a Christian. Those are the ones that Satan gathers up to go to war for the last time. Fire comes down from heaven and devours Satan’s army who came to destroy the people in Jerusalem. Satan is thrown into his eternal place which is the Lake of Fire. Everyone at that time that ever existed will be judged. Everyone in Hades will be brought back to face God’s judgment and will end up in the Lake of Fire which is the second death. The righteous will be judged for the things they did for Jesus while on earth. Those are the ones who will enter heaven.”
Here again, the bible shows that span is wrong and that’s why he doesn’t quote it any longer in this post.
“17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.’ 19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur. 21 And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.”
Span chooses to try to ignore what the verse actually says, “the flesh of all” and “the rest were killed”. So everyone is dead except Christians, per the bible itself.
then we have “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while.”
So, we have the nations of Christians kept safe from satan so “true peace” will reign. If there are non-christians, this couldn’t happen per the lies of Christians like span who want to claim we are all just such horrible people. There is nothing in Revelation 20:7-9 that there are still anyone other than Christians left. “7 When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, in order to gather them for battle; they are as numerous as the sands of the sea. 9 They marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from heaven[b] and consumed them. 10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
what we have is that satan is freed to corrupt the Christians who are the only ones left, the ones that are now deceived. If this weren’t the case, this would mean that Jesus failed to conquer the beast, the false prophet and those who worshiped them in Chapter 19. Hmm, how does a perfect being fail?
Span also gets it wrong that people will be in heaven. Alas, only a few humans get to go there, and Christians don’t agree on just how one figures that bit of nonsense out. the rest get the tacky city of heaven on earth where we see a god obsessed with worldly wealth.