==============
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com> wrote:
Though I am an atheist, I agreed with and replied to your blog post about how modern Christian apologetics can reduce "Christianity" to little more than a game of intellectual jousting.
In my reply, I insist that apologists Steve Hays, Jason Engwer, and especially James Patrick Holding, bear about as much spiritual fruit as a dead alligator. The passion for holines seen in the NT epistles and in 3 more centuries of patristic writings is screamingly absent from their online writings.
James Patrick Holding libeled me and I sued him, and instead of doing the Christian thing and apologizing, he hired a lawyer at great expense to himself and his followers, to get both cases dismissed on technicalities...then continued libeling me anyway, as if he was just brick stupid. Holding's claim to fame is his citing the Context Group to justify his belief that the NT authorizes Christians of today to belittle and defame anybody who publicly criticize Christianity, a position he cannot find support for in any published Christian scholar, including the Context Group, who have disowned him in no uncertain terms more than once.
I am also finishing up a book to be marketed to doubting Christians, to motivate them to not be afraid to take that last step and actually stop having faith. So since your goal is the exact opposite, perhaps you'd be interested in some discussions with me, especially since I use my blog to advertise reasons for doubt around the internet, potentially reaching the same Christians you are trying to protect.
Barry JonesAs usual when I contact Christian apologists, I will be posting this email to you at my blog, to make sure that if you choose not to respond, you will likely be asked why by Christians who read my blog, and they can then decide whether your reason for refusal to engage was because you think I am not intellectually qualified, or because you were fearful that you could not defend your faith in light of my attacks.Here's a short list of matters I'm willing to discuss with apologists:
1 - There are only 3 eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the NT, at best, all the rest are hearsay. And that's generously granting assumptions of apostolic gospel authorship that I am otherwise prepared to attack on the merits.2 - Apostle Paul's gospel contradicts the one Jesus preached.3 - The actions of the 11 apostles after allegedly experiencing the risen Christ indicate what they actually experienced, if anything, was something less than the "amazing transformation" lauded so loudly by apologists.4 - Because Matthew is in all likelihood not responsible for the content in canonical Greek Matthew, he and his gospel are disqualified as witnesses.5 - Because John was willing to falsely characterize divine words he got by vision, as if they were things the historical Jesus really said and did, John and his gospel are disqualified as witnesses.6 – John’s intent to write a "spiritual" gospel as opposed to imitating the Synoptics which he knew had already disclosed the “external facts”, argues that “spiritual” here implies something different than mere writing down of eyewitness testimony. The historical evidence that is accepted by even fundamentalists makes clear that John’s source for gospel material included visions and not just memory.7 - The NT admission that most of Paul's converts apostatized from him for the Judaizer gospel, warrants skeptics to be a bit more hesitant than Christians before classifying Paul as a truth-robot. The NT evidence against Paul's integrity is many, varied and strong.8 - Papias asserted Mark "omitted nothing" of what he heard Peter preach. Because Bauckham is wrong when saying Papias here was using mere literary convention, Papias meant that phrase literally...in which case Mark's silence on the virgin birth is not due to his "omission" of it, the virgin birth doesn't appear in his gospel because there was never a virgin birth story available for him to omit in the first place...a strong attack on Matthew's and Luke's credibility.9 - Paul's belief that Mark's abandonment of ministry justifies excluding him from further ministry work (Acts 15) will always remain a justifiable reason (assuming Acts’ historicity here) to say Mark wasn't too impressed with gospel claims, even assuming he later fixed his disagreements with Paul and wrote the gospel now bearing his name.10 - Mark's strong apathy toward writing down Peter's preaching supports the above premise that he was less than impressed with the gospel, and likely only joined himself to the group for superficial reasons. Not a good day for fundamentalists who think Mark was inspired by God to write his gospel.11 - Peter's explicit refusal to endorse Mark's gospel writing, militates, for obvious reasons, against the idea that Peter approved of it.12 - stories of women becoming pregnant by a god in a way not disturbing her virginity, are securely dated hundreds of years before the 1st century. The copycat Savior hypothesis is virtually unassailable, once the admittedly false skeptical exaggerations of the evidence are excluded, and rationally warrants skepticism toward Matthew's and Luke's honesty.13 - The failure of Jesus' own immediate family to believe his ministry-miracles were genuinely supernatural (the logical inference from John 7:5 and Mark 3:21-31) provides reasonable and rational warrant for skeptics to say the miracles Jesus allegedly did, were no more real than those done by Benny Hinn and other wildly popular religiously fanatical con artists.14 - The evidence for the specific contention that most of the apostles or earliest Christians died as martyrs (i.e., were forced to choose between death or committing blasphemy, and chose death) is furiously scanty and debatable, justifying skepticism toward this popular apologetic argument.15 - the mass-hallucination hypothesis does not require the exact same mental images to have been shared by the original apostles. Mass-hallucination need not require such impossibility any more than Pentecostals being slain in the spirit requires them to all move and talk in the exact same way before they can validly claim to have shared the same experience.16 - There are contradictions in the resurrection accounts that are not capable of reasonable harmonization.I am also willing to discuss whatever apologetics argument you think is the most clear and compelling. Intelligent Design? You'd be surprised at how easy that is to refute and how it justifies Marcion's heresy. Messianic prophecy? I'll discuss whichever one you believe is the most compelling. Atheism? I argue that "God" as believed in the Judaeo-Christian heritage is an incoherent concept, which provides all the rational warrant necessary to dismiss it just as quickly one dismisses pyramid power or telepathy. Epistemology? I advocate empiricism, namely, you cannot give a convincing argument that anybody has ever learned a fact completely apart from their 5 physical senses, therefore, believing facts never come to our minds except via one or more of our five physical senses, is about as invalidly presumptuous as believing the cars I see continue to exist after I shut my eyes.I will discuss any other topic you wish.Sincerely,
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Jonathan McLatchie <jmclatchie@apologetics-academy.org> wrote:
So let me get this straight: you have a history of suing people, and you are basically saying that if I don't accept, you're going to assume that you won? I'm going to save us both the trouble now, because I am not predicting a fruitful exchange of ideas. Best wishes on your future endeavors.
Jonathan
Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
12:14 PM (8 minutes ago) to Jonathan
First, I said good things about you and agreed with your
basic premise, so I'm a bit less incorrigible/ignorant than you imply.
Second, if you really are the good conservative Christian
you paint yourself to be, then you have no rational basis to believe I might
take something you tell me and sue you for it.
If you didn't plan to libel or defame me, then you leave yourself no
reason to avoid debate with me, especially in light of the fact that in your
reply you don't mention any such thing as lack of time or being too busy. If
you are fearful that I twist the law to frivolously sue people for libel, feel
free to request from me a copy of my two lawsuits against James Patrick
Holding, and you'll quickly discover that I don't twist the law or the facts
when I sue people for libel. You might
have to face the grim possibility that your Christian brother Mr. Holding is
every bit the unrepentant dishonest scumbag my lawsuits and my blog allege that
he is, whether this truth upsets you or not.
Third, I did not express or imply that I'd win a debate with
you all because you refused to step in the ring. What I said was
As usual when I contact Christian apologists, I will be posting this email to you at my blog, to make sure that if you choose not to respond, you will likely be asked why by Christians who read my blog, and they can then decide whether your reason for refusal to engage was because you think I am not intellectually qualified, or because you were fearful that you could not defend your faith in light of my attacks.
That neither expresses nor implies "if you don't
respond, I win!". I leaves it to
the reader to decide whether your excuse for refusing to debate is genuine, or
pretext.
Fourth, I'm not seeing how my history of suing people is
relevant to you and I discussing your favorite apologetics arguments. You cannot avoid the criticism "the
'sign' in Isaiah 7:14 was not the girl's virginity while pregnant, but the
timing between the defeat of the two rival kingdoms Ahaz feared, and the boy's
ability to distinguish good and evil" by saying "you've sued people
in the past!" My suing people in
the past wouldn't help you escape the sad fact that there are only 3
resurrection testimonies in the NT that come down to us today in first-hand
form. If you think 3 is sufficient to
compel belief upon pain of being proved irrational, you can surely attempt to
sustain that thesis without needing to bring up the fact that I sued people in
the past.
Fifth, You don't say so, but I cannot help believing that
some of the reason you are so terse with me is that I really slaughtered the
reputation of James Patrick Holding in a rather brutal way, and you are merely
miffed at this gaping wound in the body of Christ left by a person you think is
a disciple of the devil. All factual
allegations I made against anybody in any of my lawsuits were true, especially
the two lawsuits I filed against James Patrick Holding. Mr. Holding, dishonest fake Christian that he
is, chose to pay a lawyer $21,000 to obtain dismissal of my lawsuits against
him on technicalities so that he wouldn't have to answer my charges on the
merits...instead of settling with me for thousands of dollars less as Jesus
required of him in Matthew 5:25, 40.
Mr. Holding's refusal to agree to reasonable settlement was
in violation of Jesus' legal advice, supra, and when he finally couldn't stand
the pressure anymore, he posted a video giving an interpretation of that
passage that he still cannot find any support for from any Christian scholar,
liberal or conservative. Worse, his
interpretation contradicts the one espoused by conservative evangelical scholar
Craig Blomberg, as I prove in one of my blogs.
Sixth, shame on you for dishonestly pretending my litigation
history makes you think I'd be an unworthy or unqualified debate opponent. I offered you specific debate challenges on
specific debate topics that do not require either of us to bring up any living
person's litigation history or reputation.
The reader will have to decide what makes more sense: You really think my lawsuit history somehow
proves I'm either dishonest in my bible arguments or too stupid to be deemed a
worthy opponent, ...or you are instead fearful that you would lose a debate
with me, but saving face is more important than letting the gazing public know
the humbling truth. You are an
apologist. You cannot exactly afford to
admit your true fears. You wish to lead
others to the light. You cannot achieve
that goal if you admit there are some unbeliever-arguments that really kick
your theological ass to the moon and back.
Well given that my suing people in the past doesn't have
jack shit to do with whether my views of the bible are correct, I'm guessing
that you are genuinely fearful you could not sustain a reasonable defense of
your faith in debate with me, and the reason you lie about why you refuse to
engage is because your desire to save face is stronger than your desire to be
honest.
One of these days, a doubting Christian will take you up on
your offer to help them get over a biblical problem, and will mention that
something at my blog encouraged their doubts, then you will have to explain why
you think the fact that I sued a lot of people in the past is sufficient reason
to turn away from my bible criticism and tell yourself I surely must have
gotten something wrong somewhere. Good
luck with that.
I continue to say that your bible-god approves of sex within
adult-child marriages. You have no
rational warrant to charge me with foolishness and cataclysmic ignorance until
AFTER you have debated me and found out for yourself how much or little I can
sustain that thesis as you try to refute it.
When you become prepared to handle academic criticisms of
your cherished beliefs in a way that doesn't involve the childish irrelevant
subject matter you are currently trying to hide behind ("you've sued a lot
of people!", etc), you know how to contact me.
Best wishes,
Barry Jones
http://turchisrong.blogspot.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Update: September 9, 2017: I just found Mr. McLatchie's Youtube channel, and thus found out he has also formally debated atheists and others, so when this is combined with his academic degrees in evolutionary biology, his "you've sued a lot of people!" excuse for refusing to debate me is even less sensible than I first asserted, but for now, this is what I posted at his channel, and I predict that it will be deleted by him as soon as he notices it:
I responded to another of his youtube videos:
I posted the following to another one of McLatchie's videos, here:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Update: September 9, 2017: I just found Mr. McLatchie's Youtube channel, and thus found out he has also formally debated atheists and others, so when this is combined with his academic degrees in evolutionary biology, his "you've sued a lot of people!" excuse for refusing to debate me is even less sensible than I first asserted, but for now, this is what I posted at his channel, and I predict that it will be deleted by him as soon as he notices it:
I responded to another of his youtube videos:
I posted the following to another one of McLatchie's videos, here:
No comments:
Post a Comment