Cold Case Christianity: Correct: there are no good reasons to believe in miracles

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

 

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot: 

“There are no good reasons to believe in miracles” 

Posted: 28 Oct 2019 01:44 AM PDT

Response #1:
“How do you define ‘miracles’?

That's not our problem.   Just like the little girl who says "how do you define fairies?"  If she believes in them, and wants us to believe also, it's her burden to provide coherent definition.  But have fun defining "miracle" in a way that an atheist cannot correctly criticize as question-begging.  Act of God?  Phenomena for which no possible naturalistic explanation will work?  Phenomena for which no known naturalistic explanation will work? 

A miracle is commonly described as an event ‘that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’

But since science is an on-going enterprise, what we thought naturally inexplicable today could very well be naturally explicable tomorrow.  Now, you can be "reasonable" to believe a miracle-report, but that doesn't render the skeptic unreasonable.  Reasonableness takes far more into account than simply whether a belief is "accurate".

Given that definition, most cosmologists (even atheist cosmologists) already believe in at least one miracle. The ‘Standard Cosmological Model’ for the origin of the universe (the theory accepted by most astrophysicists) is ‘Big Bang Cosmology.’

Then count me out.  The Big Bang is garbage scientifically, as admitted by several creationist organizations (ICR, AiG, etc) who also say the BB is unbliblical to boot.

This model describes a universe that came into existence from nothing.

No, the BB says the universe exploded from a singularity.  Your additional theory that the singularity popped into existence from nothing, cannot be defended.  All you can do is talk like an advocate of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, and then pray your readers don't discover that some schools of QM are deterministic.

If all space, time and matter began at a point in the distant past and came into existence from nothing, the cause of the universe must itself be non-spatial, non-temporal and non-material.

Logically, that's correct.  But there is no such thing as "non-spatial".  Yup, I'm a physicalist.

That means the cause of the universe ‘is not explicable by natural or scientific laws.’ Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?” Since the cause and the origin of the universe already falls into the definition of ‘miraculous,’ why would anyone doubt the veracity of other miracles?

Easy, because the people who reported those miracles are either too unknown to enable a credibility assessment, or what they say wasn't corroborated by others, or their reports are given an unknown number of years after the alleged event, or they have credibility problems justifying skepticism toward their testimony.

Response #2:
“Some people reject the existence of miracles based on their belief that the only forces governing the universe are ‘natural,’ ‘physical,’ or ‘material.’

That's because words like "supernatural" and "non-physical" and "immaterial", when used the way Christian apologists intend, constitute incoherent concepts.

As far as natural law, we might be wrong, but the point is we are not "unreasonable" to judge reports of phenomena based on our prior experience.  Only fools would pretend to be totally objective in evaluating a report no matter how far it departed from their experience of reality.  In that case, I'd be so busy investigating non-Christian miracle claims, I'd never have any time to look into Christian miracle claims.  You wouldn't want that, would you?  Well then gee, exactly how comprehensive must one's investigation into "miracles" be?  Not longer than it takes to respond to your internet posts?  Not longer than it takes to read "God's Crime Scene"? 

And how would you feel if you found out that, after i accepted your challenge to check out miracle claims, I went to the local bookstore to get your latest book and I died in a car crash along the way and went to hell?  Wouldn't you feel guilty for necessarily implying (by telling me to "check it out" something that takes time),  that I could safely delay the day of my repentance?  Maybe you need to revise your apologetics invitations in accordance with Ezekiel 3:18.

For example, if you reject the existence of anything ‘extra’ or ‘supra’ natural, you’re not likely to believe in miracles that violate natural laws.

Correct.  The notion that there's an "outside the universe" is incoherent and that's enough to justify rejection of the concept.

But, we have a shared knowledge of non-physical and non-material realities: we have a daily, common experience of consciousness and mind,

False, consciousness and mind are physical, this is more reasonable than a theory saying they come into the head from another dimension.  My theory violates Occam's Razor less, so its going to remain reasonable even if not infallible.

and we also experience free agency.

Your Calvinist brothers will now accuse you of heresy.  But either way, freewill doesn't make sense.  Free from what? The laws of physics?  No, the chemicals in our brain determine our moods and feelings, which obviously affect our choices.  The fact is that we automatically assume, from the lack of scientific evidence otherwise, that we are "free to chose".  But the sense of freedom is illusory.  The dog probably feels free to do what he wants too, but you'd probably say dogs don't have freewill because they don't have the "image of God".

Strict atheists (like neuroscientist and philosopher, Sam Harris) reject the existence of mind and free agency because they know they cannot be explained physically or materially.

No, he doesn't reject "mind", he rejects the mind/body dualism as understood by Christians.  He simply thinks the mind is nothing more but the brain in action.

If our common experience reveals the existence of non-material and non-physical realities that cannot be governed by ‘natural,’ physical law, why would anyone reject the reasonable existence of other realities that aren’t governed by ‘natural,’ physical law?”

We wouldn't, but whether the alleged existence of those other realities is "reasonable" is precisely where we will continue to disagree.  But either way, you haven't shown that anything real can possibly be "non-physical", so your analogy places no intellectual constraint on me.

Response #3:
“A famous skeptic named David Hume argued against the existence of miracles because he believed that evidence for what occurs repeatedly (or regularly) ought to outweigh evidence for what occurs rarely.

He was correct. If belief in actual 'truth' is the goal, then we should not believe reports of what occurs rarely unless the evidence for any such event passes more strict tests of authentication than the evidence we have for common events.  Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.  So I don't believe my buddy when he says he got a hole in one on the golf course unless I'm satisfied this claim passes more strict tests of authentication than we normally require for common claims.

Since miracles occur so infrequently and are rare in our uniform experience, Hume argued that we shouldn’t believe in them.

...unless the evidence for them outweighed the evidence we have for normal events.

But miracles are – by definition – rare events that violate natural laws and common experience.

No, a miracle by definition is an act of God, so unless you wish to piss off your Calvinist brothers and assert that god hardly ever acts...

If we are willing to accept the evidence for rare events (like the evidence offered by ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists), and our most common, uniform experience is non-material and non-physical (our experience of consciousness and free agency), why would anyone reject the existence of a miracle on the basis of its rarity?”

This reasoning doesn't place an intellectual obligation on me, as I deny the BB, I deny that humans have free agency,  and deny that any real thing that is "real" can be "non-physical", which linguistically seems to have a lot in common with "non-cheesecake".

My Trinity-rebuttal to AnnoyedPinoy

"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue.  See here.  He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs.

I posted the following challenge to him at that blog (see here).

I now crosspost that here in case it happens to disappear:

Trinitarians get around Mark 13:32 by limiting Jesus' confession of ignorance solely to his "human nature".  But since one's "nature" is their inherent feature and thus something the person cannot avoid implicating, then if Jesus had two natures, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that BOTH of them were implicated in his confession of ignorance (i.e., the divine side of Jesus admitted being ignorant of something). 

The reasonableness of implicating both of his alleged "natures" is not going to disappear merely because you feel forced under biblical inerrancy to automatically favor any view about Jesus that will make sense of the premise that he could both know and not know one single factoid at the same time. 

You probably believe that a person's mind is their "spirit", and if so, this would be the case with Jesus who became a "real" human being (i.e., became a higher-order mammal whose mind was capable of operating separately from its body).  Ok, was Jesus speaking with his "mind" when he confessed this ignorance?  Is Jesus' "mind" the same as his "spirit"?  Was Jesus' speaking from his "spirit" by divulging the ignorant state of his "mind" in Mark 13:32?  What exactly would be "unreasonable" in saying Jesus' was speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32?   

Was Jesus' spirit separate from the Holy Spirit?  Mark 3 would seem to disallow this with its warning that accusing Jesus of demon-possession constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as it falsely equates the Holy Spirit with demons...which implies that Jesus' "spirit" is the Holy Spirit, there is no lesser "human spirit" in addition to his "Holy Spirit".  Jesus also breathes on the disciples in John 20 and says "receive ye the Holy Spirit" powerfully supporting the notion that his spirit is the Holy Spirit, and there is no fourth identity called "human spirit" in existence here.  

Therefore, if Jesus was speaking his "mind" in Mark 13:32, he was also speaking from his "spirit" in Mark 13:32, and thus his confession of ignorance constitutes the Holy Spirit's ignorance, which then saddles god himself with this ignorance. 

Was the day of Christ's return missing from Jesus' "mind"?  Was it missing from his "spirit"?
If you try to get away from this by positing that Jesus had a "human mind" that was separate from "Holy Spirit", you'll end up with 4 people in the Trinity...at least during his earthly life, even if there were only 3 people in it before the incarnation. 

Remember, there are only 3 persons you are allowed here, no extras!

Seems to me that reading Trinitarian theology back into Mark 13:32 comes at great intellectual sacrifice, and doesn't even conform to normative hermeneutical convention, since what the originally intended audience likely understood Mark 13:32 represents a normative rule of interpretation, and common sense would insist that Mark's orignally intended audience, back there in 60 a.d., likely had views of Jesus far less theologically sophisticated than the views espoused by the "orthodox" at Nicaea.

So Mark's originally intended audience would more than likely have denied Jesus' alleged omniscience, and if other parts of Mark indicate Jesus knew all things, this is either typical Semitic exaggeration, or Jesus inconsistently held an unrealistically high view of himself, or Mark's gospel is merely inconsistent about the matter.

I personally prefer  the second.  Mark's obvious apathy toward Jesus' childhood is more consistent with the theory that he was something of an adoptionist, even if, like most people, his entire story is not consistent with everything adoptionist.

Regardless, bible inerrancy is a false doctrine, so I'm quite  reasonable to feel comfortable with the possibility that the interpretation of Mark 13:32 that causes Mark to contradict himself, is the correct one. 

This is despite the fact that Mark nowhere claims that Jesus is equal with God. 

James Patrick Holding violates his own advice

Mr. Holding introduces Galileo's "insulting" demeanor with "unfortunately".  From "Blowing the Doors Off", p. 375



This is sort of like Hitler telling a friend "Unfortunately, that Nazi guard doesn't know how to treat Jews politely."

But if the reader takes Holding's point to heart, they will conclude that Galileo would have been smarter to learn how to make his case politely. 

Which means they would eventually conclude that James Patrick Holding could similarly have avoided his own legal troubles (multiple lawsuits against him for libel) if he had learned to make his case more politely.

It would thus appear that Holding is willing to give to others the false appearance that he doesn't think it is ever morally justified to use insulting language, including situations where biblical truth is being suppressed or misrepresented.

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate 1st Corinthians 5:11

James Patrick Holding's alleged magnum opus is his absurd defense of insulting his critics (i.e., nothing in the bible or the early church fathers condemns his constantly insulting the non-Christians who disagree with his opinions, see here. (he has configured his website to make sure I cannot access it, probably because he doesn't have anything to fear from my criticisms.)

When apostle Paul required Christians to disassociate themselves from the so-called Christian "brother" who sins, he gave a list of such sins.  One sin listed was "reviler":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)

What does "reviler" mean?  According to standard grammatical authorities:

BDAG and GINGRICH say it is an "abusive person"

TDNT says:

ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

DANKER says

λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.  

"insolent" means:

Showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect (English Oxford);
(of a person or a person’s behavior) intentionally and rudely showing no respect (Cambridge);
insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct (Merriam-Webster)

So it's pretty safe to say that the standard grammatical authorities tell us that the "reviler" brother that Paul tells Christians to stay away from is the "brother" who is constantly abusive in speech, or insulting, constantly engaging in angry wrangling/mockery, and doing this in a rude disrespectful way, or otherwise engaging in insultingly contemptuous speech. 

What we can reasonably thus conclude that the smartest Christian apologist in the world is completely blind to the basic NT ethics taught in this passage.

Or perhaps, being so smart, yes he knew about it, but chose to ignore its obvious meaning, likely because he has a genetic defect that causes him to suppress and excuse away anything that might reveal a character flaw and pretend his own opinion is infallible.

His babies will scream "there's an exception for skeptics who publicly criticize our faith!"

The trouble is that I've already gotten statements from legitimately credentialed scholars, some of whom previously publicly endorsed Holding, who said they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian to be insulting toward anybody, including critics and skeptics. See here.

For example, see my blog piece showing that Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas likely think James Patrick Holding is a piece of shit scumbag, since even back in 2004 they were jointly insisting that it is biblically unacceptable for a Christian to insult "skeptics".  See here.

Gary Habermas once publicly endorsed Holding.  Licona's daughter is the wife of Holding's ministry partner Nick Peters.  One might reasonably speculate that this family has often had friendly conversations about Holding's infamously foul mouth (I have emails showing Habermas rebuking Holding for it), and not even the world's smartest Christian apologists (Licona and Habermas) can see any biblical justification for, and see only biblical condemnation against, Holding's genetically defective tendency to insult anything he hates.

Holding's babies will scream "we are employing riposte the way Jesus and Paul did", but the clear prohihbition against reviling in 1st Corinthians 5:11 makes it clear that God doesn't want you to do something merely because Jesus and Paul did it.  Whatever first-century "riposte" was, its limits are clearly specified in that verse.  No, the name-calling nature of ancient agrarian cultures doesn't automatically mean you are justified to imitate it. 

For the Holding-babies who continue to support him regardless, you might want to read about God's instituting America's libel-laws in Romans 13, then ask yourself why Holding is unable to escape the current libel lawsuit I've filed against him.

If it is so easy for Holding to prove this current lawsuit to be frivolous or unfounded, why hasn't he prevailed with a motion to dismiss yet?   Might it actually be a bit harder to disprove my allegations, than it would be to state the first letter of the English Alphabet?

Could it actually be that the world's biggest scumbag apologist actually did cross the line into legitimately actionable slander?  Gee, you've never heard of honest-appearing Christians being exposed as scandalous wolves, have you?

If that is a possibility, then why haven't you given serious consideration to apostle Paul's demand that you dissociate yourself from "brothers" who are "revilers"? 

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 26

 17 Like one who takes a dog by the ears Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.
 18 Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death,
 19 So is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "Was I not joking?"
 20 For lack of wood the fire goes out, And where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down.
 21 Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 22 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.   (Prov. 26:17-22 NAU)

V. 17, Mr. Holding has an obvious history of "exposing" strifes in the lives of his critics.  That's at issue in the current libel lawsuit against him.

v. 18, you cannot escape the condemnation in this verse by pretending that your hurling of arrows was for the cause of "truth".  the person you give that defense to would have to decide whether you are being honest or are instead trying to mask your sinful love of gossip and meddling.

v. 20, the ending of "contention" is presumed a good think to the author.  You cannot escape the condemnation in that verse by saying you started a contention and strife "in the name of truth".  The person yo make that excuse to will have to decide whether you are being honest or dishonest about your alleged concern for "truth", and there is a possibility they will conclude that you couldn't care less about truth, you just love gossip.
v. 21, a general love of starting contentions and strifes is condemned by this author, and given Holding's history of it, no, his excuse that he only does it for the sake of the truth, is bullshit.  Holding has a genetic defect that causes him to love strife more than the average person.

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett:

Type: Thematic (26:17–22). These proverbs discuss anyone who involves himself or herself in the affairs of others, who spreads gossip, or is a general source of mischief. Metaphors of violence and destruction dominate this text since these qualities characterize the aftereffects of the busybody.
26:17 Verse 17 could be translated, “Like one who seizes the ears of a passing dog is the one who meddles.”Busybodies cannot resist the temptation to inject themselves into private disputes, and they have no excuse for being surprised at the violent outbursts that are sure to follow.
26:18–19 Verses 18–19 could be taken to condemn any kind of antics (such as modern practical jokes played on a groom on his wedding day). While practical jokes can be destructive and hurtful, the larger context here implies that such may not be precisely the nature of the deceit implied here. Rather, this is a person who enjoys gossiping about or tampering with the affairs of other people. Such a person will purposefully confuse others and engage in a kind of social disinformation. When called to account, he or she will treat the whole thing as a game and be oblivious to all the hurt such actions created.
26:20–22 Verses 20–21 describe the slanderer as the fuel that maintains quarrels. In the absence of such a person, old hurts can be set aside, and discord can die a natural death. Even so, we often find a juicy tidbit of defamation irresistible. Verse 22 is a direct warning to the reader. Gossip makes its way to the innermost being of the hearer; that is, it corrupts the soul.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 214).

 

James Patrick Holding and his followers violate Proverbs 20:19

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip.
(Prov. 20:19 NAU).

How could you possibly argue that you associate with James Patrick Holding, but you don't associate with a gossip?

Maybe you think the "gossip" condemned here is something different than James Patrick Holding's obsessive need to dig up personal strifes and evils in the lives of his critics?  Break out the chocolate, you are about to have a bad day.  Evangelical Christian scholar R.E. Murphy:

19 The first line is very similar to 11:3a. The slanderer is one who goes about talking, although the etymology of the word רכיל is difficult. Naturally, such a person is to be avoided. The parallel with the “open mouthed” (see Note 19.a.*) would seem to indicate a character that we would term “loose-lipped.”
* 19.a. This verb seems to have two meanings: “open” and “simple/foolish.” In either case, irresponsible speech is meant.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Proverbs.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 152)

The dictionary defines "loose-lipped" as "fond of gossip".  If you think Mr. Holding only yaks about issues of biblical scholarship, you might ask him

a) why he is being sued for defamation for the third time, and
b) why his lawyer has told him he won't be escaping this third one with a Phariseeic technicality, like he did the last two times, but must answer to a jury on the merits

Or maybe you are a clever person, you caught the gag, and you won't be asking Holding any such thing, because to do so is to perhaps reveal that you love hearing gossip, which makes you just as bad as the person who spreads gossip, see Proverbs 17:4.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate proverbs 18:5-8

 5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
 6 A fool's lips bring strife, And his mouth calls for blows.
 7 A fool's mouth is his ruin, And his lips are the snare of his soul.
 8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels, And they go down into the innermost parts of the body. (Prov. 18:5-8 NAU)

Once again, the fact that some strife is logically required in our search for justice, does not mean gossip is holy.  The fact that you can say you were searching for "truth" by inquiring into the strifes others have endured, doesn't mean you are free from the charge of loving gossip for the sake of gossip.  The person you speak with will have to decide whether you pay attention to strife so much because of your excuse that you are a truth-robot, or if that's just a bullshit excuse to cover up your sinful love of strife.  They might be reasonable to say you are full of shit, you only care about the thrill of gossip, you care nothing for actual truth.
This is more especially so with Holding's idiot followers who have been manifesting their spiritual depravity/immaturity for years. 

Holding's libelous words about me qualify as little more than the gossip and strife which this proverb condemns.  Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

18:5–8 The chiasmus in vv. 6–7 is obvious (lips, mouth, mouth, lips). Somewhat less conspicuously, v. 5 refers to heeding evil talk at the gate, and v. 8 describes the pleasures that malicious slander can give. This section appears to be further commentary on 17:27–18:4. In official proceedings, whether they be court cases or community decisions, one obviously should not take the side of an evil person (v. 5). The odds of such happening are reduced by the fact that caustic and selfish people347 expose themselves by their words (vv. 6–7). On the other hand, many have a perverse attraction to malicious gossip (v. 8). This points to the need to be a judicious and thoughtful listener.
347 One needs to bear in mind that the “fool” of Proverbs is not a buffoon or simpleton. He or she is rather an obstinate, selfish, and obnoxious individual.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 164)

The word "caustic" means : "marked by incisive sarcasm" or "sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way".

Gee, Holding has never been guilty of being "caustic" has he?  Of course he has, Gary Habermas rebuked him for it according to email communications between the which I forced Holding to disclose, but which Habermas asked me not to divulge the contents of.  

Evangelical Christian scholar R. E. Murphy says:

6–7 Both of these verses deal with the organs of speech (lips/mouth used chiastically), as employed by a fool, and hence they point out the bad effects of his talk. 6 It is not clear if the “blows” in line b are to be understood as a punishment that the fool receives (therefore, in a judicial case), or merely as a violent dispute that is brought about by his heedless speech. 7 This verse is a drastic and dramatic description of the price the fool will have to pay for his unbridled speech: it is a deadly trap; see also vv 20–21.

8 This verse appears also in 26:22, where it is perhaps more suitable to the context. ...“Dainty morsels” is a common, if uncertain, translation. Experience bears out the attraction that gossip exerts over human beings; it enters deeply into a person; the second line suggests this penetration and perhaps the hearer’s relishing, if the translation of v 8a is correct. For harmful effects of gossip, cf. 16:28.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary : Proverbs. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 135). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

Since Holding is obviously guilty of being obstinate and obnoxious gossip, and since he has never manifested the slightest desire to repent of these moral defects, you will have a difficult time trying to reconcile your belief that "scholarship is all that matters for a Christian teacher" with the bible, which requires teachers to be morally qualified too.

James Patrick Holding AND his followers violate Proverbs 17:4

 4 An evildoer listens to wicked lips; A liar pays attention to a destructive tongue. (Prov. 17:4 NAU)

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

17:4 Taking gossip seriously is itself a form of malice practiced by those who have no respect for the truth.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 158).

 To the best of my knowledge, with exception for a few idiots who replied with a few trifles on some of my blog posts indicating they are more interested in defending Holding, no follower of James Patrick Holding has ever asked for my side of any story.  The one that came close, chose to slink back into the shadows after I convinced him he was libeling me.

This proverb is interesting because it shows he thinks those who take slanderous gossip seriously without doing any checking, are themselves equally as corrupt as the gossiper himself.

If Holding babies read this and feel themselves exonerated since they might have asked a few cursory questions before they believed Holding's gossip, they are reminded that there is a third libel lawsuit currently pending against Holding.  He was forced to hire a lawyer, he filed a motio to dismiss, and the Court chose to delay ruling on it, forcing Holding to pay the expense of answering discovery.

The point is that it sure is funny how your faith-hero cannot escape this third lawsuit as easily as you think he should.  Perhaps you might consider that there are truths he isn't telling you about, and THAT's why his slam-dunk defenses aren't working.  Suggest you give him a call.  Then again, your profession of Christ is total bullshit in the first place, probably best if you didn't call him.

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 16:27-28

 27 A worthless man digs up evil, While his words are like scorching fire.
 28 A perverse man spreads strife, And a slanderer separates intimate friends. (Prov. 16:27-28 NAU)

As documented in the Complaints that started my last three defamation lawsuits against James Patrick Holding, the exact way that Mr. Holding goes about slandering me is to "dig up evil" (i.e., he goes through my legal history to look for things he can misrepresent, or to gain quotes from third-parties who lied about me, then he gives more publicity to that information than the files ever would have enjoyed in their original state).

Furthermore, it wouldn't even matter if all of Holding's opinions about me were true.

Truth is not an absolute defense. Under this Proverb, digging up evil makes you worthless.  Nobody is asking whether the "evil" you dig up had some truth-content to it.  I'm sure there was truth-content in the court files generated by the couple down the street who got divorced.  Gee, does the fact that there can be truth in the back and forth name-calling automatically mean the person who gives further unnecessary publicity to that dispute is therefore exempt from the condemnation in this verse?  LOL.

I'm sure there was truth-content in the arrest report generated after some guy raped a woman.  But to "dig up" such "evil" makes a person worthless. 

An obvious exception must be made for courts of law; the biblical author wasn't stupid enough to think that all cases of evil need to be left alone and forgotten.  But the proverbs author is talking about the average person on the street, he isn't talking about judicially appointed fact finders. 

Unfortunately, my criticisms of the Holding's apologetics have nothing to do with putting anybody at risk of criminal harm, and Holding cannot seriously argue there is any logical connection between my legal history and the force of my counterapologetics arguments.

What dumbass thinks "Jesus' family thought him insane so they probably didn't think his miracles were real, see Mark 3:231" is fairly rebutted with "that skeptic filed a frivolous lawsuit against another person!"

James Patrick Holding, that's who.

Notice v. 28 which in Hebrew parallelism is just a new phrase the author thinks synonymous with v. 27:  a perverse man stirs up strife.  Once again, wouldn't matter if Holding's comments about me were all true, the Proverb author neither expresses nor implies that stirring up strife can be morally good if truth is at stake.  Holding didn't qualify as a judicially appointed fact-finder back when he started slandering me on the internet, so he really does qualify as the average man on the street who really IS condemned by this bible passage.

If there are situations where stirring up strife is morally good, then we have to ask:  Why did Holding think my counterapologetics arguments justified his digging up evil in my past and using it to help stir up strife?

Perhaps he thought that if I 'frivolously' sued somebody in the past for breach of contract, that might successfully defend him from the accusation that his own favorite scholars, the Context Group, have disowned him 3 times and have accused him of "perverting" their scholarship?  See here.

Yeah right. 

Inerrantist Christian scholar D.A. Garrett says:

16:27–30 Verses 27–30 describe the man who has evil schemes and are another thematic unity. Verses 27–29 concern the evil machinations of the scoundrel, the perverse man, and the violent man, and v. 30 is a conclusion or commentary on those three descriptions. The winking eye and pursed lips of v. 30 may be taken either as signals among conspirators or as a general statement of shiftiness in the facial mannerisms of scheming people. The point may be that the reader should learn to read the faces of others in order to spot the three kinds of evil men described in vv. 27–29.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 157)

Garret obviously believes Christians should learn how to spot the kind of men this Proverb describes, so the only reason a Christian could have for overlooking Holding's horrific moral failures and pretending his "scholarship" is all that matters, are the Christians who obviously lack just as much joy, peace, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, that Holding does.  There is a very good reason why the vast majority of Holding's YouTube followers are safely anonymous nobodies whose individual YouTube channels dedicate more attention to worldly cartoons than to Jesus.  No, it isn't bad luck.  Try again.

You should not pay attention to disqualified "Christian" teachers like James Patrick Holding, since his love of stirring up strife will likely do nothing  more than entice you into committing the same sins:  The bible says people who dig up evil are "worthless" and people who spread strife are "perverse".  Gee, Holding has never "spread strife", has he?  If the biblical author disapproved of strife-spreading methods in ancient Israel, how much more do you suppose he would condemn the same type of person today who can use the internet to spread strife far more widely by use of the internet?

What does it mean when an allegeldy 'Christian' teacher has mistaken sin for holy conduct for the last 20 years?  No, it doesn't mean "we're all imperfect".  It means this is one of those "Christians" who would have done far better to heed the advice in James 3:1, and do something in life other than being a Christian "teacher".

James Patrick Holding violates Proverbs 13:5-6

I have decided to start a new series at this blog. 

James Patrick Holding is a Christian apologist, who for the last 20 years has not made himself known by anything much more than his love of slander and insulting rhetoric against anybody who disagrees with his view of the bible.

Mr. Holding lives in both perpetual and willful violation of those biblical ethics that most Christian scholars agree apply to the modern-day Christian.

The first four words for the title to each of these new blog-pieces will be  "James Patrick Holding violates", and the words that follow will describe the specific bible verse or passage that Holding lives in violation of.

Try to keep in mind, as of the date of this first post (noon, October 25, 2019), my third defamation lawsuit against Holding is still pending.  It was filed earlier this year, and despite Holding's attempt to suppress the truth by filing a frivolous motion to dismiss, the Court delayed so long ruling on it that we were required to start exchanging discovery.  But Mr. Holding's reply to my first round of discovery questions was dishonest and illegal.  I will give those documents to anybody who asks.  Email me at barryjoneswhat@gmail.com, or reply to this post here. 

Mr. Holding's lawyer is also a professing "Christian".  So you might wonder:  Even if there is no necessary contradiction between being a Christian and being a lawyer, what should we think of a "Christian" lawyer who refuses to advise his client to plead guilty, and pretends that his client's obviously libelous words justify the thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend in front of a jury, when a simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong", would more than likely save everybody the trouble?

You can answer that question for yourself.  I think it has something to do with sin and the unsaved person's reluctance to admit guilt.

Mr. Holding violates Proverbs 13:5-6:

 5 A righteous man hates falsehood, But a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully.
 6 Righteousness guards the one whose way is blameless, But wickedness subverts the sinner. (Prov. 13:5-6 NAU)

Mr. Holding has been spreading lies about me since even before 2015, but it was in 2015 that he began his most concerted effort to do so.  I will send to anybody who asks the 2015 Complaint, the 2016 Complaint and the 2018 Complaint that started those three lawsuits.  These extensively document not only Mr. Holding's specific words about me, but why they were lies (i.e., libelous).

The 2016 complaint contains the most extensive documentation for my more nuanced claim that Holding is a closet homosexual and talks like a completely demented 6 year old raised by criminal gangs.

What follows is commentary on that passage from a Christian who accepts "biblical inerrancy", therefore, neither Holding nor his idiot followers can wipe them off the page as heretics (one wonders what they'd think if atheists wiped apologists off the page merely because they were apologists?):

Type: Parallel, Catchword (13:5–6). 13:5–6 These two proverbs are set in parallel on the basis of “righteous” and “wicked” in v. 5 and “righteousness” and “wickedness” in v. 6. The NIV translation of v. 5b is flat; it ought to be rendered, “But a wicked man makes a stench and causes shame.” The tie between the two cola of v. 5 is that whereas the righteous are concerned for the truth (over against malicious gossip), the wicked promote scandal. By itself v. 6 is a rather colorless proverb. In context with v. 5, however, it implies that disregard for truth and the spreading of scandal is ultimately self-destructive. Those who care about the truth, however, are preserved by their integrity.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, 

Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). 

Logos Library System;The New American Commentary

(Page 135). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

The "Word Biblical Commentary" might not be "inerrantist" in ideology, but is still conservative "evangelical" for its strong promotion of Christianity.

5–6 These verses are united by the catch words just/wicked. 5 The “word of deceit” is simply plain lies, whatever might be the particular situation. V 5a could refer either to the harm caused to a community by the wicked person, presumably through lies or even calumny, or it may be simply descriptive of his character. In any case, a high premium is placed on honest speech.

Murphy, R. E. (2002). Vol. 22: Word Biblical Commentary :

Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 96). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

For obvious reasons, Holding does little more in life than manifest his love of spreading scandal and lies, and clearly loves controversy and spreading of salacious gossip far more than "honest speech".  It's sad that it was only due to being sued multiple times for libel that he conveniently starting "choosing" to stop being quite as rambunctious about it as he was in 2015 and before.

Read v. 5 again...the Proverbs-author thinks the opposite of the person who hates falsehood, is the person who acts disgustingly and shamefully.  That is, if what Mr. Holding said about me, which justified the lawsuits, was in fact false, his own bible would condemn him as a person who acts disgustingly and shamefully.

This is a strong reason to suppose Mr. Holding is not morally qualified to hold the office of Christian teacher, an office that his own bible cautions most people against holding, James 3:1.  Yet Holding bandies about his teaching-duties as if he isn't doing anything more solemn or grave than showing the kids where extra water balloons are being stored.

My new warning to another follower of James Patrick Holding

Hello, Mr. Holding and his attorney Mr. Livingston:  As you can tell, I'm frightened of the prospect of litigating a defamation lawsuit against Holding.  So much that I even asked the Court to stop delaying its ruling on your pending motion to dismiss.  Here's another one of my recent messages to somebody who recently betrayed their ignorance of Holding's true nature.

-------------------
At Holding's YouTube channel and in reply to one of his starstruck followers, I posted the following

I noticed your flattering words to James Patrick Holding lately.  I'd like to therefore inform you of something you apparently didn't know about.

1st Corinthians 5:9-11 requires the Christian to disassociate themselves from any so-called 'brother' who is immoral, and one example of immorality Paul cites there is "reviler".  To "revile" means to slander, or hurl abusive speech toward. 

 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU) 

Did you notice that last verse?  Yeah, apparently Paul thinks Christian 'brothers' who go around reviling others, are "wicked".  Paul there was quoting or paraphrasing from Deu 13:5; Deu 17:7, Deu 17:12; Deu 21:21; Deu 22:21, all of which require the "wicked" person to be killed.  I'm not saying Holding should be killed, I'm only informing you that under your own Christian logic, God views the 'brother' who goes around reviling others, as steeped in sin and having serious issues that attention-deficit YouTube cartoons likely aren't going to fix.

Ephesians 5:4 prohibits filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, and since you appear to know Holding' s history, you hardly need to be told that most of it consists of filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting, etc.

Colossians 3:8 forbids anger, wrath, malice, slander, and more, and since you appear to know Holding's history, you hardly need to be told that most of it consists of anger, wrath, malice and slander.

Holding's obvious love of "exposing" those who criticize him would also constitute the sin of "gossip", and this would be yet another reason you'd be required, as a Christian, to disassociate yourself from him: 

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU) 

Paul includes "gossip" among the list of other sins he "fears" he will find when he visits the church in Corinth.

 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; (2 Cor. 12:20 NAU)

Gee, Holding's ministry over the last 20 years could never be fairly characterized as "strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances..." could it?

My blog reveals communications from Habermas, Blomberg and other legitimate Christian scholars who formerly publicly endorsed Holding, who did not know Holding was such a foul-mouthed  asshole.  They have withdrawn their public endorsement of him.  They also told me that they see no biblical justification, whatsoever, for today's Christian engaging in insults against their critics.   That is, not even Holding's few spiritual mentors think he correctly understands basic NT ethics.  How sad is that?

Just how much of a "reviler" is Mr. Holding?  That brings up the subject of my having sued him multiple times for libel/slander:

In 2015, I sued Mr. Holding for libel.  He escaped on a technicality, but only after paying more than $20,000 in legal fees...and only after I forced him to disclose numerous private emails and messages he engaged in with others, wherein he slandered me even more...messages which for obvious reasons he would never have disclosed unless I had forced his nose to the legal grindstone.  That is, I am reasonable to believe Holding's slanders aren't limited to what he says publicly, and its nothing but blind luck if I manage to uncover otherwise unknown instances of defamation.

In 2016, I sued him a second time for libel, again, he escaped on a technicality.  Both times he successfully avoided having to answer the charges on the merits.  That's what "escape on a technicality" means.

You might figure that even rabid pit bulls become dissuaded to continue biting after they are jack-hammered to hell and back.  Not so.  After paying $20,000 to escape the first lawsuit, and luckily escaping the second, both due to technicalities, Holding, like a mentally deranged pit bull, continued slandering me anew.

And that's not the worst part.  Holding continued slandering me despite drawing his own firm conviction in 2015 that I was "dangerously mentally unstable". 

Do you know anybody who intentionally provoke dangerously mentally ill people in the hopes that they will fly into a rage and end up in jail?  If you know Holding, then you'll unfortunately have to answer "yes".

So In 2018, I sued him for libel a third time, the court refused to dismiss the case finding that if my claims were true, they would justify jury trial for damages.  The Court expected us to begin the expensive process of exchanging discovery and evidence without ruling on Holding's pending motion to dismiss.   He was forced to hire a lawyer, the suit is not going to be dismissed, and he will end up paying probably another $20,000, at the very least, just to defend himself.   That is, Holding's obstinate nature is so extreme, he will not change his illegal ways even if they end up forcing him to give up most of his retirement nest egg.  one can only wonder how his wife, who is otherwise a good person and unrelated to this mess, feels about her own savings being wasted on lawyers because of her husbands utterly unstoppable mouth.

Try thinking that one over for a while before you donate money to his "ministry".  Perhaps you should ask Holding to setup a paypal donation link for his wife's bank account, she really doesn't want her hard earned money going to pay for stupid sins that she had nothing to do with.

It might behoove you to engage in a bit of critical thinking and research before you extol Holding's virtues too much more:  The bible does not support the stupid juvenile delinquent premise that a Christian "teacher" is qualified to be a teacher merely because they've memorized a lot of information about apologetics.  In light of the bible verses cited above, it's clear that the Christian "teacher" also needs to be walking in the light of Christ (i.e., not living in sin, such as adultery, or in this case, the sin of 'reviling' that Paul puts on equal footing with other sins that the OT required the death penalty for).  Such slanderers cannot be morally qualified for the office of teacher if they are going around committing the sin of "reviling".

Perhaps the saddest part is that Holding is so obstinate, he has never apologized for any of his slanders, including the most recent ones which justified the third lawsuit that is currently in litigation.  Which tells us that he has also never repented of those sins, likely because he is too thick-headed to realize they are indeed "sinful" acts.  Jesus said something about how, if the light that is in you is darkness, the depth of that darkness would be unfathomable.

Gee, how hard would it be to show that a Christian teacher, who refuses to repent of obvious sin, is thus disqualified from being a Christian teacher?

You can find at my blog the original 97-page Complaint that started the latest lawsuit

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.html

I will email you the Amended version if you wish.

If you take exception to my accusation that Holding is a biblically disqualified foul-mouthed idiot, I will also email to you, if you wish,  the Complaint from the 2015 lawsuit, and the Complaint from the 2016 lawsuit.  These extensively document my  claim that Holding engages in the repeated sin of filthiness, reviling, slander, libel, defamation, coarse jesting, silly talk, etc, etc, and often doing so in a manner that sounds like a demended 5-year old who has found it funny and exciting to repeatedly refer to people using disgusting sexual metaphors and defecation.

Those Complaints also document my claim that Holding is in fact a closet-homosexual.  For an introduction to such evidence, see

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017_05_13_archive.html

I have made numerous attempts to get other Christians to initiate the Matthew 18 process (a brother must admit their sin, and if several attempts fail, you are to view them the way 1st century Jews viewed Gentiles and tax-collectors), and nobody seems to care, despite how obvious it is that Holding loves certain sins, has no plans to repent of them and plans to continue committing them with impunity into the foreseeable future.  I have to wonder, as a skeptic, when "conservative" evangelical leaders like Licona, Blomberg, Habermas, express such apathy toward one of their own brothers engaging in persistent sin, whether this would count as a legitimate argument against Christianity.  After all, if I should become a Christian, I could become as smart as those men, maybe even as smart as Holding himself, yet I would STILL foolishly ignore certain biblical mandates that apply to modern-day Christians...perhaps proving that "getting saved" or "confessing Christ" involves no  greater degree of 'transformation' than does confessing Mormonism.

Finally, Holding  quoted the Context Group for years to help justify his stupid contention that it is biblically "good" or "moral" to slander those who criticize his beliefs, but the Context Group has disowned him three times, saying he gives Christianity a bad name, nobody should listen to him, and that he "perverts" their scholarship.

see    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html

While I take something of a risk in revealing the gory details to Holding's followers, I'm hoping that instead of spreading his libels further, you will use these materials to research Holding, make the obviously correct decision to confront him about these obvious sins, and admonish him that until he repents of his reviling slanderous acts, other Christians are very reasonable to view him as the wicked immoral 'brother' whose reviling slanderous mouth requires you to disassociate yourself from him.  1st Corinthians 5:11-15, supra.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

Correcting J. Warner Wallace on the skeptical argument from denominationalism

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Quick Shot: “If Christianity were true, there wouldn’t be so many denominations”

Response #1:
“Christianity isn’t the only worldview held by people who disagree.

That is irrelevant; ANY religion that claims exclusive means of salvation would be legitimately criticized if it came in so many contradictory forms as "Christianity" does.

And since unbelievers can know that God doesn't want Christians to engage in "word-wrangling" (2nd Timothy 2:14) and they can know by viewing the history of Christian differences that not even "word-wrangling" helps two opposing Christians figure out which one of them is being guided by God, the unbeliever can be confident that whatever 'god' is allegedly guiding these religions, if any, doesn't want them to seek to resolve doctrinal differences by having debates about the meaning of words.

Which is sort of like depriving a soldier of his gun, then telling him to survive an armed ambush.

In other words, if an unbeliever is serious about becoming a Christian, they must always obey 2nd Timothy 2:14, even if they have serious problems with the opinions held by whatever spiritual mentor they look up to.  That means they have to enter Christianity believing that 'god' doesn't want them to engage in the most objective method of resolving disputes (having discussions where the meaning of words is debated).  Therefore any biblical texts that reveal how to resolve doctrinal disputes, cannot be read to imply that Paul wanted his followers to engage in disputing of words.  Apparently then, the 'biblical' way to resolve doctrinal differences is for the Christian to simply preach at the "heretic", and cease associating with them if they fail to acquiesce by the second warning (Titus 3:9-11).

The notion that Paul or Jesus wanted their followers to imitate their own example of wrangling words, is clearly false.  

For example, atheists hold disagreements about secondary issues, even though all of them agree that God does not exist.

Atheists don't claim to be helped in their understanding by an infallible higher power.  Christians however boast that God guides their bible study.  So atheists can be perfectly certain that where two Christians hold contradictory interpretations of a bible verse, at least one of them MUST be in the wrong, and the only question is why the atheist should avoid inferring that the dispute falsifies other scriptural promises that this alleged God wants believers to agree on doctrine (1st Corinthians 1:10, including on eschatology, 2nd Timothy 2:16-18, and you resolve disputes by "warning" those who disagree with Paul, then excommunicating those who refuse to acquiesce by the second warning, Titus 3:9-11).

Paul actually thought that factions within Christianity performed the good work of revealing which leaders had actual truth on their side:

 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Cor. 11:18-19 NAU)

Of course, he was wrong; as not even today's efforts to resolve doctrinal disputes in the church (various scholarly journals, movements like Evangelicals and Catholics Together, etc) "reveal" which denominations are "approved".  And 1st Clement testifies that the divisions in the Corinthians church continued after Paul died. 

Atheists also don't claim that one certain magical book states all the answers atheists would ever need to help resolve any possible disagreements.  But of course not only do Christian claim to have such magic book, they also disagree on how much content it had, and accuse the magic books of other Christians of distorting the truth.

But even if a group of religions all use the same magic book, but provide different advice on essentials like god's intentions and salvation, there is a reasonably fair probability that many of them are false.  That's enough to justify the skeptic in kicking Christianity to the curb.  What are they gonna do?  Get their Ph.d in New Testament studies?  They can already tell, based on other Christians with such ph.ds who continue to disagree with each other on biblical doctrine, that this would be a guaranteed waste of 10 years.  You may as well think spending 10 years getting your ph.d in quantum physics will enable you to figure out which school of quantum physics is correct.

If the experts in Christianity remain in perpetual disagreement, I wouldn't think anybody except the most bigoted ignorant fundamentalist would insist that unbelievers are still under some sort of 'obligation' to spend all of their free time researching Christianity's experts. Well sorry, but Romans 1:20 is only good at making you feel boastfully better about your contentions, quoting an ancient mystic does precisely nothing to place the unbeliever under the least amount of intellectual obligation to go searching for the right form of Christianity.

If a man has two kids, wife, mortgage, full time job, then his family would suffer if he simply dedicated all of his free time to such research.  You cannot play with the kids, sleep or have sex with the wife while googling "essential doctrine".  But if such a man thought taking the kids to the park was in order, that takes away from the time he has to involve himself in Christianity's in-house bickering bullshit.  Now what?  Will you become a comatose fool, like Jesus, and insist that this married father of two has an obligation to give up his wife, kids, job and house just so he can spend his every waking hour researching your stupid bullshit?  Jesus said his followers should give up custody of everything, including their kids (Matthew 19:29).  His stated purpose was to break up families:

 51 "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;
 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three.
 53 "They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Lk. 12:51-53 NAU)

 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. (Matt. 10:34-38 NAU)

You cannot even make a compelling case that any biblical bullshit applies to the modern age, as the biblical authors, in failing to explain various terms that have puzzled modern scholars, testifies rather strongly they did not intend their writings to be used by outsiders as distant as thousands of years into the future.  YOU have the burden to show any of this crap still applies today, and you aren't going to meet that burden.

Until you make the case that ignoring/rejecting Christianity puts a person in urgent danger, the "unreasonableness" of citing Christianity's differences to justify ignoring it wholesale, will be equal to the unreasonableness of citing differences among the schools of quantum theory to justify ignoring quantum theory wholesale? No serious argument for danger?  Not a lot of reason, beyond one's subjective idle curiosity,  to give a fuck about the subject.

And since there is no clear NT teaching showing Jesus hurling "hell" at Gentiles, while his known interactions with them never show him admonishing them to read the scriptures, or screaming about how their imperfect notions of his relation to the father can bar their salvation, and in fact often show that he was more worried to grant their selfish desires for miracles than push "you need to be saved" crap, we atheists are justified to say all that trifling bullshit that later NT authors created merely contradicts the more liberal view Jesus himself espoused.  Now what are you gonna do?  Provide compelling arguments that god inspired all the books in the NT canon?  Gee, no ancient and modern Christian scholars disagreed about that, did they?  LOL.

Atheists differ in their views, leading to a variety of categorizations and descriptions, including ‘Implicit’ Atheists, ‘Explicit’ Atheists, ‘Weak’ Atheists, ‘Strong’ Atheists, ‘Iconoclastic’ Atheists, ‘Pragmatic’ Atheists, ‘Mono’ Atheists, ‘Myopic’ Atheists, ‘Realistic’ Atheists, ‘Scientific’ Atheists, ‘Logical’ Atheists and many more. Like Christians who disagree on secondary issues, people who hold an atheistic worldview have similar disagreements. Would it be fair to conclude that atheism is untrue based on these disagreements?”

No, it would be fair to conclude that there is no infallible 'god' guiding atheists in their understanding, except for the trifle that maybe the infallible god wants certain seekers to be misled about the truth (and since Christianity's "Calvinism" cult preaches exactly this (including teaching this god infallibly predestines everyting people do, including skeptics who make these arguments), your protest that God always wants his sincere seekers to arrive at truth, is yet another division in Christianity the unbeliever is required to leave up in the air).

It wouldn't matter if some Christian denominations really were divinely guided today, the history of Christianity shows you will likely never be able to come to reasonably confident conclusions about the actual truth of the matter if you study that shit, the most you will ever do is draw the conclusion that you have arrived at the place god wants you to be...the exact type of subjective self-assurance that leads to Christianity's in-house doctrinal debates.

Response #2:
“I believe in the existence of the universe. You do too, right? Did you know that the people who understand the universe the best – astrophysicists and cosmologists – hold many disagreements?

Did you know that none of them claim to have derived their conclusions from divine inspiration, the way the authors of the biblical books did?

These scientists divide themselves into factions, including ‘Big Bang’ Cosmologists, ‘Steady State’ Cosmologists, ‘Conformal Cyclic’ Cosmologists, ‘Ekpyrotic’ Cosmologists, ‘Multiverse’ Cosmologists, ‘Pre-Big Bang Theory’ Cosmologists, ‘Quantum Theory’ Cosmologists and many more. Examining the same set of facts, these scientists, based on their disagreements, have separated into ‘scientific denominations’ (even though they agree on many essential issues). Can you see why disagreement between Christians doesn’t falsify the truth of Christianity any more than disagreement between astrophysicists falsifies the existence of the universe?”

No, what I see is that if people contradict each other on some issue, at least ONE of them has to be wrong.  Under such logic; if Pentecostals and Baptists disagree about whether speaking in tongues is a necessary manifestation in the life of a truly born-again Christian, then ONE of them MUST be incorrect.   Yet you Christians obviously provide no way to resolve this doctrinal contradiction, you simply tell people to prayerfully study their bibles and several good commentaries...as if Pentecostal and Baptist scholars never did that.  You would simply cite the biblical evidence you think supports your view, then pretend that it doesn't matter since it isn't essential doctrine. Then the Pentecostal would counter that what fruit must be minimally manifested by true believers before they can be accepted into the fold is clearly essential doctrine.

But you are even wrong with the "essential doctrine/non-essential doctrine" dichotomy:  It is never taught by Jesus or Paul or any NT author. Instead, they always claim that to disagree with anything they teach, is spiritually disastrous.  Paul cited Christian disagreement on eschatology as a subject that he forbade his followers from differing on:

 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,
 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some.   (2 Tim. 2:16-18 NAU)

Apparently, Paul thinks combating the theory that the resurrection has already taken place (an issue of eschatology) constitutes "empty chatter" that he warns his followers to "avoid".

The point is that not only is Christianity internally conflicted about its own doctrines, it also forbids doctrinally conflicting Christians from doing the one thing that is likely to help resolve the difference:  debates or discussions.  If you think nothing in the bible forbids friendly scholarly discussions between people who disagree on Christian doctrine, then apparently you never read Titus 3:

 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,
 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
 (Tit. 3:9-11 NAU)

No, "warning" doesn't allow "discussion" or "debate", because discussion/debate necessarily entail disagreements about the meaning of doctrinally significant words, and Paul forbids Christians from having disputes about the meaning of words:

13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
 14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers. (2 Tim. 2:13-14 NAU)

Paul's extreme pessimism toward the alleged benefits of disputing the meaning of words, makes clear that he does not allow to his followers what he allowed to himself (initiating debates with heretics, Acts 19:8.

No, the mere fact that you can find some divinely inspired person in the bible doing something, doesn't automatically mean YOU have the right to imitate it:

 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
 55 But He turned and rebuked them (Lk. 9:54-55 NAU)

Furthermore this "essential doctrine/non-essential doctrine" dichotomy evinces spiritual immaturity.  When you say you are free to disagree with other Christians about "non-essential" doctrine, you are implicitly assuming that even if the other guy is truly representing God's intent on a matter, such as eschatology, God "wouldn't care" that you disagree with God on those matters.  Try documenting THAT liberal loving crap from the bible.

Can you see why disagreement between Christians doesn’t falsify the truth of Christianity any more than disagreement between astrophysicists falsifies the existence of the universe?

No, rather, I see contradictions between purveyors of religion to logically require that at least one of them is wrong.  I also see how stupid it would be to pretend that if I did what many in the fray have done, and take the next 30 years to investigate the differences, I will be not be able to correctly tell which of them are in the right.  I am therefore quite reasonable to conclude that the biblical wording is FATALLY ambiguous, and is therefore unworthy of the notice of any atheist, if they choose to ignore it.

Atheists are not in any more danger for completely thumbing their noses at the bible, than they are in completely thumbing their noses at the writings of Irenaeus.

How many times must Christian scholars disagree on a doctrine, before outsiders become reasonable to conclude there is no more "god" guiding anybody in the dispute, than there is guiding disputing politicians?

Response #3:
“Why would you be surprised that people disagree with one another – in any field of study, worldview or system of belief?

I wouldn't...unless those people were claiming that an infallible higher power was guiding their understanding.  At that point, drawing inferences from the contradictions between the beliefs becomes reasonable.

People always disagree about something, even if it’s only a minor detail or issue. It’s the nature of being human, and it says much less about the truth of a claim than it does about the people who hold the claim.

You are missing the point.  It doesn't matter if God thinks Arminianism is true. That conclusion cannot be supported from the bible with any greater scholarly confidence than can Calvinism.  The ambiguity of the bible on the matter, and the disagreement among the "experts" on the subject, are going to make the atheist reasonable to be completely apathetic toward the entire business...whether or not one of the competing doctrines is actually true.

But if scholars have been fighting about the issues for centuries without resolution (Protestants v. Catholics, Calvinists v. Arminians, Fundametnalists v. Liberals, covenant theologians v. dispensationalists, witch doctors v. cessationists, Young Earth Creationists v. Old Earth Creationists, Paul v. Judaizers, up to and including disagreements on "essential" doctrine, see Eusebius of Caeasarea being accused of only pretending to agree with the Council of Nicaea on Jesus' nature, to say nothing of the bribes promised to the bishops for reaching a majority vote, etc, etc.), its a pretty safe bet that the wording creating the original doctrine at issue is fatally ambiguous and thus unworthy of the attention of anybody who chooses to ignore it.

In other words, there is a very good reason why Christians don't disagree about Jesus' gender, but yet  disagree about whether Jesus is equal to god.  If any 'god' is guiding any Christian in these debates, she appears more concerned that they agree on the minors (Jesus' gender) instead of the majors (Jesus' nature)...which might suggest it is the fundamentalists who are wrong, and their "god" cares far less about "doctrine" than they think.  Compare Jesus dismissing his Gentile followers with no admonition to study the scriptures, with Pharisee Paul's long ramblings insisting that studying the scriptures is vitally paramount.

Given that disagreeable humans differ in their views about secondary issues in nearly every worldview (atheism and theism included), should we reject all truth claims based on these inclinations toward disagreement?

If we have studied those issues for ourselves and found the original claims to be worded with fatal ambiguity, or found that the claims rest on highly controversial evidence that not even the experts can agree on, then I'm not seeing how the person who completely ignores the matter is doing anything the least bit unreasonable.  When serious danger is afoot, the experts usually don't disagree for centuries on what it is, IF it is, or how urgent it is. Therefore, I reasonably conclude that "true" Christianity does not preach any "danger" to modern day Gentiles...leaving me with no justification, beyond completely subjective curiosity, to give a fuck.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to examine the claims themselves rather than the people who hold them?”

Yes, but failure to be "wiser" doesn't automatically mean those who refuse to study that far are thus "unreasonable".  You cannot really say how much study somebody must do before they can be intellectually justified to start drawing ultimate conclusions about the subject.  And because you will quickly praise and encourage even ignorant people who want to "accept Jesus", you are apparently in agreement with me that a person can be reasonable to start drawing ultimate conclusions about matters of scholarly controversy with little or no "study".  The more you insist atheists have some sort of obligation to attain scholarly knowledge of the bible before they can criticize it, the more we expect you to encourage stupid interested people to delay accepting Jesus until they attain scholarly knowledge of the bible.

Every ex-fundamentalist agrees with me:   If we could only have known, back in our fundie days, what we know now, we'd never have given Christianity more than a passing glance.

Given that disagreeable humans differ in their views about secondary issues in nearly every worldview (atheism and theism included), should we reject all truth claims based on these inclinations toward disagreement?

Yes, when all of those humans insist they are all being guided by the same infallible god who never contradicts himself.  Not even the spiritually alive people most dedicated to this god can get their story straight, yet you "expect" spiritually dead people to recognize doctrinal truth anyway?  FUCK YOU.

Yeah, and I'm sure the snake-handling Christians of Appalachia are sure that my skepticism of their spirituality is just a case of "worldly reasoning".  Like it matters.

J. Warner Wallace and the flying spaghetti monster flop

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

“Believing in God is the same as believing in the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’”

Posted: 14 Oct 2019 01:29 AM PDT

Response #1:
“What do you mean by ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’? Are you referring to the fictional deity created by Bobby Henderson in 2005?

Yes.  It's comparable to the fictional character created by Iron Age goat-herders.  Hence the analogy.

Mr. Henderson created that character (and a larger narrative called, ‘Pastafarianism’), to protest the fact that Intelligent Design was being considered as part of the science curriculum in the state of Kansas.

Good for him.  You open the door to ID in the schools, fairness demands that you give equal time to ALL over views.  

No one actually believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, including its creator, Mr. Henderson.

Ok, then we'll use the analogy of "tooth-fairy" or "Santa Claus". 

He’s tried to protest the existence of religion by equating Pastafarianism to religious belief, and he’s even applied for religious status in a number of countries. He’s been repeatedly denied, however. Why? Because international legal bodies understand the difference between religious claims and fictional claims. Can you see the difference as well?”

And since international bodies have no ulterior motives to keep the status quo, their solitary motive in denying the FSM religion is their advanced degrees in philosophy,  no doubt. 

No one actually believes in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, including its creator, Mr. Henderson.

But if he started publicly proclaiming belief in such god, America and certain other countries would likely permit him freedom to exercise that religion. 

Response #2:
“Are you saying that belief in God is the same as belief in fairy tales or imaginary characters?

Yes.  There is no more evidence that adherents of major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc) have any more accurate knowledge of the deity they worship, than Henderson has of the FSM.  But most of them are probably deceived into thinking that because people have cooked up lots of stories about these others gods for thousands of years, there is something "more" to the "major" gods.  Not so. 

If so, this assumes that fictional characters and God are equally unsupported by the evidence.

They are. 

But this isn’t true at all. What evidence do we have, for example, to support the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

About as much evidence as there is to support your Christian notion that your mind exists in another dimension, or that your moral outlook is beamed into you from another dimension. 

Is there anything other than the text written by its creator (in this case, Bobby Henderson)?

Yes, the big bang proves that the FSM is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, etc. 

The case for God’s existence, by contrast, is evidentially robust, even without any ancient text.

Hold it just a cotton pickin' minute:  there is nothing about the word 'god' that distinguishes it from the FSM, you are merely choosing to use a term that has been around longer.

For example, the existence of our finite, finely tuned universe points to an all-powerful, creative force outside of space, time and matter.

Except that speaking of "outside of space, time and matter" is to defend an incoherernt concept, since there is no such thing as "outside" of "space", or "time".  The universe is no more finely tuned for humans than your attic is finely tuned for mold-growth, and your own bible contains passages that logically contradict the notion of God's omnipotence.  Since every biblical description of heaven indicates events take place there in no less temporal progression than they do on earth, biblical "heaven" is not in another dimension, it is within "time".  You will insist all such language is mere "anthropomorphism", but you'll have to demonstrate the non-literal intent from the context of each passage, you cannot, and if you did, you would open the door to the possibility that some other biblical passages, the literal interpretation of which you require to ground your theology, were not intended literally. 

The inexplicable origin of life (driven by information in the genetic code)

God of the gaps fallacy.  No, you are not saying this because the origin of life looks like intelligent design.  You simply rest upon the fact that science doesn't have all the answers yet. 

and appearance of deign in biology point to an intelligent creator who has a purpose in mind.

If so, then that purpose was that carnivores exist before sin entered the world, which means the sadism in nature is not a result of evil or sin, but of God being like a demented toddler, and chaining two dogs together just because he knows they will massacre each other.  Sure, you can escape those problems by being a young earth creationist and hence blame all the yucky stuff on 'sin', but the biblical case for old earth creationism is strong, in which case we are reasonable to interpret the biblical god as desiring carnivores to inflict misery on other creatures long before "sin" happened.  For example, birds obviously cause misery to lower life forms, such as eagles which tear apart the squirrel, fish or rabbit while it is still alive, yet Jesus says it is God who supplies the birds their food: 

 26 "Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? (Matt. 6:26 NAU)

  41 "Who prepares for the raven its nourishment When its young cry to God And wander about without food? (Job 38:41 NAU)
  9 He gives to the beast its food, And to the young ravens which cry. (Ps. 147:9 NAU) 

Really?  It is god who not only wanted predatory birds to tear apart their still-alive prey, but for some of them to eat the newly hatched chicks straight out of the nest (see here), not much different than the human cannibal who sneaks into your infant's bedroom and eats him alive.  There will be stupid Christians out there who insist that birds of prey make sure their prey is dead before they rip into it, which would then mean that certain videos on youtube are just really clever photoshops.  See here.

Wallace continues: 

Our experience of consciousness and free agency is also incomprehensible under atheistic materialism, but can be easily explained if we were created by an immaterial, conscious, free agent. 

The consciousness argument is ridiculous, as Christians don’t believe animals are made in the image of god, yet animals still have a “consciousness”.  Sure is funny that consciousness becomes more and more complex as we move up the ladder from simpler to more complex life forms.  As for freewill, there is no scientific evidence that the will of a person is “free” from the laws of physics (alcohol, drugs and brain injury obviously cause an impact on our “freewill”, and attributing this to the mind being the brain, is far more rational and reasonable than the trifling that maybe the mind comes into the brain from another dimension, and has trouble manifesting itself if the brain is altered).  If the will could be free from physics, it would thus be free from the laws of cause and effect, which would then mean freewill proves that we are ultimately irrational.  At the end of the day, there really is no "reason" why you choose a pencil over an equally available pen...you "just" did...the very definition of irrationality (i.e., action without reason).

“easily explained”?  Ok, if you are trying to keep Christian “babies” from apostatizing, then yes, whatever the "easier" explanation is, would be their preferred choice.  But truth is not limited to what’s easy.  however, given that you wish to make money selling Jesus, I can understand why you'd be quick to give those potential donors to your ministry, or buyers of your books, the "easier" solution. 

Finally, the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths and obligations are best explained by the existence of a transcendent, personal moral law giver. 

You are also high on crack:  there is no such thing as objective moral truth in the transcendent sense you intend.  I don’t care if you insist “thou shalt not torture babies to death solely for entertainment”,  YOU are the one that has the burden of showing any moral to be transcendentally “objective”, and you aren’t doing that by discovering that other human beings agree with you about certain morals. 

You will say the fact that the vast majority of people in history obeyed this is proof that it is objective, but that’s like saying that because most dogs have a natural inclination to attack anything that is trying to get into their food, this moral only comes into them from "god". 

Can you see how – based on science and philosophy alone – the existence of God is reasonable even while the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not?

No, but I see how by switching out "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for "god" would likely cause your mostly Christian readership to think all is well.  The truth is that "god" is nothing but a made up word with made up definition, and like the FSM, does not link to anything in the real world.

Can you also see that the case for God can be made without any ‘sacred text,’ while the case for the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely dependent on Mr. Henderson’s text?”

Didn't you know that Henderson chapter 1 v. 20 says you are inexcusable because what may be known of FSM is manifest, because the FSM has declared it unto you?  The more you deny this truth, the more you prove to be a disciple of the devil.  I go to Henderson church every Sunday, and I'm not gonna let you steal my joy in the FSM.

Response #3:
“There’s one incredibly important difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the creator of the Spaghetti Monster, Bobby Henderson, mistakenly admitted the difference when he first created the character. Henderson conceived the fictional deity as a form of protest against religious belief in general. He originally claimed that his belief in the Spaghetti Monster (called ‘Pastafarianism’) was the same as other religious beliefs because Pastafarians had ‘several lengthy volumes’ explaining all the details of their religion and that there were ‘over 10 million’ Pastafarians (neither fact is true, however). Henderson’s intentionally false claim, however, reveals the error in comparing God to the Spaghetti Monster. Henderson assumed that belief in God was dependent on religious texts and accepted belief.

Blame it on the fundamentalist Christians who think quoting the bible infuses magic into the air.

 Neither is true, however. A belief in God is reasonable even without a religious text, 

First, what's reasonable for YOU does not dictate what's reasonable for another person.  Reasonableness and accuracy are not the same thing.

Second, my attack on Jesus' resurrection is solid, therefore, Christianity is false.  If Christianity is false, you would likely just play the odds and start stacking all of your money on the God of pre-Christian Judaism.  But the falsity of Christianity would then mean you had been misrepresenting that god for 2,000 years, in which case, there is far more evidence that, under the assumption Christianity is false, whatever god still existed would be far more pissed off at the Christians than he would at atheists.

Third, the god of the bible has no problem getting rid of a person's sin with a wave of his magic wand (2nd Samuel 12:13) and causing people to believe and do whatever he wants, with a wave of his magic wand, see Ezra 1:1.  So if I was in trouble with this god, I would be able to correctly protest that he must have wanted me to make all the decisions I did, because he had both ability and opportunity to make me think differently, and yet just sat there doing nothing....like a man who notices a woman being raped, sees no further danger in reporting this to the police, has ability and opportunity to so interfere, but then doesn't report anything, then later insists he cannot be held morally accountable because he was just doing what god was doing, and respecting the rapist's freewill.  FUCK YOU.

and even if no one joins a religious group. God’s existence can be inferred from cosmological, biological, neurological (mental) and moral evidence in our universe, unlike a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

We can fix that right now:  Let's stop saying "Flying Spaghetti Monster", and start saying "Flying Spaghetti GOD who decides when and where to open the eyes of unbelievers".  There, now we use the word "god", and we infuse into our new cult the same bullshit theology you tell yourself to explain why some people resist your religious claims.  Maybe we'll incorporate a "still small voice" in there somewhere, achieve tax-free status, make up songs about the FSM, and eventually put you completely out of business?