Showing posts with label Dennis Ingolfsland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Ingolfsland. Show all posts

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Message to Dennis Ingolfsland: No, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, if your arguments are the best you can do

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled

 
Christians around the world will soon celebrate Easter in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
 While being ignorant of just how poorly supported that hypothesis is historically.  I say that after reviewing Craig's, Licona's and Habermas' best efforts otherwise.
Most people understand, however, that no one comes back to life after being dead for “three days.” How could any intelligent person believe such a thing?
 Good question.  
We could be cynical and say the key word is “intelligent” but there are many people with Ph.D.’s who believe that Jesus rose from the dead. What reasons could they possibly have?
One thing appears certain, they don't have any explanation for why Jesus' family rejected his claims during his earthly ministry.
First, Jesus’ crucifixion is considered to be historical fact. It is confirmed even by ancient non-Christian sources like Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar Serapion. In addition, since crucifixion was considered such a shameful way to die, most biblical scholars don’t believe Christians would have invented a crucifixion story that would expose them to ridicule and hinder the spread of their message.

Second, Jesus’ tomb was found empty.
My explanation for the empty tomb is easy:  it is nothing but legendary embellishment.  I do not believe Jesus was perceived by the Romans or Jews to be anywhere near the significant threat that the gospels pretend they perceived him to be.  Jesus was a common blasphemous criminal whose miracle claims were even denied by his own family, most of whom were allegedly absent from the crucifixion, and after the authorities were satisfied he was really dead, they didn't give two shits what happened to his body, nor about his alleged claims that he would rise from the dead.  All this malarkey about the Jews complained that Jesus predicted his own resurrection and thus the disciples might steal the body then claim the prophecy came true, is total bullshit. 

Either way, there was a period of time between a disciple of Jesus burying him in a tomb, and the arrival of the guards at that tomb, for foul play to occur.  If the guards could be bribed with money to say they were asleep on the job and that's how the body disappeared (the biblical excuse that would render them deserving of the death penalty) they would be more susceptible to a bribe from the "rich" Joseph of Arimathea to tell a lie that would not warrant the death penalty (i.e., when we came to the tomb to guard it, we found the body already missing).  And indeed the guards would find that particular lie more attractive since the emptiness of the tomb would be exactly what they in fact experienced, and having been gone during the foul play, their boss could not be reasonably expected to fault them for the loss of the body while it was outside their custodial reach.  All they need to do is avoid saying that they accepted a bribe to tell that story.  They arrived, the body was already gone, simple.

Or even easier:  when the guards arrived, the body was already missing, somebody had stolen the body before the guards arrived.  No need to bribe, simply march back to headquarters and report the body went missing before the guards arrived.

You will say "Matthew 27:60 says Joe rolled a large stone against the tomb, so it was secure before the guards got there!"

Really? If Joe could move the stone over the mouth of the tomb, somebody could also roll it away before the guards got there.  The only way you can avoid this is to sinfully add to the word of the Lord and pretend that when it says "he" rolled the stone, it really means a group of men.  But even that doesn't work, since if a group of men could roll it in place, another group, like the disciples, could roll it away before the guards arrived.


Regardless, the empty tomb dies under my theory that Mark intended to end at 16:8, which means the earliest gospel had nothing to say about anybody actually seeing the risen Christ.  Nothing you do with the empty tomb theory can overcome the historical problems created by Mark's unwillingness to say people actually saw the risen Christ.
All four biblical Gospels claim that Jesus’ tomb was empty (as does the second century “Gospel of Peter). The Gospels are unanimous in presenting women as the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb.
 But Paul's "creed" in 1st Cor. 15 doesn't mention the women, and you cannot show that your explanatory theory (female testimony not considered reliable) is more plausible than the skeptical theory (the version of the story Paul heard did not involve women being the first witnesses).  After all, it was Paul himself who believed women were not inferior to men. 

And your "unanimous" argument is weak, if we give credence to the majority scholarly Christian consensus that Matthew and Luke borrowed most of their gospel material from Mark.  Gee, the copy reflects the source?
Since women were not regarded as reliable witnesses in those days,
 Apparently you are unaware that a religion called Christianity started with the testimony of women...which shows that the Christians themselves, who made up this resurrection story, didn't view female testimony as negatively as non-Christians did.  So don't forget about the Christians.
even many skeptical scholars are convinced that early Christians would not fabricate a story in which the earliest eyewitnesses were thought to be unreliable.
It's not typical Jews saying the women were the first eyewitnesses, it is Christians who tell this gospel story, and the Christian view of women wasn't as negative as the non-Christian view.
The earliest explanation for the empty tomb is found in the Gospel of Matthew which says that the guards reported that someone stole the body while they slept (if they were sleeping, how would they know)?
 Your question is precisely why that story doesn't ring true.  Were the guards so stupid, they didn't anticipate that their boss would naturally ask "how could you possibly know what happened to the body, if it happened while you were asleep?"  Furthermore, to lose the guarded object would likely warrant severe punishment possibly including execution, making it highy unlikely the guards would be willing to tell such a tale. 

You are also forgetting that Joseph of Arimathea, allegedly the guy who buried Jesus, was "rich" (Matthew 27:57), and thus it is equally as plausible to suggest that Joe bribed the guards to say "the body was gone when we first arrived at the tomb".  Between Matthew 27:60-62, a full day transpired between Joseph burying Jesus and the arrival of the guards. 

You will insist they would surely check that the body was still there before sealing the tomb, but on the contrary, modern history is plagued with examples in which the authorities did a shocking piss-poor job of evidence collection and otherwise violated common sense in their effort to secure evidence.  Combined with Joe's being rich and thus having capacity to offer the guards even more money than the earlier Jews who first bribed the guards, you are a fool to pretend that Matthew's version is the most historically plausible version of the events.

And if the body was indeed gone when the guards arrived, they could truthfully say to their boss that the body was missing when they arrived, and this misleading impression would carry far less risk to their lives than the bullshit "disciples-stole-the-body-while-we-were-asleep" yarn that no fool would fall for. Since Joe's bribing the guards this way makes them far less prone to the fearful penalties of failing their task, Joe's bribing the guards to truthfully say the body was gone when they first arrived, sounds like the more likely historical truth.  Feel free to keep your own theory alive by speculating that the guards were retarded, drunk or stupid but sheer possibilities can never trump the probability you just read.
The stolen body theory might explain why the tomb was empty but we would still have to account for the stories that say Jesus was seen alive after his death.
I do account for them.  They are legendary embellishments, because they only appear in the later gospels, the earliest gospel, Mark, stops at 16:8, exactly the point where Matthew and Luke diverge.  Doesn't matter if Marcan priority is technically false, reasonableness doesn't require accuracy or comprehensive rebuttal to counter-theories.  Markan priority is what most Christian scholars agree with, so its obviously reasonable to accept.  If any reader wishes to mount the case against Markan priority, they can consider themselves invited to try.
Some have suggested that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Most biblical scholars find this unconvincing. Three crucified friends of Josephus (a first century historian) were taken off their crosses after only a few hours. Although all of them presumably received medical attention, two of them died the same day, and the third one died shortly thereafter. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (March 21, 1986) concluded that theories about Jesus’ survival are contrary to the evidence. Even if Jesus had survived, however, it seems a bit silly to think that early Christians would have hailed this very bruised and broken man (most likely in critical condition) as their resurrected Messiah!
 I don't bother with such foolishness.  Dismissed.  Next?
Third, Jesus was believed to have appeared alive physically after his execution (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39-43; John 20:17, 27-28). Recent scholars have argued that in the Gospels we are in touch with what early Christians believed about Jesus.
 But most scholars deny the apostolic authorship of the gospels, so without good argument that they are wrong, to trust the word of the canonical gospels is to trust the word of several different authors and redactors, whose unique contributions making up the final canonical form can no longer be distinguished from the "original", a situation you'd scream your head off about, if the eyewitness affidavit showing you committed murder, suffered the same degree of multiple authorship and textual changes and borrowing extensively from a prior similar affidavit.

But the fact that Matthew and Luke often "tone down" Mark's version of things might indicate that these two gospel authors didn't view Mark as inerrant.  If they thought Mark's choice of wording was "inerrant", then what could possibly motivate them to think inerrant wording inspired by God needed the least bit of alteration?
Regardless of whether anyone today believes their stories, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospel writers taught that the resurrection of Jesus was physical, not merely “spiritual.”
 Agreed.
Even Ignatius, writing shortly after the last New Testament book was written, said that that Jesus was still in the flesh after his resurrection.
Years before the Gospels were written St. Paul also affirmed the physical resurrection of Jesus. In First Corinthians—which even the most skeptical scholars believe is genuine
 You mean the epistle that shows that some of the Christians in his church irrationally denied the possibility of resurrection from the dead?  1st Cor. 15:12.  Isn't that about as believable as followers of Paul who deny the existence of God?  Gee, what could have motivated these "some" to conclude that resurrection doesn't happen? It couldn't be their serious investigation into the gospel sources, could it? 
—Paul writes that the resurrected Jesus was seen by more than 500 people.
A fact the gospels don't mention, a fact gospel authors wouldn't likely remain silent about if they knew such a thing had happened.

Paul also said he would pretend to believe things he didn't truly believe, if he felt doing so would help him gain converts.  1st Cor, 9:20-21.  When Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews (Acts 16:3), what was he saying while using the knife?  Maybe "all things in my Jewish past that were gain to me, like my heritage and circumcision, I count as dung "(Phil. 3:8)?

Paul also confessed, that, 14 years after the fact, he still couldn't tell whether his flying into the sky happened to his physical body or only to his spirit. 2nd Cor. 12:1-4.  And you set forth this hack as if his credibility is beyond question? FUCK YOU.
It seems pretty clear that Paul is not intending to say that 500 people had hallucinations or visions!
 No, that's not clear at all.  Mass hallucination does not require that the exact same mental image be shared by everybody during the experience, only that they are all having the same general delusion.  Just look at today's Pentecostals.  They insist they are all slain by the single selfsame Holy Spirit, but that hardly implies that they are claiming to have shared the exact same mental images during the experience.  once you correct that misunderstanding, mass hallucination becomes a far more likely candidate.  It's what happened at Fatima.
Not only that, but Paul uses the word “resurrection” to describe what happened to Jesus. Resurrection” meant that the body came back to life, not that the spirit lived on after death which is something most people believed anyway.
 Paul is not credible.  If he wanted to say Jesus' body came back to life, he could have done so in a couple of paragraphs instead of a whole chapter going off into eotericc nonsense about how the glory of the sun is different than the glory of the moon, etc.  Paul apparently knew how to phrase things in order to convey that Jesus' flesh came back to life, see Acts 2:31.

Worse for Paul, he allegedly could have simply quoted the specific resurrection tradition unique to his follower Luke, namely, that when Jesus rose, he proved he wasn't a spirit (Luke 24:39).  Paul's choice to go into a mile-long rant about spiritual bodies makes me suspicious that the matter of his belief about resurrection is a bit more complex that you are letting on.

What you appear to have overlooked is that Paul felt his bodily resurrection beliefs needed to be taught to the Corinthians because some were denying the whole idea.  It's hard to believe that Paul would have taken this much time to correct them, if their denial of bodily resurrection was "clear" error.  How much time would you spend with a "Trinitarian" who denies that the Holy Spirit is a person?   I thus reasonably conjecture that the reason Paul devoted so much time to the subject is because exactly how Jesus "rose" was NOT "clear" to the Corinthians, but rather a subject of significant dispute.
In Second Corinthians, Paul reminds his readers of the persecution he faced for preaching the gospel, including imprisonment, beatings and life-threatening danger like being stoned (with real stones)!
 My grandpa also told me lots of stories from WW2, which under your trusting logic apparently means I have no choice but to assume he was incapable of exaggerating what really happened to make it more dramatic.
Paul was so convinced of the resurrection that he staked his whole life on it!
Paul started out persecuting the Christian violently, then suddenly started agreeing with them.  I don't have a lot of faith in people who can teleport between two such extremes at the speed of light.  I'm also suspicious that Paul's tendency to go to extremes likely manifested itself by him exaggerating what really happened to him.  Yes, grandpa was in the army and suffered many things.  No, that doesn't mean every shocking detail he related was the historical truth.  You also overlook that Paul was aware that his churches couldn't easily "check" his facts, unless they were willing to take dangerous first-century trips over long distances, which would involve leaving their families and jobs, sacrifices most people in honor/shame cultures would have difficulty with unless they were rich and bored.  I see no motive for Paul to fear he might be caught lying.  Look at Benny Hinn, any fool can tell that asshole is nothing but a con artist...but does the prospect of being exposed bother Hinn in the least?  NO. 

And you know what sinners will do if they think they can get away with it.  Paul himself said all men should be presumed to be liars.
Many other early Christians staked their lives on the same conviction.
 They were deluded Pentecostals just like Paul.  Did you have a point?
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus could be treated as a historical hypothesis; a hypothesis which explains a lot that is difficult to explain otherwise. For example:
The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the conversion of Paul.
A stupid internally conflicted extremist would also explain Paul's radical shift in thinking.
By his own testimony Paul had violently opposed Christianity.
Something also not corroborated by any independent or first-hand source.  Once again, its just grandpa embellishing the historical truth to make it more dramatically memorable.
How did this rabid opponent of Christianity became one of its most ardent promoters?
Maybe the way a know-nothing farm boy became the founder of Mormonism?  Claim a vision, seek gullible followers, and wait a few years to see if the plan works?

Also, you don't know what exact historical accidents happened so that among all the Christian talkers of the first century, Paul ended up having the most popularity.
Paul himself would say it was due to his conviction that Jesus had risen.
And Benny Hinn lies when telling people they are healed. An obvious liar, easily verfied, yet the harsh truth doesn't slow him down at all.
The hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection explains the change in worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
 More correctly, the belief that Jesus rose, would explain this.  The hypothesis of Santa Claus would also explain presents under the tree that nobody claims responsibility for.
Sabbath observance was so central to ancient Jewish identity that for Jewish Christians (The earliest Christians were all Jewish) to start worshiping on Sunday would be more shocking than if PETA started sacrificing puppies!
 No, you are just falsely classifying all first-century Jews as extreme devotees, when in fact that was hardly the case.  Cornelius was allegedly a "devout" follower of Judaism, yet he didn't even recognize that worship of human beings constituted idolatry.  Acts 10:25-26.
It would demand an explanation. Belief that Jesus had risen on the first day of the week would explain the change.
 Lots of false hypotheses would also explain the evidence in a murder trial, that hardly does anything to help answer the question of what actually DID happen.
This hypothesis also explains the continuation of the Jesus movement even after his death.
 Well then, since Mormonism continued to grow after Smith and Young died...
Many Jews expected their Messiah to kick the Romans out of Judea.
 Probably because the OT made it fairly clear that the messiah would be nothing more than an earthly ruler.
When the Romans crushed these Messiah wannabees their movements always died with them. Only in the case of Jesus did the movement continue after his death.
Incorrect, the Jesus-cult died out before the 5th century.  That crap you call "Christianity" today is nothing close to the legalistic temple worship that constituted original Christianity.
The hypothesis would also explain the worship of Jesus by early Christians who were fiercely monotheistic Jews!
Nope, Cornelius was a "devout" Jew, and yet if you conclude he surely knew what types of worship constituted idolatry, you'd be wrong.  Acts 10, supra.   You are dishonestly painting the first-century Jews as a group of theologians who were in confident agreement about what constituted idolatry.  You are mistaken.  Philo couldn't even avoid admitting his doctrine of the Logos implied that the wisdom of God was a "second god" (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62) 

And don't even get me started on how hopeless it is to pretend the author of 2nd Kings 3:27 was a monotheist.  He clearly thought the Moabite deity turned the tide of the battle, that's the best explanation for the "wrath" that came against Israel after the pagan king sacrificed his son during a stand-off.  If you think that wrath was your god or something else, consider yourself challenged.
We really haven’t even scratched the surface on this topic but evidence like this has convinced even highly skeptical scholars that Jesus’ earliest followers sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead.
These skeptical scholars are quick to add, however, that we can be absolutely certain that Jesus did not rise from the dead because dead people just don’t come back to life.
 You will never show that it is irrational to use our personal pool of life experience to draw conclusions about stories whose content contradict the way we experience life to work.  How the fuck else do you expect cops and criminal investigators to detect when somebody's logically possible story sounds suspicious?  Prayer?  
Some might say that their philosophical presuppositions (faith) outweigh historical considerations.
Just like it is the philosophical presuppositions of Protestants that outweigh the historical evidence and testimony to the Catholic miracles at Fatima, Lourdes, etc.   You've already decided that Catholicism is false. Don't tell me you are Mr. Truth-Robot and you are always eager to let the chips fall where they may even when evidence potentially contradicting your chosen religion comes down the pike.  I don't fault you for choosing to make up your mind before you turn 98 years old, so you cannot fairly fault skeptics for choosing to making up their minds before they turn 98 years old either.  Life is also about arriving at conclusions, it's not limited to just being objectively open to every new theory that comes along.  I've made up my mind that Mormonism is false.  I will NEVER be open to the possibility that it might actually be true.  Now under your own religion, isn't this closed-minded stance a mark of virtue?
In the final analysis, nothing can be “proven” beyond all possible doubt.
 Which is irrelevant, since it is only stupid amateurs who think the non-existence of absolute proof is somehow compelling one way or the other.
There is always a gap that can be crossed only by faith (this is also true in science).
It's nice to know you have a Ph.d and yet you clearly understand "faith" to be something that fills in evidentiary gaps.  Perhaps that has something to do with your "passion" for Christianity.  $10 says you are either a charismatic or a Pentecostal.
Those of us who have examined the evidence, however, and have experienced what we believe to be the grace and power of God in our lives, and the witness of the Spirit in our hearts, have no trouble proclaiming with Christians around the world that He is risen indeed!
 Do you ever tell skeptics to avoid appeals to emotion?  Why?  Is there some law of the cosmos that says only Christians are allowed to do that?

Dennis Ingolfsland's blind appeal to the Big Bang

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled





Some fascinating facts:

    "The expansion rate of the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in [10 followed by 55 zeros--The actual quotes use scientific notation but as far as I know, that's not possible in blogger]. Any slower and the universe would have collapsed. Any faster and there would be no stars or planetary systems. In either case, life would not be possible."
 The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is composed of Christians who have advanced degrees in scientific fields, and they push biblical creationism, yet they also declare that the big bang is both biblically untenable and scientifically false.  See "The Big Bang Theory Collapses", hereAnswers in Genesis is another Christan creationist organization that considers the Big Bang to be a naturalistic invention that is contrary to biblical teaching.  See here

See also
Christian apologists should abandon the big bang 
Jonathan F. Henry 

Some prominent Christian apologists claim that the big bang was God’s method of creation. Another common view is that the big bang is an apologetic for biblical creation. By this reasoning, Genesis 1:1 says that there was a beginning, and the big bang was also the beginning of the universe. Thus the big bang is an evidence for creation, not evolution. This is a mistaken conclusion. The ministries of the Christian apologists named in this paper, as well as others that could be named, generally take a high view of Scripture which strengthens Christian faith. The critique
That was from JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) 2009, link to pdf here.

Is it reasonable for the unbeliever to ask whether Christianity's internal disagreements on the big bang indicate that there is no god of truth guiding either side?  Sure, anything's possible: maybe God wants young-earthers to be wrong in their view of the BB "for the sake of a greater good", but is that speculation remotely near "compelling" upon the unbeliever?  No.  Then we can be rationally warranted and reasonable to dismiss Christian efforts to use the BB to prove god, just like we cite to the several different interpretations of quantum mechanics to justify turning away from the absurd sophistry put out by the Copenhagen school.
    "The force of gravity had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 40 zeros]. Otherwise, stars could not form, and life would be impossible."
 Take a cup full of pennies, toss them onto the carpet.  Take extensive notes about how each coin landed, its proximity to other coins, and which exact carpet fibers were implicated.  If the power of your toss, the shape of the cup, the design of the carpet or the movement of air through the room had been different at the time of the toss, the resulting pattern would have been very different than the one you recorded. 

So obviously the pattern you recorded could not have been the result of randomly throwing coins on the floor, but only the result of intelligent design.  Yeah right.  The pattern exhibits what could be viewed as "specified complexity", yet we also know the design appeared without intelligent intervention or purpose, as a similarly complex design would have emerged if such a cup of pennies had been knocked over during an earthquake.
    "The mass density of the universe had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 60 zeros]. Otherwise, life-sustaining stars could not have formed."
 Same answer.
This comes from The Making of an Atheist by philosopher James S. Spiegel (pg 46), quoting from former atheist philosopher Antony Flew.
 Anthony Flew was a dipshit who seems to have avoided doing his best to combat Christian theism.  Your use of Flew to "show what atheists argue" is akin to me using the WestBoro Baptist church to "show what Christians do".
And all of this was just for conditions for the development of life to be theoretically possible! (Antony Flew was influenced by MIT scientist Gerald Schroeder). The actual appearance of life is much more problematic:

    "...two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be on in [10 followed by 40,000 zeros]." To put this enormous figure in perspectice, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is [10 followed by 80 zeros]--a paltry sum by comparison. Moreover, consider the fact that statisticians, as a general rule, consider any 'possibility' less than on in [10 followed by 50 zeros] to be impossible" (Spiegel, 48).
Dr. Ingolfsland, come on:  Do you seriously think the average Christian reading this stuff has the first fucking clue about its actual mathematical basis?  If you have a Ph.d, you need to rise above the "prove-by-anecdote" fallacy and shape up. 
I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
 The faith required to be an atheist is far less blind than the faith it takes to believe that 2,000 year old  reports of unknown provenance and authorship, which speak about a resurrected man, are "reliable".  At least atheists are dealing with things that can be empirically detected.  Their theories about how the visible world works might be wrong, but at least they are dealing with matters that are clearly part of reality (excluding the idiots who push "dark matter" and other such nonsense).  But Christians posit an invisible immaterial deity that lives "outside of time" and "beyond the natural", concepts that are incoherent.

Clearly the Christian view is a faith more blind than the atheist viewpoint I argue for.

And I don't worship deities that cause men to rape women, that's why I say the Christian god, if he exists, is nothing but a demon:
 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them
, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU)
 Lest you mistake your quick dismissal of my "interpretation" for the very presence of God, yes, there are conservative evangelical Christian scholars who admit that this text means exactly what it says:
17–18 As the macabre scene resulting from the cosmic quake passes, the finger points to historical movement. Yahweh calls attention to stirrings among the feared Medes for which he claims responsibility.
Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 198). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
 If interpreting this part of Isaiah was so "clearly" wrong, how likely is it that OT Christian scholar J.D.W. Watts would have missed it?  Can you really blame the atheist bible critic who agrees with Christian scholars that God is taking responsibility for causing some men to rape women here?

What Isaiah is talking about are standard atrocities that were a known part of real ANE warfare.

Dennis Ingolfsland: how to use tragedy in the lives of other to more effectively sell Jesus

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled


Let’s imagine that God decided, through some form of supernatural coercion, to force human beings against their will to always obey his law.  In other words, imagine that human beings were supernaturally prevented from ever behaving in ways that were violent, immoral, hateful, dishonest, greedy, envious, manipulative, unloving or selfish. Imagine if we were all required to be generous with our money. Imagine if we were required to set aside one day a week to rest and worship God. Imagine if we were supernaturally prevented from ever giving our own comforts, entertainments, pleasures or pastimes a higher priority than God.
 That's not hard to imagine.  You Christians call it "heaven" or "incorruptible resurrection body".  That state of affairs is, according to your own beliefs, an actual reality whereby people authentically love and worship God while yet also lacking the ability to sin.
In such a world there would be no murder, rape, robbery, assault, immorality or dishonesty but in such a world there can be no doubt that most people would view God as a micro-managing tyrannical dictator and would hate him with every fiber of their being. They would only worship him out of compulsion, not love.
 Then you are saying that the people who have previously died and are now in heaven, only worship god out of compulsion, not love, because after getting to heaven, they lost their ability to sin.
So God has taken the alternate approach—probably one of the worst things he could have done to us. He lets us have our way, or in Paul’s words, “God gave them up.”
 Sure, that's in the bible.  But so are stories about God forcing people to sin, then punishing the puppets for their moving in the same sinful direction that God was pulling their strings, see Ezekiel 38:4 ff.  Maybe you can explain to your class why modern day Christians like you never go around using the "hook in your jaws" metaphor to give people a correct notion about the extent to which God claims responsibility for a human being's choices?  Yeah, "hook in your jaws" sort of sounds like the metaphor only a hyper-Calvinist would use, amen?
God gives us the freedom to gossip, lie, cheat, steal, slander, get drunk, take drugs, fornicate, commit adultery, rape, rob and murder.
And if an earthly father gave his teen kids the same degree of freedom, we'd consider him to be a very stupid irresponsible parent.
In other words, he gives us freedom and allows us to suffer the consequences for our sin.
 Right, like the earthly father who allows his 5 year old son to play with a real loaded pistol, then allows him to suffer the consequence of being deprived of his 4 year old brother for the rest of his life.  And then you wonder why non-Christians are bothered when you talk about god as if he were a "father" and was "loving".
Humans then shake their puny fists in God’s face demanding to know why he allows such evil in the world.
Not much different than the 5 year old daughter who is being raped in her dad's presence, and she shakes her puny fist at him and asks why he is allowing this evil.  Then her dad, the godly man that he is, reminds her that it is fallacious to automatically assume that because she cannot currently see the dad's alleged greater purposes, there are no such purposes.
But Christianity teaches that God then did the most amazing thing. He became human himself—a fact celebrated in the Christmas season—and entered the world of suffering that we largely created.
 A bit of theological nonsense that Christians borrowed from earlier pagan motifs about the gods becoming men.  See Acts 14:11 for one example.  And don't forget: this is not compelling to unbelievers who notice that many Christian groups deny that Jesus was God.  Gee, are we intellectually compelled to spend the next 5 years studying the differences between Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses before we can be rationally warranted to make a decision about whose theology is more biblical?
He allowed himself to be mocked, beaten and tortured—all so he could deliver us from the consequences of our own sin.
Which was rather stupid, sadistic and wasteful on his part since other bible verses make it clear that God can get rid of sin with a mere wave of his magic wand, no bloodshed required...like he did so conveniently in the case of King David's death-deserving crimes of adultery and murder:
 11 "Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
 12 'Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.'"
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die." (2 Sam. 12:11-14 NAU)
 There is nothing in the context to indicate the means by which God took away that sin, so we are fully justified to believe that this is the textual case precisely because it was by no means beyond divine fiat that the sins should be taken away (i.e., like a presidential pardon).

Well?  If God can get rid of David's death-deserving sins of adultery and murder by simply declaring that they are, in fact "taken away", God can get rid of the sins of everybody else in the world likewise by mere divine fiat that those sins are now "taken away".  Presto, problem solved.  So if God really did come to earth and allow himself to get beaten and killed in the effort to placate his own wrath against sin, we are forced to conclude that God sometimes forgets about the power he actually possesses to get rid of sin by mere decree.
At a time when atheists demand to know where God was during the tragedy in Connecticut we should note that if atheism is true there will never, ever be justice for the victims and their families.
So what you are saying is that our wish that such people obtain justice, is a rational justification to tell ourselves that surely there must be a great Justice out there in another dimension who will make everything better at the end of time? Count me out.
If atheism is true the parents will never, ever see their children again.
If Christianity is true, a mother-elephant will never see her baby elephant ever again after it gets torn apart by lions.  Did you have a point?
There is no hope. There is no real comfort. There is only unfathomable grief and despair.
I prefer reality to false hope.  If you seriously do find comfort in such hope, I encourage you to keeping believing.  But expect that hope to be dashed if you dare to insult atheists and tell us that our views are "foolish".
The Bible teaches that the gunman will not escape justice,
 Then it should, because it teaches that God was the cause of the gunman's murders (Deut. 32:39, Job 14:5).
and holds out hope that through Christ the parents could see their children again at a time when “our present sufferings are not worth comparing” with the glory God has for us; a time when “the former things will not be remembered” and God will wipe away all tears (Romans 8:18; Isaiah 65:17; 25:8; Revelation 7:17; 21:4).
Then your theology is heterodox at best and heretical at worst:  the bible nowhere expresses or implies that family members on this earth will recognize each other after they get to heaven, despite how wonderfully comforting such hope is.  You are moving beyond the word of the Lord and trying to give your followers more comfort than the bible actually promises.  And under the conservative hermeneutic which says you remain silent where the bible is silent, you either show from the bible that loved ones who make it to heaven will recognize each other there, or remain silent about the subject.
Our hope is that the tragedy in Connecticut will ultimately lead people to turn their hearts to God who is able to re-unite parents with their children and turn temporal tragedy into eternal triumph.
 That's the typical Christian, trying to turn the plight of others into an opportunity to more effectively market your religion.  And maybe that tragedy will cause some people to sign up at Crown College at a discounted tuition rate to listen to your speculations?

FUCK YOU. 

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Dr. Dennis Ingolfsland, apologist who uses condescension to avoid a challenge


Dennis Ingolfsland is an apologist who operates an extensive online blog.


 I found out about him while surfing google for apologists that I could make debate-offers to.

Despite surfing around on his blog for about 5 minutes, I could not find a "reply" button, leading me to believe that he intentionally set up the blog to avoid allowing comments.  Let the world be silent before the Lord.

So I googled his name, found the university he works at and sent him the following rather respectful offer to have a serious debate about any one of a number of biblical problems.
From: Barry Jones [mailto:barryjoneswhat@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 2:46 PM 
To: Dennis Ingolfsland 
Subject: request to have discussion or debate

    Hello,

    I was intrigued by your blog http://dennis-ingolfsland.blogspot.com/, but noticed that, despite having many controversial things to say, your blog doesn't allow the reader to respond.  Did I miss something?

    I am an atheist, formerly a fundamentalist Christian, who engages in bible study as a personal hobby, and I'd like to know if you would be willing to have some exchanges with me on the following topics, whether by email, through your blog, or whatever medium you prefer, on times and dates most convenient to you, no rush.

    I’m also willing to discuss any topic you raised at your blog, or any controversy between Christians and non-Christians you wish.  The below list of topics is suggestive only.

  1. Bible inerrancy is too controversial to justify using it as a hermeneutic.  If you are going to say somebody’s interpretation of a bible verse is false, you need to provide something more than “it contradicts what the bible says elsewhere”.  The unbeliever whose interpretation of a bible verse is otherwise contextually and grammatically justified, is under no intellectual compulsion to toss it aside merely because it would contradict something the bible says elsewhere.  But if it be reasonable to reject bible inerrancy as a hermeneutic, many dogmas espoused by conservative apologists are accordingly deflated.
  1. It does not matter if the views of a Christian scholar or apologist are “reasonable”, such views are usually never warranted with such blinding evidential force as to render any opposing interpretation “unreasonable”.
  1. A careful examination of Paul’s prohibitions on debating unbelievers requires the conclusion that he would characterize ALL of modern Christianity’s attempts at in-depth examination of bible evidence and skeptical views, including most of what you post at your blog, as the precise type of word-wrangling he prohibited Christians from engaging in.  The other biblical texts that require Christians to do apologetics, require the type of apologetics that avoids the scholarly level of back-and-forth seen so often in blogs and theological journals.
  1. There is nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context or genre of Genesis 6:6-7 to suggest that this statement about God’s regretting his own prior choice to create man, is an “anthropomorphism”.  It appears to be intended equally as literally as the rest of the chapter.  The Christians who ceaselessly invoke God’s alleged “infinite righteousness” in their fantastic philosophically lofty efforts to speculate that God allows evil for the sake of a greater good (William Lane Craig?), are choosing to prioritize good words and fair speeches above the unhappy biblical truth.
  1. The resurrection accounts in each of the 4 canonical gospels contradict Acts 1:3
  1. For the full duration of Jesus’ public ministry, James the brother of Jesus persisted in unbelief.  This is more than sufficient to defeat the resurrection hypothesis, especially as argued by the front line snipers such as Licona and Habermas.
  1. A close examination of all the biblical and historical information on every “James” mentioned in the NT, provides the investigator no compelling reason to think James the brother of Jesus ever became convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.  If he was the exact "James" who later oversaw the original Jerusalem faction of the church, he likely obtained that position due to political appointment and social expedience, not personal faith.
  1. Generously granting highly unlikely assumptions of apostolic authorship of the gospels, I count a total of 3 resurrection testimonies in the NT which come down to us today in first-hand form:  Matthew, John and Paul.  For this reason, typical apologetics arguments that say the resurrection of Jesus rests on the testimony of “many” eyewitness reports, is a deceptive exaggeration.
  1. A close examination of the most explicit NT accounts of Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus provides the investigator no compelling reason to consider him an eyewitness of the risen Jesus.
  1. The unbeliever can be reasonable to adopt the Christian scholarly consensus that Mark is the earliest gospel, and that 16:8 is the place where Mark’s input stops, meaning the unbeliever can be reasonable to conclude that the earliest gospel did not say Jesus actually appeared to any apostles (i.e., the later gospels, with their more richly detailed resurrection appearance narratives, are merely embellishing the more primitive story, hence the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is so beset with falsified evidence that unbelievers are reasonable to wash their hands of the entire business, as opposed to getting their ph.d in historiography).
  1. Jesus taught a legalistic salvation totally contrary to Paul’s version of the gospel.
  1. Jesus said the gospel to the Gentiles consisted of their obeying his actual words, not merely his “teachings”.  For this reason, Paul’s infamous apathy toward the actual words Jesus used during his public teaching ministry, condemns Paul as a deluded heretic.
  1. God clearly isn’t doing his “best” to convince unbelievers that the gospel is true, therefore, they are rationally justified to believe that, even if the Christian god exists, he has far less “love” for them than the bible says.
  1. The bible characterizes God as causing men to rape women.  It doesn’t matter if this could somehow be reconciled with the notion that God ‘loves’ those women, causing rape is simply so far departed from any reasonable human conception of love, that the unbeliever is reasonable to reject such biblical theology as nonsense.
  1. Contrary to popular belief, “God’s mysterious ways” does not keep the apologist above water when cornered by a skeptic on a biblical issue. The excuse rather functions as an admission of defeat, both for the modern Christians and for the biblical authors who invented it out of a similar desire to get around irresolvable problems and move forward anyway.
  1. In the days of Moses, god approved of sexual activity within adult-child marriages.  If Jesus was the Jehovah of the OT, then Jesus was approving of such activity back then, regardless of whether he changed his mind after the incarnation.
  1. The bible makes very clear in numerous passages that heaven is physically "up there", the ascension of Christ in Acts 1 merely being the tip of the ice-box.  It is not reasonable for the apologist to pretend that this is just a case of god ‘accommodating’ the viewpoint of pre-scientific people.
  1. Christians who preach about how God is able to see forward in time because he is outside of time, are preferring mystical philosophy to biblical doctrine.  Every biblical description of heaven indicates events take place there by means of temporal progression no less than they do on earth.  Biblically there is no option to believe that God exists outside of time.
  1. Nothing in the OT predicted anything about Jesus.  I’m prepared to discuss Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 52-53, Micah 5:2, Daniel 9:24-27, Psalm 22, Psalm 16, etc.
  1. Contrary to popular belief, the bible indicates God does not “need” to punish sin or be given a sacrifice for sin.  Jesus’ alleged death for sin on the cross boils down to little more than an evolution in Jewish thought which began to stray from earlier biblical truth.
  1. If a little girl was raped to death yesterday in California, the book of Daniel would counsel that this is because the angel whom god appointed to protect that area of the world, lost one of his sky-battles with a more powerful demon.
  1. Contrary to the claims of apologists like Frank Turek and Matthew Flannagan, there is no objective standard for morality, hence, nothing about human morality implies the existence of God.
  1. If Copan and Flannagan were correct to interpret the “kill’em all” commands of the OT god as mere rhetorical exaggeration, and were correct to characterize this as a command to merely “dispossess” the Canaanites without mass-slaughter, this makes God out to be a greater moral monster than the traditional interpretation.
  1. The average unbeliever would have full rational justification to completely avoid inquiring into any alleged evidence of modern-day miracles, and they'd still be reasonable to remain confident that all such claims are more than likely arising from hoax, delusion or honest mistake.
    -------------------------------------------

    I hope I have piqued your interest, and I hope you detect that I am sincere.  I have serious objections to Christianity that I'm willing to have examined by any apologist desiring to take their best shot for as long as they wish.  I look forward to dialoguing with you.

    Barry Jones

 ----------------------------------------endquote

 Dr. Ingolfsland's bio includes the following:
Dr. Ingolfsland has published two books (The Least of the Apostles and I Pledge Allegiance to the King), one evangelistic booklet (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand up) three Kindle e-books, and 40 magazine and journal articles in publications such as the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Trinity Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, Princeton Theological Review and others. He has also published more than 80 book reviews and has presented numerous papers to biblical scholars at theology conferences.
Ingolfsland’s area of academic expertise is the historical study of Jesus. He has presented papers and participated in several panel discussions about Jesus at theological conferences. In 2014 he moderated the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” at the annual convention of the Evangelical Theological Society. In in 2013 he moderated both the “Synoptic Gospels Study Group” and the “Sayings of Jesus Study Group” at the annual ETS convention.
 You should keep those credentials in mind. 

This otherwise highly educated Christian apologist did little more in his reply to me, than to assure me of how wrong and idiotic I was, he spouted a few derogatory comments suggesting I oppose the bible god because I have a possible history of drug abuse, crime, addiction to pornography, etc, then told me not to respond, because he would not reply.
 Nothing spells dispassionate scholarly rigor quite like "leeme alone!"

This is offensive because the way I worded my challenges indicated what was true, namely that I had already obtained a reasonable knowledge of how the front-line apologists were making their defenses.  Yet, Dr. Ingolfsland speaks to me as if I'm just a drunk atheist whose reasons for unbelief are laughably superficial and dishonest.

First, the apologists and Christians who think my publicly posting Dr. Ingolfsland's email to me is illegal, are wrong, the law does not recognize emails as private after they have been sent:

There are two types of computer communications at issue in this case. The first is standard e-mail communication in which the sender composes a message and sends it via the internet to the recipient's computer where it is recorded or stored until the recipient decides to "open" it. This process is most analogous to a letter sent through the mail. Although not addressed in Washington cases, other jurisdictions have found that the reasonable expectation of privacy in an e-mail, like a letter sent through the mail, ends when the recipient opens it. Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir.2001); Commonwealth v. Proetto, 771 A.2d 823, 831-33 (Pa.Super.2001) (holding that there is no reasonable 263 *263 expectation of privacy in e-mail messages sent by man to 15-year-old girl), appeal granted, 567 Pa. 667, 790 A.2d 988 (2002). Once opened, the recipient has complete freedom to do what he or she wishes with the communication. See United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, 417-18 (1996).
 And it remains true as late as 2018, from  US v. Bereznak, Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 2018:

...courts appear to be in general agreement that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic content such as emails or pager messages once they are on a recipient's device. See, e.g.,
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)("A person's reasonable expectation of privacy may be diminished in `transmissions over the Internet or e-mail that have already arrived at the recipient.'")(quoting United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)(finding no expectation of privacy in e-mail once received));
United States v. Jones, 149 F.App'x 954, 959 (11th Cir. 2005)(finding no reasonable expectation of privacy to prevent recipient from testifying as to contents of pager messages);
Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2001)("Users would [] lose a legitimate expectation of privacy in an e-mail that had already reached its recipient; at this moment, the e-mailer would be analogous to a letter-writer, whose expectation of privacy ordinarily terminates upon delivery of the letter.").
One reason for this is that once text messages have been received, the recipient could reveal them to anyone, and "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public [] is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). The Supreme Court "consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). In United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court found that a defendant "takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government." 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). In holding that the respondent had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his bank records, the Miller Court noted that the Supreme Court "has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." Id.

With that potential quibble out of the way, here is Dr. Ingolfsland's condescending loquacious email reply to me, with my comments interspersed at the appropriate locations:
----------------------------------------

 On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Dennis Ingolfsland <ingolfsland@crown.edu> wrote:
    Barry,   
    Please excuse my bluntness, but contrary to your assertion, I don’t think you are serious. In fact, I think you’re just playing games. You atheists like to play a game with us Christians. It goes something like this: “If you Christians can’t prove to my satisfaction and beyond any shadow of a doubt that every word of the Bible is absolutely true, then I am justified in not believing any of it!”    
Straw man, on the contrary, there is no reason for the Christian, knowing nothing more about me at the time than my list of 24 challenges, supra, to conclude that I'm just a game-playing atheist whose ideas about burdens of proof are conveniently lop-sided in my favor.  Furthermore, I never expressed or implied that you'd have to convince me your answer to any challenge was true "beyond any shadow of a doubt."  I also never expressed or implied I'd believe atheism true until somebody could prove every word of the bible absolutely true. For somebody with a Ph.d, you sure are quick to make false accusations.

In fact, I'm quite aware of, and accepting of, the same burden of proof that Licona and other scholarly apologists admit:  it is the hypothesis or interpretation that has the most explanatory scope and power, that wins. 
    But the game is rigged. There is no certainty in this world! No one can prove Christianity beyond any shadow of a doubt any more than someone could prove atheism beyond any shadow of a doubt!
I never expressed or implied that Christianity had to meet such an intolerably high burden.  Straw man again.
If someone does not WANT to believe something, there is no amount of evidence in the world that will convince them (e.g. moon landing deniers or holocaust deniers).    
 Correct.  That's why you cannot make other Christians, whom you think espouse theological error, see the light. Christians, with all of their alleged extra access to absolute truth, are no less susceptible to allowing their personal desires to cloud their better judgment, than atheists.
    Frankly, some of your objections seem analogous to someone saying I don’t believe in modern medicine because 1) They haven’t cured cancer or the common cold, 2) A room full of doctors may well have several different diagnoses and proposed remedies to the same symptoms. 3) Hundreds of people have died in hospitals due to malpractice, 4) Big pharma is more interested in profits than actual cures. 5) Doctors are in it for the money, 6) Hospitals are just big business, 7) No one is actually trying to cure major diseases like Cancer because the researchers would then be out of business so the who thing is a charade, etc.    
Straw man again.  I would hardly have set forth the specific challenges I did, if I didn't have supreme confidence that I could demonstrate them to be true within the confines of the historiography and hermeneutics accepted by the majority of Christian scholars. 
    Of course this is nonsense, but if someone tried to defend the medical profession, their attackers could just dismiss the defenses as apologetic word wrangling or some such thing.
 Leaving you with no basis upon which to support other apologists in their many debates with atheists.  Apparently you think it is all a big waste of time.  Another division in the body of Christ.  
Not only that, but some of the arguments are unanswerable. It would be impossible to convince someone who didn’t WANT to be convinced, that most doctors really do want to help patients and that in spite of their bottom lines, Big pharma companies and Cancer researchers really do work to provide cures.    
I could just as easily have argued similarly that Christians only deny atheism because they don't WANT to be convinced of the truth.  But I was polite and sincere toward you without condescension.
    I’m sure you are well aware that there is absolutely nothing a good skeptic can’t challenge or doubt.
Not true.  Dishonest lawyers are experts at playing such games in trial in order to defend their client's alleged innocence, but on the whole the juries appear capable of knowing the point at which doubting the prosecutor's evidence of guilt becomes an irrational trifle.  Worse, there are many things you and I would agree exist, or are true, including bible history. If you've never met a skeptic who could really kick your ass all over hell and back in a debate about biblical matters, perhaps you can be forgiven for presuming my idiotic blindness.  Apparently, David Hume isn't the only one who regards personal experience as the ultimate test of truth.
Descartes thought he found something he couldn’t doubt with his saying, “I think, therefore I am” but later philosophers have rightly pointed out that even that can be doubted.
 Those philosophers are also wrong, a non-existing thing could never make a statement.  Existence is an axiom of speech...unless you think a non-existing thing could make a speech?
The fact is that there is no absolute certainty in this life—not even atheism or science is beyond doubt!    
Again, straw man:  I never expressed or implied that Christians either prove their beliefs absolutely, or concede the debate.  I believe your burden of proof is no higher than anybody else's:  beyond a reasonable doubt.  The standard used by everybody in daily life, in courts of law, and by the more scholarly Christian apologists such as Mike Licona.
    I once had an interest in Cell Biology so one of the biologists where I work recommended a book that she said was like the “Bible” of Cell biology at the time. I was amazed how often the text conceded that they just didn’t know how such-and-such worked, or there was simply no known explanation for this or that phenomena. A good philosopher of science who wanted to be obnoxious could have absolutely torn that book to shreds, figuratively speaking! In fact, the more we learn about the unbelievable complexity of even the simplest forms of life, the more random chance and natural selection seem impossible.   
The only problem being that you are thrusting these talking points out into your soliloquy in a speech that ends by telling me to avoid replying.  If you are so sure intelligent design is an obvious truth of reality, you should have no fears about your ability to steamroll an atheist in a debate about intelligent design.  Unfortunately, your soliloquy ends with your telling me to avoid responding, because by choice you refuse to communicate further.  If you can be reasonable to set your own subjective limits on how much obedience to Jude 3 you will permit, you cannot reasonably fault skeptics for similarly setting their own subjective limits on how often they will answer Christian challenges. 
    But to play your game just for a moment, take for example your first objection on inerrancy. It seems to me that several of the objections on your list have to do with efforts to reconcile the Bible with inerrancy, for example #5 (you’re still stuck in your fundamentalist background!).
 First, Objection # 1 stands on its own.  I was willing to attack the notion that bible inerrancy should be used as a hermeneutic.  That debate would not involve the question of whether any specific bible statement was true or false.

Second, it hardly matters whether you affirm or deny inerrancy.  inerrancy is a false doctrine that hangs around the neck of many Christians.  I am doing a lot of good to beat it bloody, even if you happens to be one of those Christians who don't believe it or don't prioritize it.

Third, I am not stuck in a fundamentalist background. I have chosen to attack several forms of Christianity, one of them being the fundamentalist type that you apparently don't aspire to.  The fact that you don't espouse that form of Christianity, doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant and can be dismissed without commentary.  Fundamentalists are wrong, but they also ensnare a lot of innocently ignorant people with their half-cocked arguments.  the more I attack false doctrines, the more hope of helping Christians out of the doctrinal hell-hole that they fell into.
Contrary to many fundamentalists, Christianity simply does not rise or fall on inerrancy (as evidenced by the huge number of biblical scholars who do not believe in inerrancy and yet are dedicated Christians).
 I agree.  I would  never foolishly pretend that if I can prove one genuine error in the originals of the bible, then the collapse of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy suddenly means the collapse of Christianity.

Unfortunately for you, there are well-informed scholarly Christians who insist that yes, Christianity does rise or fall with inerrancy.  A prime example would be Steve Hays.

Tyson

I'm not sure we're using "foundational" in the same sense. By "foundational" I mean that there are things in Scripture that, were they wrong or missing, would not destroy Christianity. For instance, Christianity does not rise or fall on Shamgar's killing of 600 Philistines with an oxgoad (Judges 3:31). Imagine we find out that Shamgar killed 30 men with a spear. Would you abandon Christianity because of the discrepancy? I should hope not.



Hays 

1. That's a hopelessly atomistic view of the issue. It's like saying, because I can survive frostbitten toes, because I can survive an amputated toe, I can survive Antarctica in my tighty-whities. The question isn't whether the body can survive the loss of a toe, but what sustains the entire body, toes included. 


If you jettison inerrancy, then you implicitly jettison the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture since it doesn't make a heap of sense to say a verbally plenarily inspired text is fallible.
Hays is obviously wrong as he thinks God inspired certain sinners to write out inerrant scripture, but did not take away their sinful natures at any time in the process.  Therefore, the idea that God can effectively guide his church using imperfect human books is not near the wild irrational thing Hays thinks it is.
Something can have all kinds of errors and still be essentially reliable—take CNN or the New York Times for example.   
Agreed.  Leaving me to question why you bring up such a thing, as I never expressed or implied that atheism wins unless you can prove the bible perfect in every way in absolute fashion. Christianity does not rise or fall with inerrancy, agreed. 
    Your 2nd and 24th arguments are basically regurgitating David Hume’s outdated arguments against miracles.
It's a pity that you are so confident I'm wrong in these propositions, when I've offered to support them with scholarly argument, and all you do is scoff, assure me I got it wrong, walk away and make clear you won't accept the offer to discuss the matter.

Some would say such a reply has more in common with fundamentalism than with scholarly acumen.

As for my point # 2, I was merely offering to argue that Christians do not win a debate by showing that their notion is "reasonable". The bible and the world are chock full of examples where reasonable people disagree about the facts.  It might very well be that the reasonable Christian interpretation of a matter isn't the only interpretation that can be shown to be "reasonable".

As for my objection # 24, this had nothing to do with Hume.  Had you been willing to discuss it, I would have pointed out that since Christians and unbelievers routinely draw inductive inferences about larger issues without knowing about every single piece of relevant evidence, then unbelievers cannot be charged with unreasonableness for doing, during miracle-investigation, what everybody else does in every other area of life:  deciding that the pool of data they sampled is sufficiently large to justify drawing conclusions from.

I would also have pointed out that because apologists would concede that there comes a time in the life of the unbeliever when helping his child with homework is reasonable, that is one potential justification for avoiding miracle claims.  Gee, how many other facets of the average unbeliever's life, would the apologist say are more important than miracle investigation?  Can we be reasonable to leave the internet long enough to use the toilet?  Or would reasonable people take the computer into the bathroom, because to miss that one provable and true miracle claim is to risk wrongfully deciding miracles are false, and ending up in hell?

If the unbeliever has a job which pays the bills, then how can you justify saying he should put the bible down, turn off the internet, and concentrate on his worldly job to any degree?  Isn't it true that such unbeliever is always merely one heartbeat away from the gates of an irreversible eternity of torment?  Isn't his spiritual condition more important than his worldly concerns?

 Must you not, consistent with your intense support of Christian apologetics, tell him that it would be more rational to get rid of everything in his life that gives him an excuse to cease the miracle investigations?

But if the unbeliever need not give up the normative daily things in his life that limit the amount of time he can spend investigating miracles (taking kids to school, having a job, sleeping, eating, etc), then you cannot really say at what point he is irrationally avoiding miracles and bible investigation.

Would you advise juries to never make a finding of "guilty", all because it's always going to be possible that the criminal suspect is innocent?  No.  The fact that there might be one piece of evidence out there they haven't seen yet, that would prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, does not make the jury unreasonable to find the prosecutor's case convincing.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if there is one miracle-claim out there that proves god's existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the skeptic who takes no longer to hear miracle evidence than a jury takes to hear evidence in a criminal case, is going to be reasonable to draw a negative conclusion if his reasons for it cohere with normative investigative protocol.

I don't know what your views on "hell" are, but if they are anything like those of the typical Southern Baptist, then my above-arguments show that there is too much urgent danger to justify sitting down and doing 20 book reports on the latest scholarly apologetics offerings.
Even non-Christian philosophers have pointed out the fallacies in his logic, but atheists generally don’t care as long as Hume serves their purpose.
 And you foster our allegedly apathetic attitude by mouthing off in what amounts to a hit-and-run reply.

But to answer on the merits, I'm quite aware of the problems in Hume's formulations, but his basic argument was reasonable.  His error in calling a miracle a "violation" of natural law does nothing to sublimate his general argument.  The more a claim's assertions depart from the hearer's confirmed experience of reality, the more the hearer is justified to demand a level of evidence that is greater in quantity and quality than what we normally expect to support claims that conform to normative experience.  A picture might be enough to show that you walked into a store.  But it wouldn't be enough to show that you levitated by supernatural power.

By the way, if you were genuinely sincere, I would suggest that you read Craig Keeners’ two volumes on Miracles in which he provides a devastating critique of Hume.   
Ok, then I must be genuinely sincere under your own criteria, because I previously sent Keener the ultimate challenge to his miracle claims, and, shock, surprise, neither he nor any of his supporters has ever dared to accept the challenge or answer my questions.
    Some of your other argument are just plain silly—I almost laughed out loud at #21!    
 You should direct your laughter to the book of Daniel which makes the claim that angels guard certain parts of the earth, and that earthly chaos arises when and if that angel loses a battle with a demon.  Here's what two Christian scholars have to say:


10:13 One of the strangest accounts in the Bible is now unfolded. The angel related that he was coming to bring Daniel the answer to his prayer but was delayed because “the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days.” Finally, Michael (whose name means “who is like God?”), one of the most powerful and important angels (“one of the chief princes”), came to the interpreting angel’s aid. Evidently the reason that Michael became involved and not another powerful angel was that Daniel was interceding for Israel, a nation especially entrusted to Michael’s care (v. 21).
The NIV’s “detained there with the king of Persia”827 could mean that the angel was prevented from leaving the area ruled by the human king of the Persian Empire. Yet the Hebrew word translated “king” is plural, and the concept of the angel’s being “detained with” the earthly kings of Persia seems
untenable. In the context of angelic warfare, these “kings” likely were spiritual rulers who attempted to control Persia.
Miller, S. R. (2001, c1994). Vol. 18: Daniel. Includes indexes. (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 284).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
 
10:5–9 …A few passages, however, suggest that there are heavenly armies that oppose Yahweh, so that earthly battles reflect battles in heaven; whichever side wins in heaven, its equivalent wins on earth.
Goldingay, J. E. (2002). Vol. 30: Word Biblical Commentary : Daniel.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 291). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

You apologists are always screaming about how grossly immoral the pagan nations were.  If they really did engage in unrestrained bestiality and burning children to death, they likely also approved of pedophilia.  Unless you think the above-cited Christian commentators got it wrong (the first is an inerrantist, the second is an evangelical), then my challenge, about the bible explaining child rape in California on the basis of California's angel losing a sky-battle with a demon, is perfectly consistently with what the book of Daniel teaches.
    On #8, many (if not most) Christian scholars are even more skeptical than you.
 Which is another reason you should have cordially assumed that I'm not a wild-eyed skeptic guilty of the hair-brained half-assed stupidity that you apply to me.
They would say that Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! In fact, I doubt that Wright would say Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses.
 That's correct, and when such an authority as Wright says such things, you cannot really say whether the investigating skeptic "needs" to do more investigation before his own negative conclusion can be reasonable.
But this was simply irrelevant to his arguments on the Resurrection (come to think of it, have you actually ever read N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God or Mike Licona’s “Resurrection of Jesus”—or did you just skim them, or worse yet, just read the Amazon reviews?    
 Yes, I've read both of them.  Wright's attempt to avoid Mark's lost ending is unconvincing to say the least, and if he is correct, Mark's ending need not have said anything more than that the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee.  Nothing more is required from the earlier Markan material where Jesus promises to see them in Galilee.  That still leaves Wright with the earliest gospel having the least to say about Jesus' resurrection, rationally justifying the hypothesis that the later gospels have more detailed resurrection appearance narratives only because of emebellishment, not because Mark "chose to exclude" all that fantastic important stuff.

Licona fatally agrees with the majority of scholars that Jesus' family rejected him and his ministry at least as late as the crucifixion, and I capitalize on that admission by asking whether it makes sense to say that Jesus' own family, in that collectivist society where they could not avoid hearing about Jesus' miracles, should witness these allegedly genuine miracles for three years and still somehow persuade themselves, in this honor/shame society, that they were fakes or being done by Satan's power.

I've also reviewed and found wanting the arguments of Lunn and Snapp in their attempt to falsify the Christian scholarly majority view and assert Mark's long ending was authentically written by Mark.  No dice.

If your question about my scholarly research was sincere, would you have loaded it up with all that condescending context?
    Many of your arguments amount to “I’m right and all scholars who disagree with me are wrong”
They were presented as honest challenges and offers to deal with the best you could possibly offer in rebuttal, they were not presented as the juvenile rhetoric you claim. Can you think of anything more routine than for somebody to think that a scholar had gotten something wrong?  How does my disagreement with a scholar besmirch my sincerity or credibility?
and some other arguments are things that some Christians would agree with—but they are not sufficient to destroy their faith.
 My challenges to you were not intended to destroy anybody's faith.  They were intended to force you to admit that the skeptical view on those matters can be reasonable.  There's a big difference. Contrary to popular belief, your being reasonable to be a Christian doesn't automatically operate to make atheists unreasonable .  Sometimes data is sufficiently ambiguous that it allows two opposing hypotheses to be equally reasonable.  It's why juries deadlock and why dedicated fundamentalists often change their mind about bible doctrine several times in a lifetime.
    Christianity does not rest on inerrancy or the interpretation of this or that verse (One need only read James’ Dunn’s Jesus Remembered or Dale Allison’s “Constructing Jesus” to know that (and neither of them are even conservative, much less fundamentalist).  
 I agree, and I never expressed or implied that proving inerrancy wrong would collapse Christianity.  But that doesn't mean blasting inerrancy is pointless.  There ARE fundamentalist loudmouths in the world who push inerrancy to a degree that causes psychological harm for the less informed Christians.  I am doing something good in refuting these sorry bastards. 
So if you are really serious, I would suggest starting with the book, “There is a god” by the once world-renowned atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew (the atheist grand-father to atheists like Dawkins or Hitchings). He did not become a Christian but he finally concluded—after years of defending atheism—that atheism is simply not scientifically possible.   
Sorry, I disagree with your narrow minded idea that I cannot be serious unless I read books you recommend.  And I'm well aware of Anthony Flew and I've already publicly stated that I find that man to be a very poor excuse of an atheist.  I seriously wonder whether he was suffering from a brain disorder when he was debating Habermas on the John Ankerberg show.  Flew could have steamrolled Habermas, but instead appears to be throwing nothing but softball responses.  Here is how I responded to a YouTube video of the entire Flew/Habermas debate hosted by John Ankerberg:
Sorry, but as an atheist myself, I do not think Flew does very well in public debates, despite how much he is lauded by other atheists as a smart guy. Habermas does most of the talking, Ankerberg usually ends a segment after Habermas has had his last say, and the Christians in the audience were no doubt wrongly thinking that because Flew is a smart guy, his performance here shows them how weak the non-believer responses are. I would have argued that under Christian scholar consensus that Mark is the earliest gospel and ended at 16:8, it is reasonable (at least for the unbeliever who has a life and cannot just google Christian scholarship minority positions 18 hours a day) to believe that the earliest form of the gospel did not say a resurrected Jesus appeared to anybody, thus further implying, if patristic testimony can be trusted, that Peter also didn't tell the Roman unbelievers that Jesus made any resurrection appearances, thus further implying that fictional embellishment is the likely reason the later 3 gospels have resurrection appearance narratives, ultimately ridding Christian apologists of the very eyewitness evidence they admit is so crucial to their case...
Ingolfsland continues:
    Then read the Hidden Face of God by Gerald Schroeder which is the book that changed Flew’s mind. Schroeder is a brilliant scientist (from MIT as I recall, and not a Christian).   
    Then read Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer (And Signature of Controversy which is Meyer’s response to his critics). Meyer is a scientist and philosopher of science from Cambridge University who studied every significant theory of the origin of life ever proposed—and shows that all of them fail scientifically. (Some would say that the problem with atheists is not just that they are too critical, but that they are too selectively critical. If you would be as skeptical and critical about the origin of life as you are about the Bible, you would abandon your atheism and at least become agnostic)!   
    Then read James Dunn’s Jesus Remembered and Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus. As I said, neither of them are conservative but they show how honest historians approach the Life of Jesus apart from any assumptions about the Bible being inspired, much less inerrant.    
    Finally, read the two volume set on Miracles by Craig Keener, The Resurrection of Jesus by Michael Licona and the Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.   
I feel insulted that you could seriously think the person who submitted those 24 challenges to you, probably hasn't already heard of those books already.  Once again, you are letting your religious zeal get in the way of your better judgment. And your teaching position in a private Christian school can induce you to keep the Christian emotions running strong even if you feel you shouldn't.  We all want to impress our peers and our bosses.
    As I said, there is no absolute certainty in this world.
And I never expressed or implied that lack of absolute certainty in the Christian position thus lets atheists off the hook.
All we have is possibilities, probabilities, evidence, etc.
 Agreed.  I passed Philosophy 101 and Historiography Preschool about 15 years ago.
Two people can look at exactly the same evidence—whether in law, or science, or medicine—and come to radically different conclusions. If someone does not WANT to believe something, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them.    
 That's true for Christians no less than atheists.  So unless you say all debate between the two groups is a waste of time, you don't really have a point.  And the fact that I'm less skeptical than some Christian scholars, by your own admission, should tell you that I'm a bit more objective than you give credit for.
    The world-famous atheist philosopher, Aldous Huxley, once wrote,   
    “No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingled to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community…The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world [i.e. an atheist like himself] is not concerned exclusively with a problem of pure meta physics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…” (Huxley; Ends and Means, London : Chatto & Windus, 1940. 272)    

Thanks for the reference, and I agree with him and you that complete objectivity is impossible.  I also appreciate Licona for holding the same view. 
And atheism is not a philosophy of meaninglessness.  You are assuming that God's existence is what gives rise to meaningfulness.  You are wrong.  Atheism only says there is no god.  What moral conclusions a person should draw from atheism, is another question.  And yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with Frank Turek and his "Stealing from God" stuff.  His blind assumption that any moral is necessarily objective, is laughable.  I've also steamrolled Matthew Flannagan, who similarly goes around pretending that moral relativism is fallacious.  Over the course of about a year, when I debated him and asked him what moral yardstick he was using to claim that babies shouldn't' be tortured, or that parents have a duty to avoid harming their kids, Flannagan went silent, and this last time, his website conveniently banned me, though in private email he denied banning me.  This convinced me that squeezing god out of morals is a very weak argument; it only works with those who already agree that the badness of some human actions is beyond dispute.  Flannagan's bible tells him that god put his laws into our heart, but Flannagan never goes there, he simply bans me when I ask the hard questions.
  For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness [atheism] was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired for simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people [in context, he is talking about Christians] and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever” (Huxley, Ends and Means, 273.    

    I admire Huxley’s honesty. He is saying that for him, and the other atheist philosophers he knew, they chose atheism because without God, they were free to live as they want. 
That's one of the benefits of atheism, but it no more follows that this is every atheist's reason to disbelieve, than the fact that some people use religion as a crutch because they have a weak mind, should mean this is the case for every person who becomes a Christian.
    At its heart, atheism is rarely, if ever, about problems in the biblical text.Atheism is a heart issue.
 Now you are just preaching the choir. I could just as easily say that Christianity is a heart issue, not an intellectual issue.  You are only a Christian because you WANT it to be true, etc, etc. 
Jesus and Paul teach that people are in sinful rebellion against God and that unless they repent of their rebellion and turn to Jesus they will face the wrath of God.
 Then they were liars, Saul must have heard the best quality Christian testimony available when he was imprisoning and torturing the Christians, yet after conversion, he says he obtained mercy because his violence toward the church was done in ignorance and unbelief:
 12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
 14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus.
 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1 Tim. 1:12-15 NAU)
I've never mistreated Christians anywhere nearly as violently as Paul did, so if anything, I am less culpable than Paul for "rejecting the truth".  If Paul can be considered to have acted ignorantly despite his likely having heard the best quality Christian testimony numerous times, I have supreme confidence, that, if Christianity is true, God will deem modern unbelievers even less culpable, given that we are now limited to 2,000 year old documents whose authorship and provenance are doubted by even many Christian scholars.
Atheists don’t want to be told they are sinners (although in your heart you know it’s true).
Yeah right.  And in your heart you know Jesus didn't rise form the dead, you just pretend he did because that's what currently keeps your bills paid.  Must you insult the intelligence of bible skeptics who are smarter than you give them credit for?  What did I do?  Steal joy?
The way to avoid that annoying guilt is to deny that there is a God and then to desperately look for ways to justify your belief (faith).    
Again, preaching to the choir.  I must be more objective than you.  I was willing to justify my position with scholarly argument and discussion with you.  You've chosen the lower road of insulting my intelligence, expecting me to think your sermon constitutes the very presence of God, and then walking away warning me that you won't reply further.
    So what’s your issue, Barry? Pornography? Self-indulgence? Dishonesty? Greed? Envy? Arrogance? Alcoholism? Drugs?
The innuendo suggests your fear of corresponding with me in a scholarly polite way on the merits.
You can continue to try to ease your conscience by denying God’s existence (is that working for you?),
Does believing in god take away that terribly empty feeling you get when you think about life without god?
or you can confront your sin by confessing your rebellion to God, asking his forgiveness, and committing your life to Jesus. He can give you the clear conscience and life of peace you are looking for.  

What you don't mention is that "committing your life to Jesus" is also found by many to do little more than cause them depression.  You wrongfully and blindly assume that any such problems are the sole fault of the imperfect sinner not being sincere enough, or not having the right theological views.

You also fallaciously and blindly presume that what you offer is available to me, when you bible makes it abundantly clear that God could be judging a certain person and refusing to give them the peace of mind even though they seek with a sincerity that produces tears of remorse (Hebrews 12:17).  Perhaps you should become a charismatic or a Pentecostal, so you can have enough discernment to tell whether or not the unbeliever you are dealing with really does have the option you think they do.  I wonder whether the children of Babylon had the option to avoid the rapes and murders that God foisted on them and their families in Isaiah 13:16.  Don't forget your bible teaches a corporate solidarity that punishes children for the sins of the fathers.  God didn't have to make David's baby sick for 7 days before killing it, but he wanted to torture that baby this much anyway because of David's sin:
 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.  (2 Sam. 12:13-18 NAU)
Ingolfsland continues:
    But if you come from a fundamentalist background you know all that. The problem is that you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater! Fundamentalists generally define faith as some kind of intellectual belief in certain doctrines. Since you can no longer believe in all those doctrines, you reject Christianity.
 There you go again, blindly assuming things you couldn't possibly know.  What kind of university do you teach at?  KJV Only?

You also give no heed to my reasons for rejecting those doctrines.  
But as John Calvin wrote, faith “is more of the heart than of the brain, and more of the disposition that of the understanding” (Institutes 3.2.8; and no, I’m not a Calvinist).
 That's another problem:  I also reject Christianity because the bible supports Calvinism and thus supports a a stupid doctrine that says God openly forbids us from doing what he secretly causes us to do.  Yes, there are bible verses that oppose Calvinism, but that hardly means there can be none that support it.  There are.  
Saving faith is not just about believing certain doctrines like inerrancy. It is about sincerely repenting from our sin and turning our lives over to Jesus Christ in loving devotion as savior and king. Read my little booklet, “Will the real Jesus Please Stand Up.”    
What makes you think my stay in fundamentalism was all doctrine and no sincere repentance? A 2,000 year old book of questionable authorship that says unbelievers are without excuse and true believers never apostatize?  LOL.
    I’ve read all of the books I mentioned above as well as over a hundred other scholarly books on Jesus—including many critics who attack Jesus and the New Testament.
 So have I.
I find there is enough evidence for me to take an educated step of faith and follow Jesus.
 It doesn't matter if that is true.  It can also be reasonable to reject Christianity as a false religion. That which is "reasonable" cannot be nailed down with rigid certainty, and it is very often the case that reasonable people come to different but equally reasonable interpretations of evidence and history.  But clearly, your need to be dogmatic leaves no room for such realities.
If you don’t, we live in a free country and that’s your right.
I challenged your beliefs on the merits.  We've moved beyond what my rights are, and have entered the arena of whether my viewpoints are reasonable.
    I’ve lived a good life. I’ve been a good husband, father and grandfather. I’ve given thousands and thousands of dollars to good causes. Have helped feed starving children and taught thousands of people to love others and be compassionate to people. I didn’t do all this to earn anything from God. I did it because I am convinced of the love, grace and mercy God showed me on the cross of Jesus Christ.
 So?  Lots of non-Christians do all the things you just mentioned.  Must their non-Christian metaphysics be true?
So if you are right and I am wrong about all this, I will go to my death in peace, never knowing that I was wrong—but having lived a good, worthwhile life.    

    On the other hand, if I am right and you are wrong… We’ll let’s just say there is a lot at stake so it is worth the time to read all these books I recommend with a genuinely open mind—unless, of course, your atheism is driven by something other than serious intellectual doubts. (If you don’t read anything else, please, at least read my little booklet in the link).    
Do you believe that I am always just one heartbeat away from the gates of hell?  If so, how can you ask me to do things that logically imply I can safely delay the day of my repentance? Is there a reason that I should be confident I won't die in an accident in the two weeks it takes me to read the material you suggested I read?

If you think I could die at any moment, and if you believe there is no limbo or purgatory, we just go to heaven or hell at death, then isn't your asking me to read some books, really in effect asking me to be confident that I can safely delay my repentance?
    Well, I think I’ve said all I’m going to say on this topic. Please don’t bother to respond. I won’t answer. I’ve taken all the time I can afford to take on this. Whatever you decide, I wish you a good life.

    Dennis

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...