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.
- 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.
- 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”.
- 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.
- 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.
- The
resurrection accounts in each of the 4 canonical gospels contradict Acts
1:3
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Jesus
taught a legalistic salvation totally contrary to Paul’s version of the
gospel.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
...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.
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
