Friday, April 5, 2019
My latest messages to homosexual Christian James Patrick Holding
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIOe0qfXnQ
Sent April 5, 2019
Cerebral Faith: A plea for Evan Minton to be realistic...and the plea was successful
Update April 5, 2019, 1:50 p.m.
This was a comprehensive post addressing Mr. Minton's allowing legally actionable slanders of me at his blog. I had noticed Minton classified as "slander" speech toward him from YECs that was even less abusive and libelous than what Holding posted at his blog about me. I argued that under Minton's understanding of slander, he surely thinks Holding's mouth is even more out of control than the YECs.
Apparently, at the exact same time that I was authoring this post in the last few minutes, Evan Minton was deleting from his blog that post from James Patrick Holding that was so slanderous. That is, Mr. Minton granted my request that he remove Holding's libelous post.
Thank you, Mr. Minton. You did the right thing. At the end of the day, there really isn't any serious arguing about what "reviler" means in 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 means, nor what that passage compels true Christians to do. You've shown a level of spiritual maturity I never see in Holding's own followers. Hopefully you aren't one of his followers.
So while I had completed a full post on this very subject, I've chosen to delete it. Minton did the right thing, so continued criticism of him on that count is unwarranted. I will simply remind the Christian reader of biblical truths that Holding has never had the slightest interest in obeying:
Christians are to disassociate themselves from "Christians" who constantly "revile" others:
Jesus said slanders are something from within a man that defiles him:
This was a comprehensive post addressing Mr. Minton's allowing legally actionable slanders of me at his blog. I had noticed Minton classified as "slander" speech toward him from YECs that was even less abusive and libelous than what Holding posted at his blog about me. I argued that under Minton's understanding of slander, he surely thinks Holding's mouth is even more out of control than the YECs.
Apparently, at the exact same time that I was authoring this post in the last few minutes, Evan Minton was deleting from his blog that post from James Patrick Holding that was so slanderous. That is, Mr. Minton granted my request that he remove Holding's libelous post.
Thank you, Mr. Minton. You did the right thing. At the end of the day, there really isn't any serious arguing about what "reviler" means in 1st Corinthians 5:11-13 means, nor what that passage compels true Christians to do. You've shown a level of spiritual maturity I never see in Holding's own followers. Hopefully you aren't one of his followers.
So while I had completed a full post on this very subject, I've chosen to delete it. Minton did the right thing, so continued criticism of him on that count is unwarranted. I will simply remind the Christian reader of biblical truths that Holding has never had the slightest interest in obeying:
Christians are to disassociate themselves from "Christians" who constantly "revile" others:
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)
Don't know what "reviler" means in v. 11? I already addressed that in a prior blog post here. I said:
"Reviler" in the Greek is λοίδορος---loidoros, and several lexicons make clear it is talking about the person who goes around insulting and slandering others. From TDNT:
Paul was very clear that Christians who manifest ceaseless anger and abusive speech are only showing they aren't truly transformed by Christ:449Danker:
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]---------Source: here.
4004 λοίδοροςDon't know what "insolent" means?
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.
Source: here.
1 : insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct : overbearing
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
7 Therefore do not be partakers with them;
8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (Eph. 5:1-8 NAU)4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.
5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- (Col. 3:4-10 NAU)
...And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)
Jesus said slanders are something from within a man that defiles him:
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)
He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)
19. Gossips are treacherous; cf. Instruction of Amen-em-ope: “Spread not thy words to the common people, nor associate to thyself one too outgoing of heart” (ANET 424a).20.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
James Patrick Holding's followers: toddlers who make fun of trigonometry
Apparently, one of Holding's babies has been bitten by the "snark = truth" bug, so I'll take this time to straighen her out on the obvious common sense she has, that she willfully suppresses in blind support of her religious delusions. From the comment section of one of James Patrick Holding's videos, source here:
Then you are either one of the more idiotic of Holding's followers, or you have been sorely misinformed about your own reality, to say nothing of common sense. Allow me to enlighten you with facts you'll never get from those who are paid to be Jesus' cheerleaders.
Suppose a stranger on a bus tells you he walked into a store yesterday. Suppose he shows you a picture of him walking into a store you've been to many times, and therein he looks just like he does on the bus. How much effort would you put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc)? NONE.
Suppose you find out the stranger is free on bail pending a charge of auto-theft, and plans to use this picture to "prove" that he wasn't 250 miles away stealing a car in another city at the time the car was stolen? How much effort would you wish the prosecutor to put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc)? MORE.
Suppose another stranger on the bus tells you they can levitate without using any physical means to do so, whenever nobody is looking. They then try to substantiate this by showing you a picture they took of themselves in mid-air above the floor in their house. How much effort would you need to put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc) before you became open to the possibility of accepting the claim as true? LOTS.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" or "ECREE", is not only common sense, it is the normal way YOU think. The fact that you believe normal claims upon normal evidence that you encounter on a daily basis, doesn't mean you always believe what you see. The truth is that the more somebody else's claim sounds improbable to you, the more rigid tests of authentication you'll require the evidence to pass before you'll be open to accepting the claim as true.
If the evidence is being used to support an ordinary claim not involving, miracle, crime or alibi, most of us, including Christians, see no reason to be suspicious.
But the more extraordinary the claim, the more effort most people, including Christians, will will put into authenticating the allegedly supporting "evidence" before they believe the claim to be true. We are perfectly well aware that pictures can be modified, testimony can be falsified, eyewitnesses can be mistaken in their conclusions about what they were looking at, etc.
I wouldn't give two shits about gospel authorship if all these books did was tell about a non-miraculous Jesus. I'd just refer to "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in common parlance without raising an issue, because it wouldn't matter either way.
But because the gospels tell about a Jesus who did things that are "extraordinary", then no, I will not be as uncritically accepting that apostle Matthew really is the author of the gospel now bearing his name.
How would my increase in skepticism be qualitatively different than in the case of you and the stranger who uses a picture to prove he can float? You have bigger problems with claims the more they assert that which you deem improbable...and so do I. What?
This more skeptical attitude is perfectly consistent with the common sense way that EVERYBODY reacts. The more the claim departs from typical experience (Jesus rising from the dead), the more everybody demands a stricter criteria of authentication.
The reason isn't hard to figure out: there are thousands of false miracle claims in the world, wherein liars have set forth pictures and testimony to support false claims. So it only makes sense, in the name of ultimate truth, for the degree of authentication rigidity to increase proportionally with the degree to which we think a claim is improbable.
If you were told that ECREE is a mere subterfuge and only means "miraculous claims require miraculous evidence", a concoction by skeptics in the effort to make sure they can always get away from real miracles, you've been duped. ECREE is obeyed and observed by everybody who is not crazy.
Can you imagine what would happen to America's justice system, if lawyers and judges suddenly denied ECREE and simply believed all claims where presented with possibly valid evidence?
Indeed, have you ever been suspicious somebody was lying while lacking direct proof they were lying? Yes. Does that mean you were irrationally skeptical? No, because many times our hunches about another's dishonesty prove accurate. It means you are a skeptic.
I suggest you stop getting your knowledge from a Christian "teacher" whose long history of intentional slander forces you to disassociate yourself from him anyway (1st Cor. 5:11-13), give up the dogmatic snarky attitude as if you could actually survive a debate with a philosophically informed atheist, and recognize that it is your own choice to remain hidden safely behind your anonymity, which testifies most strongly that a person with your brain power has no moral right to be dogmatic about this stuff. you don't know enough about it to even recognize when you are wrong.
You can be dogmatic about sandwiches, puppies, the existence of cars, and clean air. But you need to grow the fuck up and recognize how ill-equipped you are to handle epistemology...and to accordingly back off the snarky attitude. Us atheists are anything but wrong when we give the middle finger to the bible and insist our authentication criteria remain reasonable despite your inability to fulfill them.
See my prior defense of ECREE, and my rebuttal to Nick Peters on the subject here.
Then you are either one of the more idiotic of Holding's followers, or you have been sorely misinformed about your own reality, to say nothing of common sense. Allow me to enlighten you with facts you'll never get from those who are paid to be Jesus' cheerleaders.
Suppose a stranger on a bus tells you he walked into a store yesterday. Suppose he shows you a picture of him walking into a store you've been to many times, and therein he looks just like he does on the bus. How much effort would you put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc)? NONE.
Suppose you find out the stranger is free on bail pending a charge of auto-theft, and plans to use this picture to "prove" that he wasn't 250 miles away stealing a car in another city at the time the car was stolen? How much effort would you wish the prosecutor to put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc)? MORE.
Suppose another stranger on the bus tells you they can levitate without using any physical means to do so, whenever nobody is looking. They then try to substantiate this by showing you a picture they took of themselves in mid-air above the floor in their house. How much effort would you need to put into authenticating this picture and the claims made about it (i.e., see the originals and negatives, inspect the camera, go to the location and compare reality with the picture, interview cameraman, interview witnesses, etc, etc) before you became open to the possibility of accepting the claim as true? LOTS.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" or "ECREE", is not only common sense, it is the normal way YOU think. The fact that you believe normal claims upon normal evidence that you encounter on a daily basis, doesn't mean you always believe what you see. The truth is that the more somebody else's claim sounds improbable to you, the more rigid tests of authentication you'll require the evidence to pass before you'll be open to accepting the claim as true.
If the evidence is being used to support an ordinary claim not involving, miracle, crime or alibi, most of us, including Christians, see no reason to be suspicious.
But the more extraordinary the claim, the more effort most people, including Christians, will will put into authenticating the allegedly supporting "evidence" before they believe the claim to be true. We are perfectly well aware that pictures can be modified, testimony can be falsified, eyewitnesses can be mistaken in their conclusions about what they were looking at, etc.
I wouldn't give two shits about gospel authorship if all these books did was tell about a non-miraculous Jesus. I'd just refer to "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in common parlance without raising an issue, because it wouldn't matter either way.
But because the gospels tell about a Jesus who did things that are "extraordinary", then no, I will not be as uncritically accepting that apostle Matthew really is the author of the gospel now bearing his name.
How would my increase in skepticism be qualitatively different than in the case of you and the stranger who uses a picture to prove he can float? You have bigger problems with claims the more they assert that which you deem improbable...and so do I. What?
This more skeptical attitude is perfectly consistent with the common sense way that EVERYBODY reacts. The more the claim departs from typical experience (Jesus rising from the dead), the more everybody demands a stricter criteria of authentication.
The reason isn't hard to figure out: there are thousands of false miracle claims in the world, wherein liars have set forth pictures and testimony to support false claims. So it only makes sense, in the name of ultimate truth, for the degree of authentication rigidity to increase proportionally with the degree to which we think a claim is improbable.
If you were told that ECREE is a mere subterfuge and only means "miraculous claims require miraculous evidence", a concoction by skeptics in the effort to make sure they can always get away from real miracles, you've been duped. ECREE is obeyed and observed by everybody who is not crazy.
Can you imagine what would happen to America's justice system, if lawyers and judges suddenly denied ECREE and simply believed all claims where presented with possibly valid evidence?
Indeed, have you ever been suspicious somebody was lying while lacking direct proof they were lying? Yes. Does that mean you were irrationally skeptical? No, because many times our hunches about another's dishonesty prove accurate. It means you are a skeptic.
I suggest you stop getting your knowledge from a Christian "teacher" whose long history of intentional slander forces you to disassociate yourself from him anyway (1st Cor. 5:11-13), give up the dogmatic snarky attitude as if you could actually survive a debate with a philosophically informed atheist, and recognize that it is your own choice to remain hidden safely behind your anonymity, which testifies most strongly that a person with your brain power has no moral right to be dogmatic about this stuff. you don't know enough about it to even recognize when you are wrong.
You can be dogmatic about sandwiches, puppies, the existence of cars, and clean air. But you need to grow the fuck up and recognize how ill-equipped you are to handle epistemology...and to accordingly back off the snarky attitude. Us atheists are anything but wrong when we give the middle finger to the bible and insist our authentication criteria remain reasonable despite your inability to fulfill them.
See my prior defense of ECREE, and my rebuttal to Nick Peters on the subject here.
Cold Case Christianity: there is no Holy Spirit, so employ these psychological tricks for greater effect
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
How much effort must you put into apologetics, before us atheists begin to be justified in our suspicion that the "Holy Spirit" constitutes nothing but gratuitous afterthought?
Every group has its own distinct language, and Christianity is no different. Back when I was an unbeliever, a Christian friend approached me and said, “Jim, I’ve been convicted lately, and God has put you on my heart. God told me you need to be born again; you need to come to repentance and experience a conversion. It’s time for you to deal with the sin in your life and have a true spiritual rebirth. Why don’t you invite Jesus into your heart and make Him the Lord of your life? If you have faith you can be saved. You can be washed by the Blood of the Lamb, and sanctified so you can enjoy fellowship with your Christian brethren.” OK, he didn’t actually put it quite like that. But he might as well have. I couldn’t understand a thing he said. His “Christianese” was fluent and mine was not. Years later, I found myself using much of the same language with my unbelieving friends, only to find them equally confused and alienated. So, here’s a list of common Christian expressions I’ve decided to translate for all my friends who are still speaking the language of the secular culture:
Amen.#1. “God has put you (or something) on my heart. / God told me.”Really? As an atheist, I was offended by this kind of language. What makes you Christians so sure you know what God is thinking? Are you actually hearing a voice from Heaven? Does it sound like Morgan Freeman? Sounds a bit presumptuous to me.
In which case, if God really did cause you to be motivated to talk to Jim like that, you are refusing to glorify god when you refuse to proclaim who is responsible for the motive in your heart. Sounds like you think there's more power in language than in the Holy Spirit.Try this instead: “Jim, I’ve been thinking about you a lot lately. You come to mind when I am praying and talking to God.”
Good answer. I would have said Jesus is a disgusting pig for using a metaphor like that since whatever he wished to teach, probably didn't "require" that he lead an orthodox Jew into thoughts of incest.#2. “Be ‘born again.’ / Have a spiritual rebirth.”Is “Born Again” a political party or something you want me to join? Aren’t all Christians “born again?” If so, why are you using the additional adjective? Are “Born Agains” the true, hardcore Christians? Are they political activists like the modern day “Birthers”? Sorry, I’m too busy to become a fanatic or join a movement.
But the answer would be: "why? according to your bible, annihilationism is true, a fate I've already expected and accepted as an atheist. No thanks, I'll do what I want".Try this instead: “Reconsider your beliefs and begin a new life as a Christian.”
Well your god is not all-powerful. See Christian apologist Greg Boyd here.#3. “You need to come to repentance. / Experience a conversion.”My mother used to take me to Catholic Mass occasionally when I was a small boy. I hated it. I never understood what those priests were saying, but I’m sure it had something to do with “penance,” “penitence,” or “repentance.” Didn’t King James die a long time ago? Why are we still trying to talk like him?Try this instead: “You and I might be ‘good’ at times but we’re not ‘perfect.’ If God is all-powerful, He has the ability to be perfect.
So basically what you are saying is Luke 1:6 is a lie, because God would never consider sinners to be righteous by their obedience?The only way imperfect creatures like you and I can be united to a perfect God is to accept the pardon He’s offering for our imperfection.”
It also said he had motives in contradiction to the Father's purposes, see Matthew 26:39. He cannot have a rational motive to say "not my will...", if his will was always in perfect accord with the Father's. And again, the bible doesn't specify this is only the human half of Jesus, and non-Christian readers are fully reasonable to insist that this is talking about ALL of Jesus (i.e., it was both his human and divine sides that manifested a will contrary to the Father's).#4. “Deal with your sin.”You go ahead and deal with your sin if you want to. I’m too busy dealing with everyone else’s sin. I’m a police officer, for crying out loud; we’re the “good guys.” We put the “bad guys” in jail, and most of the folks I arrest tell me they’re Christians. Please Mr. “Holier Than Thou,” don’t start talking to me about my “sin.” It’s offensive.Try this instead: “The Bible says Jesus is God
"perfect" means precisely nothing beyond our individual relativistic definitions. if perfect means "all-wise", then Jesus was not perfect in his childhood years, see Luke 2:40, he could hardly grow in wisdom if he were already "perfect" in wisdom. And that verse doesn't say it was merely the "human nature" of Jesus that grew in wisdom, you are only reading that caveat into the text because you insist in bible inerrancy and you insist other parts of the bible declare that Jesus is god in his nature, two presuppositions sufficiently controversial as to rationally warrant the atheist, if they so choose, to wash their hands entirely of this word-game called "bible".and the only perfect man who ever lived.
Nope, he died because he was a criminal, nothing more, and it is only a martydom complex cult that told itself his defeat was actually a victory ( coming from the same stupid fortune cookie crap that says "my strength is made perfect in weakness". Funny how we never think our defeat of an enemy was a "victory" for them). Not much different from the bereaved parents who insist their rececntly deceased child is in a better place. It might feel good to say it, that doesn't mean it is true.Yet He died like a common criminal to pay the price for our daily ‘crimes’ of imperfection.
Thus begging the question of how it can be meaningful to say "Jesus died for your sins", and yet this benefit can be held back by unbelief. What exactly happened to YOUR sins, Wallace, at the moment Jesus died for them? And should I bring a Calvinist into the debate to remind your readers of how faulty your understanding of the bible is?If we are willing to accept what Jesus did for us on the cross, He’s willing to apply His perfection to us.”
Excellent answer.#5. “Invite Jesus into your heart.”You mean like a boyfriend? What exactly does that mean to have “Jesus in my heart?” I’m not an emotional kind of guy, so please don’t ask me to sing songs or hold hands with Jesus, especially in public. Do I have to emasculate myself to become a Christian? If so, thanks for reminding me why I’m not a Christian.
My response: if your god really wanted my sins to disappear, he could make them disappear with a wave of his magic wand (2nd Samuel 12:13), and if by monster miracle he can convert somebody far more antagonistic to Christianity than I ever was (Saul/Paul), God can achieve the entire salvation of my soul without lying and saying it all depends on my freewill.Try this instead: “When we admit our imperfections, believe Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our mistakes, and accept His sacrifice, we can start a new relationship with God.”
LOL. I would never want to be more like the god who required burning pre-teen prostitutes to death (Leviticus 21:9). Feel free to say God has learned with the passing of time to be nicer, but only at grave theological cost.#6. “Make Jesus the Lord of your life.”Isn’t this the twenty-first century? Are there still serfs and lords? Was J.R. Tolkien the author of your Scripture? It kind of sounds that way. What is a “Lord” anyway? Is it like a “slave master”? Between bosses and supervisors, most of us have enough people trying to be our “Lord.” Thanks anyway.Try this instead: “As you begin to appreciate the magnitude of God’s forgiveness and sacrifice, you’ll find yourself wanting to be more like Him.”
Fuck you! Jesus didn't give us SHIT. We get precisely nothing about first century Christianity "from Jesus", unless you think Jesus authored the New Testament?#7. “Have faith.”If by “faith” you mean believing in something in spite of the evidence, no thanks. Blind faith is dangerous. I’m a cop; evidence matters to me. You can keep your “faith;” I’d rather have my “reason.” The world would be a better place if fewer people flew planes into buildings because they believed something blindly.Try this instead: “Jesus gave us more than enough evidence to believe what He said about Himself.
He also healed vast crowds of their illnesses and is not recorded to have nagged any Gentiles about their deficient view of the Hebrew scriptures or whether they need to actually follow him around and hang on his every word. Quite a departure from the Christ represented by modern funda-gelical Christianity, who is never anything more than a literary concept, to be bandied about as an intellectual plaything.He never asked people to take an irrational, blind leap. He asked instead for a reasonable step of trust.”
No thanks, god can get rid of even death-deserving sins of adultery and murder by simply waving his magic wand, no need to "accept" anything. 2nd Samuel 12:13.#8. “Be saved.”Saved from what and saved by who? Last time I checked, I’m the guy who usually does the saving. And doesn’t your holy book say “God helps those who help themselves?” I’ve been helping myself for thirty-five years now without a problem. No need to change that. I’m okay, but thanks for the offer.Try this instead: “God doesn’t want anyone to be separated from Him. He’s given us a way home. All we have to do is accept His offer of forgiveness through Jesus.”
It also turns out that you couldn't prove this to save your life. I've already batted down the arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, so all you have is a crucified criminal. I'll pass.#9. “Be washed by the blood of the Lamb.”Tell me you didn’t just say that. I know what a “blood bath” is, and it’s not usually a good thing. I’m not sure what a lamb has to do with it, but lamb’s not my favorite food anyway. Are you trying to get me excited about Christianity or chase me away?Try this instead: “It turns out that the death of one man (Jesus) provides forgiveness for the rest of us.”
or maybe, like lots of non-Christians, they are capable of "fronting" for extended periods.#10. “Be Sanctified.”Is that kind of like “sanctimonious?” I sure know a lot of Christians who are smug and self-righteous. Is that what happens over time if I become a Christian? It certainly seems that way. “Sanctified” sounds a bit arrogant. I bet sanctified people think their pretty “special.” You can keep your pretentious “sanctification.”Try this instead: “Grateful people are selfless people. Christians who understand how much they’ve been forgiven are changed over time.”
What if I never tithe? How happy would your pastor be if I "joined the community", then convinced everybody that tithing is not for the modern church? "grateful" probably isn't the word...Bonus Expression #11. “Enjoy fellowship.”What, another Lord of the Rings reference? Really? Do you people ever use language from this century? Christianity sounds a lot like an exclusive country club. If I join, it sounds like I’ll get to become a “fellow” of some sort. Do I have to give up having a beer with the fellas in order to hang out with the Christian fellows? Hmm, that kind of makes the decision easy for me.Try this instead: “It’s encouraging to find grateful Christians who are struggling to become people of God. We’re out there and eager to have you join our community, regardless of what you may believe today.”
Why? Can't you just tell yourself that because your language was biblically accurate, the job of having those words sink in and convert somebody is not yours, but only the Holy Spirit's?I understand the importance of our theologically rich Christian language, and as a Christian I often use similar words when talking with Christians. But when I’m talking with unbelievers, I try to think about how I used to hear and interpret these words before I became a Christian.
How much effort must you put into apologetics, before us atheists begin to be justified in our suspicion that the "Holy Spirit" constitutes nothing but gratuitous afterthought?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My reply to Bellator Christi's "Three Dangerous Forms of Modern Idolatry"
I received this in my email, but the page it was hosted on appears to have been removed ===================== Bellator Christi Read on blo...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue. See here . He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs. I posted t...
-
https://twitter.com/barry35962347 #lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding
==============
April 9, 2019