TrueFreeThinker

Let us begin this segment by considering a litany of red herrings which are prefaced by the statement,

In any event (whether included in evilbible website or not)

This seems to mean, “I also am not considering the evidence that you have presented and will simply ignore the discussion upon which I am supposed to be engaging. Instead, I will pull out my smoke and mirrors and ask, “Oh yeah, what about this? And this? And this? And this?…” etc.

‘Gods Word of Bible’ has Ezekiel:16 shows up God as a dirty old man grooming an orphan for sex and later an impotent jealous husband who can neither ‘satisfy’ nor punish his adulterous wife:sexy Jerusalem, who slept for FREE with practically the whole of the known world!

She also bestowed presents on the ‘passerby’s who graced her bed and fired her loins! [sic: for the whole thing]

Obviously the reference to “dirty old man” etc. is fallacious and emotive. Within Ezekiel ch.16 God employs various metaphors in order to explain that while He liberated Israel from 400 years of slavery in Egypt (slavery which atheist do not condemn; no books, no lectures, no interviews, no videos-just get back to condemning Jews!) and raised them into a nation they turned away from God much like a wife who turns away from her loving husband and commits fornication.Here is a taste of the various metaphors in that chapter:

on the day you were born,,,

I made you thrive like a plant in the field,,,

I spread My wing over you,,,

I washed you in water,,,

I anointed you with oil,,,

I clothed you,,,

Yet, later on when Israel rejected God,

But you trusted in your own beauty, played the harlot because of your fame, and poured out your harlotry on everyone passing by who would have it,,,

You took some of your garments and adorned multicolored high places for yourself, and played the harlot on them,,,

Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?…

You erected your shrine at the head of every road, and built your high place in every street…

You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband…

The reference to high places and shrines are a reference to rejecting God and worshipping false gods instead. Part of these worship systems was human/child sacrifices (the sort of Gentile Pagan human/child sacrifices which atheist do not condemn-just get back to condemning Jews!).
Yes God presents us with a very understandable way of considering our relationship to Him. Thus, it is not the unbeliever who is condemning “sexy” Israel “who slept for FREE with practically the whole of the known world!” and because they “bestowed presents on the ‘passerby’s who graced her bed and fired her loins!” but God Himself.

The comment continues,

Bible-authors have a fetish for incest between older men and teenage girls / young women:e.g., Lot’s 2 daughters plying him with wine and sleeping with him in turns, simply to get pregnant [Genesis:19: 31-38]

Tamar seducing Judah, her lecherous father-in-law, using a veil (!), which was the uniform of prostitutes in those days, simply because Judah wouldnt [sic] let his youngest son take Tamar as wife-widow of his 2 elder brothers, whom hot Tamar had probably ****** to death. [Genesis: 38: 13-19] [expletive removed]

Note how exaggerated this claim is; the claim is that “Bible-authors have a fetish for incest” and out of the 66 books that make up the Bible and the 40 authors who wrote them the commentator provides precisely two examples.
Of course, this is fallacious from the get go-emotive certainly, but fallacious nonetheless-since I could likewise make the same claim of newspapers: reporters and journalists have a fetish for incest since they report on it. Since the Bible authors are likewise reporting what occurred then it is fallacious to claim that they “have a fetish for incest.” Again this is emotionally charged, exciting, adrenaline spiked but clearly fallacious.

Note also that this commentator did not bother providing an absolute standard by which to condemn incest of even having a fetish for incest by merely writing about incest. They merely launch into condemnation via an argument from outrage without even providing a premise for their outrage and thus leaving their condemnation baseless.

Just read ‘Job’ and see how evil God acts like a demented servant of Satan/Devil.Bible also describes prosperous places on (flat!)earth without Gods presence!

(e.g., The city of Enoch, Nod, east of Eden!) Genesis-4:16-18.

Just how is God the servant of Satan/Devil when the book of Job makes it clear that Satan/Devil cannot make a move without God’s allowance?
“Bible also describes prosperous places on (flat!)earth”? Firstly, the flat earth is an atheist myth. Secondly, Isaiah 40:22 refers to the circle/sphere of the Earth.
As for Genesis-4:16-18, simply too much is being read into it: this is a classic case of taking a text out of context and making a pretext for a prooftext. The context is that Cain was having a conversation with God in a particular locality and then departed that locality and traveled to another locality.

The comment continues thusly,

Bible-God is a non-vegetarian with fetish for slaughter of first-born over fruit of soil from toil: He prefers non-vegetarian over vegetarian (offerings), herders over farmers, Genesis-4:3-7. Fostering inter-brother hate: Genesis-4:8-9 God is protector of brother-murderer! Genesis-4:10-15 (+ safe exile: Genesis-4:16-18)

I am not certainly if that “God is a non-vegetarian” is supposed to be a condemnation. If it is; the commentator did not provide an absolute premise upon which to condemn carnivorism. That God prefers non-vegetarian over vegetarian (offerings) and herders over farmers is clearly fallacious as the very text which is referenced, Genesis-4:3-7, makes it clear that this was not about the contents of the offering but the contents of the heart, the attitude, etc.

And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat.
And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Does God foster inter-brother hate? No, Cain took it upon himself to choose hate, and murder.Did God protect the brother-murderer? Atheists cannot seem to decide on whether God is not forgiving enough or is too forgiving: I suppose they use which ever club is closer at hand when they seek to condemn and beat upon the Bible.In any regard, primarily God states that Cain is now cursed, that he will have to toil in order to have the ground produce for him, and will be a fugitive and a vagabond. Let me guess; now God is too harsh right?

Then God basically states that it is not for other human beings to take the life of the murderer in this case. Note that the commentator provided no absolute premise upon which to condemn murder or, for that matter, protecting a murderer.

The comment continues,

God & Noah foster inter-brother hate & sanction of hereditary slavery: Genesis-9:18-27

There is absolutely no indication that God fostered inter-brother hate. As for Noah, simply stated: Cannan, one of his sons, acted wrongly while two of his sons, Shem and Hapheth, acted rightly. If this causes jealously or “hate” it is indicative of a personal choice (yet, of course this is a mere assertion on the part of the commentator). Moreover, stating that “God & Noah…sanction of hereditary slavery: Genesis-9:18-27” is fallacious since, for one, God is not in view since the speaker is Noah. So what of Noah? He pronounced a curse to the effect of that Canaan “shall be to his brethren” a “servant of servants.” He also states “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem…May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem.” Noah is clearly praising the two who did rightly and condemning the one who did wrongly.
Note that the commentator provided no absolute premise upon which to condemn inter-brother hate, or even fostering inter-brother hate or slavery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

‹ Evilbible – the Polemical Saga Continues, part 5 of 5 up

We now continue considering the group effort by Robert Greg Cavin, Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Peter Kirby, Jeffery Lowder, Evan Fales, Duncan Derrett and Keith Parsons to discredit Jesus’ resurrection?

This group, referred to as a “murder”-a term in this sense is taken from referring to a group of crows a “a murder of crows”-is refuted by one single solitary Christian, Norman L. Geisler, in his article A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave which I have parsed.

Chapter Two: “The Resurrection as Initially Improbable.” By Michael Martin

Summary of the Argument:

Martin argues that “Bayes theorem indicates that if the initial probability of the resurrection is very low, the historical evidence must be extremely strong to make rational belief in the resurrection possible” (53). Further, he insists that even on the assumption of supernaturalism it is low because “there is good reason to expect God would not perform miracles” (53). And “even if some miracles could be expected, there is good reason to suppose they would be rare and thus a priori unlikely in any given case” (53).What is more, even suppose God has a good purpose for redeeming humanity, “given the many alternative ways that this could have been achieved, it is a priori unlikely that he would have chosen to do this in the manner, time, and place depicted in scripture” (53).

His argument is summarized thus: “1. A miracle is initially improbable relative to our background knowledge. 2. If a claim is initially improbable relative to our background knowledge and the evidence for it is not strong, then it should be disbelieved. 3. The Resurrection of Jesus is a miracle claim. 4. The evidence for the Resurrection is not strong. 5. Therefore, the Resurrection of Jesus should be disbelieved” (46).

Martin rejects the free will objection that whatever the probabilities are, a person is free to chose otherwise. He insists that the improbabilities for the resurrection of Christ remain low since we do not know God’s mind.He also rejects the argument that if God exists, there is a high probability that God wants to redeem mankind. He insists that, even granting this, it is still low because we do not know when or where God will chose to resurrect Christ, nor even whether He will since he could redeem mankind some other way.

Response to the Argument:

Martin’s argument is particularly weak for several reasons. First, it admits that given God’s existence, a miracle is possible. If so, then he cannot eliminate the possibility of miracles without disproving God’s existence which no one has succeeded in doing.1

Second, his argument does not eliminate the probability of miracles since if God exists and if He wants to intervene supernaturally, then it is it more than probable that a miracle will happen – it is certain. This in spite of all alleged a priori probabilities to the contrary.

Third, whether a miracle has occurred is not determined by a priori probabilities but by a posteriori facts. Even from a purely experiential perspective, even though the a priori probability is 216 to 1 against getting three sixes on the first toss of three die, it does happen sometimes. And when it does happen, then all probabilities as to whether it would happen are irrelevant. All that is relevant is the evidence as to whether indeed this event did happen.

Fourth, when the free will of God is concerned, the only antecedent factor that is relevant for a miracle is whether He wills for a miracle to happen. And from the empirical side, the only relevant factor as to whether someone came back from the dead is the evidence that he was dead and that he later was alive again. Thus, Martin misses the point on his answer to both proposed objections. For if God wills a resurrection to occur, then there is a 100% chance it will occur. Hence, contrary to the anti-supernaturalist’s claim, given God’s existence, the entire issue boils down to a factual one, namely, what is the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth died and then came back to life some time later.2

Another commentator proposed the following dilemma:

A logic The Paradox of Omnipotence 1. Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. 2. If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question). 3. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).

4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

Note that if we grant that God is not omnipotent this would not disprove God’s existence but demonstrate that human beings have been mistaken regarding one of His attributes.
Now, can God create a stone which He cannot lift (or create a square circle, or a burrito so hot that He cannot eat it, etc.). Restricting the answer to only the word “Yes” or the word “No” is a false dichotomy—this is A logic.
The syllogism is not valid and therefore the conclusion “Therefore God is not omnipotent” is false.

Yet, note that strictly speaking God is not omnipotent since the Bible states, for example, that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). But we appear to be considering a faulty definition of omnipotence.
I begin by asserting that God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift because God is a rational being who does not do anything that violated His nature. Omnipotence should perhaps be thought of as being the ability to do that which is rational and not be thought of as the ability or to do anything and everything—even things that are contradictory. God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift because such illogic, irrationality, is contrary to His very nature and character.

The commentator continued by stating,

And for other fun info use google.

Alrighty then! If you consider Atheist-Pre-Sunday-School to be fun then, by all means.

They also wrote,

Why should i worship God, even if he does exist. Do you worship Bill Gates because he is richer than you? Or force others to worship him?

I have not had a gander at God’s bank account. In any case, this is tantamount to a Q&A I already provided above.

They also wrote,

Does God require us to worship him? Vain!(which incidentally is one of the seven sins) I would also say sc rew [sic] you God. May you rot with your ****** creations in the forsaken ‘heaven’ forever. And I pray to God that he ‘forgives’ me for saying that.

(Hey what is heaven? Do we get to indulge in good food, sex doing nothing else? Why couldnt [sic] he have allowed to do this without being born in earth in the first place).

The issue of referring to God as vain is tantamount to a Q&A I already provided above. I too pray that God forgives the commentator of whatever they need forgiven.
Heaven is a temporary environment that is inhabited by the deceased who chose to live with God forever. Eternal life will be lived in the “new heavens” and “new Earth” in the “new Jerusalem.” There will be food in the eternal abode but no sexual relations but there will be much else: the eternally abiding with God will be the ultimate heuristic experience as in the personal presence of God Himself and in a creation unstained by sin the possibilities are limitless (metaphorically speaking).

The question about why we could not be “allowed to do this without being born in earth in the first place” is rather odd: can you not “indulge in good food, sex doing nothing else”? But I think that the question is why, if we can do that in the here in now why does the Bible assert a heaven in which to do the same? It is not the same and we do not have a very detailed picture of what eternity will be like; such a description would require the Bible to be eternally written as it would be constantly updated with eternal descriptions. But let us grant that in the New Jerusalem we will do the same as we do here; even in such a scenario it will be done in a sin free environment. For example, food will be for enjoyment and sustenance and not for comforting psychologically challenging reasons, as food addiction, towards deleterious health related effects, etc.

The Biblical scenario is that of an initial prefect creation populated by human beings who posses free will and caused the fall into sin which has a deleterious effect upon the creation as a whole. Next comes the offer of forgiveness. Next comes the solidification of the free will choice as those who chose forgiveness—a rejection of sin—are provided with an abode in which to live out this eternal choice. Likewise, those who chose not to have their sins forgiven—who chose, as it were, to keep their sin—likewise are provided with an abode in which to live out this eternal choice.

They also wrote,

And Adam was created in the image of God, how could he be imperfect?

The Bible makes clear that both Adam and Eve, both male and female, were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). They were created with the ability to choose—free will. They chose imperfection. God knows that true love requires choice and so free will was necessary. Free will requires choice for and against. They chose against.
But if they were perfect they would never have chosen against. This is a misunderstanding of what it means to be created in the image of God which appears to mean that they possessed certain likewise attributes such as personhood, volition, rationale, etc. There is no indication that they were perfect or that it follows that “in the image of God” means perfect; after all, an image is not the thing itself.

They also wrote,

Also, Ken(edit) are you a sexist? A follower of the bible must be so. You know Eve and the original sin, all that crap.

No, Ken(edited or unedited) is not a sexist and neither must a follower of the Bible. Let us imagine that, what I take the statement to be, Eve was the cause of the original sin: if this is a fact then stating it is not sexist but merely a factual statement (the comment section to my post Biblical Women is saturated with misconceptions such as that made in the question/assertion). Moreover, this betrays a misunderstanding of the Biblical position on the original sin’s cause as the Bible states,

…If I covered my transgressions as Adam… (Job 31:33)

…For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive… (1st Corinthians 15:22)

…through one man sin entered the world…death reigned from Adam……the transgression of Adam… (Romans 5:12, 14).

Oh, the Biblical emphasis, the fault for original sin, is placed on Adam and not on Eve—well then Ken(edit) must be a sexist? A follower of the bible must be so. You know Adam and the original sin, all that…stuff. If a mollusk had caused the original sin then I would be asked if I am engaging in specism, I must be, etc.

They also wrote,

You know brian [sic] you lose the right to reason as you are [bold]trying[/bold] now since knowledge is the original sin right. Shouldn’t you strive to remove all knowledge from your mind? And grovel, praise, grovel more at the feet of God? What a fascinating life! [[bold]…[/bold] in original]

Apparently, they think that since knowledge was the original sin we should be attempting to rid ourselves or knowledge. It would require knowledge to acquire the knowledge to rid ourselves of knowledge. In any case, this assertion is saturated with fallacies. The original sin was not knowledge but was—you guessed it—sin.

God told Adam and Eve, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Genesis 2:16-17). Ah, there it is; knowledge was the sin—hit the delete button of your brains everyone. We will get back to that.

In order for free will to be truly free there had to be something in the garden which allowed for the possibility of choosing against God—it had to, it must, be there.

The original sin was choosing against that which God had stated, for when Eve is asked “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” she explains that they could eat the fruit of the trees of the garden with the exception of one. Hereafter she is encouraged to rebel by the offer of a specific contradiction of that which God had stated. Satan’s primary seed of doubt was the question “Has God indeed said…” and this has been the very same seed of doubt that he has used ever since. In fact, atheism is premised upon the question “Has God indeed said” and they respond “No, as there is no God to say anything.” Well, let us go back to the sexism issue for a moment as it is clear that it was Eve’s fault—right? Not so. Note that, “when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” This is why the Bible goes on to state, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1st Timothy 2:14). Thus, the reason that sin came into the world via the man-male-Adam is that, apparently, while Eve was a victim of deception he chose to sin.

Adam chose the knowledge of good and evil: his eyes where thereafter opened to all of the possibilities of evildoing; all of the evil choices he could make in all situations that would arise. Thus, there is quite a lot wrapped up in an apparently simple act of eating a forbidden fruit.

They also wrote,

Most religions(yes there are other religions all with their own gods,prophets,incarnates,etc,e tc… [sic] if you didnt [sic] know that) atleast [sic] try to define sins properly. But, christianity [sic] fails even at that.

Yes, I have heard rumors that there are other religions (even though, strictly speaking, Christianity is not a religion). This is obviously a reductio ad absurdum whereby it is being implied, or so I infer, that there is no taxonomy, as it where, of sin within Christian theology. This is clearly fallacious. In fact, one of the important benefits and elucidations of the Christian conception of sin is that it identifies that sin begins with a thought. Be vigilant of the thought and you will avoid many a sin. I wrote an entire essay on this point entitled On the Life of Our Thoughts.
What would you rather do? Would you rather fight a forest or city fire? Or would you rather wet your finger tips and put out that little tiny match with that little tiny flame which would turn into a forest or city fire? Put out that little tiny flame and you will not have to fight a forest or city fire.

They also wrote,

Also, some of the faults you pointed out Ken(edit) are themself [sic] faulty.
evilbible.com didnt [sic] deny that Bible didnt [sic] condemn rape. evilbible.com just said God asked men to commit these hideneous [sic] actions inspite [sic] of that.

If this is a fault of mine a quote or two from evilbible.com should be provided. Evilbible.com claims that God not only does not condemn rape but that God commands rape the evidence is in my parsed post Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com.

Lastly, I would like to point out that for all of the questions, comments, assertions, fallacies, personal besmirchments, etc. I would be surprised if any of the commentators actually read anything that I wrote discrediting evilbible.com beyond the basic text that I provided at the Q&A website.

Rather, instead of meeting the argument on the argument’s own grounds they seemed very pleased to serve up undercooked red herrings of every sort. They seemed to pull out their old bag of tricks in order to provide themselves an excuse for not engaging in actual skepticism and matching up what evilbible.com claimed versus the reality of the Bible’s text.

They replaced reasoned discourse with belligerence, replaced scholarship with emotionally charged assertions, replaced intellectual integrity with ad homenims and peppered it all with arguments from outrage, arguments from partial information, arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrass, etc.

The only thing in which they succeeded was in discrediting themselves by openly displaying their lack of knowledge of various subjects.

May this essay will be heuristic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

We now continue considering the group effort by Robert Greg Cavin, Michael Martin, Theodore Drange, Robert Price, Richard Carrier, Peter Kirby, Jeffery Lowder, Evan Fales, Duncan Derrett and Keith Parsons to discredit Jesus’ resurrection?

This group, referred to as a “murder”-a term in this sense is taken from referring to a group of crows a “a murder of crows”-is refuted by one single solitary Christian, Norman L. Geisler, in his article A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave which I have parsed.

Chapter 8: “Taming the Tehom: the Sign of Jonah in Matthew” by Evan Fales

Summary of the Argument:

Fales claims that “it is a familiar feature of the Gospel passion narrative that virtually every major element of the story, in each of its differing versions, is anticipated in the Hebrew Bible” (307). He notes his dependence on “Durkeim and Levi-Strauss which I draw heavily upon” (309) “with some significant divergences” (317).
“Levi-Strauss, influenced by Hegelian dialectic, by the structural semantics of Ferdinand de Saussure, and by information-processing theory, analyzes myths as being comprised of layers of ‘contradicting’ or contrasting themes, each layer somehow resolving itself in or reducing to the next . . . thereby defusing the dissonance caused by the original difficulty” (317). He asserts that “Matthew’s passion narrative offers, as we shall see, some sterling examples for structural analysis . . .” (319). “I presuppose two hypotheses that are clearly controversial – that Matthew is myth, and that myths are (primarily) engaged in the business of social/political theorizing (and not speculations about ‘spooky stuff’)” (320).

As for miracles, he adds, “I think Hume was correct in arguing that no sensible person will accept a miracle report as veridical, except possibly on the basis of massive verifiable independent testimony from verifiably competent witnesses” (311).
The basic steps of his reasoning are as follows: First, Jesus was not in the grave 72 hours as “three days and three nights imply.” Second, Fales finds the explanation in Hebrew mythology about Jonah (322) and Greek myths (323) which depicts Israel’s deliverance from Assyria and Jesus’ resurrection the Israel’s deliverance from the powers that be (325).

Fales admits that “there is no logical incompatibility between accepting my analysis of Matthew’s chronology, and a literalist conception of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Most readers will, of course, recognize the profound distance between the interpretive methodology I have employed and that favored by fundamentalists” (331). He argues that “the hypothesis that Matthew’s project is to propose a serious political program allows the approach taken here to escape other stock objections regularly raised against ‘liberal’ and skeptical interpretations of the Gospels” (332).
For example, the resurrection was not necessary to the survival of Christianity and the courage of early Christians. Rather, it survived because “it was able to formulate a political theory, strategy, and program that spoke powerfully to the condition of many people, rich and poor, Jewish and Gentile, in Judea and across the Roman Empire” (333). “There is, therefore, no reason to assume (though also no particular reason to deny) that Peter, Paul, or any other Christian leader may have had some subjective religious experience, whether involving an apparition of Jesus or some more inwardly directed ecstatic state” (333).

As to whether Matthew has a “historical core,” Fales says “it does not matter very much to the project I have undertaken here” (334 emphasis in original). For “once one adopts the theoretical framework proposed here, one can proceed without knowing how to answer these particular historical questions, interesting as they might be in their own right” (334). “There is nothing in my reading of Matthew’s Gospel that excludes the possibility of a historical founder of Christianity who taught in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and courted execution at the hands of the authorities” (334).”On the other hand, we can see clearly from the theoretical perspective I am recommending how artificial is the project of trying to separate history from legend, by ‘peeling away’ putatively apocryphal accretions to an unvarnished historical memory so as to reveal a mundane core upon which to confer the mantle of truth. For the ‘realistic’ elements of the plot are just as integral to the message of the narrative as are the fantastical ones. If some of them are historical, that is a lucky accident; if it had served Matthew’s purpose to make up realistic episodes, he would not have hesitated to do so” (334).

“Was Jesus bodily raised from the tomb after a day and two nights? Anyone who accepts the interpretation offered here will recognize this question is profoundly misguided, but not because the answer must surely be no” (334). Why? “. . . because to entertain it is to reveal a complete incomprehension of Matthew’s purpose, a misunderstanding so fundamental as virtually to preclude recognition of the truths Matthew means to convey” (334).

Response to the Argument:

First of all, Fales admitted that “there is nothing in my reading of Matthew’s Gospel that excludes the possibility of a historical founder of Christianity who taught in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and courted execution at the hands of the authorities” (334). Further, he does not rule out the possibility of a literal resurrection of Christ. Indeed, he admits that “there is no logical incompatibility between accepting my analysis of Matthew’s chronology, and a literalist conception of Jesus’ death and resurrection” (331).

Second, his rejection of miracles in based on Hume’s faulty argument (see Geisler, Miracles and the Modern Mind) against them (311) and does not allow for the resurrection to be a historical event (334). But if God exists, miracles are possible. And if the evidence shows one has occurred – as the evidence for the resurrection does – then no prior probability against them can counter the fact that one has occurred. Further, extraordinary events do not need extraordinary evidence (unless one is biased against miracles); they just need good evidence. There is no extraordinary evidence for the “Big Bang” origin of the universe; there is just such good evidence that even some agnostics accept that the universe had a beginning (and thus by logical implication, must have had a Beginner).1 (see Jastrow).

Thou Shalt Only Love Thy Jewish Neighbors?
It is sad to note that Mr. Baker has joined the ranks of Professor Richard Dawkins (biology) and Professor John Hartung (anesthesiology) in demonstrating that reading for context, even immediate context that would merely require the reading of a hand full of verses, may be too much work to put into pseudo-erudite criticism. Their treatment of the text of the Bible makes one think that they are not actually reading it but are basing their opinions on sources that provide quotations from the Bible which they, in turn, merely regurgitate without any scholarly research.

Dan Barker makes a claim that is tantamount to claims made by Richard Dawkins and Prof. John Hartung:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. For the Jews, loving your ‘neighbor’ meant loving your Jewish neighbors: it did not mean loving the neighboring tribes or other outsiders, as the intolerant and bloody Old Testament (and Christian) history proves.”1

Since I have already provided a detail response to this charge in my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne which responds to Richard Dawkins, I will provide highlights here. Dan Barker was quoting (without citation) Leviticus 19:18. If Dan Barker, Prof. Richard Dawkins and Prof. John Hartung were reading for context, if they were reading what the text states in the way it states it they would have read down to verses 33-34. The problem is that these verses would discredit their criticisms since the verses state:

“And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

A stranger is as one born among you (Jews), and you shall love him as yourself.

The Old Testament provides further reason for being empathetic towards the “strangers”:\

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).”Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).

The LORD “administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

What of the Moabite Ruth? This gentile woman is the center character in the book of the Old Testament that bears her name. The Temple, the Jewish Temple, in which Jesus worshipped included Solomon’s Portico-a portion specifically dedicated for gentiles to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see John 10:23, Act 3:11, 5:12).

Just how did Richard Dawkins, Prof. John Hartung and Dan Barker manage to neglect the same verse in the same text and make the same fallacious criticism? Are they merely and uncritically plagiarizing one another? Did they really pick up the Bible and read it? Did they read it only to the point to which they were directed by other than primary source material and not one verse beyond? Are they purposefully manipulating their audience by stating, as it were, “Read these verses and no more”? One can only wonder since, unless they reveal them, we do not know their thoughts or inward motivations. However, what we can do is to be honest skeptics and put their accuracy to the test as the Bereans were praised for doing anytime Paul preached to them (Acts 17:11).

In Conclusion
Dan Barker’s tactic appears to be to selectively and conveniently quote miniscule portions of texts that are meant to get his audience emotionally attached to his conclusions. That is to say, he makes emotionally charged statements, gives the appearance of referencing the Bible actual statements, and finally draws a conclusion that is, in reality, only a reflection of poor, lazy or non-existent scholarship. Dan Barker is fallaciously pulling texts out of context as pretexts for proof-texts.

Let us summarize the conclusion that we reached when we considered the ethical system that Dan Barker has concocted:

Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to “the Bible rape is considered ok, the God of the Bible commanded and condoned rape.”Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible we will be happy to dash little ones against the rock.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible Jews were commanded to be intolerant and only love their fellow Jewish neighbours.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible women defile men and no women nor Christians allowed in the heavenly choir.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible child sacrifice is sanctioned and the right thing to do.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible having multiple wives and concubines, by the thousands, is not wrong.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible we are to hate our parents.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible we are to castrate ourselves.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible poverty equals salvation.Let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible Christians should not tithe (unless).

Finally, let us assume that Dan Barker is correct and according to the Bible Christmas trees are condemned by the Bible.

According to Dan Barker’s very own ethical system he could not claim that any one of these commands and subsequent actions are absolutely, that is forever in the past, in the present and in the future, immoral.

In the end, Dan Barker does not discredit religion, Christianity, the Bible or its God but only succeeds in discrediting himself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Shame On You Solomon!
Dan Barker wrote:

“How many regular sexual partners did King Solomon have?…One thousand sexual partners. –At least one thousand. Another fine example of family values from one of God’s favorites.”

He then refers to 1st Kings 11:1-3 which refers to Solomon’s seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. He then states:

“Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, was praised by Jesus: ‘all his glory’ (Matthew 6:29), ‘wisdom of Solomon’ (Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to Solomon’s greatness: ‘a greater than Solomon is here.’ (Luke 11:31)“1

Dan Barker does not bother pointing out that Solomon’s actions were condemned the moment that he took more than one wife since Bible states, “You shall set a king over you,” and among some things that Israeli kings were not to do was, “Nor shall he multiply wives to himself” (Deuteronomy 17:15, 17). The fact is that while Solomon and some other kings had many wives and many concubines they were actually breaking the Law when they did so.

Dan Barker’s subsequent citations give away his lack of basic biblical knowledge. Moreover, in his zeal to besmirch the Bible he appears to not carefully, not casually, consider the very texts that he cited nor even the fractions of verses that he quoted above. The Bible, being as honest as it is, points out all of Solomon’s personal shortcomings. Yet, despite that, he was a great, mighty and renowned king. This is the reason for the references to “all his glory” and not “all his wives.” The “wisdom of Solomon” since his wisdom was renowned, very wise men can sometimes do very unwise things. Dan Barker’s attempts at pointing out Solomon faults pale in comparison to Solomon’s own pointing out of his own faults-see the book of Ecclesiastes. Jesus compared Himself to certain aspects of Solomon’s character. Even so, to compare does not mean to make equal, Jesus is stating precisely what He is quoting as stating, “a greater than Solomon is here.”

Unable to make a positive case for their positions and continuing to demonstrated their inability to base their atheism on anything but opposition to God (almost exclusively the one of the Bible) and religion (almost exclusively Christianity) atheists worldwide; from the UK, Italy, Argentina and the USA are de-baptizing.1

The latest publicity stunt stars the National Secular Society who are making de-baptism certificates available, for, of course, a price. They have made a few thousand pounds already as announced by the National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson.

One de-baptist, whom I am tempted to refer to as an extremist militant atheist but whose sentiments are becoming frighteningly mainstream, referred to infant baptism as, you guessed it, “a form of child abuse.”Let us consider various forms of child abuse; there’s rape, torture, beatings, burnings, pedophilia, incest, psychological abuse and now-getting a little wet.

How terribly saddening to imagine the malice that must choke the heart, mind, and soul of a person who comes to such conclusions.

I personally do not see infant baptism as a biblical doctrine. In fact, the Bible proposes the exact opposite concept which is nicely encapsulated in this text, “many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). They exercised the cognitive ability of hearing/listening, the comprehended the message and believed it and only where they baptized. I am also not a fan of various Roman Catholic doctrines.

The extremist militant de-baptists fail to note that in infant baptism the godparent speaks for the infant by proxy and then, later on in life, the person who was baptized as an infant makes a conscience decision as to whether or not they will go through Confirmation whereby they choose to follow the faith.
Likewise, a Jew is born a Jew but then, later on in life, the born Jew makes a conscience decision as to whether or not they will go through a Bar/Bat Mitzvah whereby they choose to follow the faith.

Moreover, I do not know how iconoclastic or machismo spiked rebellious these de-baptists think themselves to be but they are about a millennia and a half behind Protestants who have long requested to be removed from Roman Catholic tallies.

Do not worry de-baptists, you were never baptized: 1st Peter 3:21 states that baptism is “not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

But if you think that baptism is merely getting a little wet I have conceived of a product which I will be willing to sell for dollars, pounds, pesos, shekels, or what have you:

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By now Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor’s (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the FFRF) neo-pagan-positive-affirmation-atheist-sect sign has been stolen and returned to the Wisconsin State Capitol.

The theft prompted the FFRF to add another dogma to their sign. The original read thusly,

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Note that this statement was originally made by Anne Nicol Gaylor who was the principal founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) and directed it 1976-2004, the statement was her aphorism. Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor (Anne’s daughter) now direct the FFRF.

The statement is said to not merely be a quote from Anne but is an FFRF maxim that is use every year as a Winter Solstice message that they put on display in order to counter religious displays in government buildings.

On the heels of the FFRF’s progressive revelation, the fifth commandment readeth, “Thou shalt not steal.”

This assertion was propped up by two others as Dan Barker explained that “It was unfriendly,” and “it was illegal.”1 I suppose that he presupposed that we ought to be friendly yet, the thief disagreed with the FFRF’s morality-perhaps the thief has discerned the changing moral zeitgeist and theft is now moral.

Theft is illegal, true. Yet, the thief got away with it and so the FFRF can shake its fist in the air all that it wants. The fact is that the thief got away with it, period. The thief’s DNA just is and the thief is dancing to its music.

Dan Barker further stated, “it actually underscored our point that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”2Let us consider statistics:Let us merely focus on the USA where the theft took place in order to be more generous to Dan Barker’s position (although, they were addressing all religious people worldwide).As of July 2007 there are an estimated 305,936,722 Americans.Of those, 95%, or 290,639,885.9 are “religious” / believe in “God.”Of those, one single person stole the sign.One out of two hundred ninety six hundred thirty nine thousand eight hundred eighty five point nine.This underscored what, exactly?

But let the FFRF have its fun, to the one thief, feel free to add the complaints and the people wanting to erect a Festivus pole.

But Dan Barker was not done yet, “…so that people are unwilling to be gracious and tolerate another point of view.”3
Seriously, the poster of positive affirmation atheism along with the statement, “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds” is now going to lecture us about grace and tolerance, oi vey!

Yet, Dan Barker further elucidated, “We thought our sign was pretty mild. But some people thought it was pretty hard-hitting…It’s a criticism of religion.”4
There you have it, this is the Barkerian sect of Freethought‘s idea of grace and tolerance: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Mind you, this was “mild.” Although, if you have heard Dan Barker’s rants during debates, whether he is arguing that rape is not absolutely immoral or pulling the argument from embarrassment card, you know that this actually is mild.

Of course, he is prejudicially presupposing that the thief was a “religious” person.

Yet, he manages to get to the bottom line. His was a “criticism of religion” and this is the problem. People of other faiths are contemplating their blessings, enjoying their friends and families, communing with God, giving to actual charities, etc. Dan Barker is of a particular sect of atheism that cannot stand the idea of “religious” people just being happy and must besmirch them at every turn, he must interfere with merry making in order to criticize.But, but, wait, free-speech and such…Indeed, he has that right that was endowed to him by our creator, by nature’s God.

And the end result: he is quite pleased because he can now say “See, see, I told you so. Those religious people have hardened hearts and enslaved minds” and the FFRF gets free publicity.

In my previous FFRF free publicity post, Dan Barker and Neo-Pagan Atheism, I recommended various slogans for Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) billboards.

Yet, I overlooked one very important one. The FFRF put up billboards reading “Reason’s Greetings.”

Where they to put one up stating “Let us reason together” they could continue by having it state “Says the LORD (Isaiah 1:18).”

‹ Dan Barker and Neo-Pagan Atheism up