Category Archives: Heresy
Idiotic Argument Against Christianity
A side project that I’m working on, in addition to everything else, is to re-read (in their entirety) the books that are supposed to destroy not only Christianity, but theism in general. I’m creating a site, currently empty except for some cool pictures, where I will post my thoughts and links to the thoughts of others on these “masterworks” of atheism.
I’ve started with Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation, which is the shortest of all of the books. Harris makes a huge error in the opening pages of the book. This mistake might hold the title for the most idiotic argument against Christianity ever purported, and I’ve noticed that other atheists have propagated the error. Like a virus.
Although I will develop the argument more succinctly later, I wanted to take a moment to address it. Neal, a user who commented on John W. Loftus’s reactionary piece to The Infidel Delusion, stated that atheism cannot provide an objective moral standard, but Christianity does. Neal makes a serious philosophical error, though I don’t think he intended to. I think that he intended to suggest that Christianity, as it points to God, provides that as the ground for morals. Atheism isn’t able to posit objective morality, as much as it is synonymous with metaphysical naturalism. If the universe is all there is, then there is no transcendent realm to appeal to when looking for the ideal standard. The ideal standard ought to be, it does not exist in point of fact. “Ought to be” has no meaning in a universe where only the natural exists: nature is what it is.
The first reaction to Neal’s lengthy piece was from Jim, who said:
Neal,
And atheism provides no objective criteria whatsoever. So even here Christianity is superior in that it provides objective foundations for society.
Sorry, Christianity doesn’t provide any objective foundations for society, either, except perhaps purely “within” Christian society.
There seems to be no evidence of any actual absolute objective morality. The universe doesn’t care what Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or the Inquisition did.
Within human society, we have determined certain “objective measures.” Take the length of the meter, for example. The length of the meter is only as good as HUMANS desire to accept OTHER HUMANS declaration of the standard.
If a group of humans decides to have a different standard for length (the “foot” or “yard”) they are free to come up with their own objective standard for their group. Or they can redefine the length of the “meter” for their own group. What they CAN’T do is redefine the “meter” for a different group.
What Christians have done, allegorically is subjectively decided on the nature of a GOD who decides what the length of the meter is and then claim that they have the ultimate OBJECTIVE foundation for the definition of a meter.
You see what Christians are doing? They are simply using the creative power of their mind to invent something (SUBJECTIVELY) and using that creation as a foundation for OBJECTIVITY.
It’s quicksand . . .
Both Neal and Jim fall into the same trap, propagating the same error that I’m accusing Harris of: Christianity is not the foundation for morals. God is the foundation for morals.
To his credit, Jim corrects himself (kind of) midway through the post, shifting the source of morality back to God. This is the correct view. Christianity is, with qualifications that I won’t get into here, a series of interpretations of the same book. Being subjective in nature, therefore, Christianity cannot provide an objective ground for morality. As such, it is not the source of morals.
Jim, however, makes many serious mistakes. The underlying assumption of his comment is that philosophy and theology cannot provide any objective insight into who God is, and what he would command. That is, philosophy and theology don’t consist of real knowledge, just mere opinion. He also rejects the authority of Scripture, and in all probability, the very existence of special revelation. He also implicitly accepts relativistic morality, which is also false.
I hate it when people say that Christianity is the ground of all morals. That’s patently false. God is the ground of all morals. Christianity is, with some qualifications, subjective and therefore cannot be the ground of morality. God, who is the good, is immutable. Therefore, God is our ground for morals. Atheism cannot account for the existence of the material universe, much less provide a ground for objective moral standards.
Religious Bigotry
I have tried to fight a fight that I’m not destined to win with skeptics of Christianity. None of them are ever going to see the grounds for homosexuality being a sin since they do not accept the authority of Scripture. It’s the same with the clearly defined roles of gender in the church.
Women have achieved a measure of equality within secular society. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s very good. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a woman selecting and purchasing property, managing the household, running the family finances, and bringing in a second income through work. But, the apostle Paul precludes the possibility of women serving in church leadership roles. Of women in general:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)
He clearly defines that church leadership will be male. He says of bishops:
If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. . . . He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:1-4, 6-7)
Of deacons:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Tim 3:8-12)
But notice why Paul forbids the woman from teaching authority: it goes back to the Fall. God’s pre-Fall intention was for the woman to be a helper and a companion. But, what ended up happening? Eve first ate of the forbidden fruit, and then Adam because of her. God then decreed:
I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen 3:16)
But that wasn’t the original intent. The woman being submissive to the man is punishment because of sin. Once sin entered the world, it corrupted everything, including the intended relationship dynamic between a man and his wife.
So what we see today is a corruption of the pure and good intent of the original created order. Despite this, it is still God’s command that the woman remain subservient to the man, since it was first the woman who was deceived by the Enemy and by the woman the man fell into transgression.
Call it religiously-motivated bigotry if you want, but the intended order of creation will be restored after the Final Judgment, and in eternity we will exist as equals, in perfect fellowship with the Creator. The woman will not remain subservient to the man forever, but for now it must be.
New Atheist Graphic
I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:
This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.
Satanism Wrongly Used at Trial?
This is an interesting article. Apparently, the defendant is arguing that his religion, Satanism, shouldn’t be used against him during the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial.
That amuses me. If he had converted to Christianity, he would have been trumpeting it from the mountaintops for everyone to hear, and acting pious and prayerful. But, since he converted to Satanism, he wants it hidden so as not to prejudice the jurors.
And, the judge, the prosecutors, and the defense attorney are all ignorant. LeVey Satanists practice individuality and hedonistic sex, not human sacrifice. That, and they’re atheists! They don’t worship Satan because they don’t think he exists.
DISCLAIMER: All LeVey Satanists are atheists, but not all atheists are LeVey Satanists. I am not saying that all atheists practice individuality and hedonistic sex. Comments suggesting I have said this will be deleted. You’ve been warned.
Didn’t I Just Talk About This?
This video from Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (FL), highlights the exact point I was trying to make in my previous post regarding Rabbi Barry Block’s comments on Exodus. Dr. Hunter says that it is very dangerous to attach a literal meaning to Genesis 1 since it might drive away potential converts (especially if they might be scientists).
Dr. Hunter calls us to contemplate the fuller mystery of God.
However, he does rightly recognize that if we mythologize parts of the Bible, then how are we to understand other parts of the Bible? Are they also allegory? If the creation story found in Genesis 1 is only a myth constructed by Bronze Age herdsmen who don’t have a lick of scientific sense in their bodies, then can’t the same argument also be applied to the Resurrection?
We’re pandering to culture here. And as Christians, we should be better than that! How can we be salt and light to the world if, by our beliefs and actions, we are just like the world?
Another One Bites the Dust
Yet another credentialed Evangelical Christian has left the fold. As usual, he has started a blog ranting against his former faith. This particular entry seems to have the attention of the atheist blogosphere, and with good reason. Our former Christian brother (or sister) has hit many of the hot buttons that atheists just love to hear! The references to Fred Phelps are particularly juicy for the atheists out there–they take every opportunity to compare mainstream Christianity to Fred Phelps. Read the rest of this entry
New Material at My Anti-Loftus Site
Finally, after lots of hem-hawing around, I purchased The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails by John W. Loftus and company. So far, I’ve read the introduction and wasn’t impressed.
I wasn’t going to do an answer to the introduction, since all Loftus was doing was outlining the themes that will addressed later, as well as riding some of his favorite hobby horses (“Christianity has been refuted in every generation; they just re-invent the faith!” and “Modern Christians would be tried by the historic Inquisition for heresy!”). But there were two points worthy of addressing: Loftus misused Alvin Plantinga’s argument that Christianity is a properly basic belief, and he quoted a sound bite from William Lane Craig that doesn’t do justice to Craig’s full beliefs on how the Holy Spirit interacts with actual evidence for the Christian faith.
So, my thoughts on the introduction can be found here. Look for chapter one to be reviewed soon!
God: Self-Serving or Narcissistic for Judgment?
The author of this post, who goes by Skinny Sushi, identifies herself as an agnostic. She and her husband were both raised Mormon, but for various reasons have walked away from the church. It seems that her primary reasons have to do with God’s judgment:
And any God who might be out there… wouldn’t he/she/it be rather pleased I’ve lived a good life and been kind to others? There’s just something about the notion of an all powerful being who will punish me for not believing despite the quality of my life that seems a little… self serving? Narcissistic?
In regard to the first point, Paul addressed this in the second chapter of Romans:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
So Sushi is right. People who do the Law without the Law are their own Law. No need for any divine intervention there. And, many people are good for goodness sake–without the Law. Read the rest of this entry
The Preexistence of Jesus
I just found Human Jesus Theology, a blog that seems ostensibly Christian, though the theology is a bit skewed. For example, in this post, author Jeffery W. Campbell takes a passage often used to establish the deity and preexistence of Jesus and argue that it does no such thing.
John 8:58 reads, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'” It is Campbell’s argument that this passage doesn’t establish the preexistence of Jesus because the name I AM from Exodus 3:14 isn’t the name of God.
Of course, to make this argument convincing, Campbell has to go to the Septuagint. It should be noted that the Septuagint is not the original language of the Old Testament; the Septuagint was written in Greek, but the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
Even if this was a convincing argument, Campbell is ignoring other passages that unambiguously establish the preexistence of Jesus. Start with John 1:1-5:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
The “Word” of verse 1 is defined as Jesus in verses 14-18:
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
Paul establishes the preexistence of Christ as well. In his letter to the Colossians 1:15-20, the apostle writes of Jesus:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Campbell can argue against one passage, but nothing in the Bible exists in a vacuum apart from everything else. There are numerous verses that establish the preexistence of Christ, which is why it is one of the core tenets of the Christian faith. John 8:53, while important, isn’t the cornerstone upon which the preexistence of Jesus is built.
Why Former Christians Annoy Me
Sometimes, atheists annoy me. I don’t normally read Godless Girl, but her post on getting past anger cuts both ways. It’s about relationships:
The more I grow close and friendly with people of other ideas, the better I tend to act and feel towards others who hold those ideas–even if they are delusions or born from ignorance. . . . My point comes down to this: Love people as individuals. See them as more than just “those believers” or “those superstitious weaklings.” Who are they? Why do they have worth and dignity? It’s hard to be angry at people when you understand why they are who they are. Motivations matter, and they come from somewhere. Is it a need for love? A thirst for activity an community? Conformity and social expectation? Depression and fear?
That said, there is one class of atheist that, no matter how close I would grow to one, how I much I could empathize with their position, how much understanding or insight I get into their psyche–I will always be annoyed by. Always.
That class is the former believer.
Why?
Because when they criticize their former faith, they often fall into the exact errors perpetrated by people who wouldn’t know any better. The difference is that they do know better. Especially if they own 3 master-level degrees in philosophy and theology, and repeatedly claim to have studied under the world’s foremost authority on philosophy of religion.
When a person like that makes a fundamental error in theology, it annoys me more than words can say. Because this person knows better. At least, he should.
John W. Loftus, our friend over at Debunking Christianity, posted a (admittedly awesome) video of an octopus killing a shark in self-defense. Loftus muses, “God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?”
Yep. Completely impossible:
Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. (Gen 1:29-30)
So impossible that everything being a vegetarian was the original plan. Then, that pesky Fall happened, and the plan was altered. After the Flood, we read this:
The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (Gen 9:2-3)
Okay, so it was after the Flood that God made meat eaters. Got it. Looks like Mr. Loftus was wrong. Again.
Back Rome Again 