A Response to Clubschadenfreude on the 500

Is there a case here? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

For some wondering about a final reply to Matt Ferguson, we will be having a debate so I figure rather than reply, wait and save everything I see problematic for the debate, entirely my prerogative. This will likely be a month or so into the future. I’m thinking around mid-September would be the best for me. Yet meanwhile, someone has linked me to a writing on the appearance to the 500 on a blog by a Clubschadenfreude, whom I will be calling CS from now on. The first part can be found here. There is a link to part two and I do not consider it necessary that I give links to both parts.

Unfortunately, one has to wade through much of CS complaining about the way apologists and such think, which ironically I find to be really the exact way fundamentalist atheists like CS actually think. Claims of “Nothing more than a story”, etc. show up. Does any interaction with real NT scholarship show up? Well, we already know the answer to that one.

So let’s try and cut to the chase.

Note CS is responding to some others in this post so let’s see what is said first.

Now, for the claims SS and Ben have used about their religion to be true, for example that JC was a man/god and that his body vanished by magic and he came back from the dead, we need a story *and* evidence to support it. We have nothing that does so that cannot be used for other religions. You have offered stories, not the evidence that supports them. A claim that 500 people saw JC is not evidence. I can claim to have 500 people in my backyard. What would be evidence for this claim? Maybe a photo, crushed plants (I have a wee back yard), a police report from my neighbor who doesn’t like me, etc.. We can have a believable “report” if we have that corroborating evidence. A story does not stand on its own. I have no more reason to believe the stories of Indian gods being with people than I have to believe the Christian claim that there was a demigod. I ask Ben and SS: Do you believe that the gods interacted with the ancient Hindus? Or do you think that they are just stories? What would make you believe that such claims are true? For me, it would be again corroborating evidence as I have listed.

The language here is quite revealing. At the start, I am not arguing for the incarnation. I am simply arguing for the resurrection. Is the incarnation important? Yes. Do I hold to it? Yes. Yet right now, I am simply arguing for the historical claim and the ramifications of that come later. The claim is as follows:

“The historical figure known as Jesus died.”

“This same person was alive afterwards.”

That is it. If those two are established, will I move on from there? Yes, but CS does not understand that this is not an all-or-nothing game. It is not the case that unless one proves the incarnation, then one has not shown Jesus did not rise.

To refer to this as a story is also problematic. I know of no NT scholar who says the account is simply a story. All of them take it seriously, even Robert Price in saying that this has to be an interpolation.

If Paul is trying to make a convincing argument to the Corinthians, we should realize something. Even if the account is wrong, Paul certainly believes it to be true. Not only does he believe it to be true, he is willing to put himself on the line by offering it to be challenged by saying most of them are alive though some have fallen asleep. In other words, he is saying that the people are there to be questioned.

“But their names are not mentioned!” One wonders why Paul should have to write out a list of say 400+ people in an age where writing was timely and expensive. The oral tradition would take care of this and these people would have been well-known in the community.

So if Paul believes it to be true, either Paul is wrong entirely, or there’s a misunderstanding. If Paul is wrong entirely, then we need a reason to know why no NT scholar is making this claim. For instance, consider a non-Christian like Ludemann.

“The only thing that we can certainly say to be historical is that there were resurrection appearances in Galilee (and in Jerusalem) soon after Jesus’s death. These appearances cannot be denied” (Gerd Ludemann. .”What Really Happened To Jesus?” p. 81

CS’s position is one of hyper-skepticism. Now we could just as well say that perhaps this event did happen then, but it was a mass hallucination. Fair enough, yet if CS wishes to argue it was a mass hallucination, then it is up to CS to back that claim.

For our purposes, it is important to note that Paul compares this to our resurrection. CS is urged to read two works that show Paul is talking about a physical resurrection despite interpretations to the contrary. The first is Gundry’s study “Soma in Biblical Greek.” The second is Michael Licona’s work on pages 403-37 of “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.” For another view, since CS could think I’m begging the question by citing Christian scholars, they could consider chapter 5 of Dale Martin’s “The Corinthian Body.”

Note, this would require CS do some reading in NT scholarship. As we’ve seen, this could be problematic.

CS also says a story does not stand on its own. This is extremely problematic as there is no rule in historiography that says “If there is only one testimony to an ancient event, that event cannot be accepted as historical.” If CS thinks there is such a rule, it is up to them to show it.

Let’s move on.

In the story of Jesus Christ, we have four differing stories of what should be the most important event in history, and no one else in the world noticed events that should have been pretty obvious.

Unfortunately, this is moving away from the 500. How does it work to show “Paul must be wrong because the later gospels are wrong?” It doesn’t. If that’s the standard, then anyone could have disproven Christianity supposedly by just writing an account that contradicted the gospels early on. One must weigh each claim on its own.

Also, CS seems to wonder why no one else would notice these events. Here’s why. It’s quite simple. No one else would really take them seriously.

Suppose you are an official in the Roman Empire and you have a servant come to you and say “Sir! There is a report that in Jerusalem, there is a rabbi who has been traveling and teaching and though crucified, he has risen from the dead!” What are you going to be thinking?

Jerusalem…A strange area in the world known for trouble-making and rabble-rousing. The people there have strange beliefs and have been known to have rebellions regularly.

Miraculous claims-Something we don’t need to take seriously. The gods are not intervening in our lives and if they are, they certainly won’t choose a place like Judea. They would choose us.

A rabbi. Why on Earth would I take the idea of a rabbi seriously as being a Messiah figure? If anything, we’ll just send a squadron of troops down there if these people get problematic and squash them like we always have.

Why would you not be paying attention? Because you are skeptical as most people were in this time. We know, for instance, that the world did not immediately convert to Christianity despite the fact that Christians from the beginning were teaching the resurrection. Why did they not? Because people did not believe every claim they heard. Today, we know how important the claim was. Back then, it would be seen as just another claim.

If CS thinks otherwise, it is their burden to show why such a claim should have been taken seriously, especially with would-be Messiahs on every corner practically in Israel.

For example, how the Titanic sank was up for debate when it was just competing stories, but the actual ship shows what happened. Stories can be told about such things, but that doesn’t mean that the there was one ridiculously large blue diamond on board. If we have no good reason to believe in what is claimed, an event that has no evidence to have happened of to have *ever* happened, having contradictions about the event shows that there is even less reason to believe it. For instance, the bit about whether Jesus can be touched or not. If one touches him and one is not supposed to, then what? They are struck down like Uzzah? That JC ceases to become holy? He was certainly worried about it in one story, but not the others. If I can’t trust JC’s words in this, why trust it when he says “Him that believes in me shall have everlasting life.”?

With a mess like this, it is hard to know where to get started. For instance, with the Titanic, the central claim is still the same. It is the same for the resurrection accounts. The central claim is still the same. It is a wonder that the same skeptics who speak about the accounts “copying” one another and thus not being independent traditions, then say that the accounts contradict one another. We can expect that there would be some differences in the accounts. This is common for eyewitness claims. In fact, in writers like Plutarch, the same event is described differently by the exact same author. Are we to throw out Plutarch?

As for the part about touching JC, I wonder what on Earth CS is going on about. Did CS bother doing any real study on what the word touch means in John? Did CS look up any commentaries or consult with NT scholarship on the issue? I do not think we really have to ask the question. We already know the answer.

CS then goes on to talk about the standards given to juries in CA and says this in part of the reply:

People do honestly forget and make mistakes; however, there is no evidence of an honest mistake in something written decades after the supposed event. And indeed, two people may witness an event differently.

It is as if there is something to the account being written decades after the events. Does CS not know that this is common in ancient literature? The best account we have of Tiberius overall would be Tacitus, which is about 80 years after Tiberius lived. Plutarch wrote about events that happened centuries before he lived.

CS gets this idea from living in a Post-Gutenberg society where it is thought “If you want to get the truth out there, write it down!” The ancient person would not have thought that. For them, the oral tradition would in fact be more reliable. It is something you can question and interact with. In fact, a written account would reach fewer people since few people in the Roman Empire were capable of reading. Not only that, does CS know nothing about the time it would take to write such an account as well as the cost of writing such an account? It would not matter to say that they wanted to or had great motivation. One might as well say because I would love to build my wife a barn and buy her a horse to put in that barn, that despite not having money, I should be able to go out and do that right now.

CS goes on:

As in all cases, the evidence for someone existing is dependent on evidence, not only stories. I can claim that Thor Odinsson existed but unless we can find corroborating evidence, my claim has no basis in reality. Can we make an educated guess at the probability of someone existing? Yes. In this case, Thor is a god, and since we have no evidence of gods or the supernatural, the probability of his existence approaches zero. Did Julius Caesar exist? Well, we know that there was a Roman empire, there were generals and there were emperors, so the likelihood of his existence is high. Can we accept all that is claimed about him with no question? No. Same with Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Saladin, King Richard the Lion-hearted, etc. In archaeology, we can be pretty sure that a stone mason or blacksmith existed, but we may not have a name to put with the artifacts in a village.

I do not accept the so-called supernatural/natural distinction, yet we sit back and eagerly await the disproving of all theistic arguments by CS. I especially await her disproving of the Five Ways of Aquinas. If philosophy is approached the same way history is, I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

If CS also wants to go with archaeology as the main source, they will encounter problems. For one thing, one has a bare minimum of what the ancients had in archaeology. It is usually said one has 1% of 1% of 1%. What archaeological evidence would CS expect to find for some people accepted as historical. What could we expect to find of Gamaliel, for instance?

Suppose CS says we need to find coins. Why should we expect that? To begin with, a Jew would not have a coin stamped with the image of a person created. That would go against the 2nd commandment for them. Second, why should the Roman Empire have coins depicting Jesus or Gamaliel or any other Jew of that time?

Finally, there are numerous people written about in history that we would not find specific evidence for except the writings of the historians themselves. CS needs to tell us why it is we should be skeptical of such writings otherwise if we need corroboration. Should I doubt a figure in Tacitus existed if I cannot find something archaeological to back them?

Now, let’s look at the claims of about James. We have the Bible claiming he existed, as the brother of Jesus Christ, son of God. We have Josephus mentioning him: “Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” However, if one reads about James, there are problems with calling him a “brother” if one accepts one sect’s version of Christianity. Is he brother or cousin? Or was he either? We have a few mentions in Acts, this mention in Josephus and mentions hundreds of years later. At best, we can say that there probably was a person who led the Jerusalem Christians. He may have been called James, since that seems to be a fairly common name (in regards to common names, Josephus mentions 20 men called Jesus aka Joshua, a common Jewish name). He may have been the brother to a rabbi who claimed to be the messiah. But we have nothing that shows he was the brother to a demigod. And that is the person that Christains need to show existed. I could say “sure, there was a man who thought he was the messiah. Per records from the time, there were bunches of them.” I ask Ben and SS and our other Christians here: “And then what? We know that this is not the character you wish to prove existed. I have no problem with you denying the divinity of Joshua ben Joseph, but I think your religion does. “Who do you say that I am?”

And again, we have this same problem. One must show this Jesus is in fact the incarnate Son of God supposedly. That is not what must be shown to show the resurrection. This is the kind of all-or-nothing thinking that is common to fundamentalist atheism. Note also that there is nothing here about archaeological evidence of James, yet his existence can be accepted. (In fact, do we have archaeological evidence of Josephus? Maybe he never existed.)

Yes. There are some who think James was a cousin and not a brother. What of it? Both sides agree James existed and was a relative of Jesus and was skeptical of him beforehand. Yes. There are several people named James. Again, what of it? Note this one is particularly noteworthy since he is identified by his brother who was called Christ. This must have been a famous Jesus that would have been known by an earlier reference, and indeed there is one earlier in the work of Josephus, though granted it has interpolations. Few scholars say it is a wholesale interpolation, including Josephus scholars. Most if not all Josephus scholars would say some the testimonium is authentic.

Since there is evidence for neither Horus nor Jesus Christ, there is no reason to think either theist claims to be true. Parts of Josephus, like the bible, may contain accurate information. But we know that all of it does not. This shows how some Christians cherry pick their sources. They wish to say that since Paul mentions James, James must exist. All we have are Paul’s claims, nothing more. Paul mentions demons, again, nothing shows that they exist either. In that we have stories about characters that non-Christians find true, and believe to be non-fiction, that should mean that SS, for example, should accept them for truth as much as he thinks I should accept his claims as truth. I think I am fairly safe in guessing that SS isn’t going to proclaim the authenticity of the deeds of Heracles or Hanuman anytime soon. And thus, if that isn’t proof enough that Heracles and Hanuman didn’t exist, then” nothing, simply nothing will convince you or anyone else. “

Again, this shows CS is one of three things.

CS is piggybacking on Carrier.

CS is ignorant of NT scholarship.

Or finally, both. My money is on both.

For instance, has CS dealt with the references in Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc. The reality is that the idea of a Christ-myth is simply a joke in NT scholarship. Most scholars would barely even give it a foot note. If CS wants to make claims about Hercules and others, let the evidence be presented. In fact, if there can be shown to be good evidence that there was a person named Hercules in history, even though there could have been legend built up around him, then it is necessary that we accept it.

For now, let’s move on to part two.

I have said that there are only stories that Paul existed as claimed. That includes his supposed conversion. I can also say that there are only stories that Simon Magus flew around since that also cannot be shown as true either. There are many stories that have no evidence supporting them. We have the claims that King Solomon used demons to build the Temple of Solomon. I ask our Christians: Is that a story or is it the truth? How can you tell? We have no evidence of such a temple so who knows how it was built, if it existed at all. This also applies to the supposed empty tomb. We have no tomb so we have no idea if anyone was in it, or if anyone disappeared from it.

Not even Richard Carrier would accept the claim that Paul never existed! This just shows the extremes that CS is willing to go to. Has CS given a historiography by which to show that a person is historical. As for these other claims, let CS feel free to give the evidence for them. I do not discount them ipso facto, but I do ask to see the evidence.

For instance, consider the claim about Simon Magus flying. These are in works that are believed by NT scholars to be apocryphal. This is the kind of account that CS wishes to compare to the gospels, which are Greco-Roman bioi. (See Richard Burridge’s work.)

What CS doesn’t realize is that one should accept a claim that there is good evidence for, regardless of if that claim goes against one’s worldview. If it does, then one should be prepared to change the worldview, unless of course one wants their worldview to interpret the evidence.

For instance, if I refuse to be open to the possibility that there is no God, then is it proper for me to interpret all evidence in that light and whenever any evidence goes against my position, just have to re-interpret it somehow? If my central claim of my worldview is false, it would eventually catch up to me. If I would not be allowed to do that, why should CS be allowed to do the same?

CS goes on to say more about Acts being a story, though I would be impressed to see her find the scholar who says none of Acts is historical, and I suspect the only possible name that could come up is Carrier.

And yes, I do say that the appearance to the 500 is just a story. It comes from 1 Corinthians, written by Paul, some decades later than the supposed event. There is no evidence this is from some “ancient creed”, it is solely found in 1 Corinthians.

We await the news that CS has discovered that is not known to even skeptical groups like the Jesus Seminar. We eagerly await their interacting with the scholarship on this such as Dunn, Hurtado, Ludemann, Crossan and Borg, Bauckham, etc. that all say that this is a creed. If CS simply wishes to say there is no evidence, then this is a sufficient reply.

There is evidence.

If CS can make an assertion without an argument, there should be no objection to my doing the same. The difference is, I do have an argument and it is one rooted in NT scholarship. Number of scholars I’ve seen referred to by CS thus far? You could count that with all your fingers cut off.

Paul indeed says that ““Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.” SS, you claim that this should be “self-explanatory”. However, it isn’t, and I ask you to do so

It is not self-explanatory indeed, but CS has not done the research on this. We know from Josephus that this is the Pharisaic language used to indicate the passing on of tradition. It is saying “I got this from my rabbi and now I am passing it on to you.” One gets the impression that CS reads no scholarship and does not argue for their claims really but simply has the position of “If Christians do not prove their claims, mine are right!” If so, that is simply wrong.

We see SS making baseless claims again when he claims that “myths of dying and rising gods never really took off in Palestine”. Well, one could make the argument that they certainly did, with the ideas being co-opted into the Jewish myths with Jesus.

One could, but CS certainly doesn’t! Has CS gone through the relevant material in Boyd and Eddy’s “The Jesus Legend”? Has CS interacted with Craig Evans in “Fabricating Jesus.” CS is simply relying on scholarship that most scholars today do not take seriously. Indeed, the internet is the place where zombies live most as dead ideas get resurrected to new life to those behind on scholarship. Not even Bart Ehrman takes these claims seriously.

If CS wishes to show that the Jews decided to copy a pagan idea, then I leave the burden of proof to CS. I suspect CS has never even read a work like Ulansey’s on a figure such as Mithras. I can assure CS that I am not impressed with Google scholarship.

No, he [Hercules] is taken to heaven and made a full-fledged god. Just like someone else we know, eh?

Why am I not surprised that CS’s source on this is Wikipedia? Hercules undergoes an apotheosis. This is not the claim of Jesus, but it is again irrelevant right now as all seeking to be shown is the resurrection. Perhaps if CS thinks this is true they can give us a general timeframe of when this happened, like NT scholars can do with Jesus. Perhaps, CS could also show the difference between a deity in a polytheistic system vs. the deity in Second Temple Judaism and how Jesus as God’s Wisdom would strongly differ from a polytheistic concept.

In the Jewish prophecies, we have no claims of being killed and returning. The messiah will come and then reign, with all of the world’s leaders respecting him. Didn’t happen so much with JC. What’s the possible answer? That the idea of a returning god is co-opted into the story to explain an inconvenient death.

We can thank CS for saying that there was no such prophecy at the time of Christ understood this way. In fact, it is only after the event that this starts being seen in Christian tradition. This would go against the idea of Jesus being made up based on the OT.

As for what didn’t happen with Jesus, as an orthodox Preterist, I only find it humorous.

I would ask SS how one could show a connection between the resurrection myths and Jesus. What would be possible ways to do this? Hmmm. Well, we have the cultures intermixing, either normally through trade and conquest, or if you believe the bible, through the supposed enslavement of the Israelites by one big culture all about resurrection, the Egyptians. We can see how religions infect each other with the modern examples of voodoo and Santeria. So we have an actual observed phenomenon versus an unsupported claim that the authors of the bible came up with the idea of resurrection on their own. Perhaps it is more important to ask: How can one show that the authors of the bible didn’t copy the myth?

Once again, CS needs to interact with Boyd, Eddy, and Evans, who go to great work to show that even in the diaspora, Jews clung tightly to their guns. Sure, they would interact with Gentiles, but they did not imbibe their ideas that way. They could learn the language, but that did not entail accepting the beliefs of people who spoke that language.

CS can point to modern examples, but to say people do this today in a belief system shows the Jews did so in theirs is just fallacious. Each claim must be taken on its own and considering the Jews were quite opposed to intermixing, especially after their having gone to Babylon for doing so earlier, the burden is on CS to show that this happened.

As for the claim that Craig is being used, I would say there is a good possibility Craig is not being used. The pointing to the creed is more along the lines of the minimal facts approach. Craig does use minimal facts outside the creed, which makes his approach more problematic. It seems CS does not know about the minimal facts approach, which again shows they are behind on NT scholarship.

If CS wishes to challenge this, then this is my challenge. Come to TheologyWeb.com and look for me there in the Deeper Waters section. Feel free to send a message there and tell me you’re here to accept the challenge. I eagerly await to see if CS shows up.

And as expected, throughout, we have seen no interaction with NT scholarship. A shame. Perhaps CS would benefit by going to the library more than going to Google.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

43 Responses to “A Response to Clubschadenfreude on the 500”

  1. Joe Foster Says:

    Well done. As to those “dying and rising gods,” CS can go to the library and look at Chapter 2 of The Resurrection of the Son of God, wherein N.T. Wright dispenses with that pathetic old canard in a single page. Then, let CS produce a scholar the level of N.T. Wright to refute him. Good luck with that. You’re right, Nick. This whole argument was one long Googleism.

  2. Ben Nasmith Says:

    Nice to see some discussion generated by that debate. Appreciate it!

  3. apologianick Says:

    CS is a she? Well if she really thinks she’s got the lion’s den, she’s free to come to TheologyWeb. We have so much fun with fundy atheists like her.

  4. silverswiper Says:

    CS was replying to me. I did find her very smart, and on a more ambiguous topic, I am sure she would have made mincemeat of me. However, the thing is that she has taken a position of hyper-skepticism that simply does not hold up. Nick Peters had a point in this post, she even argued at some point that Paul never existed. No-one in the academic community would find a position like that arguable even in their wildest dreams.

    It seems that this debate will be revisited on her blog, she has already responded to a Christian on her blog, and I am certain this action by Nick Peters will not go unnoticed. I think it is time for round two.

    • apologianick Says:

      Very smart? Please. These arguments are laughable. She’s a fundy atheist. She believed everything she was told as a Christian and does the same as an atheist.

      She wouldn’t last at all on TheologyWeb.com. She also needs to get off of Carrier. Christ myth nonsense and now Paul myth?

      CS reads no scholarship apparently. I do. Let her come to TWeb.

      • silverswiper Says:

        Incidentally, what is the deal with TheologyWeb?

        Oh, and yes. One can have absolutely abysmal arguments, but can be successful in arguing them. Some creationists are very smart, but just have bad arguments. I agree that she should jump off the myth-bus, but then again, if not that is OK. To me, the Christ myth theory is the atheist equivalent of ID (no offence if you are an ID supporter), and the fact that so many subscribe to it is shining proof that despite their claims of intellectual superiority, they are only human.

        And I would say to turn down the steam one notch. I don’t think Christians should put on the same colours as many atheists when dealing with their opponents. I try to be as civil as possible, and doing so is not only the right thing to do, but the audience respects you more than your opponent for that.

  5. apologianick Says:

    I had commented and left a link. I see she hasn’t put that up yet.

    And this thing I see in the comments thread about Christians destroying the Library of Alexandria? That’s funny!

    • Potato Says:

      I think links are not allowed, because every time I put up a link, the comment never showed up, nor said it was up for moderation.

      However, when I post anything else, the thing did show up.

      So, I just removed the “.” and put “(dot)” and it seemed to show up.

      • apologianick Says:

        May I email you? I have your email on the comment form here so you don’t need to share it. I just want your okay.

      • Potato Says:

        Oh, that email was random. I put it in the first time I encountered the WordPress thing on another site.
        There’s also the auto fill in thing for the Guest thing for WordPress.

        If you can see it, I changed the email thing now.

      • Potato Says:

        It seems that ClubS requests that you debate her in her comment section.

        Apparently, she thinks if she “wins”, you might “censor” her comments.

  6. apologianick Says:

    SS: Incidentally, what is the deal with TheologyWeb?

    Reply: it is the best place for debate and there is a Deeper Waters section.

    SS: Oh, and yes. One can have absolutely abysmal arguments, but can be successful in arguing them. Some creationists are very smart, but just have bad arguments. I agree that she should jump off the myth-bus, but then again, if not that is OK. To me, the Christ myth theory is the atheist equivalent of ID (no offence if you are an ID supporter), and the fact that so many subscribe to it is shining proof that despite their claims of intellectual superiority, they are only human.

    Reply: The difference is there could be some scientific credibility to ID. As a Thomist, I am skeptical in some ways of ID, but I think there are signs there is a designer, though I don’t look for scientific signs.

    SS: And I would say to turn down the steam one notch. I don’t think Christians should put on the same colours as many atheists when dealing with their opponents. I try to be as civil as possible, and doing so is not only the right thing to do, but the audience respects you more than your opponent for that.

    Reply: Must be news to Ann Coulter, Mike Adams, Greg Gutfeld, and others who get liked because they tell it like it is. My thinking is we are told as shepherds to carry a staff to lead the flock and to carry a rod to deal with wolves. I treat a wolf like a wolf and a sheep like a sheep. Until I see otherwise, CS as far as I’m concerned is a wolf seeking to tear apart the flock. If that’s her goal, why should I be gentle?

    It’s not a personal grudge match so there’s no steam. It’s just a battle for truth. We’re falling too much for the idea that we should try to get along. Secularists often say that until we disagree with them. See what’s going on with the homosexual movement for instance.

    • silverswiper Says:

      Jesus taught that when someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek. He said that we as Christians should do unto others as we would have them do to us. Sometimes debating with atheists can be really frustrating, but we should not resort to their tactics, and I’ll tell you why.

      One of the main reasons I have never become an atheist is this. Though many have stated they want to be courteous, and some do live up to that promise, I have found many if not most to be very rude, condescending and dismissive. Their tone was not pleasant, and not only do they have a free rein on their ridicule, they actually believe it is an effective way to convince believers. They pick ridicule over reason, even though they assert they alone have reason in them.

      I vowed I would never be one of them. And for this reason I urge you not to descend to their level. No swearing, no name-calling, no ridicule. If you need to stress a particular point, or even make the odd remark when your opponent is really unintelligent, feel free. But people notice these things, and I think we can stay one step ahead of the game if we try to be civil despite every disposition to not be, if we stick to that and our opponents do not change, we will be remembered as better men by posterity, that is always how it works.

      • apologianick Says:

        SS: Jesus taught that when someone strikes you, to turn the other cheek.

        Reply: Yes, and this is about a private exchange. The kind of slap described would be a simple insult in private which is a way of saying “Don’t try to one-up.” It doesn’t apply in public as Jesus himself answered insults in public. One must never lose sight of the private/public distinction.

        SS: He said that we as Christians should do unto others as we would have them do to us.

        Reply: And if I was making an ignoramus of myself, I’d want to have someone be bold enough to confront me. Some of the best gifts a Christian can get is someone to look in their eyes and confront them.

        SS: Sometimes debating with atheists can be really frustrating, but we should not resort to their tactics, and I’ll tell you why.

        One of the main reasons I have never become an atheist is this. Though many have stated they want to be courteous, and some do live up to that promise, I have found many if not most to be very rude, condescending and dismissive. Their tone was not pleasant, and not only do they have a free rein on their ridicule, they actually believe it is an effective way to convince believers. They pick ridicule over reason, even though they assert they alone have reason in them.

        I vowed I would never be one of them. And for this reason I urge you not to descend to their level. No swearing, no name-calling, no ridicule. If you need to stress a particular point, or even make the odd remark when your opponent is really unintelligent, feel free. But people notice these things, and I think we can stay one step ahead of the game if we try to be civil despite every disposition to not be, if we stick to that and our opponents do not change, we will be remembered as better men by posterity, that is always how it works.

        Reply: Except this is an ethic that only showed up in modern times. Go read Matthew 23. Go read Luke 11. See Elijah vs. the prophets on Mt. Carmel. Go see how the ECF dealt with their opponents. It wasn’t pretty. See how the medievals did. See how the reformers did.

        I’m not telling you to do the same, but I am saying our bag is to carry many tools. Sometimes, sarcasm and ridicule are those tools and I think there’s a biblical application for them.

      • silverswiper Says:

        I think I have said enough concerning this topic. But, there is something I want you to see. You may have heard of J.P. Holding, founder of Tekton ministries? After I read all of the comments on this page, I can conclude I would not take him as a partner in any debate.

        http://www.amazon.com/review/R3LTYX5WUZ70HR/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&asin=0830827196&cdForum=Fx1MRN7S1AC0KQU&cdPage=1&cdThread=TxJAPBZQ9E8MB6&store=books#wasThisHelpful

        You can read as much as you want, but I would at least read up to page 5. I find that I agree with A.E. Stewart most of the time. This is an example of the Christian I think we should never strive to be. My friend, another young apologist, admitted that after reading this he wanted to disagree with J.P.. Just consider it for future talks.

      • Potato Says:

        Yes, Holding can be harsh, however his arguments are too good for that to really degrade anything.

  7. Bilbo Says:

    Speaking of Ferguson-

    http://adversusapologetica.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/wlc-tries-to-defend-the-myth-of-barabbas/

  8. cornelll Says:

    This is what I’ve gathered so far about Clubschadenfreude

    She completely hand-waves at authorities who speak about a topic (she dismisses Karl Popper as just one philosopher who talks about science)

    She didn’t realize that there are ID advocates who hold to common decent (Michael Behe)

    She didn’t realize that there are ID advocates who are not Theists (David Berlinkski)

    SO FAR (and I have offered her a chance to explain herself) she thinks God should be defined as a being that began to exist..

    She thinks Gallop Poll has absolute no say on what exactly entails a “Creationist” “ID advocate” or “Evolutionist” to the point where she doesn’t even give an argument. I mean one can at least argue against Gallop Poll not being in a position, but at least show some reasoning for it.

    She also can’t tell the difference between ‘knowledge’ in the general sense, and ‘scientific knowledge’

    She also thinks that if X is 50/50 on a belief, X holds to her position that she wants X to hold to.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that she is an ignoramus that MAY have an inferiority complex towards Theists ….

  9. Potato Says:

    “clubschadenfreude says:
    July 24, 2013 at 3:56 pm
    Ah, I see he’s too afraid to come here and say it. That tells me just how worthy it is.”

    LOL.

  10. apologianick Says:

    SS. JPH is my ministry partner. I’d recommend you do what I did if you have concerns. Talk to him about them. In fact, come to TheologyWeb and read the thread about honest questions that are had about screwballs to see a real dialogue on the topic.

    Isn’t that the fair thing to do?

  11. cornelll Says:

    By the way, I noticed that yesterday my comments on her blog went through immediately and NOW when I post my reply it goes up for moderation, so let me know if you guys want to see my latest response. I’ll wait to see if she posts it first.

  12. Potato Says:

    Hello. Seems like she made a new post about the very topic of the incarnation.

    http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-so-if-i-agree-to-a-possible-historical-jesus-then-what/

  13. ClubSchadenfreude Says:

    Oooh this is a good one “Hercules undergoes an apotheosis. This is not the claim of Jesus, but it is again irrelevant right now as all seeking to be shown is the resurrection. ” Let’s see, apotheosis means elevation to divine status.

    Paul says this about Jesus “4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. ” Appears to be apotheosis, becoming the Lord. Here JC is saying he now is all-powerful, which means he wasn’t before: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And Peter seems to agree “36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

    Still no evidence of a magical Christ, still no evidence for a man named Paul who did all that is claimed. And lovely false claims that I am not open to the possibility of a Jesus Christ even if I was presented with evidence. Again, Nick is just batting a 1000 in using the same exact arguments SS has used. The same claims of evidence and presenting none. The same claims that only his interpretation is the right one without any evidence of this. Where is this evidence that is claimed that can show that the 1 Corinthian verse is an “ancient creed”. Nick claims that there is: “There is evidence.” and that’s where the paragraph stops. Claims of evidence but not one scrap of it actually presented. Do I have to ask for it again?

  14. apologianick Says:

    Oh boy! Here comes ClubS who is too cowardly to debate on TheologyWeb! Let’s see what she has to say!

    ClubS: Let’s see, apotheosis means elevation to divine status.

    Reply: Correct, and this is the classic blunder that you make.

    ClubS: Paul says this about Jesus “4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. ” Appears to be apotheosis, becoming the Lord.

    REply: Um. No. Sorry, but what it is is appointed. The word is Horizo and also means decree or declared and that is a more accurate translation. The point is that the resurrection did not give Jesus a new identity, but rather revealed the identity that He always had. Note what is said in Philippians 2. Jesus existed in the form of God. This is in line with Second Temple Judaism Wisdom theology. The resurrection revealed that yes, Jesus was who He claimed to be all along.

    ClubS: Here JC is saying he now is all-powerful, which means he wasn’t before: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

    Reply: Thank you for the great laugh! Sorry, but this doesn’t work. You see, Jesus had humbled Himself and took on the form of a servant. He forsook the usage of divine prerogatives in the incarnation. By His resurrection, He was declared to have the right to use them. Note how the gospel ends. “I am with you even unto the end of the age.” This is pointing back to Matthew’s beginning. In the start of the gospel, Jesus is said to be Immanuel, “God with us.” In the end, Jesus is said to be “God with us” to the end of the age.

    Matthew holds them together entirely.

    ClubS; And Peter seems to agree “36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

    Reply: Sorry, but you again embarrass yourself. Luke and Acts were written by the same person. When the shepherds are told of the birth of Christ, they are told He is Christ the Lord. Luke said He was Christ and Lord before the resurrection. Again, it’s the same as in Romans 1. The resurrection is God’s vindication and stamp of approval on the life of Christ.

    ClubS: Still no evidence of a magical Christ, still no evidence for a man named Paul who did all that is claimed.

    Reply: Right. Hey. Go to NT scholarship and tell them there’s no evidence that Jesus existed and see how long they laugh at you. If you want to hang your hat on Richard Carrier and Robert Price, feel free, but know they are on the fringe. Most NT scholars don’t even take the Christ-myth seriously.

    And I have never ever heard one use a Paul myth before.

    ClubS: And lovely false claims that I am not open to the possibility of a Jesus Christ even if I was presented with evidence.

    Reply: No. They’re entirely true. You use a different standard of evidence for the Bible than you do for anything else.

    ClubS; Again, Nick is just batting a 1000 in using the same exact arguments SS has used. The same claims of evidence and presenting none.

    REply: Have you been able to sit down yet from the beating you got from my post? I notice you respond to only one part. You only showed up on TWeb long enough to whine about it being unfair and then turned and ran. Thanks for making yourself a joke so easily on your first post.

    ClubS: The same claims that only his interpretation is the right one without any evidence of this.

    Reply: Sorry little girl, but I actually read real NT scholarship. You sit in the kiddie corner thinking you’re an authority somehow.

    ClubS: Where is this evidence that is claimed that can show that the 1 Corinthian verse is an “ancient creed”. Nick claims that there is: “There is evidence.” and that’s where the paragraph stops. Claims of evidence but not one scrap of it actually presented. Do I have to ask for it again?

    Reply: Yawn. Okay. Let me spell it out here.

    Paul uses the terms received and passed on. We know from Josephus that this is Pharisaic language for the passing on of a received tradition. Paul by his own testimony in Philippians 3 was a Pharisee.

    Second, the text also contains language that is not Pauline based on the other undisputed Pauline epistles. These include terms like “for our sins” and “According to the Scriptures.” Another indication is this is the only time Paul uses the term “The Twelve.”

    Third, there’s parallelism. The first and third lines are longer, there have the same Greek construction, and they have a short sentence after them introduced by the word “hoti.”

    Btw, this is not an opinion of just conservative scholarship. Even Funk and the Jesus Seminar will tell you this tradition comes within 2 to 3 years of the resurrection event at the most.

    Sorry, but you’re totally unfamiliar with NT scholarship and that has resulted in a Jesus allergy in you. I suggest you take a prescription of real NT scholarship at your local university.

    • Potato Says:

      I find it strange that she would post everything I’ve already dealt with.

      All she gave me in return was a complaint on exegesis.

    • Potato Says:

      If ClubS ever does respond (which I doubt she would), I would expect that she would complain on your exegesis and how claim you couldn’t show it was any more valid than anyone else’s.

      Then, she would bring up some other irrelevant heresy that other people who claimed to be Christians believed in.

      Finally, she would cite Romans 1:4 again and still claim it was apotheosis.

      I would know, because she keeps doing that,

  15. The Corinthian Creed and the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ | When is Jesus Coming Back? Says:

    […] DEATH & RESURRECTION OF GOD JESUS – Malayalam Christian Sermon By Dr.George Joseph K PhDA Response to Clubschadenfreude on the 500 .a3a5_box {font-size: 14px !important;font-style: normal !important;font-weight: normal […]

  16. Victor Polk Says:

    Nick, how would you reply to this typical know-it-all atheist about Stalin, politics, etc? This is his comment. “Rather than answer each of your posts, I’m making one large one. Food’s words are in italics. Doug has already shown the nonsense of Food’s claims about communism.
    Yes indeed, Religion is the Opium of the people, according to Marx. This logically was the basis upon which Communism persecuted faith. Atheism was the motivator. Yo deny this is to deny a huge chunk of 20th Century history!

    Food, just because you claim something is “logical” doesn’t make it magically that way. Please do show how you came to your conclusion. And nice attempt to try to pretend you didn’t try to lie about what Marx actually said, which invalidates your claim. You just invented another bit of nonsense to try to cover your mistake up. We have you insisting that Marxism is the opium the people and trying to build an argument on that and now trying to build an argument on another bit of nonsense. Your claims contradict each other so which is the one you want to go with?

    So Marxism and Communism are two different things? To claim that the Russian Revolution was not inspired by Marx and to write, as you do, that Atheism was not at the heart of this philosophy is revisionism of the worst possible kind. The development of the Russian Revolution saw the emergence of such organisations as ‘The Union of Militant Atheists’, under Lenin, and ‘The Godless Union’ under Stalin. As early as 1918 religion was suppressed with even Christians being banned from teaching. Dissident Soviet author and winner of the Templeton Prize, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, had his own verdict on the ‘ruinous Revolution that has swallowed up some 60 million of our people…Men have forgotten God; that’s why it happened’.

    Again, Food, yes, Marxism and big C communism are indeed different things. They do have some common points but that doesn’t prevent them from being different ideas. I did not claim that the Russian revolution wasn’t inspired by Marx and what is communism, something different from what Stalin invented aka big “C” communism, with the attributes of persecution, megalomania, etc. If you want to attack Marx, then you attack the philosophy of communism (see, no capital C) that Jesus Christ advocates, the sharing of wealth, helping the poor, etc. I don’t care what Solzhenitsyn claimed (lots of people have won that prize for doing nothing) . What I am asking for is evidence for what you have claimed. Incidentally, the Templeton Foundation does little more more than try support its particular version of Christianity by wasting money funding such things like trying to pretend that science and religion are compatible.

    “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,”, a circle is a sphere is it not, Isaiah 40v22, or is my geometry worse than my grammar (at least when I responding in WordPress. The bible does not say there was a fixed flat surface above the earth. If the earth is round the firmament which covered the earth was also round. I don’t see the problem. I have read the references you quote, it is doubtful you even read them because there is not a shred of evidence that the bible teaches a flat earth. As for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I am glad you admit the Bible got this right. You dismiss this because you imply this law is common sense. If it is so common sense why was this law not formulated until 1852 when William Thompson, Lord Kelvin, set forth his 3 propositions. This law, to which no exceptions have been observed, indicate that the universe is running down and that it will die as the Bible prophesies. Furthermore Lord Kelvin was a devout Christian who wrote: ” When we comprehend the vastness of the dimensions of that part of creation of which we know a little, and yet consider what an infinitesimal portion that is of the whole universe, how insignificant a being we must feel that , man is and how grateful ought we to be that God should still be mindful of him and visit him, and for the gifts and the constant care bestowed on him by the Creator of all.”. I thank you for taking the time to respond to my points and for correcting my grammar; tenet and tenant: I had a laugh at that too

    A sphere is not a circle. You can know this easily by asking one question: which one has volume? V=4/3 pi r (cubed). Your ignorance of so very many subjects is indeed breathtaking. The bible does say that the earth has a fixed flat surface, and I quoted the verses. Let me guess, you didn’t even try to look at them, depending again on ignorance to keep your baseless claims believable to yourself. Why you would bother lying about something that anyone can read in the bible is beyond me, especially when websites like biblegateway.com exist that you can search on keywords. The bible says the firmament was a vault, which is not round but a form of arch. And arches have flat bottoms. It’s no surprise you don’t see a problem since you have no clue what the bible actually says, and make up nonsense wholesale. But let me show what the verses did say since I was sure you’d try to pull a stunt like this. You’ve gone from being given the benefit of the doubt and simply considered ignorant to being a liar who has been presented with the evidence and making up false claims about it in order to benefit. For a TrueChristian, it seems you also haven’t a clue what your bible says about lying and liars. You might want to read Romans 3.
    Job 9:6 – He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
    Kjv: 6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

    Pillars make something quite fixed. I suppose you could put them on a sphere, sticking out like a ball with feet. Again, it’s fixed in place. I added the KJV version since I suspect you may be a KJV-onlyist.

    Job 22:14 – Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.
    Kjv: 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

    A vault is a term that indicates a roof over something with a floor. Again fixed and flat. A circuit is a line, no volume.

    Genesis 1:6-8 – And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
    Kjv: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day
    Same here.

    Psalm 148:4 – Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.
    Kjv: Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

    If the bible was considering a spherical world, then above is not the correct word. The correct word would be “around”.

    Isaiah 40:22 – He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
    Kjv: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

    Again, a circle is not a sphere (that volume thing, you know). One doesn’t spread a canopy over a sphere like a tent, something that has a covering and a flat floor. One can envelope a sphere, if you want to have the “heavens” on all sides. That’s not what the bible says.

    Amos 9:6 – he builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth;
    Kjv: 6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. (honestly, I have no idea what the heck this is supposed to mean or how Christians translators get such completely different results).

    A foundation is dependent on a fixed site.

    Psalm 104:5 – He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
    KJV: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.”

    Never be moved. Sure sounds rather fixed in place. A clear example where you have chosen to lie.

    Job 38:14 – The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.
    Kjv: 14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
    Plus: That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
    Clay under a seal flattens, Food. Of course, you can tell us how you think it acts. Does it become a ball? And where are the “ends” of a sphere?

    Let’s add a couple more. I’ll dispense with the kjv version.

    1 Chronicles 16:30 – Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved
    And who can forget the nonsense in Joshua where the sun and moon are claimed to move around the fixed earth and where they supposedly stopped. And which also says that this god obeyed a human “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being.”

    What will the excuse be? That these bits aren’t literal?

    It’s rather notable that you can’t explain how one is supposed to see something on one side of a sphere from the other. Please do so, Food. But you can’t, can you? I do wonder about someone who feels they must lie and does it when they supposedly believe that it can end them up in hell. Or do you think you get special dispensation to lie repeatedly, Food? For so many Christians whining that atheists consider their god a vending machine, what does it say when you think you can do something it hates repeatedly and still expect to be forgiven?

    The bible only happened to get the second law somewhat right. Again, it is because humans can observe how energy works, and the laws of physics do not support the nonsense end of the world put for by your myths. No angels calling forth disaster, no magical nonsense at all. So, we have you wanting to run to science to make your religion sound valid, but you ignore that your religion has nothing to do with science at all. It’s a common tactic by ignorant Christians and again it depends on the ignorance of the claimant and the listener/reader. Happily, in this information age, such tactics don’t work near as well as they used to.

    Equations are not needed to know how something works, Food. Physical laws exist long before anyone comes along and quantifies them. As for your bible reflecting the second law, it doesn’t since, surprise!, it makes the claims of magic, including the multiple resurrections of dead people. Again, nice try to use science to make yourself feel more valid, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    Lots of people make false claims about their religion, Food, including Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, etc. Humans are very good at compartmentalizing, and not applying their rigorous thoughts about science to their ridiculous myths. Kelvin, and you and so many other Christians, forget that other religions make the same baseless claims about how *their* god is the one and only creator. Still waiting for evidence of that.

    Indeed, why does an omnipresent god have to visit anything? How can it? And what gifts has this god given? Let me guess, you’ll prate on about how great your god and your god alone gave life. Evidence? You’ll prate on about how this god gave us the knowledge of modern medicine. Then this god must rather hate those who had the temerity to up and die from things he could have saved them from if only he had “given” the knowledge of antibiotics. He must have hated amputees before oh, about twenty years ago when we started having artificial limbs that were useful. He must have really hated people before he “gave” the idea of anesthetic, and funny how some Christians were against that because they were sure that this god meant for mankind to suffer no matter what.”

    How could you point out his condescending arguments, including some legendary scientists?

    • apologianick Says:

      Yeah. I wouldn’t even bother with a lot of this. It’s a pointless debate. Some answers can be found in Scripture and Cosmology by Greenwood, but ultimately, this is a debate on inerrancy and you could win it, but still lose overall. I would go straight to the resurrection of Jesus and ask for an explanation of the data of the historical Jesus.

  17. Victor Polk Says:

    Another atheist tries to destroy someone’s arguments by saying this. “Ron says:
    September 23, 2016 at 9:21 pm
    1. Circles and spheres

    “Some evangelicals claim that the Bible contains at least three references to a spherical earth (Is. 40:22; Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27). But this is just wishful thinking and an obvious imposition of modern cosmology on the Hebrew world-view. The Hebrew word hug used here cannot be translated as sphere (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth. Therefore I follow the Anchor Bible translation of Is. 40:22: “God sits upon the dome of the earth.” Job 22:14 says that God “walks on the vault (hug) of heaven,” again suggesting something solid. Hug can also refer to the circular perimeter of the sky-dome: “He drew a circle (hug) on the face of the deep…and made firm the skies above” (Prov. 8:27-28).”

    The Three-Story Universe ~(N. F. Gier (Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho, Moscow)

    2. Jesus’ cosmological ignorance

    “Immediately after the anguish of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will give no light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.” Matthew 24:29 NLT

    “the sun will be darkened”

    Not any time soon. The sun has ~5 billion years of fuel left.

    “the moon will give no light”

    The moon reflects light, but gives off no light of its own.

    “the stars will fall from the sky”

    This is an absurd proposition given that:

    – the Sun is a main sequence star. It can fit ~1.3 million planet Earths inside of it.
    – Eta Carinae is over five million times larger than our sun
    – Betelgeuse is 300 times larger than Eta Carinae
    – VY Canis Majoris is one billion times larger than our sun.
    – the closest star (Alpha Centauri) is 4.2 light years away
    – the next 19 closest stars are anywhere from 5.9 to 12 light years away

    “and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.”

    More absurdities.

    3. “The fool hath said…”

    The word nabal (translated as “fool”) in Psalms 14:1 & 53:1 means wicked and impious. Moreover, the second part of the verse claiming “there is no one who does good” is empirically falsified on a daily basis by the multitude of non-believers who do indeed do good.

    And just to be snarky…

    In Isaiah 45:5 Yahweh boldly proclaims “apart from me there is no God”, which makes him both an atheist and a fool. 🙂”

    Your reply to this?

  18. Victor Polk Says:

    And CS claims that one of the best apologetics: C.S. Lewis was “wrong”.

    This is his claim. “Then you insist that morality *must* have an objective standard. But again, you don’t say why. Is it C.S. Lewis’ argument that somehow morals, if not divine, will magically become worthless and ignored? There are plenty of reasons given by theists and they all fail at one level or another. Lewis’ fails because his prediction hasn’t come true. And it’s a little disturbing that that you are so very sure that Christians and non-Christians have different ideas about “right” and “wrong”. We differ on some things, but rarely on how we want to be treated. The golden rule isn’t just Christian. And, as I noted before, Christians don’t agree on “right” and “wrong” either. You would not be able to distinguish me from a crowd of Christians, except for that I do not go to church, and as I know from many Christians, they don’t always go either or declare just how Christian they are from figurative street corners. Morality can be objective if humans agree on it since we occupy the same reality. I do believe that some things are morally objective, but even if morality was subjective, that would not say it was worthless nor would it say that humanity is innately bad. We just take a while to learn from our mistakes. You also wish to claim that we simply disagree on our understanding of the morals that this god supposedly gives. I always find that excuse amusing since it makes your god rather inept and definitely not omnipotent, for being unable to make itself clear to us puny humans. As for your claim that God’s judgements do not change, that is untrue. Again, we have Christians who claim that their god is for “x” and is for “y”, directly contradictory things. God cannot agree with both so someone is wrong. Christians have changed their minds over what this god has supposed said, the Roman Catholics are good for noting each change as if God somehow mumbles. Each claims that they and only they know what God really wants and none of them can provide evidence for this.”

    From this. https://clubschadenfreude.com/2013/01/09/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-dear-theist-part-3/

    • apologianick Says:

      How does this argue against objective morality? The only way someone can be right and someone else wrong is if there is something for someone to be right or wrong about. If morality is subjective, what are we learning? What are subjective truths like that that we need to learn?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: