January 6, 2020

January 6, 2020 By

Catholics believe that sexuality has a deep, fundamental purpose, designed by God. That purpose is procreation / reproduction. That much is obvious and need not really be defended. Everyone knows that every baby (apart from artificial insemination, etc.) comes about by a process that was initiated by sexual acts. The differences of opinion arise due to various views as to the relationship of sexuality to the mutual (and/or exclusive) commitment of human beings, to reproduction, and to natural law.

“Everyone” used to know what the Bible teaches about sexuality. Today, however, we have many people pretending that the Bible doesn’t teach certain things about sex. Since some folks with a “sexual agenda” care about the Bible, or (more accurately) the authority and legitimacy that it has traditionally granted in western civilization, they will play games and try to force it to teach what they want it to teach, rather than conform their own behavior (insofar as they accept biblical authority and its status as inspired revelation) to what the Bible clearly teaches about sexuality.

Many Christians — who are fully willing to abide by what the Bible teaches — do not understand why the Bible teaches what it does about sex, even if they accept that it teaches certain things that have been accepted in Christian cultures, to more-or-less degrees. That brings us to apologetics: my field. People are (or were until recent times) widely familiar with what the Bible and traditional Christianity (and God) hold to be wrong in the realm of sexuality, but have no clue why certain things are prohibited, and other things required.

Moreover, most Catholics and almost all Protestants do not even dimly understand the distinctive Catholic teachings on sex, such as the prohibition of contraception. But I should note that all Christian communions thought contraception was gravely sinful until 1930, when the Anglicans first allowed it in hard cases only. Thus, it is simply historic Christian teaching, not just a “Catholic thing.” It has become the latter because we are the only ones who never forsook the traditional teachings, whereas other Christians decided to reject those.
*
Likewise, secularists and atheists and agnostics who ultimately don’t care what the Bible teaches, because they deny that it is revelation, and believe various myths about its nature and origins, want to hear non-biblical, non-religious secular, purely rational rationales for why certain sexual activities are “wrong.” Thus, the following attempt of mine to defend biblical / Catholic teaching on the basis of secular arguments has, I think, no small usefulness.
*
The Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong to deliberately separate sexuality from procreation, because the latter is its most fundamental purpose. It’s a natural law argument:
*
1) The deepest and essential purpose of sex is procreation.
2) Separating sex from procreation is a violation of this purpose and is against natural law.
3) Therefore, whatever does so is sinful and wrong.
*
God created sex for this purpose and also for pleasure, within its proper sphere (marriage between a man and a woman). He created it for the happiness and deep fulfillment of human beings. Whatever is prohibited by Him is for the purpose of fostering this fulfillment, not to make people miserable and repressed and “incomplete”, etc. We believe that when people follow the design that God has for sexuality, that they are the happiest, and that families and society prosper and flourish as a result (and that this is sociologically demonstrable). To the extent that they do not follow the guidelines, the opposite will be the result.
*
Catholic sexuality is not anti-woman, anti-pleasure, anti-orgasm, anti-homosexual (persons), anti-natural desire. That’s how many people construe it because they don’t properly comprehend its nature or rationale. It’s based ultimately on very simple principles:
*
1) God created sexuality for a purpose.
2) If we follow that purpose, we’re most happy and fulfilled.
3) If we deny it, then we will be unhappy and unfulfilled.

*

Contraception (deliberately thwarting a possible conception and engaging in sexuality under those circumstances) is wrong because it has an essential “contralife will”: it insists on separating what ought not be separated (sexuality from possible conception, or being “open” to conception). Catholics believe that a couple can space births and decide to postpone children or have no more children, for appropriately serious reasons of health, emotional factors, and finances. This is what Natural Family Planning is about. The difference is that the practicing Catholic abstains from sexuality during the woman’s fertile periods, if they have legitimate reasons not to conceive a child.

Pope Paul VI, in his landmark 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, predicted several dire consequences for society and individuals, should contraception be widely practiced. They have all come true. Ideas have consequences; behaviors have consequences. He could see the bad things coming because he understood why contraception was wrong in the first place, and hence, knew that it would have terrible fruits. Now we are living with those.

The Church holds that homosexual orientation itself is not sinful. It is only when these desires are acted upon or excessively dwelt upon (lust), that it becomes sinful. In that respect it’s not that different from heterosexual non-marital sexuality. Men and women after puberty have sexual desires, because God designed it that way, in order for more children to be born. These natural desires need to be controlled and delegated to the proper place and time to find fulfillment.

The difference between  homosexual and heterosexual sexuality is that the former (when acted upon in the usual ways) is, we believe, contrary to natural law in all circumstances, whereas the latter is sinful outside of marriage and a procreative will, but not sinful within those purviews.

This brings us to the deeper rationales for what is allowed and disallowed in the Christian (and specifically Catholic) view. Bluntly and generally expressed, the Catholic view is that male orgasm must occur within the act of vaginal intercourse with one’s spouse (of the opposite sex) that one is committed to for life, and that female orgasm must also be in conjunction with the overall act of love (intercourse), open to life and possible conception (i.e., no contraceptive devices or intent).

Sexual acts that are apart from this circumstance are wrong and sinful. This is Catholic sexuality in its most basic expression, or in a “nutshell.” It all has to do with commitment to one person of the opposite sex, in marriage, becoming “one” with them (as the Bible says) for the purpose of procreation and also for pleasure and closeness of the couple.

Now, why this alone is considered “proper sexuality” and other forms are not, requires much explanation, and gets into arguments from natural law and what is “natural” and what is “unnatural.” I think there are at least three ways to make this argument in an entirely non-religious, non-biblical way.

*

The first argument is by analogy to other organs and functions of the human body. We instinctively believe that certain things are unnatural and should not be separated. The example I use is taste buds and nutrition, in conjunction with eating. The “normal” understanding is that food should be enjoyed for its taste and also utilized for nutritional / health purposes. Both are, or should be present. We prove that this is what we believe, without thinking much about it, by our reactions to those who violate it.

So, for example, if a person completely separated the pleasure of taste from eating and insisted on eating bark, insects, rotten food (that still held some nutritional value), we would consider that exceedingly strange and odd. Why? Well, it’s because we believe that food ought to be enjoyed while nourishing us. Taste buds have no direct relation to nutrition whatever. They are purely for sensory pleasure, yet everyone believes that the pleasure should not be separated from the nutritional aspects of food.
*

On the other extreme, we have the junk food junkie. We think a person who eats exclusively Twinkies, chocolate-covered cherries, and cotton candy, or suchlike, is quite bizarre and not even remotely responsible about his or her diet. And that is because we know that food must have nutritional value, which is, in fact, its fundamental purpose, beyond merely enjoying its taste. Both have to be together. Some decadent ancient Romans used to deliberately throw up so that they could eat some more and enjoy the pleasurable sensations of eating. They separated nutrition from food in so doing, much as contraception separates procreation from sexuality:

Stories of Roman orgies with the participants throwing up during the meal are described in Roman courtier Petronius’ Satyricon, from the 1st century AD, but no specific room is designated for the act. Cassius Dio in his Roman History and Suetonius, secretary of correspondence to the emperor Hadrian, in his On the Lives of the Caesars also provide plenty of stories of imperial excess and vomiting while dining. (“What was really a vomitorium?,” Archaeology.Wiki, 1-27-17)

The second argument I have made from natural law is the analogy of bestiality as an unnatural form of sex. Even in our “permissive” day and age, it appears that most people, of whatever sexual preference, agree that this is wrong and should not be done. Again, if we ask, “why?,” we find that those who oppose it have not thought all that much about it. They intuitively or instinctively know that it is “wrong” or unnatural or obviously improper; weird, odd, bizarre, and regard those who do it as exceedingly strange and abnormal.

In the Christian view, of course, the reason is simple and straightforward: animals are fundamentally different from human beings, not being made in the image of God. But presently, we are discussing purely secular arguments. It’s not at all clear why, in a secular outlook, sex with an animal is necessarily wrong or even improper. If the end of sexuality is merely pleasure and nothing else, what would it matter how it is achieved? It’s just a sensation, like other sensory pleasures. Yet, nonetheless, bestiality is instinctively frowned upon, just as is incest: one of the few other remaining sexual taboos.

In my recent paper about this analogy I even traced the laws worldwide, which are slowly but surely changing, with more permissibility of bestiality, as the world becomes more secularized. There are movements now, advocating bestiality, just as there is the notorious “Man-Boy Love” association. The analogy is clear by now, I trust. Society regards bestiality as unnatural and wrong, because, basically, it “just is.” No one feels a particular need to argue why it is wrong. Well, that is how human homosexual acts were regarded by most in society until recent times: unnatural: even by observing female and male anatomies, and how they “complement” one another.

The difference between the two, is a matter of arbitrariness (in the secular outlook). The Christian thinks bestiality and homosexual sex are unnatural. The homosexual “activist” draws the line in a different place, thinking one thing is fine and the other detestable. But it’s not at all clear to me what the essential difference is, under secularist and materialistic evolutionary assumptions.

The third argument from natural law is one having to do with the health repercussions of homosexual sex. These go far beyond simply AIDS. There are various adverse health consequences, especially as a result of anal sex, because (we would argue), acts are done that do not further the health of human beings, and run contrary to health. Activists can deny this all they want. The facts are out there and can be found in any serious online search: all the way up to a significantly lower lifespan for active homosexuals.

We argue that, “what is against natural law will in fact be unhealthy.” In terms of active homosexuality, this is demonstrable. Moreover, we know that active homosexuality (especially among males) is most often highly promiscuous. The multiplication of partners has obvious risks involved with STDs and other diseases that are contagious. The same, of course, applies to heterosexual promiscuity. All the more reason to abide by the traditional marriage to one man or woman for life view . . .

This is the nutshell presentation of the Catholic view of sexuality. Many things can, of course, be argued and defended in much more depth. I would venture to roughly guess that probably some 85% of Catholics and 99% of non-Catholics have not read about at all, let alone understood, the above reasoning and rationales.

With that level of sheer lack of knowledge, it is virtually impossible that Catholic views can be perceived in anything but a highly caricatured, stereotypical, prejudiced fashion, with all the usual silly allusions to repressed nuns and dictatorial celibate old men in red robes (and by extension, God Himself), who allegedly want everyone else to be as miserable as they supposedly are. There is very little serious discussion of these things, because in order to have that, one must first understand the fundamental premises of views other than one’s own.

***

Related Reading:

*

Christian Sexual Views and Support from Sociology (Discussions About Christian Sexual Morality and Marriage with Atheists) [12-8-06]

Q & A: Catholic Sexual Morality and Contraception [1-1-08]

Condoms as a Solution to AIDS & Other STDs? [6-1-09]

Bestiality: Anti-Christian Morals Reductio? [12-21-15]

Catholic Sexuality: Cordial Dialogue with an Agnostic [12-30-15]

Dialogue on NFP: Anti-Sex and Anti-Pleasure? [1-23-17]

Dialogues on the Sexual Revolution & Weinstein’s Victims [10-14-17]

Epstein and Weinstein: The Fruit of the Sexual Revolution [11-4-17; rev. 7-19-19]

I Condemned Society-Wide Sexual Coercion in 2007 [11-17-17]

Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [National Catholic Register, 2-2-18]

Sex, Lies, & Videotape (“Discussion” w Angry Atheist) [2-15-19]

Mini-Debate on Libertarianism and Laws About Sex [3-7-19]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #40: Jesus: All Sexual Desire is Lust? (Replies to some of the most clueless atheist “arguments” to ever enter the mind of a sentient human being . . .) [12-18-19]

***

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
***

(originally 12-29-15)

Photo credit: Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O´Neill wedding: photo by Bengt Nyman, 8 June 2013 [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license]

***

September 5, 2019

September 5, 2019 By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks and probably months.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 2 is entitled, “Faith, Reason, and My Approach to Christianity” (pp. 39-63).

It’s well beyond my purview and purpose in these critiques to tackle all of the various brands of philosophy of religion and strains and varieties of Christian apologetics. Reasonable Christians (and atheists) can differ in good faith about their relative strengths and weaknesses.

So I’ll confine myself to what I think are outright misunderstandings of misrepresentations of  Christian views: particularly as expressed in inspired Scripture. I agree with Loftus when he writes (p. 44): “I understand these are complex issues, which unfortunately, I can’t devote the needed space to . . .” He knows that this is a “large and lumpy” area of thinking; so do I.

I maintain a very extensive Philosophy, Science & Christianity web page, if readers want to see how I argue various positions, and how I come down on all the internal differences about how to defend Christianity and larger theism. I summed up on Facebook — in a very “nutshell” way — my overall philosophy of religion:

My Opinion on “Proofs for God’s Existence” Summarized in Two Sentences

My view remains what it has been for many years: nothing strictly / absolutely “proves” God’s existence. But . . .

I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives.

In my first installment, I noted how Loftus stated that “I present a cumulative case argument against Christianity. . . . I consider this book to be one single argument against Christianity, and as such it should be evaluated as a whole.” (p. 15; his italics)

I replied:

That’s exactly how I view my body of apologetics (50 books and over 2500 blog articles) in favor of Christianity and (in particular) the collection of diverse argumentation I have set forth in critique of atheism.

Just as Loftus considers his overall case against Christianity long and multi-faceted and complex (laid out in “one single argument” in a densely argued 536-page book); likewise, I consider my case for Christianity and against atheism to be very multi-faceted and complex and only able to be fully understood with very extensive reading of my 2500+ articles and 50 books (not all, of course, but quite a few!).

What our views have in common is that we both regard them as “a cumulative case.” There is no one single argument on either side (I think he’d agree, as I’m pretty sure would most atheists and apologists and philosophers of religion) that is a “knockout punch”. Loftus agrees, on page 54:

When it comes to Christian apologetics, the best approach seems to be the cumulative case method of the late Paul D. Feinberg . . . This best explains why there is no single apologetical approach that will cause people to convert, and it bets explains why there is no silver bullet argument that will convince believing Christians to abandon their faith.

***

Scientific evidence, the evidence of the senses, and reasoning based on this evidence is what counts. (p. 44)

[W]hen I came to see things differently, sufficient evidence derived from science-based reasoning became the only game in town, so to speak, . . . the scientific method is the best (and probably the only) reliable guide we have for gaining the truth . . . (p. 57)

Here is where Loftus runs into what I consider to be insuperable problems, and self-refuting tenets. What he just described is empiricism, which is the philosophical outlook that senses and observations of physical things allow us to discover facts and truth. It’s fine as far as it goes (it’s the fundamental basis of science), but it just doesn’t go far enough or explain everything. There are many different ways of knowing (even mathematics and logic: both basic building-blocks of science, are axiomatic and non-empirical). We readily observe that this very sentence from Loftus is self-defeating:

1) He makes an epistemological statement about “what counts” [strongly implied, all that counts] in determining truth.

2) This very statement is not empirical. It is strictly philosophical, or metaphysical: about the relative value or worth of empiricism.

3) But if empirical observations are all that we can trust, and all that “count”, then his sentence has to be discounted, since it is not an empirical observation.

4) Ergo, it is self-defeating and self-refuting.

I’ve dealt with this false, misguided, tunnel vision “science only” or “scientism” mentality (very common in atheism) many times and from many different angles:

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Reply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible? [7-13-10]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge? [5-6-17]

Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

Science: “only discipline that tells us new things about reality” [???]: Scientism or Near-Scientism as a Very Common Shortcoming of Atheist Epistemology [8-9-18]

Rebuttal of Seidensticker’s Anti-Christian Science “History” [8-11-18]

*
I have never thought that Pascal’s wager was a particularly strong argument: if an argument at all. But it is a clever thought experiment and something to definitely seriously consider. Again, this is beyond the purview of my purposes, so I’ll pass. Though I love Pascal (and Alvin Plantinga, Kierkegaard, William Lane Craig, the Late Norman Geisler, gary Habermas, and others he mentions in this chapter), I’m not here to defend every school and argument of the entire history of apologetics. I’m already devoting what will be many hundreds of hours to this long project. My purpose is to critique errors I see in Loftus’ own views, per my titles: “Loftus Atheist Error # . . .” 
*
On pages 50-51, Loftus develops an interesting (though thoroughly fallacious and weak) “New and Better Kind of Wager.” He reasons that it would be a better state of affairs if God asked us “if we want to be born, knowing the risks involved”: including the calculus and consideration of a possibility of ending up in an eternal hell. “Why wouldn’t God give us a choice in the matter? It seems unethical for him not to do so . . . If I were given the choice, I would simply say, ‘No, count me out! Put me out of existence now.’ “
*
This stimulates several responses in my mind (which is a major reason why I absolutely love dialogue and back-and-forth discussion: because it can do that):
*
1) I think it’s foolish to imagine and posit that he himself and many or most people would choose to be annihilated rather than to live a life on the earth. There is no good reason to believe this, that I can see. It’s essentially the view that we would all commit suicide, given the choice in the beginning: except that it would be an assisted suicide, with God’s help. I see no indication — by analogy of how relatively few people commit suicide in this world — that many folks would make this choice.
*
And if Loftus would have done so, then, by his own reasoning (and a reductio ad absurdum) he would have to argue that people (including he himself) should kill themselves today (if they thought there was a God and a hell, or even that both might exist), since the potentialities and hypotheticals remain the same. Atheist or no, the great bulk of people in the world are simply not that hopeless and nihilistic.  Of course, Loftus doesn’t believe in God, and all of this is a mere hypothetical and mind game. But he is attempting to make a reasoned argument against the biblical God, and this doesn’t succeed in that purpose at all.
*
2) I note in passing (consider this a “footnote”) that it is highly ironic that a person who believes in legal abortion is making an argument that all of us: at the beginning of our existence, should be asked whether we want to live or not. To be consistent, the one who is pro-abortion and who has an abortion, would contradict this: all the more so in the atheist’s case, since they eliminate the only life that baby will ever have (there being no afterlife). If Loftus thinks “it seems unethical for him [God] not to do so” I don’t see how he can possibly favor legal abortion, since it is radically anti-choice for the baby about to be killed (and in atheist metaphysics and ontology, annihilated and made nonexistent forever).
*
3) I submit that it is absurd for God to ask a question of a human baby (which would presuppose that God temporarily gave them a mind that could reason enough to even have such a momentous discussion) about these things, when there are so many unknown factors. Obviously, in Christian belief, God is omniscient, and He deems it a good thing for human beings to “be fruitful and multiply.” For God, and for us Christians and pro-lifers, who consider life infinitely valuable and priceless, the very scenario is meaningless. Of course, life and creation as a whole is good and wonderful, and it is better to exist than not to. This is virtually self-evident for all who haven’t committed suicide, and the extremely strong instinct to preserve our own lives is evidence of it as well.
*
4) In making his argument, Loftus smuggles in many notions that are false premises, to start with: thus making his conclusion erroneous or at the very least, dubious and indefensible.
*
a) He says “we might not be raised in the right Christian family and might therefore be sent to hell because of it.” This is silly, simplistic argumentation. Granted, we all can have good or bad influences in many ways, that was beyond our choice.  But in the end, the biblical view is that each individual is given enough grace and power to be saved, if they make that choice, and that each will be individually responsible:
Ezekiel 33:17-20 (RSV) “Yet your people say, `The way of the Lord is not just’; when it is their own way that is not just. [18] When the righteous turns from his righteousness, and commits iniquity, he shall die for it. [19] And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. [20] Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways.”
*
Romans 14:10-12 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;  [11] for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” [12] So each of us shall give account of himself to God. 
We’re not sent to hell, so much as we choose to go there, by rejecting God’s free offer of grace for salvation and eternal life in heavenly bliss:
Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” 
b) [T]he odds, according to most evangelicals anyway, are that most of the people who are born in this world will end up in hell.
*
First of all, Christian theology is not determined by a head count of evangelicals, but by Scripture and unbroken apostolic tradition, passed down. Appealing to what evangelicals think is silly on two levels: 1) it’s the genetic fallacy, and 2) evangelicals are only a portion of Protestants, who are a small minority of all Christians, now and through history (they didn’t even exist until the 16th century).
*
Secondly, the mainstream Christian position is that we simply don’t know how many end up in heaven and hell, proportionately. Jesus said:
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
*
Luke 18:8 “. . . when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?”
On the other hand, in a recent argument that I came up with myself, I examined two of Jesus’ parables, which were about salvation and damnation, to see if they provided any clues about this, in a reply to atheist David Madison:
In the next chapter we have the great scene of the separation of the sheep and goats at the last judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). . . .  No indication in this text is given of relative numbers of the saved and the damned. In two of His parables nearby, however, He does give indication. . . . 
*
In the parable of the ten maidens with lamps (Matthew 25:1-13), five were foolish and were damned (“the door was shut . . . I do not know you”: 25:10, 12) and five were wise and received eternal life (“went in with him to the marriage feast”: 25:10). . . . It’s a 50-50 proposition.
*
The parable of the talents follows (25:14-30). Here, there are three servants, who are given five talents, two talents, and one talent [a form of money], respectively. The ones who are saved are the first two (“enter into the joy of your master”: 25:21, 23), while the servant with one talent, who did nothing with it, was damned (“cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness”: 25:30). So this parable suggests a 67% rate of final salvation and a 33% rate of damnation. 
Moreover, St. Paul expressly taught that even those who have not heard the gospel or Christian message could be saved, based on what they know (thus leaving open a wide potential for salvation indeed):
Romans 2:13-16  For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  

Bottom line: we just don’t know for sure, but we know that there is grace for all and that there is significant indication that a huge proportionate number will attain heaven. In the end, each of us has to live our life and be judged as to how well we have done, by others, and by God.

c) “God should already know what the odds are and not choose that risk for us.”

This is what free will entails. God gives us all a choice: to follow Him and His moral laws or reject Him and go our own way. He can’t reasonably be blamed if we deliberately reject Him, in our free will. He thought that was better than a bunch of robots who could do not other than what He programmed them to do at every instant. I totally agree! I want free will to choose as I wish; not to have no choice and be totally controlled.

d) “And yet here I am, without any choice in the matter apparently condemned to hell.”

He is not “condemned to hell” at all. He has a free will and choice to repent and become a Christian again, and get on the road to salvation. What he says may be the Calvinist view, but of course they are a minority of a minority (with very few remaining adherents today), and not the be-all of Christianity. They believe in predestination to hell; virtually all other Christians today and throughout history do not. But even John Calvin stated that no one could know for sure who was among the elect. So Calvinists and fundamentalists can’t say John he is definitely hellbound, nor can I, nor can anyone else or he himself. If he repents, he can be reasonably assured that he is heaven-bound, provided he stays the course.

None of us could decide to be born into this earthly life (many now are prevented by abortion and infanticide from even having this life, whether they would have wanted to or not). Sorry, John: your parents thought your existence was a good thing. But we have a full choice as to where we decide to spend eternity., which is far, far more important if indeed we do have an eternal existence, since if that is the case, this life represents only an infinitesimally small portion of our entire existence (like one atom compared to the entire universe):

Psalms 39:4-5 “LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is! [5] Behold, thou hast made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing in thy sight. Surely every man stands as a mere breath! . . .” (cf. 39:11)

Psalms 144:4 Man is like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow. (cf. 78:39)

James 4:14 . . . What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.

***

Loftus argues (pp. 59-60) that the Israelite worldview prior to the exile to Babylon (after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC) was polytheistic (just as neighboring cultures’ religious view was). Well, duh! This is why God judged them (through Nebuchadnezzar) in the first place: precisely because they had forsaken Him, and monotheism, and adopted polytheism and idolatry: directly and deliberately against what He had urged and commanded them to do, for their own good.

This was the prophet Jeremiah’s message of warning prior to the Babylonian exile:

Jeremiah 1:15-16 For, lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the LORD; and they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah. [16] And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. 

Jeremiah 7:9-15 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!’ — only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [12] Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. [13] And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, [14] therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. [15] And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of E’phraim. 

Jeremiah 11:9-13 Again the LORD said to me, “There is revolt among the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. [10] They have turned back to the iniquities of their forefathers, who refused to hear my words; they have gone after other gods to serve them; the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers. [11] Therefore, thus says the LORD, Behold, I am bringing evil upon them which they cannot escape; though they cry to me, I will not listen to them. [12] Then the cities of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will go and cry to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they cannot save them in the time of their trouble. [13] For your gods have become as many as your cities, O Judah; and as many as the streets of Jerusalem are the altars you have set up to shame, altars to burn incense to Ba’al. (cf. 13:10; 16:11-13; 19:1-9; 22:8-9; 35:15; 44:2-6, 15-17)

God allowed the temple to be destroyed because He had had enough of the disobedience and idolatrous compromises and hypocrisy and empty worship of too many of the Jews who worshiped there. They had to learn the hard way (so often sadly true of human beings and whole cultures), and so off they went in slavery to Babylon.

But alas, here comes Loftus “informing”us that the 6th century BC Israelites were polytheistic, as were their neighbors, as if this is some startling new insight unknown to Christians (or Jews)? It’s almost comical. It doesn’t follow at all that the actual teachings preserved in the Old Testament and the very rich Jewish oral tradition were not known and taught back then (which is, no doubt, what Loftus is driving at or insinuating). They were, but they were rejected and not followed.

This, in fact, is the central theme of the entire Old Testament: the continual straying of the Jews, followed by judgment and renewal, and then cycling toward to rebellion again. It was still happening in the New Testament when most of the Jews rejected Jesus, Who was indeed their expected Messiah.

So how is it that this supposedly casts doubt on the Bible: when it is teaching exactly the same thing? I hope that Loftus will explain this if he ever interacts with these series of critiques of his book. I’ve dealt with this nonsense that the earliest “formal” Jewish belief (not what was always practiced) in the times of Abraham, Moses, and even into David’s time (1000 BC) was in fact, polytheistic, in two replies to atheist Bob Seidensticker:

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]
*
In every case when it comes to my reasons for adopting my skeptical presumption, the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that it’s “not impossible.” (p. 62)
*
[W]e want to know what is probable, not what is possible . . . Probability is what matters. (p. 63)
*
As I’ve already stated above, this is not my view at all. I’ll repeat my view again:
I think His existence is exponentially more probable and plausible than atheism, based on the cumulative effect of a multitude of good and different types of (rational) theistic arguments, and the utter implausibility, incoherence, irrationality, and unacceptable level of blind faith of alternatives.

One sees nothing of “possible” or “not impossible” here.  I’m arguing from accumulation of various arguments and probability (exactly as Loftus advocates) and also plausibility.

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

 

August 6, 2019

August 6, 2019 By

This is an installment of my series of replies to an article by Dr. David Madison: a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, who has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. It’s called, “Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said” (Debunking Christianity, 7-21-19). His words will be in blue below. Dr. Madison makes several “generic” digs at Jesus and Christianity, in the written portion (it details a series of 12 podcasts):

A challenge for Christians: If you’re so sure Jesus existed, then you have some explaining to do. A major frustration is that, while believers are indignant at all the talk about Jesus not existing, they don’t know the issues that fuel the skepticism—and are unwilling to inform themselves.

Yes, I’m up to the “challenge.” No problem at all. I’m not threatened or “scared” by this in the slightest. It’s what I do, as an apologist. The question is whether Dr. Madison is up to interacting with counter-critiques? Or will he act like the voluminous anti-theist atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker?: who directly challenged me in one of his own comboxes to respond to his innumerable attack-pieces against Christianity and the Bible, and then courageously proceeded to utterly ignore my 35 specific critiques of his claims as of this writing. We shall soon see which course Dr. Madison will decide to take. Anyway, he also states in his post and combox:

[S]o many of the words of Jesus are genuinely shocking. These words aren’t proclaimed much from the pulpit, . . . Hence the folks in the pews have absorbed and adored an idealized Jesus. Christian apologists make their livings refiguring so many of the things Jesus supposedly said.

The gospels are riddled with contradictions and bad theology, and Jesus is so frequently depicted as a cult fanatic—because cult fanatics wrote the gospels. We see Jesus only through their theological filters. I just want to grab hold of Christian heads (standing behind them, with a hand on each ear) and force them to look straight ahead, unflinchingly, at the gospels, and then ask “Tell me what you see!” uncoached by apologist specialists, i.e., priests and pastors, who’ve had a lot of practice making bad texts look good. . . . I DO say, “Deal with the really bad stuff in the gospels.” Are you SURE you’ve not make a big mistake endorsing this particular Lord and Savior? That’s the whole point of this series of Flash Podcasts, because a helluva lot of Christians would agree, right away, that these quotes are bad news—if no one told then that they’ve been attributed to Jesus.

Of course, Dr. Madison — good anti-theist atheist that he is — takes the view that we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels in the first place. I don’t play that game, because there is no end to it. It’s like trying to pin jello to the wall. The atheist always has their convenient out (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway [wink wink and sly patronizing grin], and/or that the biblical text in question was simply added later by dishonest ultra-biased Christian partisans and propagandists. It’s a silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, and so I always refuse to play it with atheists or anyone else, because there is no way to “win” with such an absurdly stacked, purely subjective deck.

In my defense of biblical texts, I start with the assumption that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not). Going on from there, I simply defend particular [supposedly “difficult”] texts, and note with appropriate argumentation, that “here, the Bible teaches so-and-so,” etc. I deal with the texts as they exist. I don’t get into the endlessly arbitrary, subjective games that atheists and theologically liberal biblical skeptics play with the texts, in their self-serving textual criticism.

Dr. Madison himself (fortunately) grants my outlook in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.”

Good! So we shall examine his cherry-picked texts and see whether his interpretations of them can stand up to scrutiny. He is issuing challenges, and I as an apologist will be dishing a bunch of my own right back to him. Two can play this game. I will be dealing honestly with his challenges. Will he return the favor, and engage in serious and substantive dialogue? Again, we’ll soon know what his reaction will be. A true dialogue is of a confident, inquisitive, “nothing to fear and everything to gain” back-and-forth and interactive nature, not merely “ships passing in the night” or what I call “mutual monologue.”

*****

Dr. Madison’s seventh podcast of twelve is entitled: “On Mark 4:11-12: Jesus taught in parables to keep people from repenting and being forgiven”. Here is the passage:

Mark 4:11-12 (RSV) And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; [12] so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.” 

Bizarre Jesus quote . . . Jesus teaches in parables so that people won’t turn and be forgiven. . . . It clearly doesn’t make sense at all. Is Jesus serious? Parables are meant to fool people, to keep them in the dark?

Mark 4:11-12 is a common scriptural / Hebraic way of expressing God’s judgment and His providence (while not denying that ultimately men decide their own eternal fates, by either accepting or rejecting God’s grace). Romans 1 explains it:

Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

Note that the onus lies upon the people who “suppress the truth” and are engaged in “all ungodliness and wickedness” (1:18). They choose in their own free will to disobey God, then the text says that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (1:24). In other words, He didn’t cause their rebellion; He only allowed them in their free choices, to rebel.

The same dynamic is seen in the juxtaposition between Pharaoh freely hardening his heart, which is then applied to God (in a limited sense) doing it (which means that He allowed it, in His providence; He didn’t ordain it). I explain this at length, in two papers.

A fourth similar example occurs in the book of Job. Satan comes to God and challenges Him to allow him to torment Job. God responds, “Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life” (2:6; cf. 1:12). So it is clear that Satan is behind the direct persecution of Job. But later, the text refers to “all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him” (42:11); that is (properly interpreted, with knowledge of the multitude of Hebrew literary devices), allowed in His providence. Then it is reported (now literally) that God “restored the fortunes of Job, . . . and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before” (42:10) and “blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning” (42:12).

2 Thessalonians (written by St. Paul, as was Romans) is a fifth example, and it expresses precisely the same dynamic as we see in Romans 1 and the other three examples above. Men rebel in their wickedness (“they refused to love the truth and so be saved”: 2:10). Then it is stated (as a forceful hyperbolic manifestation of God’s providence and His permissive will) that “God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2:11-12).

It’s not a contradiction. This way of speaking is common in the Bible. When Paul talks about wicked men, he is being literal; but when He talks about God, it is hyperbolic and a form of sarcasm. 2:10 makes it quite clear what caused their damnation: “those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth.” Even 2:12 again reiterates that man’s rebellion was the cause of the demise of the damned: not because God willed and ordained it from all eternity. The Gospel of John teaches the same thing:

John 12:37-40 Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him; [38] it was that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” [39] Therefore they could not believe. For Isaiah again said, [40] “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.”

Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, in its treatment of the Old Testament passage cited in John 12 (Isaiah 6:9-10) states:

What is prophesied in this passage is the judicial hardening of Israel in their rebellion against God. The prophecy is stated in different forms. Here it appears imperatively; but in other places the prophecy is referred to as self-accomplished as in Acts 28:27, or as having occurred passively as in Matthew 13:13-15. Here, as Dummelow pointed out, “The result of Isaiah’s preaching is spoken of as if it were the purpose of it.” . . .

The classical example from the Bible is that of Pharaoh, of whom it is stated ten times that “Pharaoh hardened his heart …” after which it is said that, “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” God never hardened anyone’s heart who had not already hardened his own heart many times. Thus it was said of this prophecy that Israel had themselves shut their ears, closed their eyes, and hardened their hearts.

Thus we may say that God hardened Israel, that Israel hardened themselves, and further, that Satan hardened their hearts. “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” (2 Corinthians 4:4). The “blinding” of this passage and the “strong delusion” of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 KJV, and the “working of error” (2 Thessalonians 2:11, ASV) are all designations of exactly the same condition described here as “hardening.”

The key to understanding lies in the parallel passage of Acts 28:27, which the commentary above describes as “self-accomplished” rebellion. This shows the same dynamic as the “hardened hearts” passages. In the overall context of Acts 28, we don’t see the language of God deliberately blinding them, etc. We see their own choices causing these things. Hence, we see references to “others disbelieved” (28:24); then the Isaiah passage is cited, but in a milder fashion, followed by “Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen” (28:28). In other words, these hearers would not listen. It was their fault; they were rebellious. God didn’t cause that.

Likewise, here is how Jesus put it in Matthew 13:13, 16: “This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. . . . their eyes they have closed . . . But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” If one looks at the larger context of John 12:37-40, one can also see that it is man’s rebellion, not God’s foreordination, that causes the disbelief and wickedness:

John 12:37, 47-48  Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him; . . . [47] [Jesus] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. [48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.

***

Photo credit: The Pharisees and the Sadducees Come to Tempt Jesus, by James Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

August 1, 2019

August 1, 2019 By

This is an installment of my series of replies to an article by Dr. David Madison: a pastor in the Methodist Church for nine years, who has a PhD in Biblical Studies from Boston University. It’s called, “Things We Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said” (Debunking Christianity, 7-21-19). His words will be in blue below. Dr. Madison makes several “generic” digs at Jesus and Christianity, in the written portion (it details a series of 12 podcasts):

A challenge for Christians: If you’re so sure Jesus existed, then you have some explaining to do. A major frustration is that, while believers are indignant at all the talk about Jesus not existing, they don’t know the issues that fuel the skepticism—and are unwilling to inform themselves.

Yes, I’m up to the “challenge.” No problem at all. I’m not threatened or “scared” by this in the slightest. It’s what I do, as an apologist. The question is whether Dr. Madison is up to interacting with counter-critiques? Or will he act like the voluminous anti-theist atheist polemicist Bob Seidensticker?: who directly challenged me in one of his own comboxes to respond to his innumerable attack-pieces against Christianity and the Bible, and then courageously proceeded to utterly ignore my 35 specific critiques of his claims as of this writing. We shall soon see which course Dr. Madison will decide to take. Anyway, he also states in his post and combox:

[S]o many of the words of Jesus are genuinely shocking. These words aren’t proclaimed much from the pulpit, . . . Hence the folks in the pews have absorbed and adored an idealized Jesus. Christian apologists make their livings refiguring so many of the things Jesus supposedly said.

The gospels are riddled with contradictions and bad theology, and Jesus is so frequently depicted as a cult fanatic—because cult fanatics wrote the gospels. We see Jesus only through their theological filters. I just want to grab hold of Christian heads (standing behind them, with a hand on each ear) and force them to look straight ahead, unflinchingly, at the gospels, and then ask “Tell me what you see!” uncoached by apologist specialists, i.e., priests and pastors, who’ve had a lot of practice making bad texts look good. . . . I DO say, “Deal with the really bad stuff in the gospels.” Are you SURE you’ve not make a big mistake endorsing this particular Lord and Savior? That’s the whole point of this series of Flash Podcasts, because a helluva lot of Christians would agree, right away, that these quotes are bad news—if no one told then that they’ve been attributed to Jesus.

Of course, Dr. Madison — good anti-theist atheist that he is — takes the view that we are not at all sure whether Jesus in fact said anything recorded in the Gospels in the first place. I don’t play that game, because there is no end to it. It’s like trying to pin jello to the wall. The atheist always has their convenient out (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it anyway [wink wink and sly patronizing grin], and/or that the biblical text in question was simply added later by dishonest ultra-biased Christian partisans and propagandists. It’s a silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, and so I always refuse to play it with atheists or anyone else, because there is no way to “win” with such an absurdly stacked, purely subjective deck.

In my defense of biblical texts, I start with the assumption that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in the Bible (believe it or not). Going on from there, I simply defend particular [supposedly “difficult”] texts, and note with appropriate argumentation, that “here, the Bible teaches so-and-so,” etc. I deal with the texts as they exist. I don’t get into the endlessly arbitrary, subjective games that atheists and theologically liberal biblical skeptics play with the texts, in their self-serving textual criticism.

Dr. Madison himself (fortunately) grants my outlook in terms of practical “x vs. y” debate purposes: “For the sake of argument, I’m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.” And in the combox: “So, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We’ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.”

Good! So we shall examine his cherry-picked texts and see whether his interpretations of them can stand up to scrutiny. He is issuing challenges, and I as an apologist will be dishing a bunch of my own right back to him. Two can play this game. I will be dealing honestly with his challenges. Will he return the favor, and engage in serious and substantive dialogue? Again, we’ll soon know what his reaction will be. A true dialogue is of a confident, inquisitive, “nothing to fear and everything to gain” back-and-forth and interactive nature, not merely “ships passing in the night” or what I call “mutual monologue.”

*****

Luke 14:26 (RSV) If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Dr. Madison, in his podcast, calls the text in question a “full body blow” and “embarrassing.” He adds (for no extra charge): “cult leaders . . . have not wanted people who would be swayed by family . . . that was part of his [Luke’s] agenda . . . for him it was standard operating procedure.”

Is that so? How very odd, then, that the same writer, eyes allegedly ablaze with propagandizing purposes and a cultish hatred of normal familial relations, records Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law:

Luke 4:38-39 And he arose and left the synagogue, and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they besought him for her. [39] And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her; and immediately she rose and served them.

What sense does that make? None . . . If we interpret everything with a stultified, wooden literalism (utterly ignoring the richness of literary forms and genres that every language has: including Hebrew and Greek), then we have the absurdity of Jesus supposedly advocating literal hatred of family members, yet turning around and healing one of same. And Luke the wild-eyed “true believer” — inexplicably, if we accept Dr. Madison’s take — records this! So do Matthew (8:14-15) and Mark (1:29-31).

“Hate” . . . means exactly what it seems to mean . . . This verse has to be at the top of the list of things we wish Jesus hadn’t said. . . . 

One would have to know Greek or Aramaic . . . if not, so Dr. Madison opines, it is a “knee jerk reaction” to not interpret literally.

I’m delighted that he actually brought up the question of language and [implied] literary genres. It’s the only indication we have in his podcast, that he is aware of such factors that are crucial in interpretation. But one would fully expect this in one who has a PhD in Biblical Studies. This is what makes it all the more odd and strange that Dr. Madison can’t figure out what is going on in this passage. It’s really not all that complicated.

Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” That is a  statement from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). I have this work in my own library (hardcover). It’s also available for free, online. Bullinger continues, in the Introduction:

All language is governed by law; but, in order to increase the power of a word, or the force of an expression, these laws are designedly departed from, and words and sentences are thrown into, and used in, new forms, or figures.

The ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them.

The Romans carried forward this science . . .

These manifold forms which words and sentences assume were called by the Greeks Schema and by the Romans, Figura. Both words have the same meaning, viz., a shape or figure. . . .

Applied to words, a figure denotes some form which a word or sentence takes, different from its ordinary and natural form. This is always for the purpose of giving additional force, more life, intensified feeling, and greater emphasis.

Bullinger devotes six pages (423-428) to “Hyperbole; or, Exaggeration”: which he defines as follows:

The figure is so called because the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact. Or, when more is said than is meant to be literally understood, in order to heighten the sense.

It is the superlative degree applied to verbs and sentences and expressions or descriptions, rather than to mere adjectives. . . .

It was called by the Latins superlatio, a carrying beyond, an exaggerating.

I shall cite some of his more notable and obvious examples (omitting ellipses: “. . .” ):

Gen. ii. 24. — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.” This does not mean that he is to forsake and no longer to love or care for his parents. So Matt. xix. 5.

Ex. viii. 17. — “All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt”: i.e., wherever in all the land there was dust, it became lice.

I Sam. xxv. 37. — Nabal’s “heart died within him, and he became as a stone”: i.e., he was terribly frightened and collapsed or fainted away.

I Kings i. 40. — “So that the earth rent with the sound of them.” A hyperbolical description of their jumping and leaping for joy.Job xxix. 6. — “The rock poured me out rivers of oil”: i.e., I had abundance of all good things. So chap. xx. 17 and Micah vi. 7.

Isa. xiv. 13, — “I will ascend into heaven”: to express the pride of Lucifer.

Lam. ii. 11.— “My liver is poured upon the earth, etc”: to express the depth of the Prophet’s grief and sorrow at the desolations of Zion.

Luke xiv. 26. — “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother”: i.e., does not esteem them less than me. So the verb to hate is used (Gen. xxix. 31. Rom. ix. 13). [my bolding]

John iii. 26. — “All men come to him.” Thus his disciples said to John, to show their sense of the many people who followed the Lord.

John xii. 19. — “Behold, the world is gone after him.” The enemies of the Lord thus expressed their indignation at the vast multitudes which followed Him.

Gary Amirault highlights more biblical examples in a similar article:

[T]is verse is a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect:

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.” (Matt. 23:24, NIV)

It is not too difficult to determine that this is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because the English language is full of Bible terms and phraseology, this Hebrew idiom has become part of the English language. Therefore most English speaking people know the real meaning of that phrase: “You pay close attention to little things but neglect the important things.” [Dave: or, “you can’t see the forest for the trees”]

However, here is a hyperbole that the average Bible reader may miss and formulate doctrine from which may end up being harmful to themselves and others.

“Everything is possible for him who believes.” (Mark 9:23b, NIV)

The Bible is full of exaggerations like the one above which are not to be taken literally. Careful attention, comparing scripture with scripture, knowing the Bible and its author thoroughly, making certain not to necessary apply things to ourselves which weren’t meant for us individually and some basics about the original languages are needed to prevent us from misinterpreting various scripture verses like this one. . . .

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out…” Matt. 5:29 (I met a Christian who actually tried to pluck out his right eye because he had a lust problem. This is an example the kind of problem a Bible translation can cause if one is not informed of the various figures of speech found in the Bible.)

The literary device of antithesis, or contrast also seems more specifically applicable to the verse we are considering. Bullinger writes about this in his pages 715-718:

A setting of one Phrase in Contrast with another.

. . .   It is a figure by which two thoughts, ideas, or phrases, are set over one against the other, in order to make the contrast more striking, and thus to emphasize it. [footnote: “When this consists of words rather than of sentences, it is called Epanodos, and Antimetabole (q.v.).”]

The two parts so placed are hence called in Greek antitheta, and in Latin opposita and contraposita. . . .

It is called also contentio: i.e., comparison, or contrast. When this contrast is made by affirmatives and negatives, it is called Enantiosis, see below. The Book of Proverbs so abounds in such Antitheses that we have not given any examples from it.

Hence (understanding all this, which Dr. Madison obviously does not), when Jesus says “does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters” He is expressing Hebrew hyperbole and/or antithesis to express with extreme exaggeration what He literally means: “does not esteem them less than me.” Thus, the thought of “loving Jesus more than one’s own family” is expressed by the non-literal “hate [one’s family, in order to] be my disciple.”

In fact, Jesus did express what we contend He was stating non-literally in Luke 14:26, in a literal fashion elsewhere (and here we see the important hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear or obvious passages by more clear related passages”):

Matthew 10:37  He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

We see precisely the same parallelism (“hate” = “love relatively more than”) in the poetic literary expression of Genesis:

Genesis 29:30-33 So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. [31] When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. [32] And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” [33] She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also”; and she called his name Simeon.

The apostle Paul expresses largely the same sort of thing in the same way:

Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ

Paul also seemed blissfully unaware of Luke and other early Christian “cultist” supposed fanatical anti-family views, since he casually alluded to apostles like himself and Peter (“Cephas”) having “the right to be accompanied by a wife” (1 Cor 9:5).

I submit that Jesus commented on his own statement in another related sense in this passage:

Matthew 12:47-50 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” [49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

He’s not rejecting His family. He is enlarging the concept of family to include people like His disciples and indeed, anyone who “does the will of my Father in heaven.” It’s another very typical instance of Hebrew hyperbole or a type of antithesis. But it’s inclusive, not exclusive.

Jesus taught that we are to love (not hate) even our enemies:

Matthew 5:43-44  You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (cf. Lk 6:27-35)

Obviously, then, He would not (and did not) teach that we ought to hate our own families. Jesus taught that we should love all people, and that includes families:

Matthew 19:19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22:37-40 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Mark 12:30-31 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ [31] The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Luke 10:27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

John 13:34-35  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.[35] By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

John 15:17 This I command you, to love one another.

I rest my case. This poses no problem whatsoever for either Christians, or a consistent interpretation of these Bible passages. It’s simply a function of non-literal forms of speaking that were common in Hebrew culture (just as in every other culture and language, to more or less degrees). But Hebrew language was especially rich in figures and non-literal techniques.

And this leads to innumerable misguided readings of Scripture from atheists and other biblical skeptics (even including those with doctorates in biblical studies) who — oddly — don’t grasp this rather elementary consideration, and appear to make no effort to try to understand it. They’re too busy tearing down Holy Scripture and approaching it like how a butcher views a hog.

***

Photo credit: The Sermon on the Mount (1877, portion), by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

November 9, 2006

November 9, 2006 By

Maxwell

Engraving of the great Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) by G. J. Stodart from a photograph by Fergus of Greenock. Maxwell was a devout Presbyterian, and formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as manifestations of the same phenomenon. His discoveries helped usher in the era of modern physics, laying the foundation for such fields as special relativity and quantum mechanics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

PHILOSOPHY 

 
GENERAL / EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Did Jesus Use “Socratic Method” in His Teaching? [National Catholic Register, 4-29-19]
*
Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”? (Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”) [7-5-20]
*
*
*
*
*
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL / SUFFERING
*
*
Problem of Evil: Treatise on the Most Serious Objection (Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?) [2002]
*
*
The Problem of Evil: Dialogue with an Atheist (vs. “drunken tune”) [10-11-06]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
God, the Natural World and Pain [National Catholic Register, 9-19-20]
*
Is God Mostly to Blame for the Holocaust? [National Catholic Register, 5-31-21]
*
*
THE “PROBLEM OF GOOD”
*
*
EDUCATION / HOMESCHOOLING
*

Homeschooling: Response to Kevin Johnson’s Criticisms [7-12-05]

On Homeschooling & Dilapidated Public Education [1-3-09]  

*

THEISTIC ARGUMENTS
*
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (BIG BANG, ETC.)
*

A Variation of the First Way of Thomas Aquinas (+ Part II / Part III) (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [1982]

How “Creation” Implies God (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [1985]

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources) [10-23-15]

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [National Catholic Register, 10-1-20]
*
*
*
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (DESIGN) 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]
*
Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus (Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men  & Jesus’ Birth & Infancy) [12-14-20]
*
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
*
*
*
*
MISCELLANEOUS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SCIENCE
*
GALILEO
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
EARLY MODERN SCIENCE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO RELIGION
 
*

Astrology: Philip Melanchthon’s Enthusiastic Espousal [5-21-06]

Did St. Thomas Aquinas Accept Astrology? [5-30-06]

16th-17th Century Astronomers Loved Astrology (+ Part Two) [5-25-06]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Philip Melanchthon Wax Astronomical and Geocentric, Oppose Copernicus [2-5-09]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

Scientific & Empiricist Church Fathers: To Augustine (d. 430) [2010]

Christian Influence on Science: Master List of Scores of Bibliographical and Internet Resources (Links) [8-4-10]

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD [8-5-10]

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries [2010]

Who Killed Lavoisier: “Father of Chemistry”? [8-13-10]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

John Calvin Assumes a Non-Spherical Earth & Severely Mocks Plato for Believing that the Earth is a Globe [9-4-12]

St. Augustine: Astrology is Absurd [9-4-15]

Catholics & Science #1: Hermann of Reichenau [10-21-15]

Catholics & Science #2: Adelard of Bath [10-21-15]

Science and Christianity (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

Dialogue with an Agnostic on Catholicism and Science [9-12-16]

A List of 244 Priest-Scientists [Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 11-29-16]

A Short List of [152] Lay Catholic Scientists [Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 12-30-16]

Science, Logic, & Math Start with Unfalsifiable Axioms [1-6-18]

Seidensticker Folly #44: Historic Christianity & Science [8-29-20]

Exclusive Empirical Epistemology?: Dialogue w Atheist [2-25-19]

Modern Science is Built on a Christian Foundation [National Catholic Register, 5-6-20]

The ‘Enlightenment’ Inquisition Against Great Scientists [National Catholic Register, 5-13-20]

Embarrassing Errors of Historical Science [National Catholic Register, 5-20-20]

Scientism — the Myth of Science as the Sum of Knowledge [National Catholic Register, 5-28-20]

Seidensticker Folly #59: Medieval Hospitals & Medicine [11-3-20]

Seidensticker Folly #60: Anti-Intellectual Medieval Christians? [11-4-20]

Medieval Christian Medicine Was the Forerunner of Modern Medicine [National Catholic Register, 11-13-20]

*

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE / SCIENTIFIC METHOD

*
*
*
Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [originally 2-17-03; expanded greatly on 8-26-10]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]
*
*
Did Darwin Prove Genesis a Fairy Tale? (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [2007]
*
Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis?  (Dr. Dennis Bonnette) [2007]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Historicity of Adam and Eve [9-23-11; rev. 1-6-22]
*
Modern Biology and Original Sin (+ Part 2) (Dr. Edward Feser) [9-23-11]
*
*
*
Time to Abandon the Genesis Story? [Dr. Dennis Bonnette, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 7-10-14]
*
Origin of the Human Species (3rd edition, 2014, by Dr. Dennis Bonnette)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A List of 244 Priest-Scientists (Angelo Stagnaro, National Catholic Register, 11-29-16)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [National Catholic Register, 10-22-20]
*
*
Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]
*
*
*
*
Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [National Catholic Register, 2-17-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Theory of Evolution & Catholicism [Ch. 10 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version) ] [11-22-23]
*

NOAH AND THE FLOOD

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood and Catholicism: Important Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither? [7-1-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #37: Length of Noah’s Flood Redux [7-2-21]

Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought [7-2-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories (Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis) [7-4-21]

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia [7-9-21]

Noah’s Flood: Not Anthropologically Universal + Miscellany [10-5-21]

*
CLIMATE CHANGE / GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
THE KOOKY FUNDAMENTALIST REVIVAL OF GEOCENTRISM
*
(comprehensive website run by David Palm)
*
*
Does the Church Support Robert Sungenis’ Novel Theories? (Jonathan Field) (+ Part Two) [11-8-10, at Internet Archive]
*
*
*
Geocentrism: Not at All an Infallible Dogma of the Catholic Church (David Palm and “Jordanes”) [11-20-10, at Internet Archive]
*
*
*
Actress Kate Mulgrew Says she Was Duped Regarding her Narration of the Geocentrist Film, The Principle [Karl Keating article and Facebook discussion and media links, 4-8-14]
*
*
MIRACLES 
 
*
Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead [9-24-07; revised for National Catholic Register, 2-8-19]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
My oldest son Paul was healed of serious back and neck problems [You Tube video testimony linked on Facebook, 8-28-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [National Catholic Register, 10-22-20]
*
*
*
*
Moses, Science, and Water from Rocks [Catholic365, 11-18-23]
*
*
CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC (STARTING IN MARCH 2020)
*
*
*
*
*
 
[For related reading, see: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism Page]

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

Last updated on 6 January 2024
***
November 9, 2006

November 9, 2006 By
Gender
Image by “OpenClipArtVectors” [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]
*****
SEXUALITY (GENERAL) 
*
*

Q & A: Catholic Sexual Morality and Contraception [1-1-08]

Condoms as a Solution to AIDS & Other STDs? [6-1-09]

Is Bestiality a Secular Sex Reductio ad Absurdum? [12-21-15]

Catholic Sexuality: A Concise Explanation & Defense [12-29-15]

Catholic Sexuality: Cordial Dialogue with an Agnostic [12-30-15]

Natural Family Planning: Anti-Sex & Anti-Pleasure? [1-23-17]

Women Have No Sexual Desire During Infertility? (+ Natural Family Planning [NFP] and Sexual Desire) [1-26-17]

Dialogue on Rebecca Bratten Weiss’ Teaching on Sexuality [9-20-17]

Dialogues on the Sexual Revolution & Weinstein’s Victims [10-14-17]

Epstein and Weinstein: The Fruit of the Sexual Revolution [11-4-17; rev. 7-19-19]

I Excoriated Society-Wide Sexual Abuse in 2007 [11-17-17]

Dialogue on Roy Moore: Sex, Facts, Ruined Lives, & Law [11-17-17]

Does President Trump = Frankenweinstein? [11-20-17]

Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [National Catholic Register, 2-2-18]

Seidensticker Folly #6: God Has “No Problem with Rape”? [8-15-18]

Sex, Lies, & Videotape (“Discussion” w Angry Atheist) [2-15-19]

Mini-Debate on Libertarianism and Laws About Sex [3-7-19]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #40: Jesus: All Sexual Desire is Lust? (Replies to some of the most clueless atheist “arguments” to ever enter the mind of a sentient human being . . .) [12-18-19]

Dialogue: Are Paul, the Bible, & Catholicism Against Sex? [2-11-20]

Dialogue: Paul, Bible, & Catholicism R Anti-Sex? (Pt. 2) [2-22-20]

Sociology: Devout Married Christians Have Best Sex [2-29-20]

Debate: Trump, Sexual Misconduct, & the Christian Vote [4-28-20]

Dialogue: Groupies & Parameters of Sexual Consent [4-29-20]

Secular English Liberal Writes an Extraordinary Description of the Destructive Sexual and Revolutionary Aspects of the 1960s [Facebook, 9-5-20]

Debate w Atheist on Contraception, Abortion, & Sex Ed [3-15-21]

Rihanna & Christians Kowtowing to the World-System (Regarding Rihanna’s Performance During Half-Time at the Super Bowl and How Christians Are Responding to it) [2-14-23]

*

PREMARITAL / EXTRAMARITAL SEX / COHABITATION

Is Premarital Sex Morally Wrong? Why? (A Dialogue) [3-18-00]

Does St. Paul Sanction Premarital Sex (1 Cor 7:36)? [11-21-09]

Dialogue: Is Catholic Virginity an “Anti-Sex” Viewpoint? [11-6-15]

Dialogues on the Sexual Revolution & Weinstein’s Victims [10-14-17]

Pope Francis: Pro-Marriage & Contra “Marital Skepticism” [1-29-18]

Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [National Catholic Register, 2-2-18]

Sociology: Devout Married Christians Have Best Sex [2-29-20]

The Bible on Why Premarital Sex Is Wrong [National Catholic Register, 5-26-21]

*

RADICAL FEMINISM AND FEMALE “PRIESTS”  

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DEACONESSES
*
*

Dialogue with a Traditionalist Regarding Deaconesses [5-13-16]

*

MEN, WOMEN, MASCULINITY, FEMININITY, SEXISM, GENDER, MARRIAGE, FAMILY, PARENTING 

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Cussing Women, Chivalry, Etc. (+ very extensive and vigorous Facebook discussion) [8-24-16]
*
*
A Thought on Marriage Vows [Facebook, 4-26-17]
*
*
*
Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained [National Catholic Register, 2-2-18]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DIVORCE
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ANNULMENT
 
*
*
*
Annulments are Fundamentally Different from Divorce [National Catholic Register, 4-6-17]
*
*
*
HOMOSEXUALITY: GENERAL 
*

“Forced” Morality & Ubiquitous “Bigotry” [6-9-16]

My Supposed “Conflation” of LGBTQ Rights & Pedophilia [6-14-16]

Orlando, “Homophobia”, Terrorism, & Slander [6-23-16]

Defense of Bishop Barron (Rubin Interview): Did He Do Anything Wrong? Was it a Missed Opportunity (Particularly Regarding the “Gay Marriage” Issue)? (+ Facebook discussion) [2-13-17]

“Hated by All”, Catholic Evangelism, & the Fullness of Truth: Is it Possible for an Orthodox, Morally Traditional Catholic, Who Shares the “Unabridged” Catholic Message, to be Rapturously Loved and Liked by One and All Radically Secularist Leftists and Atheists? [2-13-17]

Lawler vs. Pope Francis #2: Homosexuality & “Judging” [1-2-18]

Is the Catholic Church “Against” Gay Priests? [8-24-18]

Wacko Reactionary Fanatic Claims That I Endorse Homosexual Acts and “Pachamama” Idolatry [Case Study of Fantastically Out-of-Context Citations] / He Sanctions Hatred [Facebook, 12-17-19]

Pope Francis, Same-Sex Unions, & Chicken Little Mass Hysteria [10-22-20]

*
HOMOSEXUALITY: DEBATES
*
*
*
Debate on Catholicism & Homosexuality (vs. a Lawyer) [11-3-16]
*
*
*
HOMOSEXUALITY: TEACHING OF THE BIBLE
*
*
*
*
*
How Did Jesus View Active Homosexuality? [National Catholic Register, 9-16-19]
*
*
*
*
HOMOSEXUALITY: HEALTH RISKS
*
The Health Risks of Gay Sex (John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.; see also my Facebook cross-posting and discussion) [5-25-15]
*
*
HOMOSEXUALITY: SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TRANS IDEOLOGY / BATHROOM CONTROVERSIES
*
MASTURBATION 
*
Masturbation: Thoughts on Why it is as Wrong as it Ever Was [3-14-04 and 9-7-05; abridged, edited, and slightly modified on 8-14-19]
*

Martin Luther Condemned Masturbation (“Secret Sin”) [6-2-10]

Masturbation & the Sermon on the Mount (Talmudic Parallels) [10-18-11]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Masturbation: Gravely Disordered According to Catholicism [8-16-19]

Biblical Hyperbole, Masturbation, & Intransigent Atheists [9-3-19]

Masturbation: C. S. Lewis Explains Why it is Wrong [10-28-19]

Debate: Masturbation Okay in Moderation or Intrinsically Wrong? [10-31-19]

C. S. Lewis Left Christianity Due to Masturbation? (Case Study of the Saying, “Heresy Begins Below the Belt”) [8-11-20]

More Proof That ‘Heresy Begins Below the Belt’ (Even for Young C. S. Lewis) [National Catholic Register, 8-30-20]

Masturbation & Blindness?: Fascinating Investigation [1-21-22]

*

CHILD TRAFFICKING AND SEX SLAVERY
*
*

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

 
Last updated: 18 December 2023 
***

November 9, 2006

November 9, 2006 By
AssisiConference
4th World Day of Prayer for Peace, Assisi (Italy), October 27, 2011 (photograph by Stephan Kölliker) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]
***
 
CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS
*
*
Communion and Unity: Biblical Injunctions (Brock Fowler) [Facebook, 1998]
*
*
*
*
How Catholics View Protestants [9-4-03; rev. 10-9-03 and 1-5-05; abridged on 11-14-16]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [8-13-15]

Top 15 “Catholic” Beliefs of John Calvin [8-22-15]

Defending John Calvin’s “Top 15 ‘Catholic’ Beliefs” [9-2-15]

Should Catholics Try to Persuade Protestants? [5-25-16]

Ecumenism vs. No Salvation Outside of the Church? (vs. Dustin Buck Lattimore) [8-9-17]

Defending Ecumenism and Vatican II vs. Reactionary Catholics [8-10-17]

Baptismal Ecumenism: A New Evangelistic Paradigm (Rod Bennett) [8-11-17]

John Calvin’s 15 Surprisingly Catholic Views [National Catholic Register, 10-10-17]

Socratic Dialogue / Debate vs. Anti-Lutheran Catholic [3-20-07 and 10-24-17]

On Celebrating (Or Commemorating) the “Reformation Day” 500th Anniversary [Facebook, 11-1-17]

Catholic Ecumenism + Apologetics (James Swan’s Cluelessness) [11-18-17]

Dialogue on “Mere Christianity” and “The Church” [11-22-17]

Do Protestants Hate My Writings? / Catholic-Protestant Dialogue [Facebook, 12-27-18]

Reactionary Louie Verrecchio’s Three Lies About Vatican II [6-19-19]

Vs. Pasqualucci Re Vatican II #2: Unitatis Redintegratio (Salvation) [7-11-19]

Dialogue: Pope Francis vs. Gospel Preaching & Converts? No! (vs. Eric Giunta) [1-3-20]

Reply to Questions Concerning Attending Protestant Services [Facebook, 4-1-20]

Islam Expert Sam Shamoun Has Renounced Anti-Catholicism [Facebook, 2-22-21]

Nice Protestant Compliments of My Work [Facebook, 6-8-22]

Very Nice Compliment from Protestant You Tube Apologist Collin Brooks [Facebook, 7-16-22]

“Asbury Revival”: So Far So Good, But Be Watchful [2-20-23]

Why Protestants Become Catholics (w Gavin Ortlund) [2-22-24]

My Deep Respect for Gavin Ortlund as a Protestant Apologist [2-22-24]

*

EASTERN CATHOLICISM
*
Books by Dave Armstrong: Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (Third Edition with co-author Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier, July 2015)
*
*
ANTI-PROTESTANTISM 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
INTER-RELIGIOUS / INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE 
*

Ecumenical Gatherings at Assisi: A Defense: Ecumenism in St. Thomas Aquinas (Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli) [8-1-99]

Dialogue: Vatican II & Other Religions (Nostra Aetate) [8-1-99]

Defense of 2nd Ecumenical Gathering at Assisi (Mark Shea) [2-6-02]

Can a Christian Fund a Mosque? [3-25-07; abridged 8-8-16]

Does the Catholic Church Equate Allah and Yahweh (God)? [article for Seton Magazine, 18 June 2014; see additional important clarifications and vigorous discussion on my Facebook page]

Biblical Evidence for Ecumenism (“A Biblical Approach to Other Religions”) [National Catholic Register, 8-9-17]

Is VCII’s Nostra Aetate “Religiously Pluralistic” & Indifferentist? [6-7-19]

Reactionary Louie Verrecchio’s Three Lies About Vatican II [6-19-19]

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles) [8-19-19]

Dialogue: Pope Francis vs. Gospel Preaching & Converts? No! (vs. Eric Giunta) [1-3-20]

Pope St. Pius X: Muslims Worship “the one True God” [Facebook, 9-4-20]

Pope Francis & the Diversity of Religions (The Sedevacantist Outfit Novus Ordo Watch Lies Yet Again About Pope Francis) [11-29-20]

Ecumenism & Religious Liberty [Ch. 9 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023] [11-21-23]
*
SALVATION “OUTSIDE” THE CHURCH / RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
*
The Catholic Church’s View of Non-Catholic Christians (Karl Adam) [Facebook, 1996; from 1924]
*
On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.) [Facebook, 6-15-98; written in 1975]
*
Is There Salvation Outside the Church? (Fr. William G. Most) [Catholic Culture, 1988]
*
Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]
*
*
*
*
Is There Salvation Outside of the Church? And Other Questions. (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 6-4-10)
*
Salvation Outside the Church (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 8-12-10)
*
Why Mathison is Wrong on Salvation Outside the Church (Joe Heschmeyer, Shameless Popery, 8-17-10)
*
*
*
Ecumenism vs. No Salvation Outside of the Church? (vs. Dustin Buck Lattimore) [8-9-17]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
JEWS AND JUDAISM
 
*
ISLAM

*

Can a Christian Fund a Mosque? [3-25-07; abridged 8-8-16]

Does the Catholic Church Equate Allah and Yahweh (God)? [article for Seton Magazine, 18 June 2014; see additional important clarifications and vigorous discussion on my Facebook page]

John Paul II Kissing the Koran: Dialogue with Traditionalists [2012; new Introduction added on 6-4-19] [6-4-19]

Pope St. Pius X: Muslims Worship “the one True God” [Facebook, 9-4-20]

 

ATHEISM AND CHRISTIAN RELATIONS

Secular Humanism & Christianity: Seeking Common Ground (with Sue Strandberg) [5-25-01]

Can Atheists be Saved? Are They All “Evil”? [2-17-03]

Constructive, Enjoyable Atheist-Christian Discussion Perfectly Possible [1-4-07]

16 Atheists and Me: Further Adventures at an Atheist “Bible Study” Group [11-24-10]

My Enjoyable Dinner with Six Atheist Friends [6-9-15]

Clarifications Regarding Atheist “Reductio” Paper [8-20-15]

Legitimate Atheist Anger [10-7-15]

New Testament on God-Rejecters vs. Open-Minded Agnostics [10-9-15]

*

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

Last updated on 9 May 2024

*** 

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Walz’s "Mind Your Own Damn Business"...
EcoPreacher
2
This will guarantee 4 more years...
Grace-Colored Glasses
3
MASSIVE TIM WALZ SCANDAL: Garden Less...
All Set Free
4
Meet the False Prophets Hijacking Evangelical...
Progressive Persuasion and Passion
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Slightly more than month to go!
Worry About Worrying
Three Fierce Women In The Bible. A Prophet,...
Will I die today in a school shooting?
"Gazpacho"? Really?
Small Towns and Red Counties
view all Family blogs