September 7, 2019

September 7, 2019 By

Discussions About Christian Sexual Morality and Marriage with Atheists

This topic always generates all sorts of controversy; never fails. This took place in a thread at the notorious Debunking Christianity site. I was foolish enough to think I could get somewhere with sociological data, in dealing with sex and societal trends regarding same. It seems not. But you never know. Some seed of doubt may have been planted one or two readers. If so, my frustration and weariness with the continual misrepresentation of traditional Christian views on sexuality will have been worth it .

The atheists’ words will be in the following colors:

John W. Loftus: orange
Martin Wagner: blue
Daniel: brown
trinity: green
Bruce: purple

*****

Christians feel guilty about their sexual fantasies, and are afraid to bring them up to their spouses, so their sex life goes dull after about seven years of being married.

Is that so? Wow, I never knew that.  I guess I didn’t notice it (as a Christian, very happily married for 22 years now; silly me). Many studies have shown that strongly Christian couples are among the most sexually happy marriages: a lot more than those of the swingers and advocates of free sex and so forth. It’s a known fact that promiscuity before marriage tends to adversely affect monogamous relationships, because one is always fantasizing about the others and comparing them, etc.

God designed sex for one couple, married for life. That is what works best, and there is much secular sociological data to support this.

Likewise, all the things Christians believe in (stable marriages, two-parent families [i.e., male and female!], no divorce, mother staying at home if at all possible, etc.) are now known to be far healthier for children (studies on the adverse effect of day care are now coming out).

I just posted an article about how much of hip hop music contains themes of broken homes. These musicians are expressing the agony of the fruits of the sexual revolution.

* * *

As for this “secular sociological data” which you don’t cite, I can cite the Barna Research study that showed divorce rates for conservative Christians were higher than those of other faith groups, as well as atheists and agnostics.

Yeah, I know. I’ve written about that myself: even in my last published book.

But you have to control for seriousness of religious fervor. When you do that, and you look at couples who, e.g., pray together, do devotions or Bible studies together; go to church every week, etc. the divorce rates go down to 5% or 10%. That’s a very significant statistic indeed.

Without trying to refute your correlation, just pointing out something important: people who do any activity very regularly show the hallmark(s) of devotion and discipline. It could be thought, and I am not aware if such studies are done, that the same correlation may also hold between X and low divorce rate, where X = exercising together regularly, eating at least 4x a week together, setting aside “date nights”, being Buddhist and doing yoga together, being Hindu and praying to Shiva, being atheists and attending a UU church…etc.

I think this is an important consideration in evaluating the likelihood of divorce by criteria that demonstrate the ability of the couple to maintain discipline in their routine and a degree of devotion to each other.

Just a thought.

I agree that many factors could contribute to happy marriages. Common interests are obviously one (whatever they are). When I said regular prayer and Bible study and so forth, I meant that more in the sense of “indication of strong religious commitment” rather than “shared activity” (though it is that too).

As a general observation I would point out that Christian moral teaching fits in perfectly with how we feel ourselves to be; our needs and wants.

Most of us feel that one partner is best for us. That’s Christian teaching.

No one thinks divorce is a good thing. That’s Christian teaching.

Adultery seriously injures the wronged party. Christian teaching says to not do it, as one of the most serious sins.

Try to talk to your wife or husband about numerous sexual conquests or escapades before you met; see how well that goes over. Christian teaching opposes fornication and restricts sex to marriage.

You men: go suggest to your wife that swinging or wife-swapping might be fun. See how well that goes over. Women want you to be devoted to them, and them only, and for this to last forever. Christianity opposes that; but “open marriage” says otherwise. who says that marriage is to death? You know who. Everyone wants that, ideally, yet when we come along and try to make it binding, so it can have every chance of succeeding, everyone thinks it’s legalism and unreality. No; it is exactly reality, to make binding what everyone claims they want and want to try to achieve.

I was watching a special on the Beatles’ wives, and it said that George had a crush on Ringo’s wife Maureen and suggested one night that they swap wives. Everyone was shocked, and this documentary said that contributed to the downfall of Ringo’s marriage (Maureen died of leukemia at age 47, by the way).

Everyone knows that George’s wife Patti was the cutest by far of all the Beatles wives. :-) :-)

And likewise, John told his wife Cynthia in 1968 that he had slept with about 300 women. That went over great. Why is that? why is it that premarital or extramarital sex is glorified by our culture, yet if someone tries to DO it they often get in big trouble with their spouse? Christianity is the belief-system that says that we should stick to one person (of the opposite sex: a whole other discussion). It’s almost self-evident that this works out best. Everyone knows it.

People may choose divorce if their marriage is a failure, but no one wants this, and no one sets out in a serious relationship with separation as a serious option. Almost all of us have that yearning to find one person and make it work forever (as a million love songs are about).

So Christianity simply says what we already know (part of a larger argument I’ve been having with DagoodS: that Christian morals build upon natural law and morals, and what every human being knows within himself).

I could go on and on with this, but you catch my drift . . .

* * *

And certainly if you controlled for premarital sex, that would be highly significant, too (there is no doubt in my mind). In other words, for those who truly believe and consistently live out Christian morality (for the most part: as we all fail now and then), there will be an impact on marriage as in all other parts of life.

Those who don’t do that shouldn’t surprise us if they fall prey to all the prevailing societal trends. Christians are famous for that. But it makes no sense to critique Christianity for failures that occur precisely because folks aren’t following the very Christian teaching that would make a difference if it was faithfully followed.

Baby – bathwater . . . .

* * *

What exactly is this “Christian morality” of which you speak,

Traditional Christian values: that the secular world is so furiously against these days.

and is there any reason to suspect that it’s any more conducive to marital bliss than a non-religious ethical system based on reason and humanism?

I don’t know. I was simply responding to John’s claim that Christian morality made scarcely any difference and that sex in Christian marriages fizzles after seven years (dunno where he got that). I was repeating the studies I have seen many times through the years that this isn’t the case; quite the contrary.

For example, there is related research that shows how cohabitation before marriage is statistically more likely to coincide with later divorces than ton lower them (as the fallacious “try before you buy” sexual outlook would have us believe). I can’t help it that the studies back up traditional Christian morality. They show what they show, whatever any of us may think about the results.

* * *

In my baptist upbringing we was always told that sex is naughty, dirty, etc. Whenever people were kissing on TV, we’d have to cover our eyes. After being told that your whole life, you believe it. Then all of a sudden on your wedding night, something formerly so bad becomes something you are supposed to share with your life partner. That’s really messed up.

Yes it is. It’s asinine, stupid, and idiotic in the extreme. I was never taught these ridiculous things in the circles I moved in (which incorporate many parts of Christianity).

It’s not Christian or biblical teaching, which holds that sex is good and great, and was created by God for procreation and pleasure, but under certain limited conditions, due to the human propensity for selfishness and lust and destructive tendencies.

To merely limit something is not to equate it with wickedness. No one thinks hot dogs are wicked because everyone should limit how many they eat at a time. Conversely, no one argues that kissing is a good thing and so consequently sets out to kiss every female in a stadium of 40,000.

There are limits to every good thing. Sex is no exception. Human experience has shown that faithful monogamy works best. If you doubt this, then go cheat on your husband or wife and see how they feel about it. It’s instinctive; innate. We all feel this. Yet Christians get a bum rap because we teach that sensible limits to sexual expression are binding, and their violation sin.

But in any event, the real Christian teaching on sex is not what these clowns you grew up with teach. Every belief system (including atheism) has its fringe elements and corrupters, too.

* * *

Of course there are all sorts of reason for happy (and bad) marriages. I’ve always been an advocate of multiple causation for most things. I was responding to John’s running-down of the Christian marriage ethic, as if it makes no difference. I didn’t claim that no one besides Christians could possibly have a happy marriage.

* * *

Sacred implies that it is some sort of gift from God, overriding the biological basis for our sex lives. It is also used to coerce women (and men as well,

Yeah, right. Okay, try this with your wife (if you’re married): tell her that you think sex has no higher ontological meaning or mystical essence of uniting people and making them feel an indescribable oneness (let alone sacredness). Rather, it is simply a biological need and she serves as a convenient biological conduit to fulfill your need to have nerve endings feel wonderful and to give you physical pleasure.

That’s all it means. It has no meaning beyond that. See how well that goes over.

Now I happen to think that if these feelings are so strong and well-nigh universal, that there truly is some basis for them besides mere coincidence or supposed social conditioning.

We’ve had now 40 years of the sexual revolution and 200-300 years of increasing secularization of western civilization, but I see no sign of human nature changing, or acceptance of promiscuity and so forth. Women still feel exactly the same as they always have. Men, too, are just as hurt by adultery as they always were.

Promiscuity and sexual conquest may be glorified in male locker rooms or basketball courts or when women are acting ridiculous and going to see the Foxy Frenchmen or a Brad Pitt movie or something, but at ground level it is still as ugly and as dreaded as ever.

Christianity is trying to spare people tremendous pain by enforcing the rules of common sense morality. You would think that people could figure out just from reason and experience that there is something to this: that Christians and other “traditional” religions were onto something profound and right, and have some wisdom to give to humanity. But the sexual drive and secular societal conditioning is far too strong for many people to get over. So they go and make the same mistakes. And they mock Christian values because, in my opinion, they know down deep that they are right, but find them difficult to live by.

That’s why G. K. Chesterton famously said: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

* * *

But the act of having sex outside of marriage is not in itself immoral, does not make one impure, does not damage any future marriage(s) . . .

Ah, but it does do damage; this is what you don’t understand. Setting traditional Christian sexual morality aside for a moment (it’s not required for my argument here to succeed), there are known consequences to lots of premarital sex and cohabitation. It tends to lead to (strictly based on scientifically-controlled polling) less stable marriages, more sexual dissatisfaction and a higher likelihood of divorce.

This is almost my entire present point. The mounting sociological, psychological, societal, and experiential evidence is great testimony that traditional sexual morality works best: even for those aspects that all you sexual libertines [by this I did not mean to imply all atheists: only those who recognized themselves in the description] pride yourself on for being so superior to us fuddy-dud, killjoy, puritanical Christians: like long-term enjoyment of sex.

Disagree with him on any part of his recipe for marital perfection, and you’re a “sexual libertine”.

Is there any reason we shouldn’t categorically dismiss you as an idiot from here on out?

Christian morality: lived out consistently, with understanding and dependence on God for the grace to carry it out, works. It works because it is true (not the opposite, or mere pragmatism). If you want a happy marriage, be very selective, keep your pants on till marriage, find a mate who feels the same way, be sure you are temperamentally compatible (and as many other ways as possible), and that is the recipe for success.

In other words, “Be perfect! Like Dave!”

Okay Dave, find me one of these studies you’re not citing which shows that no marriage in history in which both partners remained virginal until their wedding day has ever ended in divorce, and that no marriage in history in which at least one partner had at least one premarital sexual experience has ever not ended in divorce, and maybe we’ll take your bizarre notions about human relationships seriously. Until then, you just sound like a weirdo with some major sexual hangups to us. But then, we’re all libertines, so that figures, eh?

Of course it has to be consistently lived. One could do all that and later, someone falls into lust or irresponsibility or substance abuse, or someone has a serious mental breakdown, and then factors other than Christian influence are introduced and everything can change. But the traditional morality by itself can only be a positive force for lasting, fulfilling relationships.

* * *

So explain why Christians get divorced more. You’re avoiding this like a kid who doesn’t want to brush his teeth.

Hardly; I already answered it; one has to control for the variable of how vigorous and serious the commitment to Christianity is: then the divorce rates go WAY down.

These ideas are hardly unique to Christianity, Dave.

Didn’t say they were, so this is neither here nor there.

Try to talk to your wife or husband about numerous sexual conquests or escapades before you met; see how well that goes over.

Clearly no sensible person would, Dave. Most adults go into a monogamous relationship with the understanding that their new partner has a history, and has had previous partners. If you’re starting a new relationship with someone, why would you talk about past relationships? You clearly don’t have a good grasp of how people outside your little circle conduct relationships,

That had nothing to do with my line there, which was rhetorical and challenging to non-Christian sexual mores and ethics.

I was taking the question a step further: not dwelling on the obvious, as you want to do, making out that I am some backwoods naive simpleton. I was at least as sexually liberal in my past as many of you are. I’ve been around the block. I’ve lived and believed all that nonsense.

So what I’m doing is asking, “why is this a problem if in fact, promiscuity and lots of free sex is such a good, wonderful thing? Why is it that it can potentially become a problem in later marriages, and it is a no-no subject if it is so wonderful? Why is it that we all have that drive to be the lone loved one of our mates, yet at the same time liberal sexual morality does everything it can to undermine that goal, by promoting free, irresponsible sexuality?”

and like many religionists you have a skewed, black-or-white version of the world in which everyone exists at the end of one of two extremes. Here, you’re either a blissfully happy monogamously married sexual saint, or a wild and uncontrollable libertine into wife-swapping and sex with anything that moves. You don’t seem to have much experience with actual, you know, people.

Good grief. It just never ends, does it? It doesn’t matter what we Christians argue; how nuanced we present things; how many times we make clear that we don’t think all atheists are wicked and evil; you’ll still accuse of the same idiotic attitude.

Some Christians hold to this position, but they are in the minority, and I am not among them, as I repeat till I’m blue in the face around here. But you seem new, so it’s the same old nonsense: you meet a Christian and assume he is exactly like the fundamentalist wacko stereotype that does exist, but which is not representative at all of Christianity as a whole. I ain’t a fundamentalist; never have been. I was raised in a liberal Methodist home, became a secularist for ten years, then an evangelical Protestant, and then a Catholic. At no time was I anything like a “fundamentalist.”

You clearly don’t even understand my argument, because (typically of a certain kind of atheist) you casually assume that I am an idiot who lives in a naive Christian bubble. If you could get past all your stereotypes, I think you’d discover that we actually have a lot more in common than you imagine. I know it’s tough but I believe you can do it. You have it in you. You just need a little encouragement to do better.

And yet people who adhere to this belief system have less success with their marriages than people who don’t. Ahh, the cognitive dissonance. If Dave won’t address it, maybe it will go away.

I already did. In charity, I will assume that you simply didn’t read my post where I stated that.

Just keep telling stories about crazy promiscuous rock stars as if that proves a point. Also, keep trotting out false choices and either-or fallacies like this one: . . . Again, you seem to have little experience with how men and women actually interact sexually, outside of your own marriage that is.

That’s untrue, as already explained. But even if I lived in Antarctica and never saw a woman in my life, that wouldn’t change the fact of scientific polling data, which is what it is regardless of the past sexual history and understanding or lack thereof, of the person who presents it.

The more you keep cheerleading for the alleged moral superiority of your belief system the more it sounds like you’re doing so in an effort to hide from uncomfortable facts. I believe it’s called “whistling past the graveyard”, or in this case, “bedroom”.

Right. Why is it that I wrote in my most recent published book, The Catholic Verses (look it up on Amazon): “[D]ivorce rates among Evangelical protestants are virtually as high as that of the general public” (p. 205)?

The only ignoring going on here is your butchery or confused noncomprehension of my argument.

Do you agree with the statement that all instances of divorce and remarriage constitute adultery?

Of course not. That’s why we Catholics have annulments to look into what the situation was, that may have been a serious mitigating circumstances.

Do you believe wives should always be submissive and accept an inferior role to that of their husbands?

The same Paul who taught that also taught (in the verse just before): “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21-22), and three verses later that the husband should love his wife the way that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Being willing to be crucified for someone else doesn’t exactly strike me as a totally dominant superior-slave relationship. It is not at all, rightly-understood. I’ve never forced my wife to do anything. We decide things jointly.

And do you agree with Paul that ultimately, sex is just a really really bad thing to do,

I don’t agree, because Paul never taught this. It’s a gross distortion; typical of atheist “exegesis.”

but people should marry anyway, only to avoid going to hell for fornication?

Lust is not the same thing as sex. Premarital sex is different from married sex. The same act can be good or bad depending on circumstances. You think not? Okay, then why is rape wrong? Why would incest be wrong, or sex with an eight-year-old. That’s all the same act, but it is wrong in one instance and right in others. We simply say sex outside of marriage is another time that sex is immoral.

I don’t see much “common sense” in that “morality”.

It would help considerably if you actually understood it in the first place, rather than lash out at it before you even know what the opposing view holds. It’s easy for me, on the other hand, to critique the usual secular view of sex, because I used to hold it myself. Nothing like firsthand experience to make one understand something.

* * *

Scientific Findings Supporting The Above Arguments and the Efficacy of Traditional Christian Morality


Couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. See:

Guarting-Gibbs, P.A., “The Institutionalization of Pre-Marital Cohabitation: Estimates from marriage license applications, 1970 and 1980,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48 (1986): 2, pp. 423-433.

Premarital cohabitation tends to lead to reduced sexual exclusivity in marriage. See:

Forste, R., and Tanfer, K., “Sexual Exclusivity among Dating, Cohabiting and Married Women,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58 (1996): 1, pp. 33-47.

Many more couples live together prior to marriage than in the past – recent estimates are in the range of 60+% (Stanley and Markman, 1997; Bumpass and Sweet, 1991). These couples are less likely to stay married, probably mostly due to the fact that they are less conservative about marriage and divorce in the first place.

Bumpass, L.L, and Sweet, J.A. (1991) The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 913-927. [cf. Stanley, S.M., and Markman, H.J. (1997) Marriage in the 90s: A Nationwide Random Phone Survey. Denver, Colorado: PREP, Inc.]
*
What is this journal? Well, on a web page describing it [now defunct], it says this:

The Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF), published by the National Council on Family Relations, is the leading research journal in the family field and has been so for over sixty years. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families. The Journal also publishes book reviews.

Contributors to JMF come from a diversity of fields including anthropology, demography, economics, history, psychology, and sociology, as well as interdisciplinary fields such as human development and family sciences. JMFpublishes original theory and research using the variety of methods reflective of the full range of social sciences, including quantitative, qualitative, and multimethod designs. Integrative reviews as well as reports on methodological and statistical advances are also welcome.

[my own major was sociology, with a minor in psychology]

* * *

In a Primetime Live Poll: American Sex Survey (10-21-04), we learn:

. . . most weekly churchgoers say premarital sex and homosexuality are not acceptable; most infrequent attenders hold the opposite view. Ten percent of weekly churchgoers say sex without an emotional attachment is acceptable; it’s 36 percent among the unchurched.

. . . Weekly churchgoers are as satisfied as the unchurched with their sex lives, and 10 points more likely to be very satisfied with their marriage or relationship.

. . . Northeasterners and Westerners are more apt to call themselves adventurous sexually and to say homosexuality is OK. And when it comes to being very satisfied with their sex lives, only in the Midwest does a majority give the thumbs up.

Political ideology follows a similar pattern as religious observance — like weekly churchgoers, conservatives are more conservative sexually, liberals less so. That makes sense, not least because conservatives are more frequent churchgoers.
Conservatives are far less likely to accept premarital sex or homosexuality, and half as likely as liberals to say sex without an emotional attachment is OK. They’re less apt to have had rebound sex, to call themselves sexually adventurous, to watch sexually explicit movies, to discuss their fantasies, to have had sex outdoors, to have had sex on a first date or to have visited a porn site. At the same time, conservatives are slightly more likely than others to be very satisfied with their relationship and sex lives. Liberals, for their part, are more apt to be sexually adventurous.

. . . Republicans are around 10 points more likely than Democrats to think about sex daily, to be very satisfied with their marriages and sex lives and to wear something sexy to spice things up;

. . . This ABC News “Primetime Live” survey was conducted by telephone, by female interviewers only, Aug. 2-9, 2004, among a random national sample of 1,501 adults. The results have a 2.5-point error margin for all respondents; as in any poll, sampling error is higher for subgroups. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.


Now For Some Good News, Frederica Mathewes-Green, First Things, Aug/Sep 1997, 20-23:

While rising numbers of teens are saying no to sex, the most telling evidence against “liberation” comes from the kids who said yes. A survey published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 1991 asked sexually experienced inner-city junior and senior high students what they thought was the ideal age to begin having sex: 83 percent suggested ages older than they had been. Twenty-five percent of these sexually experienced kids also said that they believe sex before marriage is wrong. (This point of view has continued to grow in popularity. The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute surveys 250,000 new college freshmen every year. In 1987, 52 percent of the students said that casual sex was acceptable; only 42 percent of the 1996 class agrees.)

In the 1994 Roper survey cited above, 62 percent of sexually experienced girls, and 54 percent of all experienced high schoolers, said they “should have waited.” And, most poignant, a study published in a 1990 issue of Family Planning Perspectives described a questionnaire distributed to one thousand sexually active girls, asking them to check off which item they wanted more information about. Eighty-four percent checked “how to say no without hurting the other person’s feelings.”

* * *

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K.I., Jewell, T., Swank, A.B., Scott, E., Emery, E.,
and Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal
and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family
Psychology, 13 (3), 321-338.

Abstract: Ninety-seven couples completed questionnaires about their
involvement in joint religious activities and perceptions regarding the
sanctification of marriage, including perceived sacred qualities of marriage
and beliefs about the manifestation of God in marriage. In contrast to
individual religiousness and religious homogamy (distal religious
constructs), these proximal religious variables directly reflect an
integration of religion and marriage, and were consistently associated with
greater global marital adjustment, more perceived benefits from marriage,
decreased marital conflict, more verbal collaboration, and less use of
verbal aggression and stalemate to discuss disagreements for both wives and
husbands. The proximal measures also added substantial unique variance (R2
.08-.49) to specific aspects of marital functioning after controlling
demographic factors and distal religious variables in hierarchical regression analyses.

* * *

Clarification: Barna Research Group on what self-described “born again” Christians believe:

I found a Barna page [link defunct]with the following comment:

“More than four out of five Americans claim to be Christian and half as many can be classified as born again Christians. Nine out of ten adults own a Bible. Most adults read the Bible during the year and a huge majority claims they know all of the basic teachings of the Bible. How, then, can most people say Satan does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is merely a symbol, that eternal peace with God can be earned through good works, and that truth can only be understood through the lens of reason and experience? How can a plurality of our citizens contend that Jesus committed sins and that the Bible, Koran and Book of Mormon all teach the same truths?”

And on another Barna web page [link defunct]:

“Born again Christians” were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again” or if they considered themselves to be “born again.”

“Evangelicals” are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys. In addition to meeting the born again criteria, evangelicals also meet seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical has no relationship to church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.”

And yet another [link defunct]:

“A minority of born again adults (44%) and an even smaller proportion of born again teenagers (9%) are certain of the existence of absolute moral truth.

“. . . Only 1% of all born again adults firmly concurred with each of 13 basic belief statements from the Bible.

” . . . Born again Christians spend seven times as much time on entertainment as they do on spiritual activities.”

The labels may be, as you say, “ethnic”, or in the case of the diverse ethnic groups comprising Protestantism, the labels may represent a “generational” identity. My personal crusade is to chase down (or do it myself) research which has gone beyond categorization by these generic labels which seem to be losing their former meaning, to tease out specific beliefs and “spiritual disciplines” related to mature, committed faith, which may prove to be better predictors (as far as the religious variable is concerned) of enduring marriage and/or divorce. ]

Divorce, American-Style, Scientific American, March, 1999:

The reasons for the marked regional disparities are not definitively known, but they probably reflect several factors, including church membership, which may reinforce marriage ties. Not surprisingly, therefore, Florida and most of the western states, where church membership is low, have a higher proportion of divorced people. Migration may contribute to the high proportion of divorced people in the West and Florida, which have a larger proportion of peripatetic individuals than other areas have. The broad swath of counties stretching from North Dakota and Wisconsin down to the Rio Grande is an area with few divorced people, which might be expected in view of high church membership and the relatively few migrants to this area. The low prevalence of divorce in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina may stem in part from fairly high church attendance.

Non-US Divorce Rates: According to the report “Profiling Canada’s Families III”, by The Vanier Institute of the Family, unmarried cohabiting couples are four times more likely to break up than married couples. “CANADIAN TREND INCLUDES FEWER LEGAL MARRIAGES” CTV.ca News Staff, NOV 29, 2004. Cited in a posting on the Smart Marriages Listserv Nov. 29, 2004 [link defunct].

Cohabitation Data: There is a higher risk, 40 to 85%, of divorce between couples cohabiting before marriage than couples waiting until after marriage to share a home together. (Bumpass and Sweet 1995; Hall and Zhao 1995; Bracher, Stantow, Morgan and Russell 1993; DeMaris and Rao 1992 and Glen 1990) Cited in a posting on the Smart Marriages Listserv, Sep 28, 2004 [link defunct].

* * *

“The Joy of Christian Sex,” Sheila Wray Gregoire [link defunct]:

A large-scale study of 1,100 American adults by the Family Research Council found that 72% of married people who attended church weekly reported being “very satisfied” with their sex lives, thirty points higher than their unmarried counterparts, and thirteen points higher than other marrieds. In these days when we are being bombarded with attacks for our stance on sexuality, perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves why sex, in the Christian context, can be so wonderful.

Christian Sex is Holistic 

One of the best things about the Christian view of sex is that it recognizes that we’re more than lizards. In popular culture, on the other hand, physical pleasure trumps all, reducing sex to something merely instinctual. By doing this, people lose out on the more profound possibilities sex offers to express love, commitment, and even a mystical union. The 1993 Janus Survey on Sexuality found that a key ingredient in religious people’s more satisfying sex lives was that they did associate these spiritual and emotional components with sex far more than other respondents did. Indeed, there’s a reason God calls us his bride – a very sexual image – and and understanding that reason helps us also understand those survey results.

* * *

Sex: What Do Women (and men) Really Want?, Theresa Notare:

Science also sheds light on our emotional well being. Sociological research shows that since the 1960s there has been a steady increase in non-marital sexual activity in Western developed countries. In 1998, the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago reported an average of 7.8 sexual partners after the age of 18 – an increase over the 1990 level of 7.0 partners – but significantly lower than the 9.5 partners mean reported in 1996.8 In May 2003, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that one in five teens has sex before age 15, 37% between the ages of 15 and 17, and 80% between the ages of 18 and 24.9

Today it is estimated that half of newly married couples cohabited prior to marriage. In the 2000 Census, there were 5.5 million cohabiting unmarried couples (up from 3.2 million in 1990).10

Given these facts, are people happier? Does this behavior aid growth in emotional or sexual maturity? Does it make people more generous or better able to persevere in difficult situations? What impact does this behavior have on marriage and family life? Are those who have multiple sexual partners better able to form lasting relationships? Better prepared to put the needs of loved ones above their own desires? Research provides answers to many of these questions.11

Over 25 percent of sexually active teenage girls 14-17 report being depressed all, most or “a lot” of the time, a rate of depression more than three times that of teenage girls who are not sexually active (7.7 percent).12 Sexually active boys 14-17 report being depressed all, most or a lot of the time at a rate 2 times greater than boys who are not sexually active (8.3 percent vs. 3.4 percent). “A full 14.3 percent of girls who are sexually active report having attempted suicide [in the past 12 months]. By contrast, only 5.1 percent of sexually inactive girls have attempted suicide.”13 The contrast between sexually active boys (6.0 percent of whom attempted suicide in the past 12 months) and boys who were not sexually active (0.7 percent) is even greater – almost 8 times higher. Do teens regret having become sexually active? 72% of sexually active girls and 55% of sexually active boys said they wished they had waited longer before starting to be sexually active.14

And a 2002 study on the attitude of young men toward marriage is telling. Included in the top ten reported reasons why men won’t commit to marriage are: “they can get sex without marriage,” “they fear that marriage will require too many changes and compromises,” “they want a house before they get a wife,” and “they want to enjoy single life as long as they can.”15 Such reasons lend support to the belief that non-marital sexual activity fosters immaturity and materialism.

Current sociological research overwhelmingly demonstrates “strong correlations between the practices of premarital sex and/or cohabitation and divorce.”16 Some of the more prominent studies:

  • As early as 1974 the correlation between premarital sex and divorce was known. Robert Athanasiou and Richard Sarkin. “Premarital sexual behavior and postmarital adjustment,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 3 (May 1974).
  • A 1991 study suggested a “relatively strong positive relationship between premarital sex and divorce.” Joan Kahn and Kathryn London. “Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991):845-55.
  • In May 2003, a study concluded that women who had their first sexual experience before marriage with partners other than the man they eventually marry, are about 34% more likely to experience divorce than women who did not. This increased risk is not present with women whose only premarital sex involved the man they married. This study also notes that cohabitation is considered to be “one of the most robust predictors of marital dissolution that has appeared in the literature.” Jay Teachmen. “Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent Marital Dissolution Among Women,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65 (May 2003).

Bottom line? It seems safe to say that sex outside of marriage causes emotional harm and also seems to harm marriage and the family. Ultimately, for the emotional health of the individual, the family and society itself, only married couples should engage in sexual intercourse.

Sources:

8. T. Smith, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, American Sexual Behavior: Trends, Socio-Demographic Differences, and Risk Behavior, available at http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/dlib/t-25.htm.

9. Kaiser Family Foundation. National Survey of Adolescents and Young Adults: Sexual Health Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences, 15 (May 2003) available at www.kff.org, (Last visited August 4, 2003); Quoted by Helen Alvaré, “Saying ‘Yes’ Before Saying ‘I Do’: Premarital Sex and Cohabitation as a Piece of the Divorce Puzzle,” p. 21, paper to be published in the Journal of the University of Notre Dame School of Law. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000,” Census 2000 Special Reports, Feb. 2003.

10. J. Fields and L. M. Casper. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: March 2000.” Current Population Reports, P20-537, p. 12. Quoted by Alvaré, p. 23.

11. For a summary of classic research and links to studies, see the web sites of the Heritage Foundation, www.heritage.org ; Family Research Council, www.frc.org ; The National Marriage Project, http://marriage.rutgers.edu.

12. R. Rector et al., Sexually Active Teenagers are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide. A Report from the Heritage Center for Data Analysis, June 2002.

13. Id.

14. Id., citing National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, June 2000.

15. B. Whitehead and D. Popenoe. The State of Our Unions, Why Men Won’t Commit.Exploring Young Men’s Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage. The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University, 2002. Available from http://marriage.rutgers.edu/TEXTSOOU2002.htm

16. See note 6, Alvare, p. 25. [D.T. Fleming et al. “Herpes simplex virus type 2 in the United States, 1976 to 1994.” New England Journal of Medicine 1997: 337: 1105-1111.]

***

(originally 12-8-06)

Photo credit: Image by Tony Guyton (1-10-15) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

 

March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019 By

I have long noted as regards deconversion stories from Christian to atheist, that, very often, these accounts of an exodus out of Christianity have the following characteristics:

1) an initial fundamentalist belief, which is thought to be the sum total of Christianity (as if there are no other more thoughtful and nuanced species of it).

2) rejection of various straw men, which do not represent the most informed versions of Christianity; “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

3) highlighting of terrible, hypocritical Christians, rather than the best examples.

4) acceptance of the notion that atheism is the only alternative to rejection of (what amounts to) straw men and lousy, inadequate versions of Christianity.

I have observed these motifs in these stories over and over and over, as I have critiqued a great number of them (word-search “Deconversion” on my Atheism web page). As long as atheists keep writing their stories, and implying that they can offer profound and supposedly solid, unanswerable reasons for leaving Christianity, we Christians (especially apologists like me) can just as easily critique them and show how and why the reasoning is fallacious and unsuccessful in establishing atheism or the falsity of Christianity.

Goose and gander. Yet, I often meet with great hostility when I do so (atheist author and “debater” John Loftus being the most outrageous and hilarious example): as if it were the rudest thing in the world and essentially improper and unethical to examine a public attack on Christianity.

I ran across a deconversion story by one Don R., on the Patheos website, Recovering from Religion: Ex-Communications. It is entitled, “My Escape from the Belly of the Beast” (9-24-18). It exhibits all of these typical traits. Don’s words will be in blue. I will go right to examples of fallacious thinking, false dilemmas, needless exaggerations and category mistakes, false dichotomies, factual error, etc.

*****

[W]e were brought up in a very strict fundamental Christian household.

As so very often in these stories . . . Fundamentalism is a small minority and fringe portion of evangelical Protestantism, which is one portion of Protestant Christianity, which is  itself a minority of all Christians. Thus, to reject fundamentalism is not at all to reject all of Christianity (not even all of evangelicalism or Protestantism).

It is a rejection of what is in many respects the very worst and insubstantial and least intellectually respectable form of Christianity. Yet we’ll see that Don never seriously considers any other form of Christianity before departing. Those of us who never grew up as fundamentalists never cease to marvel at these sorts of “tunnel vision” dynamics.

You see, our father was a pedophile and was molesting my sister and I for years. Our stepmother had very little use for us, . . . 

I am very sorry to hear about this tragic situation. But this is the motif of the “lousy, hypocritical” Christians: often (in these stories) subtly implying that a huge number or even a majority or most Christians are this way (not just pedophilia, but any serious sin), which is not true. Christianity has its “bad apples” just like any large social group does.

But it’s not fair to judge a religion based on its worst practitioners, or in some cases: literal “wolves in sheep’s clothing”: folks who never were Christians at all and only claimed to be (the ones that Jesus condemned because they say “Lord, Lord” but refuse to do what He commands them to do).

Our stepmother remained very religious (to this day she is fanatical in her beliefs) . . . 

Again, if this is true fanaticism, rather than what Don thinks is fanatical simply because it is Christian, then it is an example of the extremes of Christianity. In other words, to reject true fanaticism is to reject a distortion and corruption of Christianity (which I have always done, myself), rather than the thing itself.

From early teens to mid-twenties, I still held a belief in god, but I just didn’t want to be around any of his people.

One can see why. If he had actually met some good, loving, Christlike Christians, then things might very well have been much different, right? If the terrible Christians drive one away, then it stands to reason that good examples of Christians would draw one in. Don does talk about his increasing church involvement as being “rewarding and fulfilling” and states that he “really loved the feeling of community.” So he must have found some (good) Christians that he enjoyed being around. Glad to hear it!

When people would come to me with their hard questions, I would share my process with them and help them come to “correct” answers, always based on the infallibility of the bible and the pure goodness of god. And every time I did that, there was a little voice saying “that doesn’t make sense”, which I ignored… because it felt so good to know that I was helping people be stronger in their faith.

This is rather subjective. We could simply reply that he wasn’t very good at apologetics and didn’t provide (or find in research) the best answer that could be given; therefore, he felt a nagging doubt. It doesn’t prove that there were no solid, plausible answers to be had.

I remember when I realized that even the people I believed were fully dedicated to god had their own doubts. 

Everyone has doubts and befuddlement about various doctrines and beliefs: whether concerning Christianity or anything else. The question is whether they add up to outright unbelief, or are simply areas that require further thought and study.

Eddie (not his real name) was every bit as passionate about god as I was, and we had many nights of great discussions. I knew that he was fully committed and sought god with all his heart. So, when I found out that he believed in theistic evolution (the theory that god used evolution to create the earth), I was stunned.

Why? There have been Christians who were theistic evolutionists right from the beginning of Darwin’s theory in 1859; for example, the botanist Asa Gray. Darwin wrote to Gray in 1881, “there is hardly any one in the world whose approbation I value more highly than I do yours.” Darwin conceded to Gray that his theories were “not at all necessarily atheistical.” This was also the position of Darwin’s good friend Thomas Henry Huxley: himself an agnostic, but without insisting that the only form of evolutionism must be materialistic (i.e., atheistic). Darwin, after all, had developed his theory while he was still a Christian or at least theist. That is beyond question.

You see, I believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, and to hear that someone who was as fully devoted as I was could believe in evolution was really difficult.

Exactly. This is fundamentalism. But an informed, educated approach to the Bible understands that the Bible has many literary genres and modes of expression, and is not always to be taken literally (though many times it is). To hold that it must always be interpreted literally is simply “Bible ignorance.”

I had just assumed that god made everything clear to those who diligently sought him, so how could we believe two very different things about the creation of the world?

They could and did because Christianity has enough latitude to  allow different views on the particulars of scientific matters. The Bible isn;t a scientific textbook. Good, orthodox Christians believed that the creation story was not necessarily literal (literally, six 24-hour days) at least as far back as St. Augustine (354-430).

This was the first of several times that my beliefs were shaken by things like this.

There was no need for such a crisis at all, if he had simply realized that he was in a fundamentalist fish tank and couldn’t imagine any other Christian paradigm. So because of that he gets “shaken” and this is included in his story of why he eventually forsook Christianity. It’s not an adequate reason at all.

Earlier in his story he noted how “Many evenings I would read Christian authors and study apologetics. I had 2 large bookcases filled with religious books and had read every page.” So we’re to believe that he had never encountered a good Christian or Christian book who believed (or which explained) that God used evolution as His method of creation? That’s hard to believe. What: did he only read fundamentalist apologetics?

There would be two writers that I deeply respected who held opposite beliefs on the role of women in the church. There were very different views on the “once saved always saved” or can you lose your salvation issue.

Yes, Christians differ on many issues. But disagreement doesn’t prove that no one got it right, or that there is no one correct position. If, for example, one person believes that the earth is flat and a second believes it is shaped like an egg, this doesn’t disprove that it is actually a sphere. All it proves (by strict logic) is that they can’t both be right. But they may both be wrong, with the actual truth found elsewhere.

But we can say concerning the “losing salvation” issue, that the vast majority of Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, many Arminian denominations, pentecostals, a good proportion of Baptists, etc.), have believed that one can lose salvation or fall from grace or the Christian faith.  It’s mostly Calvinists / Presbyterians and fundamentalists who disagree.

On most issues we can look to determine whether a large majority of the sum of all Christians accepts a thing, while a much smaller minority does not. And that should tell us something. But internal Christian disagreement is no compelling reason to become an atheist. All it proves is that Christians disagree and often are shortsighted (and too often, plain stupid), just as any group of people do.

Science is largely the same as theology in this “sociological” respect. Fifty years ago, things like the Big Bang Theory or plate tectonics were not as firmly established as they are today, with the vast majority of scientists agreeing. Some still disagree, but the likelihood or plausibility is that a view taken by almost all scientists will turn out to be the actual fact of the matter.

But I couldn’t understand why the deeply faithful would come to opposite decisions about the biggies. . . . I just couldn’t ever fathom why there would be such discord among the “true believers”.

For the same reason that scientists and philosophers have massive disagreements amongst themselves, and especially through time: over hundreds of years. There can be many reasons (good and bad) for why folks disagree with and contradict each other. But to add these up and conclude, “I reject the entire system as rubbish” is quite a jump and a stretch, and exceedingly difficult on an epistemological level.

One week, he began a 4 part series on the story of Noah and the flood. He came at it from a totally different perspective than I had ever heard or thought of before, and I was enthralled. On the 4th Sunday, he mentioned that there were different interpretations of the story within the church, and he brought up the fact that the flood story actually appeared in earlier writings that were not biblical at all. I was stunned. Could it be true that the bible borrowed the flood story from earlier secular writings (hint: Epic of Gilgamesh)? It was just a fable?

Huh? The reasoning here is very convoluted. How is it that simply because another culture also had a story of a massive Flood, therefore, somehow it becomes a “fable”? Isn’t it much more likely and plausible that an event of such shattering magnitude would be recorded by someone besides the Hebrews? Therefore, the mere presence of a similar story elsewhere is no disproof of the biblical account at all.

Pagan or heathen parallels or precursors do not necessarily “disprove” the biblical account. Thus, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) notes how such parallel stories of the Flood, confirm, rather than disconfirm, the historicity and trustworthiness of the Bible:

The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz . . .  enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree . . .  discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.

I was deeply shaken to realize that the bible was not the historically accurate document I was always told and completely believed it was.

I don’t know why. It certainly wasn’t because of the above things mentioned, because that conclusion simply doesn’t follow.

How much was allegory? How much was literal? How much was parable? How could you tell which was which?

Obviously by searching related cross-references, studying biblical commentaries, and especially by researching biblical genre, literary types, the nature of different books (Psalms and Proverbs are poetry, etc.), and ancient near eastern culture and ways of thinking. Apparently, it never occurred to Don to do that (tons of books about these things) — otherwise he wouldn’t have asked this rhetorical question — , and this is usually the case in a fundamentalist paradigm.

Is god a god of confusion?

No, but human beings often bring about confusion by ignorance, stubbornness, pride, self-interest, etc. So we wind up with lots of disagreements. Catholicism offers one self-consistent, historically continuous view of Christianity, which is why I am a Catholic. No form of Protestantism possesses these traits.

I began to look for what set Christianity apart from all the other false religions in the world. I knew that they all had holy books, and the bible was very suspect at this point, so that wasn’t it. 

Again, nothing presented in this account proves that the Bible isn’t what it claims to be.

There were several times in my life where I KNEW that god had spoken to me. Times of deep struggle and fear that he had comforted me. Surely that must be unique to the Christian religion. Nope. People all over the world had their own profound experiences that proved their god to them. 

Why must Christian religious experience be unique? The Apostle Paul Romans 2 teaches that people can possibly be saved, who have never even heard the Christian message. Jesus talked to a pagan Roman centurion and concluded that He had rarely seen such faith in Israel. So this man had religious faith, yet wasn’t an observant Jew. Truth is truth, and God can reach men in many different ways, including religious experiences.

It’s simply silly and shallow thought, to think that because non-Christians have also had spiritual experiences, therefore our own personal spiritual experiences that we “KNEW” actually happened, somehow get nullified as pipe dreams and self-delusion. That doesn’t follow. It’s lousy “reasoning.”

Nor does atheism at all follow from this: “lots of people have had spiritual experiences; therefore there is no God”? What?! How does that follow? I must confess to being mystified as to how that “logical chain” works. If atheists think it does, then they must explain it to me.

I begged god for some kind of sign that he was real, and I really expected him to answer, because he would know that my very faith was at stake. Nothing…

Very often, God will not comply with such a request, because He knows it is a cop-out: “show me some huge miraculous sign to prove that you exist!” People know enough to believe God exists, simply by looking at His creation (as it states in Romans 1).

I had to learn I was not the complete piece of trash that my religion had taught me I was . . . 

That’s what fundamentalists and Calvinists believe (total depravity and a completely fallen, corrupt human nature), but not what the vast majority of Christians have believed (fallen, subject to concupiscence, but still capable of good and freely receiving God’s grace). So once again, Don rejected a straw man that only a tiny number of Christians believe.

If he truly wants to see a worldview that results in human “trash,” he has to look at hundreds of millions of aborted babies: killed by Christians who no longer follow the historic teachings of their own group, secularists, atheists, and all who have started to believe that an innocent, helpless human being can be utterly worthless, so as to be torn to shreds and murdered (all the way up to full term at nine months, and now even after birth) for the “sin” of existing because of someone else’s actions.

That is a “complete piece of trash”: not the biblical and Christian teaching on original sin, as taught by the great majority of Christians.

***

Photo credit: ||read|| (5-28-09) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

November 9, 2018

November 9, 2018 By

*****

Cassidy McGillicuddy, who goes by “Captain Cassidy” runs a blog called Roll to Disbelieve.  She describes herself and her views as follows: “I was raised Catholic by a very fervent family, converted to evangelicalism in my teens, and became a full-on fundamentalist shortly thereafter, . . . But shortly after college I figured out that my religion’s claims weren’t true. . . . I’m a humanist, a skeptic, a freethinker, and a passionate student of science, mythology, and history. . . . I care more about what people do than on what they call themselves. I don’t think of myself as having much of a specific religious or non-religious label beyond “ex-Christian,” . . .

Cassidy wrote a post entitled, “Why Christians Need Satan to Be An Idiot” (11-1-18). I love the little psychological judgment there. In it she takes me to task, by “critiquing” [???] an article I did about Satan: “Satan is Highly Intelligent—and an Arrogant Idiot” (National Catholic Register, 11-27-17).  As usual, I wasn’t informed of it so I could reply. I just happened to run across it last night. Her words will be in blue.

***

First of all, to get an idea of the polemical / insulting spirit in which Cassidy undertakes this criticism, I cite her comment in the combox under her post (11-4-18), with my reply:

I originally thought I must have banned him [i.e., me] from here already, but since we’ve never really delved into his blathering, he has no real reason to care about us so I probably haven’t. When I think about Christians who are bullies but wilt like orchids under a hair-dryer when they get pushback, he’s one of the first people I think of!

Really? That must be why I wrote 30 papers (yes, thirty: all on different topics he wrote about) in response to atheist Bob Seidensticker (at his initial urging), without one peep in reply: because I’m the coward and he is obviously intellectually confident . . .

Thanks for letting me know, by the way, about this piece, so I could reply. It’s a sign of your sublime intellectual confidence [sarcasm alert!]. I had to run across it. Having done so, it’ll get a full reply tomorrow. It looks to be a very fun piece. I look forward to it!

Will you flee to the hills, too, like Bob always does, after you are critiqued? Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

Now onto her paper itself:

When I was a Christian, every single Christian I knew had two completely contradictory opinions about Satan. First, everyone thought he was beyond infernally intelligent. But second, everyone thought he was a stone-cold IDIOT. 

It’s not contradictory at all: rightly understood. And I explained this in my article. There is intelligence / cleverness / brain power / ability to analyze and be subtle and sophisticated / high IQ. That’s one thing. And then there is wisdom and knowledge, which is the ability to arrive at truth and an understanding of reality as it actually is, as opposed to falsehood and pretense and self-delusion or plain befuddled ignorance.

Satan possesses the first quality, and utterly lacks the second. Thus, he can be described simultaneously as “infernally intelligent” (the perfect description of that) and an “idiot”: because they are referring to two different things. As usual, the atheist / skeptic thinks it is a contradiction when it is not at all (they love to do this with the Bible, and one of my sub-specialties is to refute such efforts).

Perhaps the reason that Cassidy doesn’t grasp this distinction (which isn’t rocket science) is because some atheists / agnostics / humanists have an outlook which is quite similar to Satan’s: the denial of God, or undue skepticism towards Him, while usually having above-average brain power, IQ, and “book learning.” They can’t see the forest for the trees: just as Satan couldn’t. They stand outside of reality, in terms of spiritual and metaphysical matters. More on this below.

And that may also (I speculate) account for Cassidy’s anger and insults in her paper. Perhaps she understands down deep that these same criticisms of Satan apply to her and other non-Christians (i.e., to the intransigent sorts among them, who have been informed of Christian truths and the gospel — have enough knowledge to understand and believe — and reject them). 

Catholic author, conspiracy theorist, chest-thumper, and zinger-flinger Dave Armstrong somehow missed the message that Jesus wanted him to love his enemies and forgive seventy times seven. He finds way more pleasure in doling out abuse, dripping condescension, and blistering scorn.

Apparently, for Cassidy (follow her link above), any philosophical defense of Christianity (such as the teleological argument) is “conspiracy theory”. That would be news to the philosopher David Hume (often erroneously regarded as an atheist), who held to a form of the teleological argument, and believed in some sort of deity (though not the Christian one). I need not waste any more time with silly personal insults like this, which have no relation to truth. As for the charge of abuse and so forth, this is, in my opinion, essentially code language for “a Christian who dares to get uppity and critique atheism and their atheist intellectual superiors and overlords”.

Even this line of mine (the previous sentence) will be classified as a species of “abuse” because atheists usually are unaware of how condescending they routinely are towards Christians. Thus, when we fight back against lies told about us, we get this accusation (almost to the extent of atheist paranoia and abject fear of any serious criticism of themselves). We can’t win, no matter what we do. We either take the lies and do nothing, or if we oppose them, then we’re accused of yet more false charges. I’d rather stick to the issues.

(Sometimes he insults people who know far more about his chosen topics than he does, like John Loftus and Edward Babinski. The responses he gets are uniformly satisfying and educational to read.)

People may read my exchanges with Loftus (who exploded into the stratosphere and melted down to goo when I critiqued his deconversion story) and my discussions with Babinski (one / two / three), and make up their own minds. Cassidy thinks I got slaughtered (what a surprise). Whatever the case may be, I am happy to present both sides of these debates on my site. That’s what I do: I engage in debates and dialogue: just like this present effort. And I have scores and scores of debates with atheists (see my Atheism web page). Folks can read, use their critical faculties, and decide who made the more plausible case and arguments.

Armstrong decides Satan is “stupid.” Mainly, his argument consists of this following (and unsupported) burst of mental arithmetic:

  • Satan knew better than anybody what his god liked, wanted, demanded and expected.
  • He didn’t need to be “a rocket scientist” to guess what would happen to him if he didn’t fall into line.
  • He rebelled anyway.
  • What kind of nitwit even does that? Only someone really dumb!
  • Corollary: when TRUE CHRISTIANS™ like himself tell us unwashed heathens the totally-for-realsies penalties for rebellion and we reject their control grabs, we reveal to King Them that we are just as dumb as Satan is.

The first four points, notwithstanding some bias, basically present what I argued. The last one emphatically does not. Belief or nonbelief is an extremely complex matter, and it doesn’t help to caricature what Christians believe about it. I make a sharp distinction (following the New Testament) between “open-minded agnostics” (who aren’t sure God exists, but open to possible proof) and “rebellious” atheists (like Satan!): who know that God exists, but reject Him anyway.

I don’t hold that all atheists are automatically wicked and evil; quite the contrary, I contend that some atheists may be saved in the end, given certain conditions of invincible ignorance and what they have been taught (or not taught). I think my position is quite tolerant and irenic: compared to what many other Christians say. I base it on biblical teaching. Cassidy was in anti-intellectual fundamentalist circles in her past life (so she would have observed — and perhaps joined in on — a lot of Dumb Christianity™). I never was. Most Christians (the vast majority: especially through history) never were.

My view, then, is far from thinking all atheists are “dumb” and “evil.” Some are (just as some Christians are, too: and some of those will be damned). It comes down to each individual case. Our job (and particularly mine, as an apologist and evangelist) is to share the Good News of Christianity and the fullness of Catholicism. God goes from there, and people may accept what we share or reject it or remain undecided.

Cassidy says in her profile that “I’m generally friendly to the idea of spiritual stuff, but I want evidence for it.” I take her at her word, which means I would classify her as an “open-minded agnostic” rather than “rebel” (a la Satan).  She has not ruled God out altogether.

I’m focusing on this post because it reveals the toxic Christian playbook in such detail. Though nowhere near all Christians believe in Satan (or Hell, for that matter), the ones who do definitely qualify as toxic. Nor is this belief exclusively evangelical—plenty of Catholics just like Dave Armstrong believe in a literal Satan. So his opinion represents a commonly-held opinion in those nastier ends of Christianity. Indeed, I heard exactly the same sorts of statements about Satan in both Southern Baptist (SBC) and Pentecostal (UPCI) churches.

Note what she is saying: all Christians who hold to the actual historic teachings of Christianity: in this instance, the existence of Satan and hell, are bad people, and “toxic Christians.” Lest we miss what she means by this, let’s follow her link above and see how she understands it:

Zealotry demands control over other people’s lives even if those people aren’t even members of its group. It is not love but hate, though zealots may relabel hate as love to make its members think that by harming others, they are really showing love to them (though the people being harmed are not fooled in the least).

Zealotry doesn’t care about facts in its rush to push its bizarre understanding of “truth;” it will do whatever it must to spread itself, because spreading itself is what is important. Love, truthfulness, faithfulness, a servant’s heart, charity, none of it matters to a zealot. The ends justify the means. . . . 

So when I talk about a “toxic Christian,” I’m talking about that narrow subset of zealots who harm others in the name of their religion, want to force their narrow interpretation of their religion’s dictates on everybody else, confuse love with hate and abuse with caring, and care more about proselytizing than they do about following their religion’s primary commands. They are a poisonous cloud of gas seeping over every surface and poisoning everything they touch, and their form of religion just spawns more people like themselves: zealots ready for the cause.

According to her, any Christian who merely believes in hell and Satan (standard Christian beliefs) are “toxic” and hateful, despicable scumbags. But if we start discarding Christian beliefs, like good theological liberals and dissidents, then we are fine and dandy in her book, because we are more similar to her. Very charitable and tolerant, isn’t it? Contrast that with my irenic, ecumenical view that atheists might possibly be saved and should be treated with respect and charity and approached as sincere individuals.

Cassidy has decided beforehand that hundreds of millions of Christians are evil and wicked wascally wascals because they dare to accept the historic Christian beliefs about hell and Satan. Talk about massive bigotry! And this would explain her hostility to me, wouldn’t it?: since I believe in Satan, and critique his behavior. That means that I am a scumbag, by definition. And scumbags and morons need not be treated with civility and charity. All the while she lectures us Christians about charity and behavior . . . the ironies here are very rich and sad.

It’s not that there aren’t many millions of Christians who do a lousy job at both properly living the Christian life (trying to be Christlike) and at sharing (or bearing witness to) the faith. There certainly are, and I roundly criticize them all the time, because they give Christians a bad name. What is so objectionable and beyond insulting is that Cassidy classifies everyone who believes in hell and Satan as a “toxic Christian”: someone who hates others and is not Christlike at all. This simply doesn’t follow. Reality and the facts of the matter are not nearly that simple and simplistic. We can’t classify millions of people as morons simply because we disagree with them on some point of theology (or anything else). This is the classic bigoted or prejudiced outlook.

By the way, the United Pentecostal Church (UPCI) is not Christian, but rather, Sabellian heresy, which is a denial of trinitarianism and the orthodox doctrine concerning Jesus. This is apparently part of Cassidy’s background (we know she at least attended such churches), which would partially explain some of her confusion about and rejection of true Christianity.

Christians talk this way for a reason. They seek to reassure each other that while there’s everything to fear, they’re all perfectly safe because ultimately, Satan is easy to defeat because he is an idiot.

This isn’t true as a blanket statement. Mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) teaches that he can certainly be defeated by Jesus and for us, through the power of the Holy Spirit granted to us as Christians, but not that this is easy-as-pie. Top the contrary, most Christian groups teach that we have to be constantly vigilant against the wares of the Evil One: against “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” It takes faith and work and perseverance.

Toxic Christians fear their enemies for their greater intelligence, popularity, and reach–and also for their apparent lack of fear of Christian threats and retaliation, which are such devastatingly effective tools in their culture. At the same time, they hate those enemies for what they see them as taking from the tribe.

The Goal.

Greed.

Fear.

Every terrible thing these Christians do is driven by one of those two emotions (and sometimes both at once). The harvest of those dark seeds is terror and rage. Indeed, terror and rage propel them. These emotions feel familiar.

Ideally, manipulating these two emotions will produce either a lessening in their own fear or an increase in others’ fear, which will bring about an increase in their own power and holdings–or a lessening in that of their enemies. That motivation about covers moral panics in general. But it applies beautifully to all the other awful stuff they do.

Faux-psychoanalysis from a hostile, bigoted perspective, rather than objective rational analysis, and so unworthy of a reply . . . Cassidy continues on in this vein. She’s in her own little world: thinking that all Christians are somehow like the anti-intellectual fundamentalist ones she used to be part of. It’s very common among atheists and agnostics: identifying the whole with a small, poor representation: throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Not only is Satan himself super-smart-but-abysmally-stupid, but so is anybody else who refuses to fall into line.

As I have already stated: this isn’t true: not for thinking Christians. It only is for lousy Christians who haven’t thought-through or loved their faith very well: again, the ones Cassidy used to be among. That is not — repeat, NOT — the whole ball of wax. But we can’t prevent her from employing this fallacy and this caricature and stereotype over and over, to the cheers of her fan club.

The rest of the post simply repeats ad nauseam the same fallacious views (repetition doesn’t make a flimsy, non-substantive pseudo-argument any better). Very disappointing. I was expecting much better, but I suppose the insults were a clue that it wasn’t to be.

***

Cassidy “responded” on her blog (after banning me there):

You are just one tiny piece of exactly why Christianity is declining. You, personally, shout to the whole world that absolutely no gods of infinite love and grace inhabit you, and that you can’t even take your own religion’s commands seriously.

It’d probably blow control-freak Christians’ little minds to realize just how little anybody cares about their various tantrums.

Abusive people are their own kind of drama. They can’t help but act out, but acting out makes their situation worse, which makes them act out worse… He’s exactly why his religion is failing. He shows us . . . that no gods of love inhabit him–and that his “faith” is really his permission slip to abuse others.

So I don’t care what this guy has to say. He offers nothing whatsoever of interest or value to anybody. He’s a hateful, spiteful, reactionary, vengeful, rage-filled bore just like the rest of his tribe, howling and beating their chests with their fists and lashing out at any criticisms. Hell, I won’t even remember he dropped by in a day or two.

It’s downright amazing to see their ingenuity in avoiding the commands attributed to Jesus himself. That wriggling comes in second only to their pretenses at rationality.

Christian hypocrisy just reminds me that Christianity is morally bankrupt. So many people just like this guy can operate in the religion and even flourish in it because there’s nothing real to its claims. It should be impossible for him to be like this. And yet here he is, and nobody will ever convince him that he is a stone-cold hypocrite who ought to be ashamed of himself for the way he sets back the cause of Christ. The ways of a man truly are right in his eyes, eh? This is why religion is poison. The foxes voted themselves long ago to be the keepers of the henhouse, and they don’t see any problem with that–and they sure don’t care what the hens might have to say about their self-granted liberties.

Who’d want to join a group that allows someone like that to run roughshod over people? Literally the only reason people put up with Christians is because we had to. We don’t have to anymore.

The fact that someone can be a Catholic author, fully complicit with all the ghastly things the Catholic church is doing and has done, and look down on others is just mind-blowing. But that’s how controllers and oppressors are. When they have no real defense, they hit offense as hard as they can.

***

Photo credit: Lucifer (1890), by Franz Stuck (1863-1928) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

June 6, 2018

June 6, 2018 By

*****

Debunking Christianity is the website of John W. Loftus: former Christian and now atheist polemicist and author. I recently had dealings with it when I did a critique of one of Loftus’ papers: The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History: Reply to Atheist John W. Loftus’ Irrational Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts.

When I made some comments in the same combox where I announced the paper, all of a sudden we saw a good old-fashioned Internet “feeding frenzy,” with five safely anonymous atheists (not a single one of them gives their full name), joining in with wholesale mockery and insults and slanderous garbage, about Christians and about myself.

As always, I like to illustrate the bankruptcy of all such worthless, non-rational “discussions” online (which happen everywhere: commonly in Christian venues as well) by simply exposing them. They are their own refutations. I sure hope this isn’t representative of atheism as a whole (I know many atheists personally who are very different), but I know this sort of nonsense is very common at atheist sites online. I’m sure it turns more people off to atheism than a hundred Christian apologetic arguments could or would. Atheists like this are their own worst enemies.

I won’t cite absolutely everything (if you read the whole thread, be aware that it contains vulgarities and blasphemies), but only remarks that are of an absurdly sweeping, prejudicial nature: against Christianity or yours truly (the latter, indented). Color coding is as follows:

Me = black
Gandolf = blue
articulett = green
brdeadite99 = purple
renoliz = orange
Randy = brown

John Loftus = red

* * * * *

 

I have made a lengthy reply to the post “Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?” on my blog, entitled,“Census & Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Atheist John W. Loftus’ Irrational & Uninformed Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts.” It will also be cross-posted on my Facebook Page (over 1200 followers, so lots of potential readers there) and Twitter page.

Atheists and agnostics are welcome on my pages and are treated politely and courteously (while their arguments are vehemently opposed). (2-3-11)

I would have referred him to what modern day archaeologists are saying about there being no Nazareth at the time of alleged Jesus but generally people who are this willing to ignore the obvious contradictions and complete lack of historicity in the birth narratives are too far gone to have a discussion with. He will be vehemently opposing any argument based on facts . . . Let us not allow facts to get in the way of our beliefs, for crying out loud.

There is one particularly foul git there known as “Doctor Doom”, . . . who dismisses links from atheist sites out of hand, saying that they’re “written by atheists with agendas, so you can’t trust anything they say”. Forget facts, they can’t even face simple reality. 

. . . the obligatory mocking already starting to take place. :-) (2-3-11)

I just selected the latest post, so you would see it and not overlook it. It is humorously appropriate in this combox, though, since now my reasoning is being ridiculed and that was the topic of the post! LOL

It continues to be quite fashionable in atheist circles, apparently, to mock Christians and Christianity and yuck it up, sans rational discussion of a rational rebuttal of pet atheist theories. I’ve always marveled at it, but I don’t think these tactics are gonna go away anytime soon. Mockery and irrationalism have long since replaced rational, constructive discussion, as the normative way to communicate and “refute” positions that are disagreed with, these days.

It’s the same in politics, too, as we have observed in the recent spate of attacks on political conservatives as the alleged cause of the nutcase in Arizona.

Your books certainly do not consist solely of mocking and ridicule. There must be rational argument in them, I’m sure. I’m suggesting that you might want to encourage rational, mutually respectful discussion on your blog, too. You guys might actually like it: you never know! (2-5-11)

Given the negative agenda of this site (like so many atheist ones), you guys oughtta have a “dislike” button, so you can express your personal contempt for Christians! :-)

Let it be known that I don’t return this contempt for atheists. Many Christians do, which is a sad thing (and they are wrong and inconsistent to do it), but I do not. That’s why I try to have rational discussions with atheists. The common reluctance to do so doesn’t come from my end.

We can continue to mock and ridicule (and in some cases, “hate”) each other, or we can talk and reason like intelligent adults. (2-5-11)

Well, seeing as how I’ve spent months debating dozens and dozens of Christians(maybe over a hundred of them at this point) and still have yet to find any intelligent arguments from even one of them, my ” personal contempt”, as you call it, is well warranted. I don’t even know why I bother; because in the end, no matter how intelligent you thought a Christian was, it all boils down to feelings, emotions, dogma, and their brainwashed inability to let go of cherished beliefs.

If that is your opinion, then why not simply ignore Christians? This is what is perplexing about atheist behavior. Apart from the very common spectacle and folly of being angry at a God that doesn’t exist, they are obsessed with Christians whom they think are dumber than a doornail, and devoid (as you say) of even one intelligent argument.

Why bother? If I had such a view, I wouldn’t waste time interacting with Christians, and I wouldn’t even use up any energy mocking them. Speaking for myself, I don’t waste time debating flat earthers or Neo-Nazis. I don’t make fun of them, either. I simply ignore them as irrelevant and beyond hope (for intelligent discussion).

But you guys don’t and can’t seem to do that. This very site illustrates the problem: atheism seems to have to be self-defined by opposition to something else.You can’t just live your life and live and let live. You have to mock and express contempt for those who disagree with you.

I have two books that could be said to be arguments against atheism. I also have 21 that aren’t, because I don’t define or confine myself in terms of beliefs that I oppose. But with John Loftus, it is different. Look at his books: it’s all one droning theme: how Christianity is false, why he left it, etc. Has he nothing positive and pro-active to offer?

It’s a very curious phenomenon, but there are several possible explanations, I suppose. (2-5-11)

we are somewhat miffed at the superior and arrogant attitudes that his followers adopt and have held for well over two thousand years. As for expressing mock and contempt, if our opponents could actually dredge up ONE good reason to believe in talking animals, mythical creatures, and demi-god rabbi/carpenters(without telling us that we were never True Christians(TM) . . . we might have some respect for them. . . . At least atheists don’t churn out cheap, slanderous propaganda about other people’s personal beliefs, . . . John Loftus wants people to see Christianity for the sham it is, no different from an ex-cultist victim who warns people about the Church of The Seventh Stone, or whatnot.

Thanks for the quintessential display of irrational atheist anger. Pathetic . . . (2-5-11)

And thank you for the quintessential display of the arrogant, condescending attitude I was talking about. How precious… :)
And you wonder why atheists come to the conclusion that some theists are “dumber than a doornail”.

I think faith addles the brain so that the believer is unable to see themselves the way an outsider perceives them due to the Dunning-Kruger effect (the ignorant are too ignorant to know they are the ignorant people). The believer needs to believe that their magical beliefs make them more moral so they are everlastingly trying to prove that to themselves. Unfortunately they often lose their sense of humor in the process. Fortunately, I think lurkers who read these posts are often moved towards reason. No one wants to seem like the theist blowhard who doesn’t know he’s a blowhard. Mockery is probably the best tool we have against such primitive thinking. . . . former believers often find comfort and healing in laughing at their former superstitions and those that try to manipulate others with them. . . . Life is jollier when you can find glee in their buffoonery.

(I suspect no-one but David Armstrong takes David Armstrong seriously.) I think it’s funny that DA came to a skeptics site to get attention and then tells others to ignore him as though responses to him are “persecution”! I don’t know any skeptics that go to “woo” sites or churches goofing on believers for their silly beliefs, do you?

I think it’s just very hard for the theist to accept that the atheist finds their magical beliefs as silly (and potentially dangerous) as all the magical beliefs the theists rejects. (And for the same reasons!) 

You suggest atheists are angry at God , this is manipulative and very misleading and deceitful propaganda. Most Atheists are not angry at God. Yet here you are pushing this deceitful manipulative propaganda that other theist sheep around you will end up having faith in. You also make the decietful [sic] manipulative accusation that atheists are simply “obesessed” [sic] with Christians. . . These false manipulative accusations turn theist sheep against atheists, plus have the effect of blinding theist sheep . . . And yet here you are Dave today, willingly spreading the manipulative deceitful propaganda/ministry. . . Does it make you feel morally superior? with your supposed God given “objective moral” values and Church hours spent warming pews, to be here today spreading blatant lies about Atheists. . . And when it upsets people like Brdeadite a bit .Dave Armstrong suddenly crys [sic] wolf and trys [sic] to suggest…”Thanks for the quintessential display of irrational atheist anger. Pathetic . . . ” . . . Daves [sic] “faithful attitude” makes him feel NEED to revert to use of even more manipulative decetful [sic] propaganda tactics again. . . . This is simply deceitful.Its a manipulation of the truth. And amounts to propaganda. . . . Dave you cannot come to places like this and use such manipulative deceitful tactics ….And not expect people to get a little angry about it. . . . I suggest to you that while Theists continue on with these blatantly manipulative deceitful practices ..It is indeed even warrented! [sic] that we sometimes do use ridicule. . . Theists display thoughtless uncaring attitudes that deceitfully misjudge people in a bigoted way . . .

Grand total:

“manipulative”: 9 times
“deceitful”: 9 times
“Propaganda”: 5 times

. . . for theist children to throw away their wee faith cuddly rugs, learn to grow up! and face responsibilities. . . We do see that much of its been so very childish and immensely irresponsible . . . 

I don’t think believers in magic are qualified to have “rational discussions”, are they? — especially when such discussions might interfere with the magical things they feel saved for “believing in”? Does anyone here know of a religionists who is capable of having a “rational discussion” when it comes to their religion? I would venture that those who are capable of rational discussion are on their way to becoming non-believers if they aren’t there yet. I don’t find self-described Christians any more capable of having rational discussions on Christianity than self-described Scientologists having a rational discussion on Scientology. I find that former believers are much more capable of rational and insightful discussion on the subject of supernatural beliefs than those who are beholden to such beliefs.

Christians march into skeptic sites feeling all mad and claiming persecution because someone dared to find their magical beliefs as goofy as they find other myths.

Ah, it’s a feeding frenzy now, huh? (2-5-11)

“What You Can Find Here at DC”

By John W. Loftus at 11/18/2010

There is plenty of discussion that takes place afterward. . . . Stay on and engage us. We aim at having respectable debates, more or less.

Um, it’s totally less in this thread, dude! How can you possibly write that last sentence with a straight face? LOL I could have a better dialogue with a comatose jellyfish than what is available here (at least based on the evidence of this thread).

Christian, see if your faith can withstand our assault.

Sure, my faith can withstand the endless personal assaults of atheists. No problem there. But rational dialogue cannot survive in such a scenario. Takes two willing parties to do that.

You will grow as you do. What harm can there be in seeing if your faith can be defended?

But this contradicts what everyone here is saying: that no Christian has ever given a single intelligent argument for anything! LOL

Try it and see. Test your faith here.

More like “test your patience,” to see if it matches with Job’s, . . . (2-6-11)

For a lot of Theists this thing they call being polite and courteous seems to also include endless manipulation and educated sophistry. They even will use it to turn the existence of very abusive faiths . . . I dont bother much going to faithful folks blogs because i dont really expect much straight forward honesty. . . . Yes indeed Theists can sure create some wonderful harmonizations that will end up with human throwing live babies into fire. Or that Joseph Smith found some Golden plates. Ect.Ect.Ect [sic]

Thanks for some semblance of an actual reply to my arguments (even a semi-rational one in-between all the endless humorous put-downs and psychoanalyses). But of course it is Loftus’ argument and he needs to defend it. (2-6-11)

. . . the truth remains theists have traditionally proved they are quite capable of dragging themselves down into the bottomless mire and muck of being caught out ! and sprung for often being deceitful and untrustworthy. . . . And yet some theists will still wonder why some people would ever dare think of theists with such ridicule and contempt.

But it really isn’t healthy for society to be respectful to adults who engage in and promote magical thinking. . . . I think mockery is the best way to end the inanity of all these believers in assorted faiths imagining themselves superior to all those who believe in a different brand of magic. . . . Faith makes people self righteous and nutty!

tsk tsk– DA’s feelings are hurt because people don’t agree with him and no one here is coddling him for having magical beliefs. . . . the manipulations your indoctrinators used on you, Dave, don’t work here. All believers in all “woo” feel insulted by those who think their beliefs are delusional.

I continue to await Loftus’s counter-response. He made an indication that there is some slight chance it may happen. That may actually be on the topic, too (as an extra bonus). As for this thread and its 1001 rabbit trails, . . . zzzzzZZZZZ. (2-6-11)

You were the one who started the rabbit trails, you bozo-face– you posted off topic and then had a fit when John didn’t answer claiming censorship!
*
[I threw no “fit” at any time. I simply announced my new paper on the latest thread, so Loftus would see it. Because my first post disappeared, at first I thought it was censored. But after Loftus denied it, I figured out that it was Blogger’s automatic spam function (as indeed it was, as confirmed by Loftus), and so I wrote on 2-4-11: “It musta been Blogger’s automatic spam function. You can go to your comments section and check the spam folder. It acts weird sometimes. I should have thought of that. My apologies.”]
*
People who feel saved for having magical beliefs aren’t really capable of rational discussion on their magical beliefs. . . . the funny thing is is this was a thread illustrating how theists are unable to see themselves the way an outsider might see them…. and then you came in and proved the point– which made goofing on you too irresiistable. [sic] You tried to plug your creepy website and now you’re trying to imply that John not responding to your wackadoodle Christian conjecture means that your wackadoodle beliefs have merit… just like a slew of other wackadoodle Christians who post here trying to plug their goofy websites that no-one is going to. You guys should bond with each other and post on each other’s site about how great all your arguments are since the rational people here can’t seem to make sense of you and you end up feeling like your “patience is being tried” and we feel like we are being preached at by folks we’d never look to for advice.. . . I don’t appreciate the self righteous folks who do believe in such things interrupting a humorous thread to push their beliefs while insulting those who rightly find such beliefs mock-worthy. You are the one who has been rude here– not any of the atheists. I don’t know any theist that would put up with someone interrupting a humorous thread to try to push some website while insulting the readership in the process.
*
My experience shows me that believers in the supernatural are seldom able to have rational conversations when it comes to their supernatural beliefs– especially if they feel “saved” or “moral” or “righteous” because of those beliefs like Muslims and Fox News viewers. To me, you guys are like children pointing at presents under a Christmas tree while claiming that it’s proof that Santa is real.
*
As such, I feel that YOU are poorly qualified for rational discussion here or anywhere, and I wouldn’t be surprised if John comes to a similar conclusion. Surely, you don’t waste your time on every “woo” who comes your way; why should John? What’s in it for him?
*
Oh ok …All of a sudden Dave doesnt want to play ball anymore …First he makes these claims suggesting there is no good reason for atheists to mistrust theism .We put a few possible reasons forward why it might not be so wise to “trust” theism. But Daves no longer keen to play ball. . . . That seems to be Daves plan?, continue to turn a blind eye, put the fingers in the ears and say nah naaa nah naaa ! …im not listening . . . But now Dave suddenly chooses to feel all sleepy and discontinue with the discussion that he started ?.Why is this ?, might it be because ? Dave knows he will need to be a little honest and admit that yes indeed he was wrong !. . . I think maybe Dave is having some trouble with dwelling within continuing denial .This seems to be a very traditional type trait for many faith believers. My own family sits rotting within a Christian cult stuck in this faithful “denial mode”, . . . I mean why would John Loftus even bother getting involved in another bitch-fight again , with a theist who obviously cant even see any good valid reason at all to feel need of some mistrust for theists and their theism, somebody so stuck in faithful denial mode he wont even bother to discuss it any further. Whats the use in discussing these matters much with theists on their blogs if this is the type of brick wall one comes up againsts right from the get-go.

I just want it known that I’m an equal opportunity mocker. I mock the Scientologists, Muslims, Mormons, and Christians. I mock those who believe in fairies and those who believe in astrology and those that believe in voo-doo. I mock reincarnationists as much as I mock those who believe in Heaven, hell, or Valhalla. I mock all those who believe in the supernatural. . . . I think the Christian “persecution complex” is HI-Larious given the fact that it’s atheists that are regularly actually discriminated against in America . . . I think you’ll find the majority of prejudice is the US is spread by Christians to Christians — many of whom are dishonestly and hypocritically claiming to be persecuted because people on skeptic sites don’t defer to their delusions! 

I even purposely stay away from sites where other “ex members” of the cult we were born in, get together to chat. . . . Anyone dare even discuss it and they throw all their dollys out the pram and start wailing whaaa!…booo hoo i want my cuddly rug! They rather not face it, so as to claim the right to continue to live in “faithful” hope …Even if it means history keeps on repeating itself …and as such future generations need to keep suffering faith-abuse . . . 

Keep it up, folks! I’ve always loved farce. I wanna see how many atheist stereotypes and caricatures of self-parodies can be present in one thread. Y’all are very inventive. It’s marvelously entertaining (if little else). (2-7-11)

* * *

John Loftus then posted that I am far too ignorant and stupid for him to waste his time on. If I see further papers of his that I think will serve as examples of shoddy, flimsy atheist reasoning, I will refute them, whether he chooses to respond or not. My job as an apologist is to defend truth and refute error. If those defending errors (such as atheism) see no need to defend their view against critique, then it helps our cause. It would be nice to actually have a dialogue, but my first duty is to refute error, whether a person is willing to “talk” or not.

And let my self-proclaimed critics or “enemies” (as the case may be) mock and insult all they want. It never has stopped me from doing anything and it never will. We’re told by Jesus to fully expect this. Generally (though not always), it means we are doing something right and hitting a nerve.

***

(originally 2-7-11)

Photo credit: David and Goliath (1888), by Osmar Schindler (1869-1927) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 17, 2016

May 17, 2016 By

Atheist “Proof Texts” Examined (vs. Ed Babinski)

FlatEarth

A “flat-Earth” map drawn by Orlando Ferguson in 1893 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(9-17-06)
***

This is a continuation of a preliminary reply to atheist Matthew Green. In the discussion thread for that post, Matthew’s friend John Loftus suggested his own paper on the topic, and two by Ed Babinski, an agnostic who is particularly interested in Bible-and-science discussions. Matthew then referred to yet another paper by Robert M. Price (one that, indeed, was important to him in his “deconversion” from Christianity).

* * * * *

Now, as usual with these sorts of generally “scattershot” treatments by atheists and agnostics, an effort is made to hit the Christian with dozens or even hundreds of separate “evidences,” the desired cumulative effect of which is supposed to be tremendously debilitating and demoralizing to the Christian. To refute such massively polemical endeavors (even if answers are easily obtainable) is always a hugely tedious affair, requiring starting from ground zero.

Then, of course, if a Christian recognizes this and doesn’t feel like replying to the mountain of alleged “counter-evidence” at any given time, he is accused of cowardice or inability to refute it, or both. Added to those dynamics are my present life situation, in which I feel a bit overwhelmed, with too many things going on, and an excessive amount of stress. In such a circumstance, the last thing one wants to do is undertake a massive research project, requiring hours of excruciating “hard research”.

That said, I do, however, desire to make some response, because the topic (like anything having to do with the Bible) is interesting, and because I think it is an opportunity to illustrate the (inevitable) severe flaws and fallacies of “atheist exegesis.” So I thought I could deal with a few selected arguments on this overall topic, and demonstrate how erroneous and wrongheaded they are. Readers can then see representative examples of the type of “reasoning” being employed against the Bible and Christian apologists who defend it, and see that – once again – it is not a case of “rational, logical, open-minded skeptic vs. gullible, anti-intellectual, closed-minded Christian.”

First of all, it is necessary to give a brief overview of the proper understanding of biblical cosmology. To do so, I shall cite a classic work on the subject, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, by the Baptist Bernard Ramm (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1954, 96-102). In his section on “Biblical Cosmology” he offers a very helpful overview of many significant presupposition-level considerations (italics his own throughout) [his words will be in green]:

[T]he references of the writers of the Bible to natural things are popular, non-postulational, and in terms of the culture in which the writers wrote. This principle applies directly to Biblical cosmology. . . . Biblical cosmology is in the language of antiquity and not of modern science, nor is it filled with anticipations which the future microscope and telescope will reveal. We do not agree with over-zealous Fundamentalists who try to find Einsteinian and modern astrophysical concepts buried in Hebrew words and expressions. We also disagree with the religious liberals who object to Biblical cosmology because it is not scientific.

. . . The cosmology of the Bible is not systematized and is not postulational. It is neither for nor against any of the current and ancient theories of the universe except where they might be polytheistic or in conflict with basic Christian metaphysics. But the Bible does not support Aristotle or Ptolemy or Copernicus or Descartes or Newton or Einstein or Milne . . . it gives us no positive cosmology.

We must consider the efforts of radical critics to impose a cosmology on the Bible as an artificial, stilted, and abortive effort.

. . . [William Fairfield] Warren claims that their approach to the cosmology of the Bible is so wooden, artificial, and literal that the Bible writers would not recognize such a cosmology if it were handed them all written out on a piece of paper. If, he continues, you follow this wooden and artificial approach to the Bible you would have the Bible writers believing in a heaven made of wax or silk or goatshair! [The Earliest Cosmologies, 1909, pp. 24-32]

. . . Orr writes:

The error is to be avoided of forcing the language of popular, often metaphorical and poetic description, into the hard-and-fast forms of a cosmogony which it is by no means intended by the writers to yield.

[“World, Cosmological,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia {“ISBE”}, V, 3106]

. . . Gaenssle, a Semitic scholar, takes the radical critics to task likewise for imposing on the Bible a stilted, artificial cosmology that is nowhere clearly and systematically taught in Scripture [“A Look at Current Biblical Cosmologies,” Concordia Theological Monthly, 23:738-749]. He singles out two basic ideas of this reconstruction of the radical critics to show that their contentions are baseless. (i) He examines the word raqia (firmament) which critics have taken to mean a solid something and indicates that its basic idea is that of thinness or tenuity. Citing Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 34:4, he asks:

Can anyone with these texts before him seriously and honestly believe that the writers of these words entertained the crude inept notion of a metallic canopy above their heads?

[Footnote 38: Ibid., p. 743 . . . the greatest Hebrew scholar of the fifteenth century, Paginus, writing well before modern science translates raqia by expansionem]

The best meaning of raqia is expanse or atmosphere. (ii) He also attacks the notion that the world floats on a vast subterranean ocean . . . As for the word under in the phrase “under the earth” the Hebrew word tachath means not only under but lower. In our own day we speak of lowlands . . . :

Consequently, when the earth is said to be founded on the seas and spread out upon the waters, there is no reason to assume that the Psalmist is singing of an invisible ocean on which the earth rests or is spread out, but only of earthly waters on which the earth touches and over which it is elevated.

. . . The upper, terrestrial ocean satisfies all requirements and it lies below or beneath in the same sense as the Dead Sea lies under Mount Pisgah and the land of Moab. [Ibid., p. 747, 749]

Maunder believes that such verses as Job 22:14, Isaiah 40:22 [“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth . . .”] Proverbs 8:27 and Job 26:7 [“He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing”] amply prove that the Hebrews thought of the earth as round and suspended in nothing. The unaided eye itself sees the horizon as circular, especially the horizon of the sea. The sphericity of the sun and the moon and the roundness of the stars wold suggest to an astronomically alert people the sphericity of the earth. [E.W. Maunder, “Astronomy,” ISBE, I, 314 ff.]

. . . The pillars of the earth (Job 9:6) are the rocks that bear up the surface of the earth.

. . . It is improper to construct a so-called modern or scientific cosmology from the Biblical evidence; and it is also improper to try to model one after Babylonian concepts. In that there is no systematic exposition of a cosmology in the Bible, and in that the Bible abounds with either popular expressions or poetic expressions, it is not capable of a systematic construction with reference to a cosmology. The best we can do is to (i) indicate the freedom of the Bible from mythological polytheistic or grotesque cosmologies; (ii) note the general hostility of the Bible to cosmologies which are antitheistic; and (iii) clearly present the theocentric view of the Bible towards Nature.

It is typical of radical critics to play up the similarity of anything Biblical with the Babylonian, and to omit the profound differences or gloss over them. When the Biblical account is set side by side with any other cosmology its purity, its chasteness, its uniqueness, its theocentricity are immediately apparent.

Earlier in his book (pp. 66-67, 69-70), Ramm made an even more basic summary of biblical language in relation to science:

A. The language of the Bible with reference to natural matters is popular, not scientific. . . .

B. The language of the Bible is phenomenal. By phenomenal we mean “pertaining to appearances.” . . .

C. . . . the language of the Bible is non-postulational with reference to natural things. By this we mean that the Bible does not theorize as to the actual nature of things . . . . there is no theory of matter in the Bible. . . .

D. The language of the Bible employs the culture of the times in which it was written as the medium of revelation.

E. W. Maunder, in his article, “Astronomy,” in the ISBE (I, 314-315), notes:

The same word (hugh) used in the OT to express the roundness of the heavens (Job 22:14) is also used when the circle of the earth is spoken of (Isaiah 40:22) and it is likewise applied to the deep (Proverbs 8:27). Now it is obvious that the heavens are spherical in appearance, and to an attentive observer it is clear that the surface of the sea is also rounded. There is therefore no sufficient warrant for the assumption that the Hebrews must have regarded the earth as flat.

(1) The earth a sphere. – Certain astronomical relations were recognized very early. The stars appear as if attached to a globe rotating around the earth once in 24 hours, and this appearance was clearly familiar to the author of the Book of Job, and indeed long before the time of Abraham, since the formation of the constellations could not have been effected without such recognition. But the spherical form of the heavens almost involves a similar form for the earth, and their apparent diurnal rotation certainly means that they are not rigidly connected with the earth, but surround it on all sides at some distance from it. The earth therefore must be freely suspended in space, and so the Book of Job describes it . . . Job 26:7.

James Orr, in his article, “World” in the same work (V, 3106-3108), shows how ridiculous it is to think that the Babylonian accounts of creation have much at all to do with the sublime Genesis account. He gives the view of Berosus, a priest of Babylon in the 3rd century B.C. – later confirmed by the discovery of a tablet from the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (7th century B.C.). These show similarity also to the Greek Hesiod’s Theogony (9th cent. B.C.). All postdate the period of David and Solomon by centuries):

[F]rom Chaos came forth Earth, Tartarus (Hell), Eros (Love) and Erebus (Night). Erebus gives birth to Aether (Day). Earth produces the Heaven and the Sea. Earth and Heaven, in turn, become the parents of the elder gods and the Titans. Cronus, one of these gods, begets Zeus. Zeus makes war on his father Cronus, overthrows him, and thus becomes king of the Olympian gods. The descent of these is then traced.

The Egyptian cosmology is even more absurd and fanciful. I won’t bore readers with that account.

With this background, let’s examine some of the glaring errors and whoppers in atheist / agnostic treatment of the alleged biblical cosmology:

Edward T. Babinski, in his article, Did the Authors of the Bible Assume the Earth was Flat?, amply demonstrates the sort of “wooden” interpretation that Ramm mentioned. He writes (his words will henceforth be in blue):

“The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” – Matthew 4:8

Shown “all the kingdoms of the world” from an “exceedingly high mountain?”
I suppose so, if the mountain was “exceedingly high” and the earth was flat.

That’s the entire argument from this passage. Note the quick and easy assumption of hyper-literalism. This can easily be refuted even from an “appearance”-based, phenomenological perspective (which was quite possible for ancient Hebrews). Thus, Christian apologist J. P. Holding, in his excellent article on the subject, writes:

Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world “in their glory.” Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world, and Matthew’s reader’s would roll over laughing and throw his book in the garbage! It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

The parallel verse, Luke 4:5, provides further insight:

And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (RSV)

Alright; this is interesting. How is it, then, that Jesus could have been shown all the kingdoms of the world “in a moment of time”? It makes no sense (under this wooden, hyper-literalist conception that Ed assumes was typical of ancient Hebrews) to think that Jesus could see all the kingdoms of the world in a moment, because they would be in all four directions (indeed, anywhere in a 360 degree circle, up on a high mountain, assuming for the sake of argument only, a flat earth cosmology). Therefore, this is not a literal, physical occurrence, but rather, quite obviously a supernatural one. That being the case, it is impossible to conclude from it alone that a flat earth was the intention (at least of Luke).

Another factor that could easily be explored, is the non-scientific conception that Hebrews had of the notion of “all.” It didn’t always mean “absolutely every so-and-so, without exception.” It could quite possibly mean in many contexts, “many,” “most”, or “a great deal”. The language was pre-scientific and often proverbial, thus allowing for exceptions. Furthermore, exaggeration or hyperbole was often used. So this passage could simply be interpreted to mean “able to see a great distance and many areas / kingdoms.” If that is the case, then the necessity of a flat earth in order to make sight of literally “all” (“absolutely every”) would be rendered null and void, since the intent of the passage wasn’t literal in the first place.

But Ed, undaunted by such considerations of reason, language, and logic, and with the smile of a dupe and gullible fool on his face, gives us another similar “proof” of a flat earth:

Moreover, verses in the Bible’s book of Daniel presume a flat earth the same way that verses in Matthew do:

“I saw a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.”

– Daniel 4:10-11

Instead of an “exceedingly high” mountain from which “all the kingdoms of the earth” can be seen, Daniel pictures a tree “whose height was great,” growing from the “midst” or center of the earth and “seen” to “the ends of all the earth.”

Funny how such flagrantly flat-earth verses appear in both the Old and New Testaments, and both are based on the same simple idea that something “exceedingly high” or of “great height” could be seen by everyone on earth at once.

“Bible believers” like Holding will of course reply that such verses are only “apparently difficult” to explain, and not the “real truth” as they see it. But it is the “apparent difficulties” that remain in the Bible just as it was written, and they will always remain there, regardless of all the ingenuity employed in explaining them away. *smile*

Again, we have a wooden literalism, assuming that ancient Hebrews were idiots (even allowing for their pre-scientific understanding). Does this passage require an interpretation like Ed’s? Nope. It appears to be merely one of hundreds of examples of Hebrew hyperbole and exaggeration.

The context is a dream of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel the prophet is asked to interpret it, and repeats similar language in Daniel 4:20. But note, first of all that Daniel doesn’t interpret the dream in spatial or visual terms. Rather, it represents the scope of the king’s power:

it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:22; RSV)

Now, does it take scientific knowledge for an ancient Hebrew to know that no one man was literally king over the entire earth? No, of course not. This is typically Hebraic hyperbole. It is poetic from the get-go; therefore, it is improper to anachronistically impose modern notions of cosmology onto it, or to suppose that some flat earth cosmology was at all in the mind of the writer. The highly visualized, agricultural, poetic Hebrew mindset is easily seen in a similar passage in Ezekiel (with my comments interspersed in brackets and red):

Ezekiel 31:2-3, 6, 12-13 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude: “Whom are you like in your greatness? Behold, I will liken you to a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and forest shade, and of great height, . . . All the birds of the air [absolutely all???] made their nests in its boughs; under its branches all the beasts of the field [absolutely every species???] brought forth their young; and under its shadow dwelt all great nations [every nation without exception?]. . . . Foreigners, the most terrible of the nations, will cut it down and leave it. On the mountains and in all the valleys [every single one?!] its branches will fall, and its boughs will lie broken in all the watercourses of the land [really? Every one?]; and all the peoples of the earth will go from its shadow [every nationality in the shadow of one tree??!!] and leave it. Upon its ruin will dwell all the birds of the air [really?], and upon its branches will be all the beasts of the field [this puts Noah’s ark to shame, doesn’t it?].

It is utterly obvious that passages like these (altogether typical in Hebrew poetry, wisdom and prophetic literature), are poetic; not meant to be taken literally at all. Only a nut or an imbecile could think otherwise with regard to the Ezekiel passage. Since the Daniel passage is pretty similar to it, it is reasonable to suppose that non-literal, non-“scientific” poetry is also in mind, particularly due to the analogous nature of both passages (great trees as a metaphor for the power of kings).

Perhaps Ed and other irrational hyper-skeptics would wish to make hay of the phrase and Hebrew concept of the “ends of the earth”? Using their hackneyed reasoning, one would opine that this (like everything else) is to be taken with wooden literalism: the earth has “ends” so it cannot be a sphere, etc. But how does that work with other verses? How about 1 Samuel 2:10: “. . . The LORD will judge the ends of the earth . . . “? God is judging the corners of the flat earth? Maybe He’ll lop them off and make the edges of the earth smooth, like the edges of an end table? What sense does that make? Clearly, the notion is of totality or very wide scope, not of spatial dimensions or appearance. Thus, the prophetic passages use wide scope to convey great influence, but not necessarily comprehensive power over every person in the entire world. How about Job 37:3?:

Under the whole heaven he lets it go, and his lightning to the corners of the earth.

(RSV, as throughout unless indicated otherwise; NIV has “ends of the earth”)

So God only sends thunderstorms to the corners or ends of the earth but nowhere else? This is Babinskian biblical hermeneutics. What mere mortal could doubt its wisdom and veracity? The profundities of it never cease to amaze one: In Psalm 2:8 God the Father gives God the Son, Jesus (it’s a messianic passage) “the ends of the earth” as His possession? Why just the “corners”? (compare Acts 13:47: only the “corners” or the “ends” of the earth will be saved??!!) In Psalm 19:4 the “voice” of the heavens (19:1) “goes out through all the earth” but the “words to the end of the world.” Compare Rom 10:18, which cites this passage. So we see that the two ways of expressing the same thought show that “end[s] of the world/earth” simply means throughout the whole earth: that is, in all four directions. The same occurs in Psalm 22:27:

All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

The sense of this phrase is shown in Mark 13:27:

And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

So much for this line of reasoning. What else can Ed provide us with?

And passages in Matthew (see above) and Revelation (below), demonstrate that the flat earth assumption had by no means vanished by the time the New Testament was written.

The author of the book of Revelation wrote in flat earth fashion: “I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1);

This is more of the same ignorance. ISBE (II, 887: “Earth, Corners of the,” E.W. Maunder) explains:

The “corners” or “ends” of the earth are its “wings” . . . i.e., its borders or extremities. The word in general means a wing, because the wing of a bird is used as a covering for its young, and from this meaning it acquires that of the extremity of anything stretched out. It is thus used in Dt 22:12: “Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four borders [wings] of thy vesture, where with thou coverest thyself.” It thus also means the coasts or boundaries of the land surface of the earth; its extremities. it is translated “corners” in Isa 11:12; “ends” in Job 37:3 and 38:13. The “four corners of the earth (Isa 11:12) or “land” (Ezk 7:2) are therefore simply the extremities of the land in the four cardinal directions.

Bernard Ramm elaborates:

[I]t speaks of “the four corners [wings] of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12) because the bisection of something into quarters is a frequent human operation and a convenient method of indicating place. To this day it is not uncommon to hear in popular speech such expressions as “from every corner of the earth” or “from all quarters of the globe.” Such expressions are neither scientific nor anti-scientific, but the popular and phenomenal expressions of daily conversations. (Ibid., 67)

But of course Ed cited only about the first third of Revelation 7:1 to begin with. Right after “four corners of the earth” the four angels are also said to be “holding back the four winds of the earth”. Thus it is seen that the meaning is again four directions, as in Mark 13:27, not literally four corners. Jeremiah 49:36 refers to “the four winds from the four quarters of heaven.” Even skeptics like Ed don’t think that the ancient Hebrew cosmology of heaven had four quarters or corners, etc. (see, e.g., the visual diagram that John Loftus provides at the top of his article). So something’s gotta give here.

Or one could cite a passage like Ezekiel 7:1-9, about judgment of Israel by the LORD. In 7:2 it states: “The end has come upon the four corners of the land.” Is God just judging the “counties” of Israel in the corners? Those people liked to live on the edge too much so they got judged? No; it means the whole land will be judged: the land in all directions. This no more means that the land of Israel was literally a square or rectangle than the phrase applied to the earth meant that it was flat and had literal corners or “ends.” The same dynamic is seen in Revelation 20:8, where Satan is said to “come out and deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth . . .”

Ed writes: “I should think that a perusal of the Bible should be enough to make anyone realize how naive the Bible’s view of the cosmos was.” to which I reply: I should think that a perusal of Ed’s interpretation of the Bible should be enough to make anyone realize how naive and utterly simplistic his view of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis and the intelligence of ancient Hebrews is.”

And according to Genesis 1:16 only “two” great lamps (the Hebrew term translated as “great lights” in Genesis, means literally, “great lamps”) were created, the “Sun” and the “moon”–with no recognition of the fact that the stars are also “great lamps.”

From a phenomenological perspective they aren’t. I’ve hiked by the full moon at night and I could see perfectly well. But try doing that by the light of the stars alone. This is the point. But Ed misses it, as usual, because he is unreasonably trying to find scientific expression and modern astronomical metaphysics in the Bible.

Rather, the Bible depicts “stars” as relatively small objects, created after the earth and “set” in the firmament above it, . . .

Of course, since stars are “relatively small objects” from our earthly perspective! Where’s the beef?

Astronomers, not theologians, discovered that we live on one planet out of many, circling one star out of many, that lies near the end of one arm of a spiral-shaped galaxy, again one out of over a hundred billion galaxies.

It’s not the purpose of theologians or the Bible to “do science” anymore than it is the purpose of scientists to do theology. Yet the ancient Hebrews knew that the universe had a beginning. Modern science only figured that out some forty years ago when Big Bang cosmology became the reigning orthodoxy. The Hebrews had a sublime monotheistic cosmology while the Greeks at the same time were still talking foolishly about Zeus and other gods. So this “we discovered it first” routine works both ways.

Even after the New Testament was written, and the early church fathers began commenting on its contents, some of them remained flat earthers.

That’s right, but so what? Of what relevance is this to anything? If you want to trade stories of ignorance (inexcusable or not) there is, again, plenty to go around. I’ve noted how Galileo, the champion of atheists (so they think) against the Church, was heavily into astrology (a fact that comes as a surprise precisely because it has been suppressed by critics of the Church, due to its not fitting into the stereotype they wish to convey). The same was true of Kepler, who discovered the elliptical orbits of the planets. Newton was an enthusiastic proponent of alchemy.

Modern science committed errors (only a hundred years ago or less) like phrenology, whereby the shape of one’s skull was thought to be a decisive indicator of intelligence. Thus science was brought into the service of overt racism, just as with eugenics: with plans to sterilize blacks and other “inferiors” embraced by enlightened types like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who was enamored with the Nazis. We all know what sort of scientific experiments the Nazis did, too. Germany was, of course, one of the most advanced nations in terms of science, in the world, then and now.

Likewise, the sources that Matthew Green cites as definitive in his accepting this biblical skepticism, Dr. Robert M. Price and Reginald Finley Sr., in their article (section: “Welcome to the Flat Earth Society!”) come up with what they think is a compelling argument (after trying the fatally flawed arguments from Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11, and the “four corners” which have been mercilessly disposed of above):

Isaiah 42:5 and 44:24 state that at creation God “spread out the earth”- the Hebrew verb for “spread” being used elsewhere in Scripture to depict a “flattening” or “pounding.” Also, if the earth was not “spread out,” but “rolled up tightly like a ball” at creation, the writer could have said so. We find the requisite Hebrew construction in Isaiah 22:18, where a man is “rolled up tightly like a ball.” Hence the earth at creation was spoken of as being “flattened or pounded flat” at creation.

The Hebrew word is raqa (Strong’s word #7554). As usual, these skeptics omit what doesn’t fit into their scheme, while presenting facts which appear at first glance to support their contentions. But why not look at the whole story? What do we have to fear from facts, anyway?

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament defines the use of the word in these passages as “to spread out by beating . . . and simply, to spread out, e.g., God the earth, Ps. 136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24.” Does this necessarily have to mean “flat”? Not at all, for in Isaiah 40:19 the same word is used of overlaying gold over an idol, which is not flat, but usually a three-dimensional depiction of a man or an animal. In Job 37:18, God “spread out (raqa) the skies” – and even skeptics do not think they are flat in Hebrew cosmology.

As for Isaiah 22:18, my Revised Standard Version has: “He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land . . .” Other translations (NIV, NASB) are more like the rendering above, but this doesn’t prove that Isaiah 42:5 and 44:24 are inherently contrary to a spherical earth. They don’t contain enough information to decide what shape the earth is.

And so on and on goes the skeptic clattering. It’ll never end. But it isn’t decisive at all. I agree with the conclusion that J.P. Holding made after examining several of these attempts:

[F]or the majority of the cites we have seen, there is . . . merely misinterpretation by skeptics and/or poetry. We are justified in our assertion that there is no proof that the Bible teaches a false cosmology.

***

Here are some helpful sources on the topic of biblical cosmology (I don’t necessarily agree with everything in every article):

Does the Bible Teach that the Earth is Flat? (J. P. Holding)

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth? (Robert J. Schneider, Sep. 2001) [especially interesting in its analysis of Is 40:22: “circle of the earth”]

***

 

December 14, 2015

December 14, 2015 By

Reply to Atheist John W. Loftus’ Irrational Criticisms of the Biblical Accounts

Mary22

(2-3-11)

Atheist and former Christian John W. Loftus runs the Debunking Christianity website. I hung around there quite a bit a few years ago. Many attempted interactions with him and his positions can be found on my Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism web page.

In recent months I have been particularly interested in submitting refutations of claims that the Bible is internally contradictory. Loftus’ post, “Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?” (originally 12-16-06 and charmingly re-posted on Christmas Eve, 2010) offers one such golden opportunity. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Consider the other problems inherent with the story:

Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, if Luke is taken literally, according to E. P. Sanders [The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin Press, 1993, pp. 84-91)].

Right. Let me see if I understand this correctly: the text in Luke (2:4, 15) states that He was born there, but somehow, if we take the account “literally,” He actually wasn’t, according to the Wise Men of our time. I wonder, then: if a text makes an assertion, but the very assertion supposedly proves the thing is false, then how do we know when something is true? The text has to deliberately not assert it; then we know it is true? That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? About as much sense as a hole in the head . . .

Loftus, following Sanders’ eisegetical methodology, arbitrarily charges interpolation or text alteration when he finds anything in the Bible difficult to reconcile with anything else. This is the game that Bible skeptics have been playing for two thousand years now. Hence, Sanders writes in his book (music to Loftus’ atheist ears):

The two gospels [Matthew and Luke] have completely different and irreconcilable ways of moving Jesus and his family from one place to the other . . . It is not possible for both these stories to be accurate. It is improbable that either is. . . .

People resort to such alterations of the text in order to save it: the text must be true, and if we revise it we can still claim that it is true. Revision, however, overthrows the principle.

(pp. 85-86; hardcover edition available at amazon)

This is classic “higher critical” mentality (going back in this case to famous “higher critics” David Strauss [in an 1839 work] and Ernest Renan [1863]): if there is any “problem” in interpreting the biblical text, then immediately we resort to cynical and ungrounded speculation about unsavory motivations of the writers and their desire to modify texts regardless of the actual facts of any given matter. This, of course, cannot be proved. It’s all sheer speculation. It all has to do with how one approaches the issue from the outset: with openness and at least attempted objectivity, or with hostility and a sort of paternalistic cynicism. Loftus openly admits in the combox (12-23-06) that his hostile presuppositions and premises determine virtually everything:

I state how I see things. That’s all I can do. For me it’s all about seeing things differently. It’s not about more and more knowledge. It’s about viewing what we know in a different light. . . . For me it’s not about more and more knowledge. It never has been. It’s about seeing the knowledge we already have in a different light. So I shed light on how I see things. That’s all I can do. You’ll either see it, or you won’t. . . . No one sees things differently in bits and pieces. It’s an all or nothing happening. But before you can see the whole, I must share how I see things on a wide variety of the bits and pieces. So just add this bit and piece to the other bits and pieces I’ve shared here (that make no sense to you whatsoever), but at some point, if I keep on doing this, and if it’ll happen at all, you will catch a glimpse of how I see the total set of things. I don’t know what you know, and you don’t know what I know. But how we view that which we know is the difference that makes all the difference.

It’s all in the interpretation and the premises one has, and these can suddenly change. As Loftus correctly puts it: “It’s an all or nothing happening.” I’ve been arguing this for years, myself, so it is gratifying to see an atheist so eloquently verify my critique (and theory) of how atheism somehow comes about in a Christian mind.

What husband would take a nine-month pregnant woman on such a trek from Nazareth at that time when only heads of households were obligated to register for a census when the census would’ve been stretched out over a period of weeks or even months?

Obviously, there must have been some necessity or compulsion for Mary to also be present. But that makes no sense to Loftus: he would rather impugn the character of the Gospel writers, by having them drum up an account with a nearly-due pregnant wife subject to grueling discomforts, that he, in his infinite atheist wisdom, can immediately figure out is implausible. Thus, recourse to desperate fictional accounts seems far more likely to Loftus than the first scenario.

Luke 2:3 refers to Joseph being “enrolled with Mary, his betrothed.” Perhaps the impending marriage was an additional factor requiring her to also be there. The New Bible Dictionary (1962 ed., “Census,” p. 203) observed:

It is . . . widely agreed . . . that it could have involved the return of each householder to his domicile of origin, as Lk. ii. 3 states.

But if he did, why did he not take better precautions for the birth? Why not take Mary to her relative Elizabeth’s home just a few miles away from Bethlehem for the birth of her baby?

Probably because the baby chose to arrive at the time He did, when they were going to register for the census! I guess Loftus isn’t familiar with the process of childbirth. I’ve witnessed all four of my children being born. One time we made an entire trip some 12 miles away to the hospital, only to be turned away, as it was too early. There is no need to be cynical about this aspect of the story. Babies are born when the “time is right,” and often we have no idea when that will be.

According to Luke’s own genealogy (3:23-38) David had lived 42 generations earlier. Why should everyone have had to register for a census in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations earlier? There would be millions of ancestors by that time, and the whole empire would have been uprooted. Why 42 generations and not 35, or 16? If it was just required of the lineage of King David to register for the census, what was Augustus thinking when he ordered it? He had a King, Herod. “Under no circumstances could the reason for Joseph’s journey be, as Luke says, that he was ‘of the house and lineage of David,’ because that was of no interest to the Romans in this context.” [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.10)].

Lineage and past history were very important to Jews. Being from the lineage of David was obviously a point of pride for a Jew. Distance in time was as irrelevant then as it is to Jews even now (even atheist Jews: I’ve talked to at least one), who celebrate Passover: commemorating an event that is now well over 3000 years ago. Hannukah celebrates an event that happened in approximately 165 B.C.: over 2000 years ago.

The time from David to Mary and Joseph was a mere 1000 or so years. I fail to see the validity of this lightweight objection. It was probably determined, anyway, by whatever the Roman law entailed: registration in ancestral lands. It may have been a matter of voluntary Jewish (or local Roman) custom, or a sort of combination of both things. Hence, the liberal Catholic scholar Raymond Brown suggested:

One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships.

(The Birth of the Messiah: New York: Doubleday, 549)

According to Jewish census customs (assuming for the sake of argument, that Roman Palestine took them into account), ancestral home was highly important, and both the husband and wife would travel: especially in this instance, since Mary was also of the lineage of David).

Conservapedia: “Luke and the Census” offers similar plausible scenarios:

A final set of objections has nothing to do with the date of the census, or the translation of the passage in question, but instead aims to launch a flurry of speculative attacks at the details provided by Luke. Perhaps the most common is the objection that a census would not have required travel. Adding to the difficulty is a misunderstanding of Luke’s text, whereby it is believed that Saint Luke is describing a decree that required the taxed to return to their ancestral townships.

This formed the backbone of the set of criticisms leveled by E. P. Sanders, who stated that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel. Moreover, he added that such a decree would require people to keep track of millions of ancestors; tens of thousands of descendants of David would all be arriving at Bethlehem, his birthplace, at the same time; and Herod, whose dynasty was unrelated to the Davidic line, would hardly have wished to call attention to royal ancestry that had a greater claim to legitimacy.

[Footnote 28: E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin, 1993, p86; see also Bart Ehrman, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p 103.]

The simple fact is that Luke does not, in any place, state that the census required people to travel to the home of their ancestors. Instead, Luke says simply that “all went to their own towns”. When Luke mentions return to one’s ancestral town, he is speaking only of Joseph.

[Footnote 29: Mark D. Smith ‘Of Jesus and Quirinius’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 2 (April 2000), p. 289.]

In other words, people were required to travel to their township, but only this. Joseph chose to journey to his ancestral town, and to be registered there, rather than to his town of residence.

Mark D. Smith gave two reasons why Joseph would have made such a choice. As historian S. L. Wallace and others observed, some censuses gave up to a 50% tax reduction if one registered in a metropolis.

[Footnote 30: S. L. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (Princeton University Studies in Papyrology 2; Princeton University Press, 1938); cf. N. Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), p. 170; Derrett, Further Light on the Nativity of the Nativity p. 90-94.]

Because Bethlehem, Joseph’s ancestral home, was close to Jerusalem, he could qualify for the reduction.

[Footnote 31: Smith, ibid., p. 297]

This incidentally answers another objection; namely, why Joseph would have brought the very pregnant Mary along – he could have been motivated to register his firstborn son so that Jesus would qualify for the reduction when he came of age.

[Footnote 32: Smith, ibid., p. 297]

Census records from Egypt record an unusual number of houses listed as having no resident, and this may be evidence for the practice of registering in a metropolis (if one could make such a claim) rather than a town of residence.

[Footnote 33: Brook W. R. Pearson, ‘The Lukan Census, Revisited’, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2 (April 1999), p. 276.]

The second reason given by Smith is that Joseph may have owned property in his ancestral home, Bethlehem, and thus would need to register there. This property could have been as simple as farmland or a threshing floor, and need not imply any sort of wealth on Joseph’s part.

[Footnote 34: Smith, ibid., 289-90]

Against this, it has been argued that Joseph and Mary would not have needed to stay in an “inn”, as Luke records, if they had property in Bethlehem. The obvious weakness of this argument is that the property need not have constituted a suitable dwelling place, or a structure at all.

Radically questioning the text and/or the historicity of what is recorded there (leading to the foregone conclusion of questioning Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem) is obviously, then, not the only explanation any thinking person can give. But Loftus presents it that way; precisely because his skeptical game has no concern whatever for Christian explanations of the “difficulties” that atheists and other Bible skeptics love (almost more than anything) to toss abouit and chuckle over.

Loftus himself inadvertently concurs with one theory presented above (Joseph owning something in Bethlehem):

The fact is, even if there was a worldwide Roman census that included Galilee at this specific time, there is evidence that Census takers taxed people based upon the land they owned, so they traveled to where people lived.

If in fact Joseph owned some land in Bethlehem, then that was a different location from his current residence. Therefore, rather than making a censor travel to two places for one person, it stands to reason that the person with multiple properties would travel to at least one of them, especially if property directly tied into the census, as explained above (just like today: I use a business expense of home deduction, which ties property into income tax).

According to Robin Lane Fox, “Luke’s story is historically impossible and internally incoherent.”

That’s sheer nonsense. There is no impossibility in it at all. That is an extraordinarily silly claim for anyone to make: to try to assert a negative proposition like that.

But he says, “Luke’s errors and contradictions are easily explained.

That presupposes that they are there in the first place (which skeptics always do, rather than make any serious attempt to explain ostensible “difficulties”).

Early Christian tradition did not remember, or perhaps ever know, exactly where and when Jesus had been born. People were much more interested in his death and consequences.” “After the crucifixion and the belief in the resurrection, people wondered all the more deeply about Jesus’ birthplace. Bethlehem, home of King David, was a natural choice for the new messiah. There was even a prophecy in support of the claim which the ‘little town’ has maintained so profitably to this day.” So, “a higher truth was served by an impossible fiction.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible(Knopf, 1992), p. 31-32]. “Luke’s real source for the view that Jesus was born in Bethlehem was almost certainly the conviction that Jesus fulfilled a hope that someday a descendant of David would arise to save Israel,” because the Messiah was supposed to come from there (Micah 5:2). [E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 87.)].

How quaint and (un)imaginative. Note what has happened here. This is the very essence of irrational special pleading. The text came about because of wishful thinking and the desire of the writers to cynically, deceitfully align with Old Testament messianic prophecy. But how does one possibly prove such an outlandish accusation? There is no hard evidence (let alone indisputable, ironclad) for such a thing! Our choice is to believe that:

1) The NT writers believed Jesus was born in Bethlehem because in fact He was born there, and they had evidence to substantiate the fact.

2) The NT writers knew that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because they had no evidence to substantiate the fact, but they “wrote it in” anyway because of the need for Jesus as Messiah to fulfill OT prophecy that named the town (Micah 5:2).

3) The NT writers mistakenly but sincerely believed Jesus was born in Bethlehem and reported this as fact, even though they had no hard proof of it.

Now, how would one go about proving the second or third scenarios? If in fact the NT writers were lying through their teeth and didn’t believe their own words, how in the world would one establish that? If indeed Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as a point of actual fact (thinking purely theoretically for a moment), and if indeed the NT writers knew He was born there, and reported it, then there would be no deception, and this would in fact be a fulfillment of OT prophecy (i.e., for the person who believes in faith that Jesus is the Messiah, based on many considerations).

It all comes down to what is deemed to be fact and non-factual or of dubious historicity (from the historiographical perspective). But we can’t simply pull skeptical ideas out of a hat and assert them as if there is good reason to state such scenarios of alleged deliberate lying.

I can just as well fault skeptics who argue in such a way (that I think is circular special pleading) because they don’t believe in prophecy in the first place. Loftus obviously does not and cannot, since there is no God to give the revelation that is prophecy. If the thing is impossible, then obviously an alleged “fulfillment” of it is a sham as well.

So (given that hostile premise) it is thought that the Gospel writers were simply playing games by naming Bethlehem because of Micah 5:2: wholly apart from real knowledge of the event. But all they had to do was ask Jesus about it, or His parents. They were there. They knew what happened. They can’t change or manufacture their own lineage, which is why they were in Bethlehem in the first place. Even Jesus can’t change the fact of who His earthly parents were, as a point of fact.

It gets rather silly. As an analogy, to illustrate the foolishness of such “argumentation,” take the famous case (for baseball fans) of Babe Ruth calling his home run in the 1932 World Series. The fact is that he hit a home run in that game, and eyewitnesses swear to the fact that he “called the shot.” Now, let’s go ahead 2000 years from now and imagine how a skeptic would “reason”. The choices are again as follows:

1) The sportswriters believed Babe Ruth called and then hit the home run because in fact he did do both, and they had eyewitness evidence to substantiate the fact.

2) The sportswriters knew that Babe Ruth didn’t call and then hit the home run because they knew it didn’t actually happen, but they “wrote it in” anyway because of the need to create the myth of Babe Ruth as the greatest baseball player ever: larger than life.

3) The sportswriters mistakenly but sincerely believed that Babe Ruth called and then hit the home run and reported this as fact, even though they had no hard proof of it.

Now, would someone 2000 years later be acting reasonably in believing #1? Yes. Could they reasonably take position #2? Yes, provided they produced some documented evidence for the assertion. They could also believe #3, but would need evidence for that, too. But the problem is that biblical critics don’t require (let alone use or produce) any hard evidence to start questioning anything in the Bible. With their mentality, they could simply deny that Babe Ruth called the home run. Or they could deny that he actually hit it. Why believe 50,000 spectators in the park and the box scores? They could all have been made up for the purpose of myth-making. If 500 eyewitnesses in the Bible can make up a Resurrection appearance, why can’t 50,000 make up a legend of Ruth predicting his homer?

So that is how they would reason, if they were subject to the irrationalism of Loftus and a pitiable multitude biblical skeptics who think, clone-like, just like him. But the fact remains that the home run was hit, and that (by most accounts) it was called. That is the fact. And Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem can just as easily and conceivably also be a fact. He had to be born somewhere. Why should the Bible lie about it? To fulfill prophecy, so we are told, but that reasoning is ultimately circular: merely assuming without argument or evidence what it needs to prove.

In many other places we read that the people of his time called him “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 26:70-72; Mark 1:23-25; Mark 10:46-48; Luke 4:34; Luke 18:37; Luke 24:20; John 1:45; John 18:6-8; John 19:19; Acts 2:22; Acts 6:14; Acts 10:38; Acts 22:9; Acts 26:9), so scholars conclude it’s more likely that Jesus was born and raised in Nazareth. They think this because the NT writers quoted OT verses from Psalms and the prophets out of context to point to Jesus. The NT writers were intent on making Jesus’ birth, life, nature and mission to fit anything in the Old Testament that could be construed to speak of him, as proof he was who they claimed him to be.

This is delicious. I think it utterly backfires as an argument. Why and how it does is almost so obvious that one could miss it. We have just been told that it is intelligent to believe that the NT writers made up Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem because they were deliberately making it fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2, even though they knew it was untrue or didn’t know where Jesus was born. Hold that thought.

Now we are told that the title Jesus of Nazareth somehow suggests that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because He was raised in Nazareth. That clearly doesn’t follow. My father lived in the Detroit area for over sixty years. But he was born in Canada: about sixteen miles over the border. One can easily be associated with a town without having been born there. So that in itself is a gratuitously false premise.

But the massive biblical use of Jesus of Nazareth actually works against Loftus’ argument, because if the writers of the New Testament “were intent on making Jesus’ birth, life, nature and mission to fit anything in the Old Testament that could be construed to speak of him,” why in the world would this title be featured, since the messianic prophecy about birth was about Bethlehem? The skeptic can’t have it both ways. If the writers were trying to lie and make out that Bethlehem was the place then why was it mentioned so few times, while Nazareth was mentioned many times? It makes no sense. The skeptical scenario doesn’t have the ring of truth.

The mention of Nazareth is taken at face value (so it is concluded that Jesus not only lived, but was born there), while the occurrences of “Bethlehem” are scorned simply because of the connection to Micah 5:2. Nazareth is not even mentioned in the Old Testament at all! So if they were trying to lie, this would be one of the last choices of location to use. Matthew 2:23 ties “Nazarene” to the prophets, but these prophecies were not in the Old Testament. They were either from an extrabiblical source or oral tradition. Therefore, if the goal was to find Old Testament references, “Nazareth” is an inscrutable choice, whereas Bethlehem was indisputably mentioned there and connected to the Messiah.

But any Christian today who uses the Bible to argue for their views without taking into consideration the context of the passages in question, would be laughed at even in their own academic circles!

Yes, and when atheists do this all day long and incessantly in their endless rants against the Bible, those of us who actually study and revere the Bible think very little of their efforts, too. But it’s very time-consuming to tediously show how they distort things. That’s why there are full-time apologists like myself, who can take the time to do the necessary work to show the fallacies and lay bare the cynical folly and irrationality of these efforts.

Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth fares no better. Robin Lane Fox: “Bethlehem was not Jesus’ birthplace but was imported from Hebrew prophecies about the future Messiah; the Star had similar origins (Numbers 24:17). Matthew’s story is a construction from well-known messianic prophecies (Bethlehem; the Star), and the Wise Men (Magi) have been added as another legend.” “Where the truth had been lost, stories filled the gap, and the desire to know fabricated its own tradition.”

More circular reasoning and unsubstantiated nonsense, as explained above.

There are even discrepancies between the Gospels themselves:

“Luke told a tale of angels and shepherds, bringing some of the humblest people in society to Bethlehem with news of Jesus’ future. Instead of shepherds, Matthew brought Wise Men, following a star in the East and bringing gifts…In one version, there are simple shepherds, the other, learned Wise Men: the contrast sets our imaginations free, and perhaps like the Wise Men we too should return by ‘another way.” [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Knopf, 1992), pp.35- 36].

How is this a “discrepancy”? One mentions one thing; the other mentions another. Neither says they were the only people there. So what? But the wise men actually came two years later, according to most Bible-believing scholarship (based on the evidence of Matthew 2:16), so it is talking about two different occasions anyway: all the more reason to deny the absurd charge of contradiction.

Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth from where they traveled to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After Jesus was born, Joseph took his family from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for up to 40 days (Luke 2:22), and from there straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). But Matthew says Jesus was born in a “house” where Joseph’s family lived in Bethlehem. And after the birth of Jesus they lived there for up to two years (Matt 2:16)! After the Magi leave them, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!

The fabulous Protestant apologist Glenn Miller, who specializes in debunking all of these endlessly alleged “Bible difficulties” took on these charges in his post, “Contradictions in the Infancy stories?” He observed:

First, let’s look at the statement of [atheist Christopher] Hitchens that Luke and Matthew “flatly contradict one another on the Flight to Egypt”. Now, to verify this claim it is necessary first to take the two statements by each author and look at them side by side. Then, we can look into more detail about the two statements to see if they are in fact ‘contradictory without a doubt’. [cites Matthew passage] . . .

Compare that with Luke’s statement about the Flight to Egypt:–oops, there is no statement by Luke on the Flight to Egypt. In fact, he doesn’t mention it one way or the other. He doesn’t support the historicity of the Flight, nor does he disparage it.

OK, that was easy. There cannot be statements that ‘flatly contradict’ (note the ‘-dict’ part of the word… means ‘something SAID’) one another on subject X if there is only one statement about X!

But we all know what the atheist-fellow means: the accounts flatly contradict one another if you make the silence in Luke (about the Magi/Flight) mean more than silence, and if you insert the word ‘immediately’ into the silence in Matthew about WHEN the warning to Joseph came… If ‘silence about event X’ means ‘denial of event X’ or ‘immediately’ (smile), then maybe they are correct. But this is a BIG, BIG step—from silence to denial (especially in historical accounts!)—and even if it is true, it is certainly not obvious, explicit, or a case of ‘flatly contradicting’. Silence can mean many things other than ‘denial’ (e.g., lack of interest, irrelevance to the argument–even ignorance of the fact itself is not ‘denial’!). To read ‘immediacy’ into a silence is just as bad.

But you should all see by now what I mean, too: in the absence of EXPLICIT contradiction, one has to interpret the text in such a way as to CREATE a contradiction. There is no contradiction in what the text ‘presents’–at a surface level–but one has to re-create the historical scene “behind” the text, in such a way as to GENERATE a contradiction. In other words, we take textual statements and ‘visualize’ or ‘re-create in our minds’, if you will, the historical sequence BEHIND those texts. Our author has taken the gospel narratives and ‘re-created’ the historical scene as one in which the sequences are out-of-synch. But the text itself does not make that explicit at all, and the same textual data can be used to ‘re-create’ in-synch sequences as well (at least two plausible ones, as we will note toward the end of this discussion).

[all emphases and capitals and coloring his own]

Miller summarizes the two accounts and draws conclusions from them (I added a few words — in brackets –, where he used abbreviations):

Note a couple of things from Luke:

Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth

(No mention of pregnancy-crisis)

They travel to Bethlehem

Jesus is born in Bethlehem

Shepherds visit Jesus in Bethlehem

Joseph/Mary/Jesus make a trip to Jerusalem for various Jewish rituals

(No mention of Magi/Flight)

Sometime after the various rituals, they return to their own city of Nazareth.

When we compare this list with Matthew, here’s what we see:

Joseph and Mary are introduced without reference to [Bethlehem] or [Nazareth].

Pregnancy-crisis.

Jesus is born in Bethlehem

(No mention of Shepherds)

(No mention of family trip to Jerusalem for obligatory Jewish rituals)

Visit of Magi

Flight to Egypt

Family settles in Nazareth

But notice that Luke does NOT indicate a short trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem (for ritual purposes) at all. Neither [Matthew] nor [Luke] have such a trip in their respective narrative, so the blog-visitor’s statement (at least the ‘specifically’ part) is inaccurate.

But also notice that both authors are only reporting some of the events—they share the key elements (i.e., Jesus born in royal city of Bethlehem, Jesus ends up in a despised town of Nazareth), and they each select a subset of the history for their particular point (e.g., Luke has the ritual-trip to emphasize the law-biding character of the family and the acceptance of Jesus by godly Jews; Matthew has the Flight/Secret-Return story to emphasize the early rejection of—or indifference to– Jesus by the Jewish leadership)

With the various omissions of each, it is hard to really construct ‘overlapping periods’ in which to situate anything but the barest of events. The centerpiece birth in Bethlehem anchors everything, and the story ‘ends’ at [Nazareth] in both. Thus, it would take more explicit textual data to make this into a problem…

What emerges from this first-glance look at the objections, is that much is being made from the omissions and silences in the text. To be sure, one COULD CHOOSE to interpret these silences/omissions in such a way as to construe these problems, but how would one defend such choices? Developing arguments from silence is notoriously dangerous, and rarely is certain enough to carry the conclusion single-handedly! . . .

Biographical writing is notoriously selective—hence the assumption of ‘full account’ will be wrong almost all the time (especially in antiquity). And whereas the birth-in-Bethlehem and the homesteading-in-Nazareth would fit the ‘so central… automatically included’ criteria, it would be not be obvious that ANY of the other details would be so central (e.g., the pregnancy-crisis, visits by Magi, flight to Egypt, slaughter of innocents, visits of shepherds, etc could easily be considered subservient to each author’s narrative purpose).

The article continues on in extreme detail, for anyone who is interested in delving into this textual issue in the utmost depth: examined in this case by someone who believes in biblical inspiration and the integrity of the biblical text — which is also a bias and premise, but far more acceptable in doing biblical interpretation than the constant hostility of the atheist or other kind of biblical skeptics.

He examines, in turn, arguments from silence, several Bible commentaries and their takes, “the conventional and/or preferred ways of delivering historical narrative” in the literary methods of the ancient world (a factor vastly unknown or ignored by atheist and theologically liberal “exegesis”), — particularly the techniques of “telescoping” and “thematic order,” which was “fairly standard practice in the ancient world.” He then provides hard evidence of these practices from:

1) a monument of ancient Assyria,
2) Josephus,
3) Thucydides,
4) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and
5) Jason of Cyrene and the Roman Jurists.

Then he discusses “Epitome” — which “was a genre of writing which was specifically a condensation of another’s work(s), or a group of authors’ works on a specific theme.” He notes the ancient preference for thematic rather than chronological order and shows how the Bible writers were of the same mind in that respect. Miller writes (his bolding and color):

 

What this means is that it will be very, very difficult to find a ‘chronological contradiction’ anywhere in the gospel narratives, since the gospel authors are not even trying to maintain strict chronological sequence—it just was not that important to writers of that period. They arranged their material in the interests of clarity of logical or thematic presentation, instead of chronological. And this condensation, omission, and telescoping is pervasive in all of biblical literature.

 

He proceeds to document massive examples of these techniques being used in the New Testament, and a few from the Old Testament. He then argues (quite brilliantly) that because these techniques were widely understood at the time, the first skeptics of Christianity in the pagan world did not use these issues as a point of attack. He gives extensive examples of Celsus, and shows that he did not argue in such a fashion. He then analyzes Porphyry and shows how he looked for contradictions, but ones of “contradiction between teachings, not about chronology.” He summarizes:

Remember, my thesis here is not that ancient authors didn’t find any chronological contradictions to attack, but rather that they did not argue the existence of contradictions from telescoped, condensed, high-omission-count, summarized passages. . . .

See, this is my point: modern attacks/assertions of objectors/believers alike are just often off-the-mark, given the ancient literary world. The conventions we see in OUR passages here are such that nobody should be ‘exorcising extraneous detail’ out of them, because they were not written for that purpose.

Note that this applies to ANY/ALL ‘chronological contradiction’ issues, not just our Infancy Story case. Many objections against the NT will simply be off the mark for this reason alone.

He examines arguments of Macarius Magnes, Hierocles, and Julian, whose critical work reveals the same lack of modern techniques of atheists and liberals who no longer understand how ancient near eastern literature operated. He sees some exception in Julian, but then gives a theory to explain the difference (his different upbringing and lack of understanding in certain areas and his frequent lack of scruples and principle in argument). He then summarizes a self-consistent chronology of the infancy narratives:

The ‘traditional’ sequence given in the back of many bibles, then, involves placing the Magi/Flight sequence ‘inside’ Luke 2.39. As can be seen in the ‘conservative’ commentators we cited above, one can visualize those events in a “telescopic gap” in Luke’s account (who has already telescoped 3 trips to Jerusalem into 2). The sequence then becomes:

(1) after the last trip to Jerusalem, the holy family returns to Bethlehem [Joseph perhaps supposing that the Son of David should grow up there];

(2) the proclamation by Simeon and Anna probably reaches Herod’s ears and sensitizes him to the prophetic time frame;

(3) Magi arrive at Jerusalem and travel on to Bethlehem, and then depart;

(4) warning to Joseph/Flight to Egypt;

(5) Slaughter of the Innocents–with the ‘two years and under’ clause indicating the lack of precision in the timing, but also that the Magi visited sometime AFTER the first several months of Jesus’ life;

(6) death of Herod; and finally

(7) return of the holy family from Egypt to Galilee. This easily fits the scant data we have in the gospels.

Then he provides a capsule summary of all the massive argumentation he just did (thus showing the huge fallacies and ignorance of the atheist attacks on Scripture on these grounds):

  • The initial objections are based too heavily on assumptions, omissions and alleged implications in the presenting texts, and cannot stand as currently stated.
  • Arguments from silence in historical narratives require (at least) that the author was attempting to give a full account and that the details omitted were absolutely central to the story line (as used by the author for his/her narrative aims).
  • Conservative bible commentators are not ‘embarrassed’ by the silences of Mt/Luke, and many offer plausible reconstructions of narrative intent (which explain the omissions’ roles in the ‘surface’ of the text).
  • The literary world (even today) knows of the telescoping and summarization techniques, and the ancient literary world both prescribed (Lucian) and widely used (many authors) these.
  • The implication of this for us is that we need to read ancient narratives more through thematic than chronological eyes—in cases of abridgment and telescoping.
  • The NT writers—as members of the class of ‘ancient writers’—used this technique heavily, too. [And so did the writers of the Hebrew Bible.]
  • The first major anti-Christian writers in history never seem to deny this principle—they never attack such usage as ‘where contradictions lie’. There are little-to-no attacks on chronology, and those that do appear do not conform to the pattern under study.
  • The most famous cases in the NT of telescoping are not ‘taken to task’ by any of the classically-trained ancient objectors, including Porphyry.
  • The single case of the emperor Julian—even though it is not fully in our pattern– can be understood as due to his abnormal (and imbalanced) education.

Fantastic! This reveals, as brilliantly as I’ve ever seen, the profundity of the ignorance of so many critics of the Bible, with regard to ancient literary techniques and understandings. In addition to not understanding the basics of logic (what a true contradiction is), they fall prey to not comprehending these very important and relevant factors as well.

See also the related materials:

“Solving the Census of Quirinius” (10-27-20)

“Historical Evidence for Quirinius and the Census”, Bible History.net, 2013.

“The Census of Quirinius”, The Bible History Guy, 10-16-19.

“Recent Scholarship Dating Herod’s Death Matches Christian Texts About Jesus’s Birth“, G. W. Thielman, The Federalist, 12-20-17. 

***

Photo credit: The Adoration of the Shepherds (1622), by Gerard van Honthorst (1590-1656) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

December 8, 2015

December 8, 2015 By
 Catholic Verses (550x834)

Apologetics is disliked usually because of personal inability, or observing others doing it badly.

A Catholic wrote on the Coming Home Network [“CHNI”] discussion board where I moderate [a job I had from 2007-2010], that apologetics was “useless” and that it consisted of “people arguing their little points always taken out of context.” She proclaimed loudly that she had “no use for apologetics” and that “arguing little points settles nothing and only further polarizes.”

Well, as you can imagine, that didn’t sit well with me, so I had a bit to say about it!:

* * * * *

Most people (at least those who are here) see the self-evident value of apologetics. When someone blasts apologetics altogether, then I must speak up and show the unreasonableness of this position, especially in a forum where so many people are here in the first place because of the apologetics constantly exhibited on The Journey Home and in written conversion testimonies and the largely apologetic writings that CHNI sells precisely in order to help new and prospective converts. CHNI is essentially an apologetic enterprise (which was a big reason, I think, why I was hired).

CHNI is also quite “pastoral” and a support system on a basic human level of understanding and empathy, but apologetics works hand in hand with that. It has to, because people who are considering converting ask tons of questions (usually quite good ones) and some sort of answer has to be provided, and there is your apologetics.

You can tell a person what Catholics believe, which is catechesis, but as soon as they ask, “why do you believe that?” or “how can that belief be squared with the Bible?” and so forth, then you are in the realm of apologetics, whether you want to be or not, and whether you personally “like” apologetics or not. It won’t be sufficient to merely say, “believe it and take it on faith and don’t ask questions. Shut down your mind, because this is a faith question, not a rational consideration.” That does no one any good. That’s no better than being in a mind-control cult.

St. Paul certainly liked apologetics, since he is often described as “arguing” and “reasoning” with and “persuading” and “dialoguing” with both Jews and Greeks, and we see him most definitely doing apologetics (in a very clever and useful way) at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17).

A major reason people who don’t like apologetics do so, in my opinion, from long observation, is either because they are no good at it themselves (some people frown upon what they are unable to do) or because they observe other people doing it badly, and they throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s a very common emotional response to many things: the equation of a thing with its corruption or poorly understood manifestations of same.

And so apologetics is often equated with useless quarreling and wrangling (because many indeed who claim the mantle of “apologetics” on the Internet unfortunately too often do little more than that), which approach is indeed condemned repeatedly by St. Paul.

But that isn’t what apologetics is, anymore than a calm, constructive father-to-son or mother-to-daughter discussion is to be equated with a family spat or true quarrel, filled with accusations and insults and yelling and (as the case may be) cussing.

Another, less hostile person wrote: “I think authors/apologists tend to lose credibility when they are constantly criticizing other denominations. It sort of goes against the teachings of Christ.”

Not at all (as to the latter assertion). I fully agree that folks should emphasize a positive, proactive message, but on the other hand, the Bible is filled with denunciations of false teaching. Jesus’ most “negative” utterances were directed against the Pharisees. He even called them “vipers” and “whitewashed tombs” and “the blind leading the blind.” St. Paul goes on and on about various errors and names people like “Alexander the Coppersmith” who had opposed him. I could give innumerable examples. He is constantly correcting false teaching, and states, for example:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (RSV) For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to truth and wander into myths.

St. Peter opposed false teachings as soon as he started preaching after Pentecost. He opposed Ananias and Sapphira, accused them of lying to the Holy Spirit, and in fact they were both judged and struck dead by God (Acts 5:2-11). This is arguably the first “anathema.” He rebuked Simon for trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-24): what is now known as “simony”. The Apostle John is thought to be often opposing the Gnostics in his Gospel (as many commentaries note).

The Church Fathers continued this practice. They were always opposing false doctrines and heresies and sects. St. Augustine, the greatest father of all, wrote tons against the Donatists and Manichaeans (his own former group) and the Pelagians. Athanasius wrote against the Arians, etc., etc. They condemned the errors and then appealed to the Catholic Church as the truth because its doctrines had been passed down and preserved without corruption.

The Council of Trent (like all ecumenical councils) was largely devoted to correcting errors (that is, criticizing others). It had to do this, because it was condemning the falsehoods that Protestantism had brought in. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism; Chalcedon in 451 took on Monophysitism, etc. The Council of Nicaea anathematized Arianism.

It’s always been this way and always will be. A large part of the task of an apologist like myself is to correct errors as well as defend the truth (in fact, this is largely part of my specifically delegated task as a staff member of CHNI; I’m a sort of “doctrinal watchdog”). They are really two sides of the same coin. One tries to do it in as nice and non-personal way as possible, but many people are bound to be offended when they are told that they are wrong, by the standard of the Church and the Bible and apostolic tradition, etc.

But aren’t we “judging others” when we say they’re wrong? Is that not a lack of love (so the objection goes)? No we’re not “judging” in that bad sense of the word (i.e., hypocritically or uncharitably condemning), if in fact they are in error. To correct someone and set them back on the right path is, in fact, quite a loving thing to do (as every loving, concerned parent who disciplines their child understands full well).

Of course we are to exercise Christian, unconditional love. Part of that love is to rebuke someone in love, for their good, not to harm or belittle them. Love is not always touchy-feely, warm fuzzies, peaches and cream. It’s not just us, personally, who are right, but the Church, which is larger than we are.

I do agree, though, that there are a not insignificant number of apologists (real or imagined) who have a problem with tone (though the problem is often overstated or exaggerated). With the Internet, many people call themselves “apologists” but have insufficient background to do so, and give others a bad name (I had been a Catholic over six years, and published in books and several magazines and had even written my first book before I ever had a website at all).

Believe me, I know of this problem, because I often have to receive a brunt of criticism because of baggage people have, in reacting to others doing apologetics in a poor way, setting a bad example (one becomes a sort of scapegoat, I suppose). So I’m quite aware of it, and I have advised folks many times to tone it down, when I thought they were doing apologetics badly.

And others have told me to “tone it down”, too, when the occasion warranted it, as I am not perfect, and with the large volume of words that I write and number of people and different belief-systems I interact with, it is very difficult to be perfect in tone, charity, and speech (thus I have issued many public apologies when I thought I blew it). Who ever does a perfect job? We all fall often in matters of control of the tongue.

But, that said, one can know if he has enough patience and knowledge, by and large, to deal with “difficult” individuals in such debate, and those who differ, or whether to wisely refrain from doing so.

Anyway, I want to emphasize that both things are important, and are harmonious with each other:

1) We need to exercise the love of Christ and express ourselves gently and charitably.

and:

2) At times, we need to correct doctrinal or ethical error (bishops and priests and teachers and catechists and apologists all the more so), and do it in the spirit of #1. This is not contrary to #1 at all, and in fact, is an aspect of it, as error never did anyone any good. If we can’t do #2 with the spirit of #1, then we shouldn’t do it at all, in many cases, and should ask someone more charitable to do it, so as to avoid hypocrisy and possibly scandal.

I was asked if everyone is “called to be an apologist.” Obviously not all are called to apologetics as a vocation or occupation, as I have been. I think, though, that in some way every Christian should at least have a rudimentary understanding of why they believe what they believe, in order to bear witness to others if asked. That can be obtained by reading just one or two good apologetic books. This is the bare minimum, in my opinion. Reading a book or two or hearing some lectures or attending one apologetic conference certainly won’t put anyone out.

On the other hand, not everyone can become an expert on everything. That’s why people specialize and become theology professors or priests or nuns or catechists or lay apologists (or a church musician or eucharistic minister, etc.). Different parts of the Body . . .: that’s how God designed it, “each with his own gift.” Whatever gift God gives us, we ought to put to good use: whether we are in the medical profession or an engineer or janitor or baker or waitress; whatever it is: whether exalted in this world or looked down upon.

And I say the work of the mother and housewife is the most important work of all in this world; I always contend that what my wife does as a homeschooling mom is more important than what I do. All work is honorable and no one should feel any shame, but all should use their God-given abilities as best they can.

St. Paul changed his method according to his hearers (1 Cor 9:19-23). Hence on Mars Hill in Athens: the intellectual center of the world at that time, he spoke in a way we don’t see him speak anywhere else. He quotes pagan Greek poets and philosophers, talks about Greek idols, and makes an analogical philosophical argument.

In approaching issues of basic apologetics, we all have to accept the word of scholars at some point. A few books read along these lines will help our faith and our confidence in the objective facts of Christianity, and aid us in gaining more confidence. But everyone who seeks to do apologetics should be thoroughly prepared. I always tell people not to get too zealous without adequately studying up first.

Having a desire to get to the place of what might be called “apologetic confidence” is already three-quarters of the battle. So many people care little about the things of God and theology, let alone about sharing it with anyone else in a cogent fashion. If someone has the desire, they’ll get there in due course. All they have to do is read on some basic topics. And there is plenty online that can be read for free now. All of Chesterton’s apologetic books are available, etc.

Someone recounted their experience in sparring with an atheist professor: “I posted links for said [NT documentary] evidence, [but] I was laughed to scorn since I could not provide it myself. He claimed there was more evidence to the contrary, including archaeological.”

No one is required to know everything on the spot. Most people are not Bible scholars or professional apologists. Providing a link is no more laughable than a scholar recommending a book in a footnote. This atheist was acting like an arrogant ass, in my opinion. He needs to be challenged to produce this “evidence” he refers to, by all means. Most of these types of guys know very little about the Bible. I’ve always marveled at this.

I’ll be debating some professor of philosophy, and he fancies himself an expert on Scripture. But now he is on my turf, the area I’ve studied for over 30 years now, and it doesn’t go well for him when I point out some basic things that he is ignorant of (I have many such debates on my site. I’m not exaggerating at all).

Knowledge and scholarly attainment in one area doesn’t automatically transfer into another. It’s not that I have all the answers, at all (I certainly don’t): in these cases it is so often the sheer ignorance of the atheist in biblical and theological matters that makes them easy to refute. I have many papers about this. I’ve seen it again and again.

They think they know so much about the Bible and Christianity, but almost invariably it turns out that they really don’t, and it is only bluster to intimidate the Christian, and intellectual arrogance. And if you dare to critique their “deconversion” stories, as I have, to show that the reasons why they forsook Christianity fall short, to say the least, they go spastic. One such case was John Loftus, who runs the blog, Debunking Christianity, and has a book out that is selling decently for its type.

These same supposedly oh-so-smart people will deny, for example, that Jesus ever existed: a perfectly ridiculous thing to believe. Mainly, I’m trying to get across that we Christians (of whatever stripe) need not be so intimidated by these folks. They can be effectively answered more easily than is thought.

***

(originally 1-27-08)

***

November 9, 2006

November 9, 2006 By
Dave & Judy Armstrong (October 2015)
***
QUALIFICATIONS / APOSTOLATE
 
*
*
Catholic Apologetics Apostolate: Its Pleasures & Perils (published in This Rock, 1 November 2004)
*
*

2013 Fundraising Drive for My Apologetics Apostolate [September 2013; $5,019 raised; at Internet Archive]

2014 3rd Annual Fundraiser for Dave Armstrong’s Full-time Apologetics Apostolate ($5000 goal) [Sep. 2014; $4,726 raised] 

*****

How Much Money Should Apologists Make? [9-2-13]

Karl Keating’s Kind Fundraiser on My Behalf (September 2013) / My Thoughts on My Recent Rough Financial Stretch [10-1-13]

The Relationship of Full-Time Ministry and Business [11-17-14]
*
My Full-Time Apologetics Apostolate is Quickly Winding Down . . . Unless . . . [Facebook, 7-6-16]

Still a Small Chance to Remain a Full-Time Catholic Apologist . . . [Facebook, 7-24-16]

My New Writing “Gig”: National Catholic Register [Facebook, 9-15-16]

Today is My 15th Anniversary of Full-Time Catholic Apologetics [Facebook, 12-1-16]

Mark Shea’s Enthusiastic and Repeated Recommendations of My Apologetics Apostolate [Facebook, 4-11-17]

Apostolate / Financial Report (Very Likely Good News) [Facebook, 4-26-17]

Fruit: 156 Reasons Why Catholic Apologetics is a Good Thing (Documented Conversions or Reversions in Part Due to My Work: Completely Caused by God’s Grace) [7-3-19]

2800 Articles on My Blog / Other Milestones [Facebook, 3-28-20]

“God Provides”: Another Recent Example of a Thousand in My Life [Facebook, 3-31-20]

Yes, God Does Provide. Another Concrete Example in My Life [Facebook, 7-30-21]

Today is My 20th Anniversary as a Full-Time Catholic Apologist [Facebook, 12-1-21]

“It’s a New Era”: Replying to Videos / The New (Respectful) Protestant Apologists [Facebook, 4-20-22]

1000th Individual Financial Contributor to My Work and Apostolate! [Facebook, 2-15-23]

Apologetics Apostolate Fundraiser, Days 1-3 (Mortgage Interest / Inflation / Taxes / “Rainy Day” Fundraiser) [9-12-23]

Day One: Financial Difficulties Explained
Day Two: Brazilian Outreach
Day Three: Biblical Archaeology Research and Books

Apologetics Apostolate Fundraiser, Days 4-5 [9-14-23] 

Day Four: Fifteen Books That I Have Edited
Day Five: Sixteen Free Books That I Offer

Apologetics Apostolate Fundraiser, Day 6: St. Paul’s Teaching About Financial Support of Christian Workers, and His Own Example [9-18-23] [$5,000 raised]

*

MY BOOKS 

Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics Bookstore [complete listing of all 54 of my books]

*****
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I Got an “Imprimatur” (Second Time) [6-2-09; at Internet Archive]
*
*
My First Million-Seller! [1-27-11 on my blog; moved to Facebook on 1-22-22]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

MY ARTICLES AND WEB PAGES

Happy St. Patrick’s Day (My Ireland Page, and Other Defunct Pages From my Website, Resurrected) [3-17-04; at Internet Archive]

Published Articles in This Rock / Comic Tracts / Internet Ministry in the Overall Scheme of Things [2-4-05; at Internet Archive]

Cor ad cor loquitur Passes the One Million Page Views Mark [9-7-07; at Internet Archive]

Blog Passes One Million Visitors Mark (1.5 Million Page Views) [10-10-08; at Internet Archive]

Blog Passes the Two Million Visitors Mark [Facebook, 9-5-12]

I made #75 on Top 200 Church Blogs [Facebook, 9-25-12]

Tenth Anniversary of My Blog Today [Facebook, 2-2-14]

My Comments Policy: Thoughts on Amiable and Constructive Dialogue [8-15-15]

My 20 Most Popular [Patheos] Posts (August-December 2015) [Facebook, 12-17-15]
*
*
*
*
Why Do I Continue to Blog at Patheos Catholic: Which Also Hosts Many Heterodox and Leftist Writers? (+ discussion of Mindy Selmys’ departure) [Facebook, 3-16-19]
*
Just passed 2400 articles posted on my blog (includes link to my website from 2 December 1998) [Facebook, 6-20-19]
*
Passed 2500 Articles on My Blog [Facebook, 8-17-19]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3,200 Blog Articles! [Facebook, 2-29-21]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

SPANISH, PORTUGESE, AND FRENCH LANGUAGE OUTREACH

The New “Spanish Revolution” Has Begun! (Update on My Apostolate [translation of my books]) [Facebook, 6-15-16]

My Articles and Books in Spanish and Portugese and French / Apologética católica: Traducciones al español / tradução para português [web page set up on 6-22-16]

Klasiká Liber, a Brazilian publisher, to publish the Portugese version of  The Catholic Verses [Facebook, 7-26-16]

My Efforts to Promote My Book Translated Into Spanish, ¡Revelación! (Letters to Hispanic Ministries and Parishes with Spanish Masses) [Facebook, 9-16-16]

French Translation of My Book Revelation: 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Topics is Complete! Soon Five of My Books Will be in Three Other Languages [Facebook, 4-13-17]

Mi libro #50: Pruebas bíblicas para el Catolicismo: Edición española: esquema [My Book #50: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Spanish Edition: outline (a similar Portugese book also forthcoming) ] [Facebook, 1-25-18]

There Are (By %) More Protestants in Brazil Than There Are Catholics in the United States / My Efforts There [Facebook, 5-23-22]

My Brazilian Outreach (Overview) [Facebook, 9-7-23]

Brazilian Catholic Reader Leonardo Pataca Kindly Thanks Me on YouTube [Facebook, 9-28-23]

*

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL / RECOMMENDATIONS / MY OWN LIBRARY

*

INTERVIEWS AND TALKS / FEATURES 

*****
*
Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics’ “Socratic Evangelist” (by Tim Drake; Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RADIO AND WEBCAST INTERVIEWS
*

*

FEEDBACK

*
*
*
[Opinions on] Apologist Dave Armstrong? (thread on the Catholic Answers Apologetics Forum: June 2005)
*
*
FUN, HUMOROUS, INTERESTING, AND MISCELLANEOUS  STUFF

*

The Appearance of Crazy Horse [Facebook, 8-4-08]

Catholic Apologist “Young Guns” Take Savage Satirical Revenge Against Yours Truly in Hilarious Polemical Shootout, Complete with Appropriate “Gunfighter” Visuals [9-9-11; at Internet Archive]

Which Am I? Lovable “Sweetheart” Teddy Bear or Attila the Hun? Impressions of My Writing vs. Me in Person  [Facebook, 3-7-15]

What Twelve People, Living or Dead, Would You Invite to Dinner? [Facebook, 9-22-17]

My Most Used Words on Facebook [Facebook, 11-22-17]

Just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey [50th anniversary big-screen showing] [Facebook, 8-12-18]

Top Ten All-Time Favorite Insults Sent My Way [2-15-21]

We Saw 110 Meteors Last Night [Facebook, 8-14-21]

“Research show[s] that cougars could — or do — live in Lenawee County” [Facebook, 9-7-21]

Michigan is the Pizza King! [Facebook, 8-29-22]

Jet-Skiing the Detroit River [Facebook, 7-4-23]

Various Plugged Toilet Remedies Discussed [Facebook, 1-23-24]

Most Mutual Friends Shared with Facebook Friends Who Actively Follow My Page [Facebook, 3-22-24]

*

HOLISTIC HEALTH / HERBALISM / HEALTH FOOD, ETC.
*
Herbalism & Holistic Health (collection of my posts)
*

WIFE JUDY 

*
*
*
*
*

FAMILY

What My Oldest Son Paul Wrote About God and Good Christian Behavior, at Age 9 [Facebook, 9-15-01]

Ray Kozora (1923-2005) – My Wife’s Father [12-20-05; at Internet Archive] 

“Out of the Mouths of Babes”: My Five-Year-Old Daughter on Heaven and Salvation [Facebook, 5-24-07]

My Father Graham Armstrong (1924-2009): Tribute to and Remembrance of a Fallen Pilot and Poet [11-3-09; at Internet Archive] 

Instant Parenthood, Grandparenthood, and Great Grandparenthood (adoption of Alexander Thomas by my niece Kristen and Husband Steve) [Facebook, 6-5-14]

My Mother, Lois Armstrong (1925-2014): A Warm Remembrance [Facebook, 12-23-14] (+ Facebook threads of hundreds of prayers and condolences: One / Two)

*
*
Homeschooling vs. Public Schools (by my daughter Angelina, 15) [Facebook, 11-27-16]
*
Father’s Day Greetings on Facebook from Oldest Son Paul and Youngest and Only Daughter Angelina [6-18-17]
*
My oldest son Paul was healed of serious back and neck problems [You Tube video testimony linked on Facebook, 8-28-18]

16-Year-Old Daughter Angelina on Young Girls and Self-Image [Facebook, 8-31-18]

My dad’s parents (Canadian) were married 100 years ago today! (includes family photo from c. 1948) [Facebook, 3-17-19]

Video of Son Matthew Swing-Dancing at Greenfield Village (June 2019) [Facebook, 8-12-19]

Son Matthew’s Miraculous Cure of Lyme & Related Maladies [10-12-19]

Great Photos of Our Living Room [Allen Park, Michigan house] [Facebook, 3-5-20]

My Sister, Judy All (1952-2020) (+ Facebook condolences] [6-28-20]

Son Matthew & Annette’s Wedding: July 18, 2020: complete video (+ some initial photos / video of my dancing with daughter Angelina) [Facebook, 7-21-20]

Bid Accepted for Our Retirement Country Home (+ Photos & Area Maps) [Facebook, 9-10-20]

Life Five Days After a Move / Giving Glory and Praise to God [Facebook, 10-29-20]

Family Pictures on Birthday Celebration of the “Birthday Twins” (Nov. 16) & Thanksgiving [Facebook, 11-27-20]

Christmas 2020 Family Photos (New Grandchild, New House, “Star of Bethlehem”) [Facebook, 12-27-20]

My Son Paul’s YouTube Channel: The Catholic Gaming Nerd [Facebook, 4-8-20]

Answered Prayer / Praise Report! Desired Job at a Horse Stable for Our Daughter / Blessings for Our Whole Family [Facebook, 5-14-21]

Daughter Angelina Aces Horse Show (Dressage) [Facebook, 9-4-21]

Is it Daughter’s Day today? Luv ya Angelina! So proud of you. Bustin’ buttons proud . . . (including cute video of us) [Facebook, 9-25-21]

Daughter Angelina & Boyfriend Nick (two photos) [Facebook, 9-29-21]

Valley Time: Lyme Disease and Finances [Facebook, 10-12-21]

Angelina: All Growed-Up & Lookin’ Like a Movie Star; with Boyfriend Nick [Facebook, 11-2-21]

Our “Birthday Twins” are (soon-to-be) 20 and 25! [Facebook, 11-14-21]

My beautiful (and strongly Catholic!) daughter Angelina, with her boyfriend Nick [Facebook, 6-20-22]

Three Cute Photos of My Wonderful Daughter Angelina [Facebook, 7-15-22]

Our Ugly Basement Transformed Into Nice Family / Recreation / Party / Group Discussion Room [Facebook, 8-4-22]

Photo of [Almost] My Entire Extended Family [Facebook, 8-22-22]

Nice Family Photos from a Wedding (+ One Angelina “Still Life”) [Facebook, 9-14-22]

Fall Colors and Family Fun [Facebook, 10-11-22]

Nice shot of our oldest son Paul [Facebook, 4-19-23]

Liam and Olivia are the top baby names in the U.S. / Reflections on My Family’s Names [Facebook, 5-13-23]

Happy Mothers and Grandmothers (Mother’s Day 2023) [Facebook, 5-20-23]

Daughter Angelina Photos [Facebook, 5-20-23]

Photo of My Parents, Graham and Lois Armstrong, on their wedding day: November 1, 1947 [Facebook, 7-15-23]

Our 4th Grandchild, Daniel Graham Armstrong [Facebook, 1-29-24]

*

OUTDOORS / TRAVEL

2008 Family Vacation (For Nature and History Lovers) [9-2-08; at Internet Archive] 

Dave and Judy Armstrong’s 25th Anniversary Dream Getaway to the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island (lots of photos!) [11-21-09; at Internet Archive]

Mountain Biking: My New (Crazy?) Hobby [10-7-10; at Internet Archive]

Alaska / Canadian Rockies Adventure [Facebook, 7-13-17]

27-mile bike ride today: second-longest of my life, now at age 60 [Facebook, 9-8-18] 

“Square Hikes” Down Country Dirt Roads: Our New Pastime / “Pastoral Reflections” [Facebook,  3-5-21]

The River Raisin, which runs through my town (Tecumseh, Michigan) is “the most crooked river in the world” [Facebook, 4-3-21]

Another Rafting Adventure . . . [Facebook, 5-19-21]

Peak Fall Colors Have Finally Arrived in southern Michigan (at least in SOME places) [Facebook, 11-4-21]

Snow-Covered Trees and Blue Sky! [Facebook, 11-30-21]

Winter Wonderland in the Irish Hills of SE Lower Michigan (Featuring Snow-Covered Trees) [Facebook, 2-15-22]

Redwoods! [Facebook, 7-16-22]

“Magical Forest Wonderland” of Redwood National Park (Northern California) [20 photos, Facebook, 7-21-22]

Birthday Trip Down the Huron River in Michigan [Facebook, 7-30-22]

Deer on a Hike Right in Town [Facebook, 8-15-22]

Photos from Our Summer Western Trip (2022) [Facebook, 8-18-22]

Cougars (Mountain Lions / Panthers) in Southeast Michigan! [Facebook, 10-31-22]

First Time Riding My Electric Bike [Facebook, 2-12-23]

Michigan Winter Wonderland: Snowy and Icy Trees with a Blue Sky [Facebook, 3-6-23]

The Joys of Electric Biking [Facebook, 4-3-23]

“Beauty of Michigan’s Irish Hills” Photograph Series Coming Soon [Facebook, 9-30-23]

My Series of Photographs: Beauty of Michigan’s Irish Hills [Facebook] [posted between 10-1-23 and 1-18-24]

[#1 / #2 / #3 / #4 / #5 / #6 / #7 / #8 / #9 / #10 / #11 / #12 / #13 / #14 / #15 / #16 / #17 / #18 / #19 / #20 / #21 / #22 / #23 / #24 / #25 / #26 / #27 / #28 (winter) / #29 (winter) / #30 (winter)]

*

ANCESTRY RESEARCH

My Southern Ancestry [Facebook, 1-19-15]

Joined Ancestry.com [Facebook, 12-14-17]

More Cool Ancestry Stuff (David Thompson, Founder of New Hampshire in 1623) [Facebook, 12-22-17]

Ancestry Fun (Back to 928, Normandy, and Likely Vikings, Too) / King Edward IV of England (r. 1461-1483) [Facebook, 1-10-18]

Back to 260 A. D. Now in My Ancestry Searching (+ Debate on Ancient Genealogies) [Facebook, 1-17-18]

Cerdic: The Line Between History and Legend / Folklore, and Another Possible Ancestor [Facebook, 1-23-18]

Wife Judy’s Ancestry DNA Test is In! [Facebook, 2-8-18]

Letter to My Wife’s Siblings on Their Father Ray Kozora’s Eastern European Ancestry [Facebook, 2-25-18]

The Armstrong Clan is Pictish in Origin [Facebook, 3-5-18]

My DNA Ancestry Results Are In / Spanish Origin of the Celts? [Facebook, 3-12-18]

My DNA Ancestry: Looking Back 10,000 Years [Facebook, 3-12-18]

Elizabeth Lucy Wayte: mistress of King Edward IV (r. 1461-1470) whose daughter married into the Lumley line that goes all the way down to my paternal grandfather [Facebook, 5-27-18] 

Now I’m a Direct Descendant of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and Still Going Back Further in Time! [Facebook, 5-31-18]

Now I’m related to Hercules (aka Heracles)!? [Facebook, 6-5-18]

My 23rd and 24th Great Grandfathers, Sir Alan Stewart (1272-1333) and Sir John Stewart (1246-1298): Scottish Freedom Fighters [Facebook, 6-6-18]

My Ancestry (English Royalty, St. Margaret, Cleopatra, Etc.) (particular, detailed documentation with links) [12-2-19]

My DNA Ancestry Update (Great Links in the Combox) [Facebook, 2-4-20]

“The Cousin Explainer” (1st, 2nd, 3rd, cousins, etc.: chart) [Facebook, 9-5-20]

I’m a 15th Cousin, Once Removed, of Queen Elizabeth! [Facebook, 3-14-21]

My DNA Ancestry (52% English, 29% Celtic, 12% French) [7-22-21]

Wife Judy’s DNA Ancestry Update (9-22-22): Ancestry [dot] com [Facebook, 9-22-22]

Update (Sep. 2022) : Ethnic Makeup / Ancestry of My Children [Facebook, 9-23-22]

Wife Judy’s DNA Ancestry Update [Facebook, 10-17-23]

Update (Oct. 2023) : Ethnic Makeup / Ancestry of My Children [Facebook, 10-17-23]

*

MUSIC
*
Beach Boys
*
*
*
Review of US Version Beatles Albums: 1964 (lots of interesting comparisons of US and UK tracks) [12-1-04] 
*
*
Beatles Update (The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2) [5-23-06; at Internet Archive] 
*
Beatles Recordings: Chronological Master List (Including Alternate Mixes) (All Beatles recordings, in order of recording date, noting different mixes and versions, stereo, “fake stereo,” mono, what album songs appear on, dates of UK and US release, singles information, etc.) [3-16-07; at Internet Archive] 
*
*

Defense of John Lennon Contra Scathing Critique [12-28-13]

“Beatles Heaven” Again (New “1” Album) (see Amazon review) [11-9-15]

Amazon Review of Sgt. Pepper (50th Anniversary Edition) (See also my own posting at Patheos) [5-26-17]

Just Ordered the Beatles’ White Album (50th Anniversary Remix) [Facebook, 10-17-18]

Review of The White Album (Beatles): 50th Anniversary Remix (see the review on Amazon) [11-14-18]

John Lennon: Christian Right Before His Death? [3-27-07; rev. 12-8-20]

Review of 2021 Remix of The Beatles’ Let it Be (see also the review posted on the Amazon page) [10-15-21]

Beatles’ Revolver: What the Upcoming Remix Needs to Rectify [Facebook, 9-11-22]

Beatles’ Revolver ’22 Remix: Wondrous Ear Candy [10-28-22]

Best-Sounding Beatles Songs: All 211 [11-28-22]

Beatles’ Rubber Soul: Best Remixes (As We Await the Official Remix) [12-21-22]

Beatles’ “Red” and “Blue” Albums to be Remixed (and Expanded) Late This Year [Facebook, 8-6-23]

Beatles Songs That Have Not Been Remixed [Facebook, 10-26-23]

The Rockers Are the Stars of the New Beatles Red and Blue Album Remixes [Facebook, 11-10-23]

Sam Cooke

Sam Cooke: The Greatest Singer of All Time: Chronological Discography [7-23-05; at Internet Archive] 

Sam Cooke: The Ultimate Two-CD Chronological Discography of His Best 55 Songs [Facebook, 12-17-10] 

Miscellaneous

My Eclectic Musical Tastes and Instruments I Can Play [1-27-05; at Internet Archive] 

Is Music Sometimes Intrinsically “Evil”? [Facebook, 5-20-08] 

Dialogue with a Friendly Atheist #2: Music, Longing, & Mysticism (+ Part Two / #3)  [8-7-17 and 8-14-17]

60 Absolute Best Doo Wop Songs: 1950-1963 (Chronological) [Facebook, 4-26-22]

Concerts I’ve Attended [Facebook, 8-19-22]

Van Morrison

The Great “White R and B” Songs of Van Morrison: 42 Sizzlers from 1964-2003 [10-26-11; at Internet Archive]

The Weird, “New Thought” Religious Views of Van Morrison [Facebook, 11-10-17]

Country / Folk Music

A Sacred Song Speaks a Thousand Words (The Impact of Johnny Cash’s Last Christian Songs) [7-16-05; at Internet Archive]

Hank Williams: Chronological and Alphabetical Discography [11-7-05; at Internet Archive]

“Pilgrimage” to Historic Blues and Country Music Sites, in the South, and in Detroit [4-7-09; at Internet Archive]

The 27 Greatest Woody Guthrie Songs (One CD) [5-21-12; at Internet Archive]

Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix: Discography and Catalogue of Recording Dates and Major Performances [8-30-05; at Internet Archive]

Jimi Hendrix Taught Us About a Colorblind Society [12-6-16]

Hymns

The Old Rugged Cross [Facebook, 6-22-23]

Motown / Detroit

Motown’s James Jamerson: The Greatest Bass Guitarist of All Time [5-1-04; at Internet Archive]

Very Best of Detroit Rock: 1965-1975 / Vol. II: 1966-1980 [Facebook, 8-2-14]

My Blue-Eyed Soul Background: 1967 Record from My Brother Gerry’s Band on You Tube [Facebook, 8-24-17]

So Many Motown Legends Gone (Mary Wilson) [Facebook, 2-9-21]

Psychedelic Music: 1966-1968

Psychedelic Music: 1966-1968 (I collected 12 CDs of it) [Facebook, 8-19-22]

Bob Seger

Detroit’s Own “Blue-Eyed Soul” Singer: Bob Seger [2004]

Early Bob Seger: Glorious “Lost” Classic Rock Music [9-23-06; rev. 12-26-18]

U2

Set List for U2 in East Lansing, Michigan (Spartan Stadium): 26 June 2011 (at Internet Archive)

U2 Concert: 26 June 2011 in East Lansing, Michigan (HD 1080 Videos), + More HD Videos from U2’s “360” Tour in 2011 [11-26-12; at Internet Archive]

Classical Music

*
Mozart’s Musical Genius & His Catholicism [1-27-06; re-posted on 1-22-22]
*

Recommended Romantic and Post-Romantic Orchestral Music (+ Part II / Part III / Part IV) [6-13-07; at Internet Archive]

My Favorite Classical Music Pieces (Judging by Multiple Recordings Owned) [7-23-11; at Internet Archive]

Searching for the Perfect Beethoven’s 9th [9-21-15]

Dialogue with a Friendly Atheist #2: Music, Longing, & Mysticism [8-7-17]

Hans Rott (1858-1884): The Great Lost Late Romantic Composer [Facebook, 11-13-17]

Schubert’s Unfinished (8th) Symphony: Proposed “Finish” [10-22-21]

The Perfect Mahler 5th Symphony! / Mahler is My Favorite Composer as of Tonight [Facebook, 5-25-23]

“Finished” 8th Symphony of Schubert: a Proposal [Catholic365, 12-6-23]

Christmas

Michigan Christmas Carol Master: Alfred S. Burt [11-29-05]

Christmas Carols & Songs: A Catalogue [Dec. 2005]

The Weavers

The Weavers (1949-1963) & the New Leftist McCarthyism [3-28-21]

 

A BIT MORE PERSONAL

*
“In You I Hope” (Poem of Mine from 1982) [about trusting God and waiting on Him with confidence]
*
Gentleness [1996]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MY CHILDHOOD / YOUNG ADULTHOOD / DETROIT
*

My Article on Junior High Lunch Time (11-22-72) [5-7-04; at Internet Archive] 

My Father Graham Armstrong (1924-2009): Tribute to and Remembrance of a Fallen Pilot and Poet [11-3-09; at Internet Archive] 

Reminiscing About My Southwest Detroit Childhood [Facebook: 9-26-13; list of 75 things!]

My Mother, Lois Armstrong (1925-2014): A Warm Remembrance [Facebook, 12-23-14] (+ Facebook threads of hundreds of prayers and condolences: One / Two)

Junior High Reunion Activities (Fun!) / My Potentially Life-Threatening Accident Back in 1969 [Facebook, 4-25-15]

Senior Year of High School! 20 Fun Questions [Facebook, 2-21-17]

I Remember 1968 Very Well [Facebook, 6-8-18]

4th of July Parades on Vernor Highway in Southwest Detroit [linked on Facebook, 7-6-20]

Color Photo Memories of My Childhood: 1961-1971 [Facebook, 9-3-21]

Glorious Visit to Downtown Detroit and Childhood Sites (4-14-23) / Summary of the Exciting New Building Projects and the Nostalgic Meaningfulness of All of it in My Own Life [Facebook, 4-17-23]

Reunion of Our Old Singles Group Where Judy and I Met in 1982 (photo) [Facebook, 9-3-23]

*

SPORTS

*

I Made Ten Straight Free Throws!!! [4-15-04; at Internet Archive]

My Football Exploits / My Son’s New Dominance in Basketball / Detroit Tiger Pride [10-9-06; at Internet Archive]

9 Out of 10 Free Throws: Twice!! [4-17-08; at Internet Archive]

All-Time Caucasian NBA All-Star Team [5-31-09; at Internet Archive]

I Bowled a 208! [3-7-10; at Internet Archive]

NBA Finals: Victorious Cleveland and Detroit Have a Lot in Common [Facebook, 6-20-16]

Defending the “Bad Boy” Pistons and Isiah Thomas [5-7-20]

The Great Ping Pong Revival of 2021 [Facebook, 3-7-21]

Detroit Tigers: 1968 World Champions. Who is Still Alive? + Significant and Lifetime Statistics [Facebook, 9-18-22]

Last updated on 22 March 2024

***

*
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. 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!*
*
***
Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
2
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
3
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
4
We Should Take Hell Seriously
A Little Bit of Nothing
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Can We Help Zoraya? Part 3—Episode 14
On Being Family (Un)Friendly
A visibility day (or week or month) we...
Forgive And Forget?
Everyone Is Called To Christ’s Spiritual Well
Theology of the Trillium
view all Catholic blogs