![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/09\/GodLight4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I continue my critiques of<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0by John W. Loftus<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n I first ran across former Christian minister <\/span>Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the<\/span> problem of evil<\/a>, and<\/span> whether God was in time<\/a>. During that period I also<\/span>\u00a0replied to an online version of his deconversion<\/a>: which (like my arguments about<\/span> God and time<\/a>) he didn\u2019t care for at all<\/a>. I\u2019ve<\/span> critiqued many<\/em> atheist deconversion stories<\/a>, and maintain a<\/span> very extensive web page about atheism<\/a>.\u00a0In 2007\u00a0I critiqued his \u201cOutsider Test of Faith\u201d series<\/a>: to which he gave no response.\u00a0Loftus\u2019 biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a<\/span> \u201cbrief testimony.\u201d<\/span> He wrote in December 2006 (his words in<\/span> blue<\/span> henceforth):<\/span><\/p>\n Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . .\u00a0I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . .\u00a0Do you accept my challenge?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:<\/span><\/p>\n If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I\u2019d be more than happy to critique it. I won\u2019t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . .\u00a0<\/span>You railed against that, saying that it was a<\/span> \u201chandout.\u201d<\/span> I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus\u2019 website, Debunking Christianity<\/em>,<\/span> no less than 35 times<\/a>. As of this writing, they remain<\/span> completely unanswered<\/a>. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison\u2019s, till Loftus decided I couldn\u2019t do that (after having<\/span> claimed that I \u201chate\u201d atheists<\/a> and indeed, everyone<\/em> I disagree with).<\/span> I replied at length<\/a> regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus\u2019 explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this:<\/span> \u201cWe know we can respond. It\u2019s just that we don\u2019t have the time to do so. Plus, it\u2019s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.\u201d <\/span>Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:<\/span><\/p>\n When the history of Christianity\u2019s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This was<\/span> underneath an article<\/a> where Loftus claimed:<\/span> \u201cI\u2019ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.\u201d<\/span> I hadn\u2019t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly<\/span> ten days later<\/a>: \u201cI cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n These last three cited statements put me \u201cover the edge\u201d and I decided to buy a used copy of his book,<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em> <\/a>(revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover<\/span>, on 8-27-07<\/a> he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book:<\/span> \u201cI challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that\u2019s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.\u201d<\/span> His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret<\/em> it), and this will be my primary project (as a<\/span> professional apologist<\/a>) in the coming weeks. <\/span><\/p>\n Despite all his confident bluster, I fully\u00a0expect<\/em>\u00a0him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and \u201cBible Basher\u201d Bob Seidensticker, who also<\/em> has ignored 35 of my critiques<\/a> (that he<\/em> requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I\u2019m here; always have been. And I won\u2019t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n The words of John Loftus <\/span>will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The first thing we notice is that the Hebrew God is pictured with a body, just like the gods of their polytheistic neighbors. The gods of surrounding cultures had human and physical characteristics. There is no reason to suppose the Hebrews thought differently about their God fro what we read in the early parts of the Old testament. What we have in the Bible is an evolving understanding of the nature of God, so we find later statements to the contrary. In the New Testament, \u201cGod is a Spirit\u201d (John 4:24). (pp. 259-260)<\/span><\/p>\n As to the \u201cevolving God in the Bible\u201d myth, see my papers:<\/span><\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism?<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\nSeidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT?<\/a><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDid the Jews ever believe that God had a body? According to Encyclopedia Judaica<\/em> <\/span>(\u201cAnthropomorphism\u201d<\/a>), no:<\/span><\/div>\n\n
[I]t is accepted as a major axiom of\u00a0Judaism<\/span>, from the biblical period onward, that no material representation of the\u00a0Deity<\/span>\u00a0is possible or permissible. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThe evolutionary approach to the study of religion, which mainly developed in the 19th<\/sup>\u00a0century, suggested a line of development beginning with anthropomorphic concepts and leading up to a more purified spiritual\u00a0faith<\/span>. It argued, among other things, that corporeal representations of the Deity were more commonly found in the older portions of the Bible than in its later books. This view does not distinguish between the different possible explanations for anthropomorphic terms. It especially fails to account for the phenomenon common in the history of all cultures, that sometimes a later period can be more primitive than an earlier one. In fact, both personifications of the Deity as well as attempts to avoid them are found side by side in all parts of the Bible. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMore important from a theological perspective are the anthropopathisms, or psychical personifications of the Deity. Scripture attributes to God love and hate, joy and delight, regret and sadness, pity and compassion, disgust, anger, revenge, and other feelings. Even if one explains these terms as being\u00a0nothing but picturesque expressions, intended to awaken within man a sense of the real presence of God and His works, nonetheless they remain personifications. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nUltimately, every religious expression is caught in the dilemma between, on the one hand, the theological desire to emphasize the absolute and transcendental nature of the Divine, thereby relinquishing its vitality and immediate reality and relevance, and on the other hand, the religious need to conceive of the Deity and man\u2019s contact with Him in some vital and meaningful way. Jewish tradition has usually shown preference for the second tendency, and there is a marked readiness to speak of God in a very concrete and vital manner and not to recoil from the dangers involved in the use of apparent anthropomorphisms. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThere is no evidence of any physical representation of God in Jewish history (in contradistinction to the worship of Canaanite and other foreign gods by Israelites). Even the golden calves of Jeroboam represented, according to the view of most scholars, only a footstool for the invisible God. In archaeological excavations no images of the God of\u00a0Israel<\/span>\u00a0have been unearthed. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAlthough Jews have speculated on the anthropomorphic nature of God, visible representation of the Deity was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic law.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSee also my own papers:\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnthropopathism and Anthropomorphism: Biblical Data (God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding)<\/a><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSeidensticker Folly #33: Clueless Re Biblical Anthropopathism<\/a><\/div>\n