Was I a "Troll" and Did I Merely Critique Deconversions During My Three-Month Stay at the Debunking Christianity Blog?

Straw troll instead of a straw man this time?

Man, I never thought intelligent atheists would be so desperate that they would have to resort to fictional, revisionist historical accounts of my past behavior in lieu of rational responses to my critiques. I expect this behavior from fringe anti-Catholic Protestants, but atheists?! Yet that is exactly what happened recently. Dave Van Allen decided to attack me personally rather than deal sensibly with my critique of his deconversion story.

He claimed that I was merely "trolling" when I visited the popular skeptical site Debunking Christianity. For those who may not be familiar with this Internet lingo, a "troll" is one who has no intention in engaging in serious conversation, but only in stirring up trouble and controversy, getting a few shots in, and splitting. The Wikipedia article, "Troll" states:

Trolls can be existing members of a community that rarely post and often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. The key element under attack by a troll is known only to the troll.

A person who retaliates (using whatever means) as a result of a misunderstanding (or as a way of rebelling against the overzealous application of rules) is not a troll. A troll is a person who approaches a board with the specific intention of stirring things up, either as a goal in and of itself or as a means of attacking the board perhaps motivated by opposition to the ethos of the board. For example, a neo-Nazi approaching a Jewish forum with the intention of attacking the members, purely because the neo-Nazi knows the forum to contain Jewish members, will be considered a troll.

The general element, that determines whether a malicious user is a troll or not, is the level of indignant emotions present in the person, coupled with the person's history with the forum or group. An indignant user who has had a previous normal relationship with the group is not a troll, even if the user uses methods of attack that are characteristic of a troll attack.

Interestingly, by this criterion, Dave Van Allen was the "troll" in our recent brief exchange on his blog, at least insofar as he was "concentrating almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the conversation topic itself, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others." In his hit piece post of 9-28-07, he was clearly intending to do exactly that, since he wrote about:

1) My supposed "trolling of two other sites (Debunking Christianity and Ed Babinski's website).

2) "what other Christians think of Dave A's theology": he provided links to six examples: all from anti-Catholics. But anti-Catholics, of course, are only a tiny fringe element of Protestantism, and we all know what they think of Catholicism, so their differing from me is only a big yawner; hardly any proof that I am some sort of kook or loose cannon (as Dave was trying to "prove").

The Wikipedia article goes on to make a point almost identical to what I have stated about my encounter on Dave Van Allen's skeptical forum:

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. . . .

The word troll is often and easily (mis)used as an ad hominem attack against someone whose viewpoints and input cannot otherwise be silenced (i.e., via banning). Its successful use and misuse reveals much about how starkly different the world of technicians is compared to normal social and political discourse.

The term troll should be used with attention since it is a very easy way of undermining an opposing point of view. Sometimes, overly using the word "troll" may constitute trolling in itself.

Established forum users might all agree on one side of a message as being the universal truth; in which case a "troll" might just be some outsider adding an opposing message.

In any event, I was not a troll at all in my visit to either atheist / skeptical / agnostic / former Christian site. John Loftus, blogmaster of Debunking Christianity, proposed a variation of this charge on my blog. He claimed:

Dave, isn't this getting old with you? You came to Debunking Christianity and did the same thing with us a while back. We wrote deconversion stories of why we left the Christian faith and you concluded in each case we left for less than the best of reasons...surprise!

And in another comment:

I just think you would do better to deal with our arguments, the kind that I linked to earlier, that’s all. . . . the reason you provoked my ire is that you came to DC and evaluated personal testimonies, not our arguments, and as I said these stories are personal.

Note that he contends that I haven't dealt with his arguments and those of others who frequent his blog, and that I critiqued deconversion stories instead of regular old arguments (deconversion stories being, you see, merely "personal" and "Atheism Lite"). But this is patently false, and I proved it by citing (in three posts: one / two / three) no less than 19 serious dialogues / debates that came about during my time at DC. I guess John couldn't handle being refuted with facts, and so, as usual, he decided to become personally hostile, rather than admit that he had presented a warped, revisionist history of events that occurred in the not-too-distant-past on his own blog.

Nor was I a regular commenter on John's blog for a short time, as is the usual procedure with trolls. Looking over the debates that came about during my stay, we find that I was there from (at the very least) 16 September 2006 to Christmas Day, or about three months and a week. Sorry, folks, that is not trolling: three months and 19 major debates with several of the paticipants there, and spread out over that whole time (Sep: 3 dialogues, Oct: 9, Nov: 4, Dec: 3)? And none of these were critiques of deconversions, which were additional papers.

Additionally, at least one prominent atheist regular contributor to the blog at the time wrote to me privately and told me that he felt I was being treated most unfairly by the moderator (which was indeed true). Rather, I was (as the Wikipedia article says) an "outsider adding an opposing message" (just as I was at ExChristian.Net in that other recent asinine thread and feeding frenzy). That message was apparently found difficult to rationally refute, and so I am now being smeared as a troll and/or someone who only had one unsavory purpose that precluded my seriously considering opposing arguments.

The truth of the matter is that I visited both places in search of cordial, confident, articulate atheists who would be willing and able to engage in dialogue with a Christian. As I wrote in a recent post:

I stayed and debated until replies to me simply descended into a flurry of insults. Since that is the death of discussion when it occurs, there was no reason to remain any longer.

There is trolling and there is also rudeness, flaming, feeding frenzies and the pack mentality on the part of the mass of people on any given group blog, when someone dares dissent from the party line.

I think those who are dialogue-challenged among my atheist friends will have to do a heck of a lot better than this utterly ridiculous, groundless charge to oppose my point of view. No one is fooled by this fathomless imbecility and shameless evasion tactic.

Reply to Former Christian John Loftus' "Outsider Test of Faith" Series

Philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891-1976)


John Loftus is a former pastor and the webmaster of the Debunking Christianity blog. This reply is at his request. John's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

John provided a general post that linked to other individual ones (I won't give all the URL's; the previous link gives those). In later ones, he merely repeats many of his arguments, so I need not cite everything. I will be meeting the basic arguments head on.

Here's the short version of my argument. It begins with these four propositions:

1) Religious diversity around the globe is a fact—many religions can be found in distinct geographical locations in the world.

Sure.

2) There are no mutually agreed upon tests to determine which religion is true.

To some extent this is correct; however, at least for the western religions, there are several tests from various fields of study (natural science, archaeology, textual analysis, historiography, philosophical arguments, etc.) that can be brought to bear. Those from these traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) hold lots of tenets along those lines in common, and so can compare the relative strength of their religious claims.

Eastern religion is another story, and the presuppositions and conception of God is so different that it is difficult to test or examine rationally by these same standards.

3) Religious apologists all claim they are correct and they reject all other distinctive religious beliefs but their own.

We all believe what we believe (religious or no) and believing one thing precludes believing simultaneously in another that contradicts it. Most religious people will readily admit, however, that many beliefs in other religions are similar or identical to their own. All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C.S. Lewis's book The Abolition of Man.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


4) All religions seek to answer life’s most important questions in a believing communal social environment where the adherent is encouraged to believe and discouraged to doubt.

Sure. This is done in varying degrees of plausibility and rationality, but as a generality it is true.

These four facts form the basis of the argument. Okay so far? I think these facts are undeniable.

#2 is questionable to a significant extent, as argued. #3 must be seriously qualified.

So if you want a deductive argument expressing this inductive argument of mine, here it is:

p -> q:

If 1-4 is true, then it’s probable that people adopt their religion based upon “when and where they were born.”

They often (even more often than not) do do that; no argument there.

p:

1-4.

.: q:

Therefore, it’s probable that people adopt their religion based upon “when and where they were born.”

Based upon 1-4, it's highly probable religious adherents will not investigate their faith dispassionately.

That's exactly right. That is a major reason why I do apologetics. Religion needs to be held with a great deal more rationality and self-conscious analysis for the epistemological basis and various types of evidences for one's own belief.

They will use reason to solidify and support religious beliefs arrived at prior to rationally examining them. And because there isn’t a mutually agreed upon scientific test to determine the truth of any religion, therefore social/political and geographical factors heavily influence what religion one adopts.

Again, this is undeniably true (except for the "testing" part). Of course it proves nothing whatsoever about the strength of relative truth claims, so I don't see that it has much value except as a rather self-evident bit of sociological observation.

This conclusion is the strongest in those communally shared religions where doubt places the adherent in danger of hell, as well as the fear of losing the friendship of the religious community he or she is involved in.

Or places folks in danger of their lives if they dare dissent (or at least losing many freedoms, and their personal reputation), as in many Muslim countries, or Communist nations.

This conclusion leads to the presumption of skepticism when investigating any religious faith, including one’s own religious faith; for it’s probable that the adherents merely adopted their faith based upon “when and where they were born.”

I believe everyone should study to know why they believe what they believe. On the other hand, I deny that there is no religious knowledge or evidence other than these hard proofs from scientific inquiry. There are also highly complex internal or instinctive or subjective or experiential factors that have been analyzed at great length by philosophers like William Alston (see philosopher Michael Sudduth's paper on "Alstonian Foundationalism") and Alvin Plantinga ("properly basic belief"). Those are huge discussions, but not to be dismissed as irrelevant to the present line of inquiry.

John Loftus, in a second post, presents a typically presuppositionalist, Van Til-like excerpt from Paul Manata (who frequents Steve Hays' Triablogue site). But before looking at how he disagrees with it, it should be known that most non-Calvinist Christians also disagree with this outlook concerning the relationship of faith and reason, and unbelievers and believers. I myself have written lengthy, scathing critiques of presuppositional apologetics itself, and the late Greg Bahnsen's influential version of it. In other ways, there is common ground with what is called "evidentialist" apologetics (my preferred brand). Alvin Plantinga shows one way of achieving a semi-synthesis.

I've written papers specifically denying (based on the biblical data) that atheists must be evil and immoral, and affirming that any individual atheist can possibly be saved in the end. I've also strongly denied the notion that any atheist who says he was a former Christian must be lying, since it is considered impossible. That is biblical hogwash.

Does this description of the thinking of an unbeliever confirm or deny what I have been saying, that Christianity must devaluate philosophy in favor of believing in historical knowledge of a "special revelation" in the Bible?

It confirms it but only in a very limited way, since this presents the viewpoint of only a small minority of Christians: strict Calvinists (mostly fundamentalists). Not even all Calvinists would take this strict of a view. Loftus makes a mistake very common in the atheist / agnostic / skeptical literature: confusing just one small sector of Christianity with the whole. It's essentially a straw man because it is even less than a "half-truth" if we go by numbers of (thinking, informed) Christians proportion-wise who think like this.

And if a Christian must place reason below his faith, then how can he properly evaluate his faith in the first place, since the presumption of faith we start out with, will most likely be the presumption of faith we end with?

A Christian doesn't have to. The Bible doesn't teach this in the first place. The largest and most continuous Christian tradition (Catholicism) would flatly deny it. So do the majority of Protestants and Protestant apologists.

Since the presumption of faith we start out with is something we accept by, what John Hick calls, the "accidents of history" (i.e., where and when we are born), how likely is it that the Christian will ever truly evaluate his or her faith?

Many (and probably most) Christians never do that; I agree. Again, there is a reason why I have devoted myself to apologetics. If even an atheist thinks Christians should reason more about their faith, then it is obvious that the work of apologetics is crucial.

I would say, though, that there is a version of this "become whatever your surroundings dictate" argument that can be turned around as a critique of atheism. Many atheists -- though usually not born in that worldview -- nevertheless have decided to immerse themselves in atheist / skeptical literature and surround themselves with others of like mind. And so they become confirmed in their beliefs. We are what we eat. In other words, one can voluntarily decide to shut off other modes and ways of thinking in order to "convince" themselves of a particular viewpoint. That is almost the same mentality as adopting a religion simply because "everyone else" in a culture does so, or because of an accident of birth. People can create an "accident of one-way reading" too.

My position, in contrast, is for people to read the best advocates of any given debate and see them interact with each other. That's why I do so many dialogues. John Loftus could write these papers, and they may seem to be wonderfully plausible, until someone like me comes around to point out the fallacies in them and to challenge some of the alleged facts. Read both sides. Exercise your critical faculties. Don't just read only Christians or only atheists. Look for debates where both sides know their stuff and have the confidence to defend themselves and the courage and honesty to change their opinions if they have been shown that truth and fact demand it.

How is it possible to rationally evaluate the Christian faith when the Christian can only do so from within the presuppositions of that faith in the first place--presuppositions which he or she basically accepted by the "accidents of history."

This is basically what the presuppositionalists do, but that is rejected by the majority of Christian thinkers today and throughout history. John's critique applies only to them and to fideists and pietists who deliberately underemphasize or reject reason. it certainly does not apply to all of Christianity. The irony is that he makes a critique of something where I as a Christian and an apologist can largely agree with him. We disagree mainly on whether the critique affects Christianity as a whole or only one small -- mistaken -- school within it.

So let me propose something I call The Outsider Test: If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would be a Muslim right now, say it isn't so? That is a cold hard fact. Dare you deny it? Since this is so, or at least 99% so, then the proper method to evaluate your religious beliefs is with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Yes, it's true. Most people believe in religious matters what they were born into. But of course, many change their minds later on. And we must also take into account variations within religions. In my case, for example, one could say "sure, you're a Christian because most Americans claim to be so." True enough on one level, but it is false insofar as it would presuppose that I am a Christian only because of this factor and no others.

In fact, I have made up my mind as an individual and often changed my opinions. I was born into a liberal Methodist family. I never resonated with that much, and stopped going to the Methodist church when I was ten. I then became a "secularist" or "practical atheist" for about eight years. That went against my background because both parents and all four grandparents were Methodists. I then converted to evangelical Christianity at age 18. There wasn't much of that in my larger family, either. And at length I converted to Catholicism at age 32. There were virtually no Catholics in my extended family. So I was making decisions on my own regardless of what folks around me believed (particularly in my Catholic conversion). Therefore, this whole analysis doesn't really apply to me, if we examine it closely and take it a step deeper and out of the broadest generalities.

Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating. If your faith stands up under muster, then you can have your faith.

That is essentially what I am doing in my numerous posted debates (more than 450 as of this writing; perhaps nearly 500 by now. I stopped counting). I interact with people who don't agree with me, all the time., And so I am exposed to their premises and worldviews and in a good place to judge if it is superior to my own. Obviously I haven't been dissuaded of Catholic Christianity yet. And I can demonstrate to anyone why, by directing them to my debates with atheists and Protestants (i.e., anyone non-Catholic).

If not, abandon it, for any God who requires you to believe correctly when we have this extremely strong tendency to believe what we were born into, surely should make the correct faith pass the outsider test. If your faith cannot do this, then the God of your faith is not worthy of being worshipped.

I agree that every Christian should have a reasonable faith, that can withstand rational and skeptical examination. I do this myself and I write so that others can share in the same confidence and blessing that I receive as I do apologetics and interact with other people of different beliefs.

What we believe does not depend entirely on where we are born. It also depends on when we were born, and what beliefs and conditions were there when we grew up. What would you believe if you were born during the Middle Ages, or during the Ancient superstitious days before the rise of modern science, Frontier days in America, pre-civil war days in the South, and even pre-depression era days, WWII days, Vietnam protest days, the greed decade of the 80's, and the microchip and cell phone revolution now? Is human reason that mallable? I think so.

None of this means there isn't any truth, moral or otherwise. But this is known as the Dependency Thesis, whereby what we believe depends upon these factors world-wide. Yep, that's right, world-wide. And while it doesn't prove anything about truth itself, it should give us all pause to consider the factors of where and when we were born, and whether or not we properly are evaluating our faith.

All true, again. And I agree that "it doesn't prove anything about truth itself". I have long accepted the sociological basis of much actual belief, on account of my reading of social analysts such as Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and Michael Polanyi. See also psychiatrist Paul Vitz's analysis of the familial background of many famous atheist figures. This also is a result of my degree in sociology and minor in psychology.

There are so very many things we believe because of when and where we were born that an argument is made by moral relativists based on it, which is known to ethicists as the "Dependency Thesis (DT)" According to the DT our morals are causally dependent on our cultural context. Even if the relativists are wrong in the very end, they make an extremely powerful case which should give the over-confident Christian a reason for a very long pause, if nothing else.

I don't see why. Every person is responsible for his own intellectual advancement. The trouble is that public education is so rotten today that young minds aren't formulated in ways that would further this end. They are spoon-fed secularist propaganda bleached of any Christian influence whatsoever, and then given a massive sophisticated dose of anti-Christianity in college (so that many students lose their faith because they are so overwhelmed and unprepared), as if this were a fair, intelligent way of going about things. They are what they eat too.

That's why secularists are so intent on removing any vestige of Christianity from education, because they prevail only by people being ignorant of alternatives and being presented one side only. I was a thoroughly secularist pro-choice, pro-feminist, political and sexual liberal coming out of high school. I would have repeated the party line impeccably (in marvelously blissful ignorance). But when I started reading some materials with a different perspective during my college years and shortly afterwards (Christian, politically conservative, pro-life), then my opinions changed because I had a rational basis to compare one view with another, rather than ape propagandistic slogans learned by rote repetition (which is much of liberal, secularist education these days).

The Christian believes God is a rational God and that we should love God with all of their minds. The Christian is not afraid to examine his or her beliefs by the test of reason because he or she believes in a God of reason. A small minority of Christians even believe Logic and reason presuppose the Christian God.

So what's the problem here? Why aren't Christians posting by the droves and saying, "Fine, I have no problem with The Outsider Test?” Why not?

Because they are insufficiently acquainted with historic Christianity, biblical Christianity, and historic apologetics. They are fair game to eventually lose their faith, or else possess such a weak, mangled, ineffective faith that they make no practical difference to anyone around them, as potential "witnesses" of the truth of Christianity.

An outsider would be someone who was only interested in which religious or nonreligious view is correct, and assumed from the start that none of them were true--none of them!

But there are no absolutely clean slates. This is where I would disagree, based on the analyses of people like Plantinga, Alston, and Polanyi (the latter almost singlehandedly dismantled logical positivism).

An outsider is a mere seeker who has no prior presuppositions about any faith, or no faith at all. To be an outsider would also mean we would have nothing at stake in the outcome of our investigations, and hence no fear of hell while investigating it all. These threats could hinder a clear-headed investigation.

I deny the premise, and so am skeptical of this scenario; however, I do believe in being as objective and fair as we possibly can be, even given our inevitable biases and belief-system that cannot be erased merely by playing the game of philosophy and supposed extreme, dispassionate detachment.

What exactly is wrong with this? While I know it may be impossible to do, since we all have presuppositions, what's wrong with striving for this as a goal that can only be approximated?

I agree, if qualified like this. Good.

If Christianity wins hands down in the marketplace of ideas, like so many seem to indicate, then why not mentally adopt this test? Christians shouldn't have any problems doing this, right?

Amen! I try to do it by my debates, such as the present one. I think Christianity wins in any such encounter. It's always been my experience.

The outsider test would mean that there would be no more quoting the Bible to defend how Jesus' death on the cross saves us from sins. The Christian must now try to rationally explain it. No more quoting the Bible to defend how it's possible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over, by merely quoting from the Bible. The Christian must now try to make sense of this claim, coming as it does from an ancient supertitious people who didn't have trouble believing this could happen (Acts 14:11, 28:6), etc, etc. Why? Because you cannot start out by first believing the Bible, nor can you trust the people closest to you who are Christians to know the truth. You would want evidence and reasons for these things. And you'd initially be skeptical of believing in any of the miracles in the Bible just as you would be skeptical of any claims of the miraculous in today's world.

This is a description of apologetics, pure and simple. Thanks for confirming the value of what I have devoted my life to.

. . . we would do well to question the social conditions of how we came to adopt a particular religious belief in the first place, that is, who or what influenced us, and what were the actual reasons for adopting that belief in its earliest stages.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If you've read my Conversion/deconversion story, I had no initial reasons for adopting the Christian faith, except that everyone I had ever met believed. The reason I adopted it in the first place was because of social conditions--no one I knew doubted it and I concluded at the age of 18 that therefore it must be true.

My story was precisely the opposite. I was so utterly ignorant of Christian theology at age 18 that I didn't even know that Christians believed Jesus was God in the flesh. I arrived at all my Christian beliefs by my own deliberate study. I had gotten secularism crammed down my throat in Detroit public schools and Wayne State University in Detroit. I had to "even the score" a bit by my own study of the theistic intellectual tradition. That was a bit tough to do in a fair way, given, for example, that there wasn't a single theist in the philosophy department at Wayne when I was there and took five courses or so.

. . . . there are no empirical tests to finally decide between religious viewpoints.

This is simply not true. There are a number of evidential or empirical tests that Christianity and other religions can be subjected to. The argument from biblical prophecy offers a chance to test by real, concrete historical events whether the predictions were accurate or not. A study of Jesus' Resurrection, that involved a dead body and a rock tomb guarded by Roman soldiers, provides hard facts that have to be dealt with and explained somehow. The cosmological and teleological theistic arguments offer hard scientific facts and details that are rationally explained as suggesting a God. All miraculous claims can be examined.

In the Catholic tradition, there are many eyewitness accounts of people being raised from the dead (St. Augustine, for example, attested to this). There are all sorts of miracles. For example: the incorrupt bodies of saints. If you can take a dead person out of their grave twenty, fifty years or more after their death, and the body has not decayed, and it is because they were a saintly person, then that is hard empirical evidence that confirms Christian, Catholic teaching. You have the mystery of the stigmata, that could be seen in, e.g., St. Padre Pio, who died in 1968. There is archaeological evidence confirming the claims of the Bible. Etc., etc.

Skeptics thumb their nose at all of this but it is not nearly so simple. There are unexplained phenomena here that have to be accounted for. We have our interpretation, but the atheist puts his head in the sand and claims that it's all impossible because of their prior axiomatic beliefs that all miracles are impossible because they "go against science " (itself a blatant fallacy). Hence John writes: "Christians believe God did miracles in the ancient past (but we see no evidence he does so today, which is our only sure test for whether or not they happened in the past)." And that is considered "open-minded" and intelligent.

A believer in one specific religion has already rejected all other religions, so when he rejects the one he was brought up with he becomes an agnostic or atheist many times, like me.

We need not reject all other religions in toto; just aspects of them that we believe to be untrue. For example, Confucius taught excellent personal ethics. A Christian would disagree with very little there. We have no objection to Jews following the 613 commandments of Mosaic Law or keeping kosher. Buddhists are often pro-life, and teach about personal asceticism something not unlike Catholic monasticism. Muslims still have kids, are against abortion and premarital sex and pornography. All great stuff.

You quoted Paul, for instance. Why should I believe what an ancient superstitious person believed and said?

Here is the classic atheist condescension and double standard. We're supposed to sit like eager baby birds receiving regurgitated worms from their mother's beak, in hearing atheists lecture us about the Bible and how stupid and contradictory it is, and how dumb our interpretations are. John cited the Bible and beliefs stated in the Bible all over his main post. But the Christian is not allowed to cite the Bible in his replies (???!!!).

Thus John waxes indignantly: "Deal with the argument. The Bible means nothing to me." Well, how the hell is a Christian gonna be able to respond to an argument of biblical skepticism and alleged contradictions by not citing the very Bible that was critiqued? It's irrelevant whether John accepts it or not or puts it on the level of Mein Kampf or Aesop's Fables. It's our view that is being critiqued and so we have the task of defending the Bible. And in order to do that one must cite it! Good grief . . .

The condescension towards the Apostle Paul, who was one of the most educated and philosophically nuanced men in the ancient world, and a brilliant writer is, of course, completely out of line and ridiculous; a quintessential example of atheist chronological snobbery.

For the outsider test to fail the test of the Bible you must first establish the trustworthiness of the Bible to tell us the truth. I'm proposing a test to see if the Bible should be trusted in the first place. How do YOU propose we test it? Could you please explain to me why you might use double-standards when testing it against other religious books?

That's super-easy: we test it like any other source of history: through historiographical scholarship and archaeology. The Bible has been tested again and again in this fashion and has proven itself accurate, insofar as it reports historical, geographical, biographical details, etc.
Wholly apart from religious faith, then, we can establish that it is a remarkably accurate document that can be trusted to accurately report things. That's the bare minimum. Once supernatural events are being discussed, the argument must be made on an entirely different plane: legal-historical evidences, philosophy, etc. But the Bible is not untrustworthy on the basis of inaccuracy of things that can be empirically verified.

That's enough for now. If John wants to engage in further dialogue, minus the acrimony that has plagued our previous several attempts, I'd be happy to. Many areas here can be unpacked and elaborated upon in great depth.

Angry, Irrational Atheists and Other Ex-Christians On the Prowl Again: Christopher Hitchens vs. Fr. George Rutler / The Good Folks at ExChristian.Net

Let me start out with a strong disclaimer: I personally know many atheists who do not (repeat: do NOT) fit into this characterization. I've often defended atheists against individual irrational Christians. One must judge every person individually. Atheists may possibly be saved. Some who state that they are former Christians may very well indeed have been Christians at one time (a non-Calvinist Christian need not deny this, as it is a quite biblical notion). Atheists are not inevitably immoral or amoral or ethically relativistic, or politically liberal, etc. I've stated all this many times. I have nothing against atheists as people. I have no hostility towards atheists as a class, or prejudice whatsoever. I approach anyone and everyone with an unassuming attitude and without cynicism. In fact, I cause myself no end of misery for this reason.

That said, it is undeniable that many atheists are very angry people, obsessed with Christians, quite irrational, rude, absurd, and foolish in dialologue with Christians, unable to withstand a critique of their "deconversion" stories, condescending, hostile, patronizing, and burdened with considerable personal prejudice against Christians and Christianity. It's unarguable. Examples are innumerable. Ten minutes cruising the comboxes of virtually any major "former Christian" blog or website will confirm this beyond all possible refutation or doubt.

Recently, I have had an experience of this myself (for about the 50th time), in critiquing the "anti-testimony" of Dave Van Allen, webmaster of ExChristian.Net. He made one terse "reply " only loosely connected, if at all, to my actual critique) and then descended into purely personal, petty attacks (see my direct reply to the latter, documenting the folly of one particular scurrilous lie), along with "attaboy rah-rahs" from a dozen or so of his cronies on his blog, who all wanted to "reply" to me also (me being the lone Christian around in that particular thread, and supposed to be able to answer twelve people at once?).

Twelve or so insulting atheists against one Christian attempting to participate in rational discourse: that sounds fair and right, doesn't it? Hardly any of them dare to come to my blog, where they would be treated with politeness and courtesy, but I am expected to stay there and engage in "discourse." Not a chance. It would be an insult to my intelligence and that of any thinking, fair-minded person, and to the very notion of rational dialogue, for me to remain in such a farcical situation.

Sadly, this pack mentality a very common characteristic not only of atheists, but of many people on the Internet of many belief-systems . . . anyone can get with twelve other like-minded zealots and attack a dissenter from that circle. That takes neither guts not brains to do. But let one person offer a rational critique of one's reasons for leaving Christianity and it is Chicken Little and Super-Paranoia Time.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


What I find especially interesting was the repeated denial by Dr. Jim Arvo, that (many) atheists (as a generalization) exhibit such irrational anger and hostility. In our sub-dialogue regarding Van Allen he reiterated this over and over:

[ME] ...many atheists collapse Christianity into know-nothing fundamentalism, so that it can be dismissed as 'anti-intellectual' and 'anti-science'...

I don't know who the "many" are that you speak of.

. . . Bottom line: don't dismiss all atheists as simply thinking they are smarter than anybody else.

Many clearly do think so. Again, I appeal to the rhetoric commonly seen here and in similar places, about how "imbecilic" and "obviously false" Christianity is. That is the language of condescension and a "know-it-all" mentality.

. . . You guys usually regard them as primitive gullible simpletons (part of that is "chronological snobbery", as C.S. Lewis calls it), and so expect to find massive error and contradiction.

That's a crass generalization.

It certainly is a generalization, by nature. Whether it is "crass" or not depends on whether it is a true general observation. I say it is.

His reasoning capabilities apparently exhausted (despite obviously having a head on his shoulders and being a professor), Jim himself then jumped right into personal insult:

I was quite clear that I read only part of your writings, and only responded to part of them. If you actually have something of substance to offer, then please direct me to it, or recap it here. I honestly don't have the time to sift through all you've written looking for something that may make sense to me . . . If you cannot bring yourself to admit that the clear surface meaning of the two Judas accounts are problematic, then it seems to me that you cannot even enter into the debate in a meaningful way IMHO.

In giving examples of the legion of "angry, irrational atheists" I wrote:

Such rhetoric is very common among atheists / agnostics / skeptics / "freethinkers". Look at Dawkins and Hitchens, for heaven's sake. There are exceptions (you seem to be one of them and I know others personally from the Internet and in "real life") but I stand by my generalization, based on many years of experience of debates and discussions. I used the word "many"; not "most" or "almost all."

Lo and behold, I discovered a tidbit about Christopher Hitchens today that confirms what I am saying, rather strikingly. It was reported by journalist Richard Lawrence Poe and has been noted by (former atheist) Jeff Miller (the "Curt Jester") and (former Episcopal priest) Taylor Marshall. Poe writes:

Eyewitnesses report that Hitchens erupted into a drunken rage at a recent promotional event for his book. Hitchens reportedly descended from the stage, visibly inebriated, approached a Roman Catholic priest in the audience [Fr. George Rutler], and began shouting at him, only inches from his face. Hitchens’ manner appeared so physically menacing, witnesses say, that a plainclothes bodyguard on duty at the event rushed in and escorted the drunken scribe from the room.

All of this happened four and a half months ago, on May 1. It was never reported in the press. A conspiracy of silence shielded the bestselling author from the negative publicity his behavior seemingly should have earned him.

. . . Billed as, “An Evening with Christopher Hitchens“, the event was presented by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and featured a discussion between Hitchens and Peter Collier (who is Director of Publications for the Freedom Center). During that discussion, Hitchens offered many insults — laced with a generous helping of obscene, Anglo-Saxon expletives — to such beloved religious figures as the late Mother Teresa. One eyewitness states that Hitchens’ “drunken, rambling, anti-Semitic, bigoted and foul-mouthed rant” caused “two-thirds of the people to leave in disgust” before the talk had ended.

[some of the lurid details can be read in the Poe article; also in another post elsewhere; be forewarned about gutter language]

. . .During the question-and-answer period following Hitchens’ talk, Father George Rutler took the floor and the following exchange ensued:

FATHER RUTLER: I have met saints. You cannot explain the existence of saints without God. I was nine years chaplain with Mother Teresa [inaudible]. You have called her a whore, a demagogue. She’s in heaven that you don’t believe in, but she’s praying for you. If you do not believe in heaven, that’s why you drink.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Excuse me?

FATHER RUTLER: That’s why you drink. God has offered us happiness, all of us. And you will either die a Catholic or a madman, and I’ll tell you the difference.

And secondly, I’m an officer with this club. And this conversation has been beneath the dignity of this club. . . .

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Well, it is now. . . . It is now.

FATHER RUTLER: And I’d just say that…

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Fine host you turned out to be.

FATHER RUTLER: …this club, we’ve had very open discussion. But we’ve never heard such vulgarity and bigotry.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Till now.

FATHER RUTLER: And I am, I don’t want to see this in this club again. And I think I represent the officers of this noble…

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Your claim to know what a [saint] is or what heaven is is as absurd as your [inaudible] arrogance, your unkindness and your lack of hospitality. . . . You should be ashamed. . . . And you are supposed to represent a church of charity and kindness?

. . . It was after the above exchange that the real fireworks started, according to witnesses. This blog has obtained a written account of the incident by one eyewitness, which states the following:

“At the end of the event as he staggered, sweating and red faced, out of the room, he [Hitchens] advanced on Father Rutler in a threatening and physical manner, screaming that this beloved pastor and brilliant scholar whom he had never met was `a child molester and a lazy layabout who never did a day’s work in his life’. His behavior was so frightening that a bodyguard put himself between Hitchens and Father Rutler to protect him. Several of the event organizers then escorted Hitchens to the men’s room and when he emerged he continued his psychotic rant, repeating the same calumnious and baseless screed as before. It was then that Father Rutler, in the most charitable manner, told Hitchens [for the second time] that he will `either die a madman or a Roman Catholic’. … Unless he faces his alcoholism soon, I am betting on the ‘madman’ ending for him.” (4)

. . . I hope and pray that Mr. Hitchens will seek the help he needs in his struggle with alcohol. And I hope that someday soon, when his mind has cleared, Mr. Hitchens will see the need to pay a visit to Father Rutler and deliver to him face to face the apology this good and saintly man so plainly deserves.

. . . Two extremely reliable eyewitnesses, who were seated close to Father Rutler, have vouched for the version of events set forth in this article. A third eyewitness — Father Rutler himself — while declining my request for an interview, did not deny the essence of the story.

Fr. Rutler was a hero of 9-11, spending the day
hearing confessions and giving last rites to firemen

Poe's article also includes two e-mail responses from Christopher Hitchens. The Penraker blog noted with delightfully acid sarcasm: "Hitchens would then be a very poor example of the supposedly wonderful, kind, generous, pacific world of atheism."

So much for the supposed rarity of "angry, irrational" atheists. Hitchens (along with Richard Dawkins, who would win no prize for rudimentary fairness towards Christians, either) is one of the most famous ones today.

Dr. Arvo claimed that the folks who frequent ExChristian.Net were (in the main) of a high calibre as well: of a sort that wouldn't participate in mere mockery or hostile irrationality towards their fellow human Christian brothers and sisters. I had (to no avail) documented in my replies to him thus far some examples of exactly what I was contending, from the same thread in which I was participating; notably, from one "rd":

. . . the total fallacy of religions is anyway? Your longing for a belief in the after life that you are willing to deny the obvious? The obvious truth being, that it's all a lie.

Anytime you need faith in order to believe something, you are expected to go beyond your own intellectual honesty and accentually lie to yourself knowing full well deep down inside it could not possibly be true.

Kill the old self and lie to the new self, step beyond reality into mental delusions of psuedo [sic] grandeur.

. . . incredable [sic] imbecilic nonsense . . .

Also, here are some tidbits from Dave Van Allen, whose deconversion I was critiquing (all from his story or his later comments in the combox underneath it):

My mind was opened to reality, and is continuing to be opened to reality, as the myths and gods of my youth are abandoned to be replaced by reason.

Christianity is just another man-made, phony cult - that's all . . . all it really does is enslave the mind.

[W]hen Christianity condemned the pursuit of science, viewing it as an attack on faith, many centuries of ignorant darkness, disease, and painful death resulted.

Christianity caused the Dark Ages.

Religion is complete emotion — thought means little.

No matter how ridiculous, illogical, stupid, and irrational, anything in this book seems, all of you who want to call yourselves Christians, and go to a wonderful place when you leave this life, must suspend all rational thought processes, turn your brains off to anything except the particular doctrine being promulgated by your particular sect.

I have no reason to hate those religions. I do have a reason to hate Christianity. By way of analogy: You can't hate someone else's ex-wife. But you can hate your own.

And in his "reply" to me, he wrote:

Can you show me any evidence outside your book of myths for the existence of a mysterious, maniacal, meglomanic [sic], Jewish deity living somewhere in the sky that has promised everlasting retributive horror to be reigned [sic] down on all those who have the wrong thoughts in their heads about his existence?

Thank you very much, Dave Van Allen, for being a quintessential example of the proverbial (Irrationally) Angry Atheist. Here are some additional sterling examples of Pure Rationality, fair-mindedness, and open-mindedness, from the same discussion thread I participated in. These are the folks who want to engage in discussion and "dialogue" with me:

ME: I make sure that all atheists and agnostics are treated cordially and respectfully on my (Catholic) blog.

"boomSLANG": ....and we make sure that all self-righteous theists are treated like people . . .

ME: “…supposedly anti-science…” and "…allegedly 'caused the Dark Ages.'"

Huey: Dave, you use the words ‘supposedly’ and ‘allegedly’ as though there is some question about the statements they are attached to and in examining your website, you do a lot of that. There is no ‘supposedly’ and 'allegedly' about their application in this instance and using language to suggest otherwise is simply a form of dishonesty.

The Catholic Church has a long and well documented history of suppressing science, with the tools brought to bear being censure, torture and murder . . . The dark ages were brought about by the Catholic Church's control of knowledge. This extended to the confiscation of scientific and engineering texts and their subsequent destruction. It also included, and still does to this day, the censoring of knowledge that their laity may possess. The advancement of enlightenment, both scientifically and socially, was achieved in spite of, not because of the Catholic Church.

Bill: Whatever the belief, motivation and emotion behind your actions, you can be sure they are personal and not driven by god or pure rational thought. They are emotional driven.

RD: What we have observed here folks from the comments left from Dave Armstrong, is the effects of that poison. We've tasted it and it made us sick so we stopped drinking it. I suggest he do the same.

"eel shepherd": . . . Jesus of Nazareth, who likely never existed.

A brief review of similar statements elsewhere on ExChristian.Net reveals some real classics of substance- and rationality-free hatred against Christians and Christianity (my emphases):

Christianity suggests that God regrets that he created the world, and could be gratified by torturing every one of its inhabitants in hell for eternity. I cannot believe that I believed such idiocy for so long. Such a God, if it existed, deserves to be denounced, not worshipped. . . . It truly is an elaborate hoax, but I am glad I have now seen the light. I love Christians but hate Christianity.

(George Basel, 5-7-05)

Christianity does nothing but condemn people who share a different belief system, and it enslaves people's minds like it did mine. I am not afraid to say that I hate Christianity, and that Christianity SUCKS!!!!

(C.W., 11-23-06)

I hate Christianity for a variety of reasons. The first is the Bible.

(Sarah, 5-12-04)

Oh we all know what being a Christian is all about... it is about hate. Christianity is just plan silly, the idea of Jesus is silly. Go back to your little church, stuff your head in the sand... and live your lie.

(Onanite, 1-5-06)

There's no reason to hate God... after all, you can't hate that which doesn't exist. I choose to hate Christianity, and the destructive power it has on human kind.

(Anonymous, 9-26-06)

If my anger were to materilize [sic] as a bomb, I could blow up a whole residential block. That's what a psychologist told me. He also said that my depression was anger based. But, currently, I am more angry at myself for having believed the %&$#%&%@ that [sic] I am at the christian church itself. Perhaps in ten years I will actually hate christianity like you do today.

But I am somewhat angry at the church. I am particularly angry at the self-righteous hypocrites that thought they had the right to tell me how to feel, how to behave,what to do, and what to believe. Boy, do I ever hate them.

(Lorena, 5-31-06)

But now, it's different. When the fear comes, so does something else. Rage. Anger. Hatred.

I hate to see IT manifest itself in so many ways. The arrogance, the pride, the self-inflated egos of those who say "I'm saved and you're not." I hate to see IT spreading. Whenever I see Billy Graham, I cringe. I see an angry man preaching a fear based message to people who need help. In his messages I find threats and absolutes.

. . . I want to stop IT. I want to see IT lying on the ground, bleeding and dying a painful death for all the misery it has caused. IT deserves nothing less. If there is a hell, then IT should be the only permanent resident. Fear has no place in heaven.

"…Hope you have an asbestos suit, cause you're going to HELL…"

SHUT UP! FOR GOD'S SAKE, SHUT UP!

I grab IT by the neck and I squeeze. I squeeze hard. IT gasps and grabs at IT's throat, IT's copy of the bible falling into the mud.

I squeeze, pushing IT towards the mud.

"DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU'VE DONE?!" I roar. "DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH I HATE YOU?!"

IT changes form. IT's face shifts rapidly. A fundamentalist, hell fire and brimstone preacher, who's kind rants and raves about the torments of hell upon the unbelievers.

. . . Before I can finish the squeeze, IT's form shifts again. This time, it's Billy Graham.

"Mr. Graham." I hiss. "I've been wanting to do this for a very long time." I pick him off the ground and hurl him into a wall. His bible falls from his shirt pocket. I grab it and rip it to shreds. "Where's your precious bible quotes now Mr. Graham?!" I shout, grabbing him by the collar and slamming him back into the wall.

"Tell me Mr. Graham." I hiss to his face. "How do you feel telling well-meaning people that they are doomed to hellfire because they haven't accepted Jesus? How often do you stand up on that dinky little podium of yours and tell the audience that we're all sinners? How often do you tell people that they're damned, damnit?! You my friend, spread fear. You spread the caner. I hope you like that!"

Grabbing his throat, my fingers digging into his skin, I hurl him over my head and face first into a wall. He falls, neck broken. But it's not finished.

Above me, the cloudy sky pours rain as I walk over to Mr. Graham's lifeless corpse. Then IT changes again, this time to the authors of all the fear based bible books and material I've ever seen. IT stands up and looks at me, glaring.

"…It's too bad that you're going to Hell…"

I scream and jump on IT, sending us both into the mud. I grab IT and punch, claw and tear at the faces, the ones who told me that they were my friend, trying to save me. The ones who say that Jesus is the only savior, the ones who frightened me with their work.

I scream and tear at them all, ripping their faces to bloody shreds. All the anger, all the hatred has boiled to the surface, and there is no stopping it. All the mental anguish and all the fear will be dealt with.

With a final slash I send the broken, bashed in face of Greg Laurie sliding through the mud into a rock. I stand, and I stare at the ruined, bloody face of IT. And I turn, facing away. All the pain, all the hatred at these people who threaten me, even if they aren't aware of it. I hate them all. I hate them.

. . . …and I stare into the face of Jesus Christ.

I pause. My clenched fist, so eager to pulverize, hesitates. From the mud, Jesus looks up at me, his face unreadable. No anger, no hate, no love, nothing. He just looks at me, as if letting me know that I can bash his face in if I want.

I look at him.

"Why?" I ask, tears coming from my eyes. "Why?"

He looks at me.

"Do you have any idea, any idea at all, about all the pain your sayings would cause? Do you have any idea at all how much I hate what you say? Do you have any idea whatsoever how much I hate the religion that follows you? Do you have any idea how much I hate its doctrines, its exclusiveness, its fear?! Do you?! DO YOU?!"

He doesn't answer.

"WHY?!" I scream. "WHY, WHY, WHY?!?!?!" Over and over and over I keep screaming it, screaming at a man who supposedly said he was the son of God, at the man that millions adore and worship.

And yet…he does not answer me.

"I HATE YOU!" I scream. "I HATE YOU!"

And then IT changes one more time. The face and body of Jesus vanish, replaced with an unexpected form.

Mine.

I stare at myself, standing there. My own face is angry. My own face is full of rage. IT glares back at me with the same anger I have.

My God…why? I'm becoming just like IT.

Maybe it's not the people I hate. It’s the fear that they spread that I hate. It's the darkness that they spread that I despise, that I detest. It's the ideas that drive people apart, that cripple people's lives, that plunges them into the depths of despair and fear.

That's what I hate. I don't hate these people. I hate the darkness within them…and me.

For fear is like cancer. It takes hold and it doesn't let go.

. . . I prayed to God while I was in bed. No, more like, pleaded and cried. I ranted at God how I hated Christianity, how I hate its doctrines, its exclusiveness, and how it uses fear. I ranted at God at how much I hated it, how I thought it was a cancer upon the earth that needed to be wiped out.

(Ian, 6-16-06)

. . . we don't "hate" Christians---however, yes, many of us loathe Christianity, and especially the tactics used to promote it.

(boomSLANG, 11-18-06)

Have I fully denied the existence of God? No... I have more rebelled from Christianity and ran from this Jesus that I have come to hate. How do I love someone I don't even like?! I don't love God, and I don't know how to, This God that loves me is the only source of power to save me ....yet he chooses not to!

(Mark Fouche, 1-23-06)

After this remarkable and pathetic parade of irrational anger and folly, I would actually like to end on a positive note, just as I began on one. I wrote a post about how atheist Jim Lazarus was excoriating an atheist group called The Rational Response Squad, for their ridiculous attacks on Christians and Christianity. Some excerpted highlights:

Every single catch phrase is something along the lines of, "Believing in God is a disease, and we can cure it!" or "Theism is a mind virus!", etc. The entire project reeks of arrogance. It'd be nice to see them have to deal with a series of intelligent theists, and see how they perform.

But I can't support a movement that depicts theism as a mind disease. It's incredibly arrogant, in my never so humble opinion.

My problems were based on the arrogance and narrow mindedness of its attitude, evidenced by the way that you've been acting toward believers the entire time. Your catch phrases and slogans are especially telling. Right on the front page: "Fighting to Free Humanity from the Mind Disorder Known as Theism".

Suggesting that belief in theism is worthy of comparison to beliefs of men in mental institutions demonstrates the same close-minded and arrogant attitude that I mentioned in my post. Simply because some believers support ridiculous things does not mean that they all do, or that theism itself is necessarily a deranged idea.

I'm speaking out against arrogance in the form of shallow analysis from a "better than thou" perspective, where "shallow" is essentially a cheap consideration of whatever issue a person is opposing. There's a difference between this and calling a clearly unintelligent person, unintelligent.

If you think that Ray is an intelligent theist, then this would actually prove that you have no idea what an intelligent theist is really like. I've met more sophisticated believers in teenage Christian chatrooms than Ray Comfort. If you're looking for intelligent theists, try Richard Swinburne, or Paul Moser, or William Lane Craig, or many believers in the Reformed tradition, or other up-and-coming names in theistic apologetics such as Victor Reppert, Douglas Groothuis, and others. These are intelligent believers, as well as those who have committed themselves to studying and defending the arguments put forward by them, and the number of those people is growing every day.

By pushing the issue on Comfort, you've more or less proved one of the complaints that I made at the outset. FAOR has set out an agenda against theism, and yet it falls horribly short of that by focusing its criticisms against unimpressive believers. From there, you make sweeping claims about theism in general and by extension believers in general, calling it a mind disease. At the end of the day your project comes nowhere close to a strong critique of theism in general, and therefore "Anonymous" is correct when he or she says that this program is only on the level of teenagers and those people who are "Mad At God".

Dialogue with Former Christian, Dr. Jim Arvo, on Various Aspects of "Deconversion"

Dr. Jim Arvo: Associate Professor of
Information and Computer Science
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine

This exchange took place on the ExChristian.Net site (in a combox), in response to my critique of the webmaster Dave Van Allen's "anti-testimony." Dr. Arvo's words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green. Dave Van Allen's words will be in purple.

* * * * *

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

You start by responding to Dave's comment "None of this proves or disproves Christianity..." with the statement "If such stories give no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity then (not to be insulting), I humbly submit: what good are they at all?"

You erroneously equate lack of "proof" with "no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity". That is a gross misinterpretation. Dave is acknowledging what is manifestly true--that neither side can be PROVEN absolutely. However, proofs are not what we employ when deciding upon empirical matters; we marshal evidence. I submit to you (not to be insulting) that the difference is enormous, and that the weight of evidence is not on the side of Christianity.

That's a good point, and it did cross my mind. However, in light of Dave's later comments, I think I was justified in reading it the way I did, and not in the more technical epistemological sense you suggested. E.g., Dave claims in the combox:

My mind was opened to reality, and is continuing to be opened to reality, as the myths and gods of my youth are abandoned to be replaced by reason.

Also: he describes Christianity as "primitive imaginings" and a "phony cult" that "enslave[s] the mind." It is supposedly anti-science and (most ridiculous of all) allegedly "caused the Dark Ages." To me this implies that somewhere along the line he assumes Christianity has been rationally disproven, or at least so discredited that he has justification to speak in such insulting and derogatory terms.

And that gets back to my point: either he thinks his deconversion story offers some of the reasons why he thinks Christianity is false or it doesn't. If it does, where are they? I saw none as I examined it. If it doesn't (as I interpreted), then what good is it? Frankly, who cares about horror stories of the ignorant, anti-intellectual fundamentalists he mostly associated with? It may tickle the fancy of former Christians who love to hear these things, but it doesn't advance the discussion at all. It is merely anecdotes about fools.

And I would add that if he couldn't extricate himself from such know-nothingism for 30 years, what does that say about his intellectual discernment? Does he mean to imply that he couldn't find a single Christian congregation anywhere for 30 years, that respected the mind and science and philosophy, and had a thought-out view of culture, politics, the arts, etc.? I find that astounding. Catholicism (my group) certainly offers all that. And many Protestant groups and congregations do. I've been in them myself (as a former Protestant evangelical). But it doesn't reflect well on his own judgment as a Christian.

In response to Dave's story about asking difficult questions as a child, DA responded "I would ask the child back: 'why do you presume to question God's purposes for doing anything, or act as if we would or could or should understand everything that God does, in the first place?'"

What a terrible answer. You are, in effect, saying that the child must simply accept the story as given, without testing it against their own experience or their own notion of justice and compassion. While the latter ought not be the ultimate yard stick, it should certainly sound an alarm if a religious teaching proclaims compassion yet appears to lack it in its most basic teaching. I should think it far better to explain why we should accept that god's actions appear less charitable than the child's own would have been, and why the child should continue to seriously question actions that appear unkind or downright devious.

I didn't say all that. You read that into what I said. My point was simply to note that we shouldn't expect to know all about God's deepest purposes, by the very nature of the case (or Being). Later I made analogies to the many deep mysteries of science (origins of life, DNA, why gravity acts as it does, etc.). I'm contending that if we can acknowledge mystery in science, why not also in theology? In that context I was presupposing belief in God. If you grant that, then given the traditional theistic / Jewish / Christian concept of a transcendent, monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent God, it is foolish to think that we can figure all that out, since clearly such a Being is many magnitudes greater in thinking ability.

That was my point: not that one should render blind faith, or be a fideist. I have always opposed that. I would never urge that on anyone. Now, if people in your past or Dave's taught that they were wrong, and I fully agree with your general critique of their mentality.

"...many atheists collapse Christianity into know-nothing fundamentalism, so that it can be dismissed as 'anti-intellectual' and 'anti-science'..."

I don't know who the "many" are that you speak of.

Isn't it obvious even in this combox? E.g.:

rd:

. . . the total fallacy of religions is anyway? Your longing for a belief in the after life that you are willing to deny the obvious? The obvious truth being, that it's all a lie.

Anytime you need faith in order to believe something, you are expected to go beyond your own intellectual honesty and accentually lie to yourself knowing full well deep down inside it could not possibly be true.

Kill the old self and lie to the new self, step beyond reality into mental delusions of psuedo [sic]grandeur.

. . . incredable [sic] imbecilic nonsense . . .

It was clear in Dave's deconversion as well. Such rhetoric is very common among atheists / agnostics / skeptics / "freethinkers". Look at Dawkins and Hitchens, for heaven's sake. There are exceptions (you seem to be one of them and I know others personally from the Internet and in "real life") but I stand by my generalization, based on many years of experience of debates and discussions. I used the word "many"; not "most" or "almost all."

At exchristian.net there are hundreds of Christian visitors who zealously place themselves into this category by refusing to examine any of their beliefs and by attempting to discredit science in the large with childishly simplistic and fallacious arguments. We, as a rule, do not use such visitors as an excuse to dismiss anything (which is what you are apparently suggesting).

Why deal with them at all? If thinking Christians and ex-Christians agree that they shouldn't be dealt with seriously, then why the obsession with them? It's because (in my humble opinion) that is the easiest way for an ex-Christian to live with his or her decision to leave Christianity. It's in their interest to caricature Christianity into the silly anti-intellectual wing of it, so it can be rejected (because even a Christian like myself would readily reject the same things insofar as they are stupid and mindless). You take the very worst, fringe aspects of something in order to reject it.

In fact, some sites, like Debunking Christianity, openly state as a matter of emphasis and policy that they are interested mainly if not solely, in dealing with fundamentalist Christianity. 95% or so of the remaining sectors of Christianity are ignored (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, more sophisticated brands of Presbyterianism and Calvinism in general: folks like Alvin Plantinga, Anglo-Catholicism, Methodism, etc.).

Serious analysis of a competing view will deal with the most respectable form of it, not the dumbest and least respectable.

However, they do get dismissed because they contribute nothing.

And then a serious Christian who comes along gets to deal with all their baggage and the latent hostile attitudes, as if they represented the sum of Christianity . . .

"...what makes him [Dave] think that he knows better than scholars who have studied these things for years? This is a common motif in atheist deconversions. They know better than everyone else."

Tell me, which scholar should we all listen to?

I wasn't talking about any particular one, but all of them as a class. Again, if one is to rationally dismiss a point of view, shouldn't he at least seek out some of the better representatives of it?

Yes, of course. Do you imply that people here have not done that?

My replies had to do with Dave Van Allen, not all 473 skeptics at ExChristian.Net.

That was my point. I kept wondering if Dave had even tried to do that, or if he would ask a question of some pastor who wouldn't have a clue, and then just give up, as if no Christian on the face of the earth could offer the slightest reply to his probing questions.

Many made a desperate effort to rescue their waning beliefs by pursuing a wide spectrum of apologetics, looking for something well-founded. The Webmaster himself went though this.

If so, there was no indication of it whatsoever in his anti-testimony.

It sounds as though you chastise them for not having settled upon your particular brand of Christianity. Each sect could take the same stand (and to a degree, that's what they do).

My reply had nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic distinctives over against other brands of Christianity. I never defend Catholicism when debating atheists, but Christianity in general.

Not everybody thinks Catholicism is the most rational branch of Christianity--I'm sure you are aware of that. (To the regulars here: Please pardon my understatement.)

No kidding? I'm so shocked I think I'll faint.

You know as well as I that 1) what some scholars have to say is not worthy of the name "scholarship", and 2) there are legitimate scholars on both sides of practically any issue.

Sure, but that was irrelevant to my point, clarified above.

In the end, each of us must decide which line of reasoning is most coherent and has the greater force of evidence (thanks, in part, to the efforts of legitimate scholars).

Indeed. That's what I'm saying: read the best of both sides, in any given debate, not the best of one and worst of the other, or only one side.

That's what I've done for close to thirty years. Do you claim to have read the best on both sides?

I try to familiarize myself with the best arguments, yes (money- and time-permitting). I prefer one-on-one discussion with informed advocates, but it is rare to find such people.

* * *

Do I know better than everyone else? No, I don't believe so, and I don't claim to. But I have a well-thought-out position--one that is coherent, and has benefited from exposure to nimble minds on both sides (Plantinga, who you mention, is among them).

Good for you. I would say exactly the same about my own view. Looks like you and I, then, may be able to engage in some excellent, fruitful dialogue. It's the love of truth and reason and dialogue that allows that to take place.

Bottom line: don't dismiss all atheists as simply thinking they are smarter than anybody else.

Many clearly do think so. Again, I appeal to the rhetoric commonly seen here and in similar places, about how "imbecilic" and "obviously false" Christianity is. That is the language of condescension and a "know-it-all" mentality. You are an exception, apparently, but exceptions don't disprove the rule, as they say.

Instead, I encourage you to address their arguments with the same dedication that they put into forming them.

I did my best with Dave's anti-testimony, and am doing so presently.

* * *

Thanks again for your thoughts. I am enjoying the discussion.

Gerry Matatics Has Gone Completely (Theologically) Nuts

"I'm the Non-Catholic Your Catholic Parents Warned You About"

What a waste of zeal and brain power. Check out this amazing stuff:

. . . authentic Catholic Faith and that authentic Catholic Church are no longer found at the local parish, in the local diocese, or even ruling from Rome in our day.

[ . . . ]

Fact #9: John XXIII was not an orthodox Catholic, even before his election, but a modernist and a manifest heretic, a Freemason, and a promoter of Communism and Talmudic Judaism.

Fact #10: Paul VI was not an orthodox Catholic, even before his election, but a modernist and a manifest heretic, a Freemason, and a promoter of Communism and Talmudic Judaism (and possibly even a Jew himself).

Fact #11: John Paul I was not an orthodox Catholic, even before his election, but a modernist and a manifest heretic.

Fact #12: John Paul II was not an orthodox Catholic, even before his election, but a modernist and a manifest heretic, a Freemason, and a promoter of Communism and Talmudic Judaism (and possibly even a Jew himself).

Fact #13: Benedict XVI is not an orthodox Catholic, even before his election, but a modernist and a manifest heretic, and a promoter of Talmudic Judaism.

Again, I will provide abundant documentation in support of each of these claims in an expanded version of this essay to be posted in the near future.

Fact #14: This being so in the case of each of these men, another alarming but inescapable fact emerges from this: namely that, according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, these five men cannot be lawful successors to St. Peter, i.e. valid occupants of his papal throne.

[ . . . ]

Fact #16: This in turn means that, as unlawful usurpers of the papacy, John XXIII had no authority to call, and Paul VI no authority to consummate, a lawful and valid general council of the Church. The therefore illicit and invalid council John XXIII and Paul VI did call and conclude, respectively, would not and could not enjoy the protection and infallibility of the Holy Ghost.

Fact #17: . . . Vatican II's official promulgation of heresies -- something a true ecumenical council of the Church, even a "pastoral" one, is incapable of doing -- shows it to be but another "robber council" like 17 others previously condemned by the Church.

[ . . . ]

Fact #19: The Mass, the central Action of the Church on earth, has been illicitly subjected to radical revisions in the wake of Vatican II. These revisions are in many cases identical to, and in some cases even worse than, the revisions made by the Protestant Reformers, all of which revisions were condemned for all time by the Catholic Church. These revisions even include tampering with the form of the sacrament, the words which must be pronounced to make the sacrament take place. This change alone has rendered the New Mass invalid, making it the "abomination of desolation" predicted by the prophet Daniel and Our Lord. This can be proven from numerous documents of the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church, as Patrick Henry Omlor and many other authors have ably shown.

Reply to Alleged Biblical Contradictions Concerning Judas and His Death (vs. Dave Van Allen and Dr. Jim Arvo)

This is a portion from my reply to an atheist deconversion story by Dave Van Allen, who runs the large website ExChristian.Net. His words will be in blue. Dr. Jim Arvo's words will be in green.

* * * * *

One of the biggest contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it.

Let's examine this alleged contradiction:

Matthew 27:5-10 (RSV) And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

Acts 1:18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Now, do these two descriptions necessarily formally contradict? No. For example, here is one way that the seeming discrepancy of the purchase of the field can be explained:

Regarding the "purchasing" of the "field"...both accounts are true. The temple rulers bought the plot of ground, like Matthew says. Acts does not contradict Matthew. Remember that the priests said, "it is not lawful to put them into the treasury". In other words, they were not taking actual 'receipt' of the money, diverting it, instead, to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a 'legal' sense (?) since they were not taking 'ownership' of the money, it was still Judas' money. And when Peter speaks of "wages of iniquity", it is not that Judas bought the plot of ground...but that the money he had received to betray Jesus had bought it. The money was Judas' "wages"...but he threw it back, and the priests weren't accepting it. These "30 pieces" were like the proverbial "hot potato" BLOOD MONEY both parties were trying to get rid of. Technically it was still Judas' money, which the priests used to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a legal sense, it could be said that Judas bought it, because it was 'his money' that bought it.

. . . And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess'.

[ source ]

The supposed contradiction of the purchase is also clarified by looking at the Greek words involved, as another Christian site devoted to alleged biblical discrepancies explains:

Once we examine the original Greek, we see Matthew and Luke differentiate between terms of ownership. Matthew uses the word ajgoravzw (legal ownership) while Luke uses ktaomai (physical possession). In other words, Judas purchased the field in his name and was therefore the legal owner, but after his death, the priests obtained the field for communal use yet did not possess the legal rights to it. In layman's terms, Judas purchased the field but the priest acquired the field after his death.

And Judas' manner of death is speculated upon by another web page, without falling into necessary contradiction:

1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before.

2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.

Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established.

MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction that there are two different accounts of how Judas died.

Notice verse 5."Then he...went and hanged himself." Matthew does not say Judas died, does it? Should we assume he died as a result of the hanging?

What does Acts say? ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death. Of course, maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst open in the middle, and still survive. :)

So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth re: the "two" accounts of Judas' death is this. Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' death.

We do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records his death. It is possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open. However, Matthew did not say Judas died as a result of the hanging, did he? Most scholars believe he probably did, but....

One atheist I debated along these lines said... the Greek word "apagchw" (ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging. I replied, No you can't only conclude this, although...this was a highly probable outcome. But Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word is APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb." Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. LXX, APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply means "hang oneself".

The same page discusses the aspect of the purchase:

Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.

So we see that very plausible Christian explanations can be and have been advanced for these things. I doubt that young Dave sought these out. He merely asked questions of people who usually weren't prepared to give an adequate defense and counter-explanation. Then Dave used their non-answer as a pretext for falsely supposing that no Christian could provide any plausible explanation, thus leading to the further unwarranted conclusion that the Bible was untrustworthy (hence, Christianity itself).

In contrast, here is Dave's counter-"explanation" from the combox:

[T]he real point is that neither the writer of Matthew nor the writer of Luck actually saw any of it - it was all hearsay. It seems obvious that each writer merely tailored the details of the fable in order to demonize either the Jewish leaders or Judas, depending on the writer's personal motive.

Besides, I've heard that worn out apologetic a hundred times, and for many a year I even tried to believe it. I'm ashamed to say I even preached it to others.

However, both stories cannot be true - period. Since there is some measure of inaccuracy in at least one of the stories, that would suggest that the Bible is not inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant in even one sentence, then there is error, and that means it is NOT the word of a god.

. . . the evidence remains that Judas either hanged himself in a field he purchased, or he had a nasty fall in a field that someone else purchased. More than likely, neither story has a shred of truth in it and the writers of the two gospels simply felt that Judas needed to end up dead after his horrible "mortal" sin of kissing God on the lips.

You (be you atheist or Christian or something else) decide which is more reasoned and plausible, and which is mere dogmatic denial based on a preconceived bias.

Clearly, anyone could reject anything if they utilized such a "method" and refused to seek out the more informed proponents of said belief-system before finding it wanting. That is Mickey Mouse pseudo-intellectualism, not serious thought and seeking of truth. if Dave Van Allen conceded (today) that this is not a case of two obvious contradictions, then he would have to remove this objection from the collection of those that caused him to reject Christianity.

If the Christian could (speaking hypothetically for the moment) systematically debunk all of his similar objections, does that mean his deconversion is nullified and he would again become a Christian? Maybe so, but that is ultimately a matter of God's grace and faith. Apologists can only remove the roadblocks of false objections. We can lead the horse to the stream and show that there are no unassailable hindrances in getting to the stream, but we can't force the horse to drink.

I wrote to an evangelistic radio ministry out of Richmond Virginia, asking for direction about these apparent problems. I was only thirteen and they responded to my cry for help with a short note. Instead of an intellectually satisfying apologetic, they merely admonished that some things could only be answered through the eyes of faith. I pretty much got the same answer everywhere I went.

Exactly my point. But he did not seek enough answers. There are entire books written about such things, such as, for example, volumes by biblical scholars Gleason Archer and William Arndt. It's even easier now with the Internet (I found the above explanations in short order via Google). Dave didn't have that back then, but books existed in those days, way back in the 60s and 70s. But instead, young Dave settled for non-answers from fundamentalist types unacquainted with apologetics and an intellectual grounding for their faith.

Maybe he didn't know any better then, and can be given some slack (he at least tried to get answers from someone) but he should now, especially after reading this (assuming he ever does). It's a classic case, though, of the absence of apologetics, where it was crucial that it was present, in order to help a young zealous Christian harmonize faith and reason without contradiction or serious difficulty. It wasn't there, and by his own admission, this led him to later reject Christianity.

This is why I do what I do. Apostasy can be avoided in part by an understanding of the reasons why we believe what we believe. That's apologetics. It is extremely important in a Christian's life. As the proverb goes: "the heart cannot accept what the mind believes to be false."

* * * * *

Having studied the arguments of a great many apologists who purport to dismantle the "so-called contradictions", I can say with little hesitation that I find their arguments to be artificial and filled with special pleading and often circular reasoning. (See below for an example.)

As I have found the hackneyed, facile skeptical arguments, that are often so silly that they don't even understand that a clear formal contradiction is not present at all, but simply wished upon the texts, as a result of the usual predispositional bias of the textual critic. I have several examples on my site.

I don't deny that there are difficult textual questions. Of course there are (and there are silly Christian arguments to be found), and Christian scholars devote entire careers to them in some cases. But many "difficulties" are in fact, none at all.

Regarding how Judas met his demise, DA said "... And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he 'fall headlong'? Both are obviously true."

Obviously?! Why is that obvious?

What is obvious is that it is not a formal contradiction. It just isn't. As a professor, surely you can see and acknowledge that. The two passages can easily be synthesized in several different ways. A true contradiction would be something along the lines of:

1) Judas went and hanged himself and died in five minutes, and his dead body had only a mark on his neck.

2) Judas did not hang himself from a tree, but rather, fell headlong onto sharp rocks and his bowels gushed out and he died.

That is clearly a contradiction, and no one would deny it. But the biblical texts under consideration are not.

Of course it's not a "formal" contradiction! You are unlikely to find many formal contradictions in prose! If I said I had been sick with the flu, and had a 110 fever all day on Wednesday, and I later claimed to have run a marathon in under three hours that same day, there is no formal contradiction. It's conceivable that both were true. However, without some explication, it would be quite fair to think something was amiss in my claims--that not both are true.

Just as it is also "quite fair" to surmise that there was no contradiction of any sort if it isn't obvious. Goose and gander.

As for the Judas accounts, both appear to offer an explanation as to HOW Judas died; that is, they both convey the fact that Judas died, and they give details of a life-ending event. One is quite explicit in asserting that the death was by hanging.

This is untrue. The text (if we want to get technical, as these discussions of "Bible contradictions" always do) says he "hanged himself." It doesn't say he died by hanging. He may very well have, of course, and it is not unreasonable at all to suppose so, but it is also equally reasonable and plausible to harmonize the two accounts in one of the various ways I have presented. He could, for example, have died by hanging and then the body may have fallen, with his bowels coming out. And that is no contradiction. It is mentioning different aspects of what happened to him, in two accounts.

The other mentions a bizarre event of disembowelment. The natural reading of the second is that this bizarre event was the CAUSE of death. Without further explication, there is an apparent contradiction.

It may have been the actual cause of death (with his falling from the tree as he was hanging, but before he had died) or it may not have been , as in my above hypothetical example. It's all speculation on both sides, but a contradiction has not been established; period. End of sentence. The claim is that a contradiction is present, and it has not been proven.

* * *

Certainly not by a plain reading of the text. Do you think it improper for someone to point to the two different accounts and suggest that they contradict?

They could possibly, but not necessarily. When one approaches texts with such hostility and animosity coming in, itching to find a contradiction, then they will "see" them where there are none.

That's ad hominem. I'm not interested in such appeals.

You may not be interested, and it may or not be ad hominem, but it remains a prevalent fact of atheist / agnostic / skeptical exegesis. I've seen it a hundred times. You may not be guilty of it, but many are, and I was making a general observation, as I often do in the midst of discussions.

It seems to me that Christian, though biased in favor of harmonization of biblical texts, at least comes to it with a positive goal of understanding it in a coherent way. But the critic assumes that it is a bundle of contradictions, written by gullible nomadic idiots and shepherds, and so find what they want to find.

He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his 'entrails gush out' when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us.

Right, lots of details will be missing from any story. However, this does not give you license to ADD whatever detail you wish. In this case you are assuming that the missing details will harmonize the two accounts. Why do you assume that?

Because I am giving the texts the benefit of the doubt, that both parties were telling the truth according to the information available to them.

Why do you assume that?

I explained below, by the analogy of court cases; also because it is the most sensible way to approach anything, unassuming and in charity rather than cynicism.

Then, even if that is so, why do you assume that the information is accurate? Certainly it's possible that the stories are honest and accurate information written by those who were in a position to actually know what happened. But that is one possibility among many.

Following my method above, I assume it is accurate unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Also, it is known that the biblical writers conveyed information with extraordinary accuracy. We know this from outside historical and archaeological evidences.

Stories can and do get passed on inaccurately, paraphrased, and embellished. They can also be synthesized from older texts, through midrash. At the other extreme we have total unfounded fabricated, although I see no reason to think the latter is likely in this case.

Like I said, the accuracy of the Bible has been verified again and again as further independent data is gathered (often making higher critics look like fools in their bold claims that are later proven to be false).

* * *

. . . the two can be synthesized and harmonized, just as we would do with two witnesses in a trial, of good character and reputation. We don't assume that their eyewitness accounts clash or that someone is lying because there are some details that don't harmonize at first glance.

No, of course not. Neither do we simply assume that things took place exactly as described. Particularly when it's unclear how the writer came to know what is in the story. One needn't jump to the extreme of "lying" in order to legitimately doubt a report, as per my comments above.

Be that as it may, this particular discussion has to do with whether a glaring contradiction is present. Remember, Dave claimed this was one of the clearest examples of that. I contend that he has failed to demonstrate it.

It is also possible that the missing details would make it even more difficult to harmonize the accounts.

Of course. But the Christian who harmonizes is basically expanding upon what we know in the texts. Nothing wrong with that, just as historical fiction is considered valid as far as it goes: as speculation building upon what we know.

Missing details are MISSING. We do not know what they are. If you claim that there is no contradiction because facts can be inserted to harmonize them, then you are begging the question--i.e. you claim there is no contradiction because fact X can be inserted to harmonize the accounts. But if your reason for assuming X is that it harmonizes the accounts, that is circular.

Not quite. I am saying that there was no contradiction in the first place. A formal contradiction has not been established; as in most atheist arguments of this sort, it is assumed with insufficient warrant. You have to first prove that a formal contradiction is present in the text.

No, that's a specious claim. The word "formal" is completely out of place in this discussion. If we were discussing mathematical proofs, then we would seek formal contradictions. What we have before us are written accounts by people we cannot question. If the obvious surface meaning of the text leads to an improbable scenario (i.e. a person dying in two different ways), then there is sufficient warrant to doubt that they are both true.

And we have attempted to show that it is not necessary to interpret in the sense that there are two conflicting, contradictory stories. People may differ on which scenario is more plausible. I'm glad to leave that to the fair-minded person's judgment. Both sides have been presented; let folks decide for themselves. That's what I am about. We can each claim our view is best all day long but in the end such claims are meaningless. Others will have to decide who has the better interpretation.

* * *

When the Christian speculates on unknown details, it is an argument from plausibility or possibility, not strict logic. That is permissible, but claiming contradictions when they cannot be proven is what is out of line, and lousy thinking.

When a Christian speculates, it's not automatically "plausible"; it's still speculation.

Of course. Plausibility is dependent on many other factors, and people will differ in judging that. My point was that arguments from plausibility are superior to erroneous claims of contradiction that cannot be substantiated.

If there is something to substantiate it, it may or may not then be deemed "plausible".

Yes, exactly.

And again, your claim about "proving" contradictions is specious. One cannot "prove" that something is a contradiction in a formal sense in most prose. These are not formal arguments. In general, they cannot be. There is always an element of likelihood involved. And, no, it's not "lousy thinking". You can do better than a quip like that.

Christians are subject to many quips. I am entitled to judge the strength of arguments, just as ours are routinely judged by you guys. I'm confident that you'll survive the duress of critique.

* * *

I grant that the aspect of the texts having to do with purchase of the land is more likely to be a contradiction, and the explanations we offer less plausible and strong. But I don't think they are bad arguments or outright implausible.

But one's attitude coming to the text will highly color such judgments. I am biased in favor; y'all are biased against. I approach the writer as an intelligent person (and Luke certainly was that). You guys usually regard them as primitive gullible simpletons (part of that is "chronological snobbery", as C.S. Lewis calls it), and so expect to find massive error and contradiction.

That's a crass generalization.

It certainly is a generalization, by nature. Whether it is "crass" or not depends on whether it is a true general observation. I say it is. I have cited, for example, atheist Jim Lazarus excoriating atheist ad hominem attacks against Christians.

I know from my own long experience how I have been treated myself, and I have read dozens of ad hominem atheist posts. My experience with atheists is just as valid as your experience with Christians. I'm the first to admit that there are many Christians who have unfair, uncharitable, even sinful views of atheists en masse. Atheists and agnostics should also admit the obvious regarding the extremely negative view that is taken by many many atheists and agnostics towards Christians and the biblical writers.

Let me give you my assessment, so you needn't speculate. I'll use the author of "Mark" as an example. I suspect that the author truly believed what he wrote, and was rather well educated. I do not detect any outright fabrications in his account--not by the standards of the day.

Good. That is more fair than most atheist attempts at exegesis that I have seen.

However, it appears that the author held a common belief of the time: that scripture was a vehicle though which god speaks (in the present tense) to believers.

It's a rather common belief today, too. It's called "biblical inspiration." Obviously, acceptance or denial of that also colors how people interpret. To us the Bible is made up of inspired words ultimately from God. To you who believe neither in God nor the supernatural, it's just an old book. Big difference . . .

He, and his contemporaries, routinely sought to answer historical questions by looking to scripture. If something was "foreshadowed" in scripture, then it must have come to pass. This is not forgery. This is not dishonesty. Yet it is not a reliable way to conduct historical research either (at least not by today's standards).

I think this is overly simplistic. The gospel writers and Luke in the book of Acts were writing narratives with an eye to producing what we call "salvation history." But one can judge the historical accuracy of these books wholly apart from acceptance of Christian claims that go beyond mere historical writing.

The Judas story, by the way, may have been invented in this way as well. That is a possibility I always consider when reading the Bible.

Well, you would, based on your presuppositions. Thanks for your honesty. We Christians simply accept the text at face value, as we would any other text. Judas died, and there are two accounts of that death, and they do not contradict, as is claimed.

The point being that there may be other legitimate reasons for adding some missing detail--I don't discount that. But I don't see any indication of such an argument in what you've written.

Yet you have not dealt with my arguments themselves. You've only nipped around the edges and engaged in "meta-analysis." That is usually a clue that a person doesn't want to deal with the argument and wants to shift the discussion to extraneous or presuppositional factors. Sometimes that is good, but in the present case, I think it is obfuscation.

Okay, now you have become quite rude.

So you say. I'll let the reader judge whether that is true or not.

That's usually a give-away too. It usually indicates fear of being upstaged.

Is that an ad hominem attack? You tell me. My supposed imaginary "fear" has something to do with the discussion at hand?

I was quite clear that I read only part of your writings, and only responded to part of them. If you actually have something of substance to offer, then please direct me to it, or recap it here. I honestly don't have the time to sift through all you've written looking for something that may make sense to me.

Well, I have enjoyed it, even if you haven't. Thanks for your time.

By the way, I pointed out a very clear circularity in your argument; unless you can substantiate the details you wish to add to the Judas story in some independent way, your argument is fallacious. Please don't nip around the edges. Address that directly if you would. Thanks.

I already did. Thanks again

If you cannot bring yourself to admit that the clear surface meaning of the two Judas accounts are problematic, then it seems to me that you cannot even enter into the debate in a meaningful way IMHO.

Right. And this is what it almost always comes down to in these sorts of discussions. The atheist point of view (on yet another alleged biblical contradiction) is, we are told, self-evidently true. If the Christian can't see that, then there is no discussion. Basically, to disagree at all is to preclude any meaningful discussion. And that is "logic" as viciously circular as it can get . . .

Reply to Deconversion Story of Dave Van Allen, Webmaster of ExChristian.Net

Didn't take long for Dave's "defense" of his deconversion out of Christianity to implode into the black hole of ultra-predictable personal attack (see comments)

ExChristian.Net is a flourishing atheist site, currently receiving about 2300 hits a day. Dave Van Allen is the webmaster. I have an ongoing interest in demonstrating how these common "deconversion" stories of former Christians do not rationally explain why they or anyone else should forsake Christianity. The task is to "defeat the defeater" -- as philosopher Alvin Plantinga might say.

If these are the reasons that atheists give for being an atheist and rejecting Christianity, and we can repeatedly show that they are insufficient for their purpose, then we can systematically demonstrate that whatever the basis for these deconversions are, they are not reasonable or rational, let alone compelling. Yet atheists often pride themselves on being greatly intellectual superior to gullible, rather dumb Christians (that is the tendency, anyway; I hasten to add that there are notable exceptions to the general manifest condescension). Dave's "anti-testimony" story is posted on his site. I shall examine it with a fine-toothed comb. His words will be in blue.

* * * *

I find it absolutely fascinating that at the end of his "anti-testimony" Dave states:

None of this proves or disproves Christianity, I realize, but the purpose of this paper is to show the thinking processes that led to my de-conversion.

Huh?! (scratching head). Are you thinking what I am thinking? If such stories give no reason whatsoever to reject Christianity, then (not to be insulting), I humbly submit: what good are they at all? Who cares about someone's purely subjective experience if it has no bearing on whether someone else should accept or reject Christianity? I appreciate the intellectual humility of admitting that it offers no disproof, but then, doesn't that pretty much defeat its very purpose? It's like one is saying, "here are the reasons why I am not a Christian, but there is no reason to accept my reasons as any reason to reject Christianity." Rather self-defeating or at least intellectually meaningless, wouldn't you think? It's almost as if reason and fact truly don't matter. All that matters is that some other human being has become an atheist and left Christianity. Actual reasons matter less than the bald fact that they have done so, so that others can have company and not feel alone in a dominant-theist society. Having expressed this disclaimer and puzzlement, nevertheless I press on.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***

* * *

It is invariably a shock to Evangelical Christians to come across someone who has turned his or her back on the “faith was once delivered unto the saints.”

Usually, but not always. After all, the Bible often mentions those who will fall away from the faith.

Most believers will quickly dismiss an ex-Christian by piously pointing out that anyone who turns away from Christ was never a real believer.

Calvinists have to believe that because there system does not allow any other interpretation (i.e., the doctrine of perseverance of the saints). But the great majority of Christians now and throughout history (Catholics, Orthodox, Arminian and Wesleyan Protestants) are not Calvinists, and believe that one can truly be a Christian and fall away, lose grace, salvation, etc.

Or, as an insider might say it, “They were never born again.” There is Biblical support for the assertion. 1 John 2:19, which addressed the problem of First Century apostates, states that: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (KJV)

Of course, sometimes that is true. But it is not necessarily true in every case. See a paper of mine where I dispute the assertion that no real Christian can ever fall away, with much biblical examination.

(I’d like to point out here that the previous verse, verse 18, suggests that the writer also believed it was the end of history and that the Antichrist was about to appear. It seems that whoever penned 1 John was premature in announcing it to be the “last time.” He may have been mistaken in his quick judgments against those ancient infidels as well.)

This is an involved argument as to what "last times" means.

For those from a Calvinistic background, the fifth petal of TULIP uncompromisingly declares that those truly chosen by God for salvation will persevere in the faith. They will persevere in the faith because God will preserve them in the faith. Or, as a Baptist fundamentalist might express it: “Once saved always saved.” For fundies, a believer gone bad was just faking their salvation or is presently backslidden and will eventually return to the fold, with their tails between their legs.

If they are Calvinists, yes. Not all "fundamentalists" are, though, of course. Even most Baptists are not five-point Calvinists, although they agree with sternal security.

There are also a plethora of competing denominations that teach people can lose their salvation. To members of those denominations, a fellow believer who has fallen away might have really been saved at one time, but is now lost again. They believe it is possible to get saved, and lost, and saved again, many times, before a person's allotted lifespan runs out.

True. The Catholic or Orthodox, however, would not say a person is "saved" over and over (even most Arminian Protestants, as I once was, would not speak in such terms) because we view salvation as more of a process that is only completed at death (or what Protestants would call "eschatological salvation" -- i.e., the salvation of the future when one actually gets to heaven). Catholics would say such a person was in mortal sin, separated from God, out of God's graces, etc.

The reason for this brief essay is to share my testimony about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and my repentance from that relationship. What follows may unnerve some of my closer associates and will likely alienate some of my good friends. I have absolutely no desire to alienate anyone since I have already spent years as a zealous evangelical Christian, alienating dozens and dozens of people in the name of Christ. However, it is only fair to those who know me to allow them a glimpse into where I am coming from, now.

Fair enough. I don't deny this past experience. I don't have to. But I am free to deny the reasoning that led to his rejection of Christianity, as inadequate and insufficient, because if that influences other people, and it is untrue and found wanting, then Christians (and especially apologists like myself) are duty-bound to expose its weaknesses and fallacies.

When I was very young, my parents attended a Presbyterian Church. I used to watch my father pray during the service. His eyes would close and his chin would rest against his chest. I wondered if he was asleep. At home, my mother would tell my brother and I Bible stories. I always had questions for her: “Why did God put the tree of knowledge in the garden since he knew what would happen?”

Well, so that human beings could exercise their free will and choose to obey God or disobey Him. I would ask the child back: "why do you presume to question God's purposes for doing anything, or act as if we would or could or should understand everything that God does, in the first place?"

I also wondered whom Cain married, if dinosaurs were taken on the ark, and all kinds of things my mother could not answer.

The seeds of atheism, because a mother couldn't answer every garden-variety objection of a bright kid . . . but of course, that is where the function of apologetics is very helpful.

My parents stopped regularly attending church when I was nine,

Much like my experience (I was ten).

but still sent my brother and me to Vacation Bible School during the summer. I was diligent to learn all the Bible lessons, stories and doctrines, earning multiple gold stars in each class. Though I do not remember it, my mother likes to tell a story that even when I was 5 years old, I would come home from Sunday School, gather the un-churched neighborhood kids together on our porch, and parrot all I had been taught that morning.

Zeal that later, unfortunately, was applied to atheist pursuits . . .

I was eleven years old in 1969.

Me too!

My grandmother was a staunch Baptist. In fact, she was one of the founding members of the First Baptist Church in Ashtabula Ohio, and was absolutely devoted to the place. The Church had hired an aggressive youth minister who wanted to see more young people attending services. His name was Norm, and he organized a youth rally which featured a movie produced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The movie's aim was the conversion of young people. My grandmother invited me to the meeting and of course I loved my Grandma, so I got a ride from my Dad and sat with her to watch the show. I don’t remember the title of the movie, but the basic plot centered on one of the male characters who accepts Christ and starts to tell his friends about it. One of his unbelieving friends makes terrible fun of the whole thing, mocks Christ, and mocks the threat of going to hell. The unbelieving friend ends is horribly killed up accidentally trapped in a burning barn toward the end of the film and dies horrifically, going straight to a Christless grave.

I am not sure how powerful of a flick it was, but it got to me.

As it should. The threat of hell is very real.

Before that movie, I knew about God and the Bible and Jesus, but now I realized I had no personal relationship with Christ, and I needed one. When the altar call was given to come forward and accept Christ, I did not go forward, but listened intently, memorizing the “sinner’s prayer.”

I had a very similar experience around the same time, at a Baptist church that my sister found out about, through a friend. It was short-lived, though, because it wasn't followed-through with regular church attendance or Christian education. so I wasn't particularly pious and shortly after got fascinated with the occult, the paranormal, and ESP, etc.

Later that night, in the dark and quiet of my room, I got down on my knees confessed my sins, repented as much as I knew how, and accepted Christ into my heart. It was a mind-altering experience for me. In my mind’s eye I visualized the Creator of all physically with me in the room. I felt overwhelmed with what I believed was a personal and direct manifestation of the LORD. I cried and cried. The emotional cleansing and reality of that moment has never left me, and as I write about it now, it comes alive once again.

I had that sort of experience in my evangelical conversion of 1977, when I was 18.

The very next morning, I started carrying a small New Testament to school with me. I was in the sixth grade, reading a KJV, and doing my best to understand what I could from its inspired pages. I began attending church that week, and became a regular customer at the local Christian Book Store. My paper route wages and tips found investment in books and comic book tracts by Jack Chick, which I read and distributed zealously.

Ignorant, anti-Catholic material; the very stereotype of fundamentalist know-nothingism . . .

After my twelfth birthday I was asked if I would like to be trained as a counselor for the new Billy Graham evangelistic movie entitled “For Pete’s Sake,” which was being sponsored by several local churches. The showings were to be at Shea’s Theater in downtown Ashtabula. I eagerly agreed and dutifully submitted myself to the counselor training by memorizing the required verses and receiving a certificate as a bona fide counselor. At the end of each night, a short salvation message was shared by one of the local pastors, followed by the traditional Billy Graham style altar call. During the course of the weekend, I was able to assist several young people from my own age group as they came forward to make decisions for Christ.

Good for him. God had mercy on his soul, insofar as he did these good works before falling away.

Following that crusade, I was excited. I began to do street evangelism on my own. I witnessed to other kids at school, and even led a fellow Boy Scout to the lord while on a week long Boy Scout camp. His name is Phil and is presently a pastor at an American Baptist Church outside of Youngstown Ohio.

Good fruits last. Becoming an atheist later on doesn't undo the helpful things that were done while a Christian.

I started a junior high school Bible study group, and taught the others who joined how to lead others to Christ ala Billy Graham. (“The Romans Road” with some small variations, was what Billy recommended back then.) The early 1970’s saw the height of the Jesus People Movement in the US,

My brother Gerry got caught up in that, and this was a serious influence that later led to my conversion, after fighting it for six years.

so naturally I became involved with other non-denominational youth study groups held at various houses around town. I was introduced to CS Lewis, Watchman Nee and other famous Christian authors during this time. I drank every word written in those books like it was water. A prolific reader even in junior high I was insatiable for more and more information.

Good (though Watchman Nee has some questionable teachings).

Reggie Kirk, my Boy Scout Master, recognized my thirst for more spiritual enlightenment and invited me to his church, the local Assembly of God, where I learned I needed the Baptism in the Holy Spirit to be a complete Christian. I attended one Sunday night when, providentially, the topic being discussed was that very doctrine. I went forward during the altar call to receive the “Baptism” and kept those poor people there long after the service ended as I pleaded with the Almighty to grace me with the Holy Ghost and tongues. Finally, after two hours of eye watering, knee hardening prayer, and some helpful coaching from a woman who stood with me, I babbled a few syllables. Everyone pronounced proudly that I had indeed received the Holy Spirit. Now, as a full-fledged tongue-talking Jesus person, I went full steam into making a difference in the world for Christ.

He may or may not have spoken in tongues. There is a lot of fakery that goes on (I know, from attending an A/G church myself for four years, and other charismatic fellowships).

My parents, who at best were only nominally religious, viewed my obsessive enthrallment with church-stuff as disconcerting and worrisome. My mother, knowing I loved to read, decided to introduce me to her understanding of reality which was embodied in the writings of Edgar Cayce. My mother was a Reincarnationist. I rejected her teaching, witnessed to her unceasingly for the next 25 years about the love of Christ, and read everything published concerning the psychic Cayce.

Interesting . . . I would have probably tried to defend Cayce, in my occult-leaning period.

My grades suffered terribly in junior high, as I could not see any value to secular learning. I viewed the world as passing away, valueless compared with heavenly knowledge with eternal relevance.

That is a classic fundamentalist mindset, that is out of the mainstream of Christianity, and should never be equated with the latter (though many atheists collapse Christianity into know-nothing fundamentalism, so that it can be dismissed as "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science"). Billy Graham would never countenance such a view. He helped found the magazine Christianity Today, which is one of the leading vehicles of evangelical thinking and scholarship today.

As puberty became more influential in my thought processes, I struggled terribly with the hormonal demands of my body verses the tenets of the Church concerning any sort of sensual pleasure. Jesus taught that it is just as sinful to have any sort of lustful thought, as to actually act on any of them. I found adolescence very difficult on my thought life, finding myself in a perpetual war with guilt. I agonized over my sexuality, begging God to deliver me from temptation, to no avail. It was depressing.

No one is saying it is easy. But it is possible to abstain from immoral sexual activity with God's help. I did it, and if I could, anyone could.

I began to distinguish myself in music during this time, receiving nothing but positive feedback on my performance. By the time I was 14, I was being hired to play trombone semi-professionally.

Lots of similarities there. I played trombone in a very good, nationally-known high school orchestra and band (Cass Technical High School in Detroit). I took lessons from the first chair in the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, even before I got to high school, in order to get into the symphony band. That's how high the requirements were!

It was fun. I had begun finding inconsistencies in the Bible when I noticed numerous contradictions between various number citations in the Old Testament.

Again, what makes him think that he knows better than scholars who have studied these things for years? This is a common motif in atheist deconversions. They know better than everyone else. They can see "obvious truths" that most Christians, in their naive gullibility, miss. That's not to say that there are no biblical problems to be worked out. Of course there are many things that scholars debate and mull over. But that is no different from, for example, the scientific method. There are a host of difficulties and unexplained things in science, yet it doesn't lead people to reject science because it doesn't possess all answers to everything. So why should the Bible and Christianity be approached differently?

Then I was confused by the multiple conflicting details in the resurrection stories in the Gospels, as well as in Paul’s version. One of the biggest contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it.

Let's examine this alleged contradiction:

Matthew 27:5-10 (RSV) And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

Acts 1:18 (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Now, do these two descriptions necessarily formally contradict? No. For example, here is one way that the seeming discrepancy of the purchase of the field can be explained:

Regarding the "purchasing" of the "field"...both accounts are true. The temple rulers bought the plot of ground, like Matthew says. Acts does not contradict Matthew. Remember that the priests said, "it is not lawful to put them into the treasury". In other words, they were not taking actual 'receipt' of the money, diverting it, instead, to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a 'legal' sense (?) since they were not taking 'ownership' of the money, it was still Judas' money. And when Peter speaks of "wages of iniquity", it is not that Judas bought the plot of ground...but that the money he had received to betray Jesus had bought it. The money was Judas' "wages"...but he threw it back, and the priests weren't accepting it. These "30 pieces" were like the proverbial "hot potato" BLOOD MONEY both parties were trying to get rid of. Technically it was still Judas' money, which the priests used to purchase the plot of ground. Thus, in a legal sense, it could be said that Judas bought it, because it was 'his money' that bought it.

. . . And so, did Judas hang himself...or did he "fall headlong"? Both are obviously true. He hung himself. When did he fall headlong? Did the rope break? Or did his "entrails gush out" when others came along to cut him down from the tree (assuming he actually hung himself from a tree limb)...and he split open when he hit the ground? There is a lot of data the Bible doesn't tell us. How tall was the tree? If he hung himself on a tall branch, it might not have been possible for somebody to hold the body while another cut the rope. So, if a single person went up and cut the rope, and the body fell a great distance to the ground (not gently), the chances might be good that the body would land, making a 'mess'.

[ source ]

The supposed contradiction of the purchase is also clarified by looking at the Greek words involved, as another Christian site devoted to alleged biblical discrepancies explains:

Once we examine the original Greek, we see Matthew and Luke differentiate between terms of ownership. Matthew uses the word ajgoravzw (legal ownership) while Luke uses ktaomai (physical possession). In other words, Judas purchased the field in his name and was therefore the legal owner, but after his death, the priests obtained the field for communal use yet did not possess the legal rights to it. In layman's terms, Judas purchased the field but the priest acquired the field after his death.

And Judas' manner of death is speculated upon by another web page, without falling into necessary contradiction:

1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before.

2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.

Certainly, these explanations are plausible, thus a contradiction has not been established.

MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Therefore, if I were to take a radical exegetical approach here, I could invalidate your alleged contradiction that there are two different accounts of how Judas died.

Notice verse 5."Then he...went and hanged himself." Matthew does not say Judas died, does it? Should we assume he died as a result of the hanging?

What does Acts say? ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death. Of course, maybe someone can find some medical source somewhere that discusses the possibility of one having their entrails gush out after being burst open in the middle, and still survive. :)

So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth re: the "two" accounts of Judas' death is this. Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' death.

We do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records his death. It is possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open. However, Matthew did not say Judas died as a result of the hanging, did he? Most scholars believe he probably did, but....

One atheist I debated along these lines said... the Greek word "apagchw" (ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging. I replied, No you can't only conclude this, although...this was a highly probable outcome. But Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word is APAGCHO. Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb." Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. LXX, APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply means "hang oneself".

The same page discusses the aspect of the purchase:

Perhaps here, the following maxim holds -- "He who does a thing by another, does it himself." That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. After all, we attribute the "Clinton health care plan" to Bill Clinton, when in reality, it is a plan devised by others associated with Bill Clinton.

So we see that very plausible Christian explanations can be and have been advanced for these things. I doubt that young Dave sought these out. He merely asked questions of people who usually weren't prepared to give an adequate defense and counter-explanation. Then Dave used their non-answer as a pretext for falsely supposing that no Christian could provide any plausible explanation, thus leading to the further unwarranted conclusion that the Bible was untrustworthy (hence, Christianity itself).

In stark contrast, here is Dave's counter-"explanation" from the combox:

[T]he real point is that neither the writer of Matthew nor the writer of Luck actually saw any of it - it was all hearsay. It seems obvious that each writer merely tailored the details of the fable in order to demonize either the Jewish leaders or Judas, depending on the writer's personal motive.

Besides, I've heard that worn out apologetic a hundred times, and for many a year I even tried to believe it. I'm ashamed to say I even preached it to others.

However, both stories cannot be true - period. Since there is some measure of inaccuracy in at least one of the stories, that would suggest that the Bible is not inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant in even one sentence, then there is error, and that means it is NOT the word of a god.

. . . the evidence remains that Judas either hanged himself in a field he purchased, or he had a nasty fall in a field that someone else purchased. More than likely, neither story has a shred of truth in it and the writers of the two gospels simply felt that Judas needed to end up dead after his horrible "mortal" sin of kissing God on the lips.

You (be you atheist or Christian or something else) decide which is more reasoned and plausible, and which is mere dogmatic denial based on a preconceived bias.

Clearly, anyone could reject anything if they utilized such a "method" and refused to seek out the more informed proponents of said belief-system before finding it wanting. That is Mickey Mouse pseudo-intellectualism, not serious thought and seeking of truth. if Dave Van Allen conceded (today) that this is not a case of two obvious contradictions, then he would have to remove this objection from the collection of those that caused him to reject Christianity.

If the Christian could (speaking hypothetically for the moment) systematically debunk all of his similar objections, does that mean his deconversion is nullified and he would again become a Christian? Maybe so, but that is ultimately a matter of God's grace and faith. Apologists can only remove the roadblocks of false objections. We can lead the horse to the stream and show that there are no unassailable hindrances in getting to the stream, but we can't force the horse to drink.

I wrote to an evangelistic radio ministry out of Richmond Virginia, asking for direction about these apparent problems. I was only thirteen and they responded to my cry for help with a short note. Instead of an intellectually satisfying apologetic, they merely admonished that some things could only be answered through the eyes of faith. I pretty much got the same answer everywhere I went.

Exactly my point. But he did not seek enough answers. There are entire books written about such things, such as, for example, volumes by biblical scholars Gleason Archer and William Arndt. It's even easier now with the Internet (I found the above explanations in short order via Google). Dave didn't have that back then, but books existed in those days, way back in the 60s and 70s. But instead, young Dave settled for non-answers from fundamentalist types unacquainted with apologetics and an intellectual grounding for their faith.

Maybe he didn't know any better then, and can be given some slack (he at least tried to get answers from someone) but he should now, especially after reading this (assuming he ever does). It's a classic case, though, of the absence of apologetics, where it was crucial that it was present, in order to help a young zealous Christian harmonize faith and reason without contradiction or serious difficulty. It wasn't there, and by his own admission, this led him to later reject Christianity.

This is why I do what I do. Apostasy can be avoided in part by an understanding of the reasons why we believe what we believe. That's apologetics. It is extremely important in a Christian's life. As the proverb goes: "the heart cannot accept what the mind believes to be false."

Regardless, I continued to attend Baptist Church on Sunday mornings, Assembly of God on Sunday nights, and various home study groups during the week. Then, the summer before entering High School, the Baptist church hierarchy decided to fire the youth minister. He had held an all night youth rally event at the church. The geriatric power people in the church thought his tactics to lure young people to church were inappropriate, so they brought the issue to vote and that settled the matter. He was there one week and gone the next. During the same time period, the Pastor of the Assembly of God church was caught having an affair with one of the lady members. Both he and the woman were married to other people, so when the affair was discovered, he resigned and left the church. I still wonder how long that had been going on.

Sin and hypocrisy observed firsthand causes a lot of people to reject Christianity, but of course, such sad events offer not the slightest reason to reject Christianity. All it proves is that there is such a thing as a Christian who falls short, or fails to repent, or is a miserable example of what Christian ought to be; a hypocrite. All it proves is that the human heart is desperately wicked, in and of itself, and that we can only follow God and live righteously by His grace. Since people have a free will, they can simply choose to go their own way.

But that is scarcely any reason to blame God or Christianity as a system, because some people fail. I should think that it rather confirms the Christian system that already predicted the real possibility and factuality of these things in the real fallen world: the same belief-system that teaches that Christianity is a narrow way, while the way to destruction is broad and that one of Jesus' own disciples betrayed Him. So why would any Christian (presumably knowing his Bible fairly well) be so surprised when this stuff happened, to cause them to lose faith? That makes no sense. But these decisions are often purely emotional, without any legitimate reason being brought to bear.

My growing dissatisfaction with the church’s inability to answer my Biblical questions, my budding musical career and the hypocritical church politics worked together to help me fall away from Christianity for a time.

None of which offers the slightest rationale to reject Christianity, as shown . . .

My grades in school improved immensely. I finished High School early, in the top 10% of the class. I auditioned for the Air Force Band, was accepted, and as soon as I turned seventeen, I left for basic training in San Antonio.

As the years went by, I continued to have an interest in the Bible, studying textual variants and translation problems. I had several years of revival, when I buried my questioning and simply emulated the faith of a little child, trusting that though I could not understand many things, God knew what he was doing.

Why is it that a thinker, in the top 10% of his class: a guy with a brain and a head on his shoulders, could not seek out plausible Christian answers given by scholars and apologists, and instead chose to "bury" his questioning and adopt the non-rational fideism that his fundamentalist surroundings apparently promulgated? He must take some of the blame in this.

One sees this dynamic over and over again in atheist deconversions: they recount horror stories of dreadful and miserably misinformed and underinformed Christians, and sinning hypocrites, and then use that as a pretext to reject Christianity, as if these experiences represented the whole sum of what true Christianity is. it's bad thinking through and through. yet atheists so often pride themselves as being overwhelmingly superior in intellect to Christians. I respectfully suggest that there is plenty of fundamental work to be done in their own heads, before they start attacking Christianity as irrational and inconsistent.

Eventually, I would get a headache from such pious mind games and find myself drifting again. I spent years in and out of Charismatic meetings where healings were performed as well as Words of Knowledge, messages from God, and rousing sermons proclaiming the imminent return of Christ. The emotional feeling of those early charismatic events was like a drug high.

There are numerous excesses and problems in these circles as well, and they are not exactly known for solid biblical thinking. You get nuts running around saying, for example, that the Bible teaches that all people should be healed. I was refuting that way back in 1982.

During these up and down spiritual times, I swung between being fanatically zealous, to totally apostate.

That was a clear sign that something was radically wrong. As a Christian, he should have sought some serious pastoral counseling. Surely someone in his circles could direct him to apologetics books that would have dealt with his objections? There may be temperamental and psychological factors involved too (he doesn't say, but the above description suggests the real possibility to me). If he was prone to cycles of depression, for example, then that is an independent problem that could not be blamed on Christianity.

I comforted myself on my lack of consistency by reasoning that at least I was not lukewarm. In the next few years I belonged to several different Baptist Churches and several different Charismatic Churches in succession.

Church-hopping is not conducive to a stable spiritual life. This is a huge problem in Protestant circles.

I was married, had a son, got divorced, remarried and had two more children. In my thirties, I finally hit bottom and decided I would simply dig in, buy books like crazy, and study until I got all my answers.

I'd love to see what orthodox Christian books (particularly of apologetics) he consulted, and on what basis he rejected their reasoning. We are what we read. If one decides to read a bunch of liberal Christian, or skeptical, or atheist books, then obviously they will tend to believe along those lines. This is why I always urge everyone to read different perspectives on a given issue: the best of each position, to rationally make up their minds, using their critical faculties. This is why I am so big on dialogue and amiable but serious and vigorous interaction between viewpoints.

My second wife and I were deeply involved in an English speaking Assembly of God church while living in Japan. We ran the music ministry, the bookstore and participated in English evangelism at a local Japanese speaking Assembly of God. Once again, my inquiring mind reared its ugly head and put me at odds with the church. For years I had accepted the Pentecostal teaching that all Christians must speak in tongues to demonstrate they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit.

This is unbiblical, of course (1 Corinthians 12:4-11,28-31 being the clearest biblical disproof of it) as I knew full well when I attended Assemblies of God myself. I never formally became a member precisely because I disagreed with this.

I had also accepted the harsh Arminianism preached there. As I began to study John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, Matthew Poole, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther and a host of other teachers from the past, I began to realize that there was a whole other gospel of which I was completely ignorant. I questioned the pastor of our AG church on some of these matters.

I don't see how it is a different gospel. There are some disagreements within soteriology, but it is the same gospel, biblically-defined.

He did not answer any of my questions, assuring me that God would comfort my heart as to the truth of the Assemblies’ teachings in time.

Another pastor who didn't have a clue about apologetics and how important it is. He failed in his duty to spread a faith that was intellectually solid and confident. This problem is sadly widespread in all Christian circles. That is one reason why Catholic apologetics has exploded in the last twenty years. People were so desperately hungry for reasoned answers to their questions . . .

He responded to my inquiry by removing my wife and I from all our leadership responsibilities until such time as we came to peace with the issues I brought up.

Typical . . . I was denounced from the pulpit too (and lied about publicly), when I dared to disagree on some excesses in my church.

He said if I were to remain in leadership with doubts on various Pentecostal doctrines, it would cause confusion for the congregation.

It is reasonable, I would say, that if Dave didn't believe something that was part of the confession or creed at his church, that he could not in good conscience, be in leadership. If he didn't accept their teaching on tongues, then he should have voluntarily refrained from any "leadership" positions. Isn't that common sense? I didn't engage in that personal contradiction because I didn't become a member of a belief-system that I didn't fully accept. That was the only honest thing I could do. But it looks like Dave didn't do that. So in that particular sense some of the pastor's reaction may have been fully justified.

Of course we were welcome to stay and attend the services, he said. We left the church that day.

Again, if he didn't believe some of the doctrines, then the leadership can't be blamed for pointing out that an Assemblies of God leader ought to fully accept the doctrinal statement of the Assemblies of God denomination.

I started a home Bible study where we studied such things as Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and other strikingly Calvinistic chapters, without forcing any dogmatic conclusions.

The beginning of lone ranger, unsupervised sectarianism, that often causes much harm and leads to heterodoxy . . . another huge problem in Protestant ranks. Dogma was starting to be minimized. That is the sure road to skepticism and possibly atheism. Dave's story demonstrates the dangers involved in such a course.

It was well attended. I led that group into street evangelism in Japan, passing out tracts at train stations and other public areas. I wrote letters to Christian leaders all over the world, soliciting their input on various doctrinal issues and spent a small fortune on books, studying the reformed theologians who lived prior to this century’s “charismania”.

I'd love to see some of those now. I suspect that Dave had some false beliefs of his own (i.e., from a mainstream Protestant perspective). We don't know because he doesn't spell it out in detail.

I retired from the Air Force, left Japan and started over again in the town where I grew up. My parents and other relatives were apprehensive of my resettling near them, since they knew I was a religious fanatic. We attended, and even joined, several churches over the next few years, trying to settle in with the local evangelical, non-charismatic Christians.

More church-hopping. To me this suggests instability and inability to be submitted to spiritual authority. He wanted to go his own way.

We wanted to find acceptance, and learn sound doctrine. As I learned more, and leaned more toward the Reformed Faith, I was made aware that I was living in adultery with my present wife. This was because my previous marriage did not end with a scriptural divorce. One counselor advised me that I should leave my present wife and live celibate in order to obey Christ’s commands. Failure to leave my present wife was considered continuous adultery in this Reformed denomination. This made no sense to me.

If you were not truly divorced (and were truly married the first time) then it could possibly be the sin of adultery. Sounds like this church was trying to follow traditional Protestant moral (biblical) teachings on marriage. Catholics would say that perhaps the first marriage was invalid, thus freeing Dave to marry (for what would actually be the first time). It's difficult to say without knowing more details.

Can one grievous sin be offset by committing another, I wondered? Should I really abandon my wife and two children because I blew it on my first marriage? I also discovered that any illusions I might have of ever being in any kind of leadership in any Reformed church, was out of the question. Divorce and remarriage was treated, except under the narrowest of scriptural scrutiny, as if it were more unforgivable than murder. The husband of one wife was the badge of acceptance required above all.

Marriage and divorce is a huge subject I can't get into at the moment. But let's grant for the sake of argument that this church was indeed wrong in what they stated. Would that be a reason to reject Christianity, because one church congregation got something wrong? Of course not (and clearly so).

Of course I still had questions. That, apparently, is a bad thing, as it did nothing but set me at odds with pastors and congregants alike.

More evidence that apologetics is desperately needed.

We finally found a Reformed Baptist Church in Pennsylvania, which accepted my past miscarriage of wedlock

Perhaps in Catholic circles it would have been a case of legitimate annulment.

and we attended for several months. Originally the church had been an Independent Baptist Church and quite Arminian in theology. They had made the switch to Calvinism in soteriology, but remained Darbyite in eschatology. The primary preoccupation they seemed to have was with such important topics as head coverings for women and hating homosexuals.

Did they truly "hate" homosexuals or simply oppose the sin of sodomy? I'd love to see their doctrinal statement.

If the pastor was questioned in private concerning even the smallest detail of his teaching, the next service would be laced with personalized rebuke and condemnation pointedly aimed at the doubting inquiries and directly at those mouthing them. We left that church too.

That is definitely excessive and an abuse of his office as pastor. It happens quite a lot. I experienced it myself.

We found another church some 35 miles away from our house that seemed promising. This church had been very charismatic originally, but had found deeper meaning in the teachings of R.J. Rushdooney. They had made a complete 180-degree turn toward Reconstructionism. I was totally unfamiliar with this brand of Christianity, so we stayed there for over three years.

This is an extreme variant of Calvinism.

In that time we experienced and were taught a whole new brand of Christianity.

Not new Christianity; just a brand of the sub-group of Calvinism.

Waving the Westminster Confession as the flag of truth we were encouraged to be filled with anger against sin, against worldly politicians, and to be fiercely aggressive political activists, so we might gain temporal power and obey Christ’s command to go into the entire world. “Discipling the Nations” was their clarion call. When the assistant pastor raised money to go and publicly support a civil war in a small African country, in the name of Christ, we finally knew it was time to leave that arena too. During the three years we were there, not one person became our friend. Everyone was too busy condemning pietism, marching and campaigning, and supposedly changing the world for Jesus.

Lots of faults and shortcomings can be found in any church group, I'm afraid. But if you don't hang around long enough to make a difference, then can you really complain too loudly? There is the saying in response to the complaint that churches are filled with hypocrites: "there is always room for one more!" And there is Mark Twain's famous utterance, "I wouldn't be a member of any church that would have me as a member." Dave was bouncing from one end of the theological spectrum of Protestantism to the other. To me this suggests a serious spiritual instability. All he seems to talk about is joining and leaving churches. How many did he attend?

Since leaving that church, I have spent the last couple of years reading other materials. Books by disillusioned Christians, pastors and others who find religion generally, and Christianity specifically, lacking in truth has become my books of choice.

So is it any wonder that he ended up atheist? How many solid Christian books did he read, I wonder? He seems to have never been grounded in a reasonable faith, so it is some big surprise that he was easy prey for atheist skepticism to snatch him out of whatever remaining non-intellectual faith he had?

I have come to accept my initial adolescent doubts about the Bible.

That were not insurmountable at all, as I illustrated by the Judas example . . .

It was not simply rebellion, but the seed of good common logic and sense.

Not if he didn't properly explore the best Christian answers that could be obtained.

I no longer claim to have all, or many, of the answers to life as I once claimed when my fanaticism expanded to full bloom. Since I have had to accept the fact that my theology has been wrong time and again,

Exactly, and this is where the de facto relativism and ridiculous hyper-denominationalism of Protestantism must bear much blame, because it fosters such confusion.

even though I supposedly had the Holy Spirit guiding me,

He had conflicting denominations guiding him, as well as (hopefully) the Holy Spirit.

it is quite unlikely that I have ever been totally right on much.

That doesn't follow. He may have gotten many things right, and others wrong. The Church and the Bible are the guides to Christians, to the right Christian faith and belief-system.

I have changed my foundational beliefs several times as my religious self-education has evolved. I can’t say that I am content to be stagnant even at this juncture of spiritual understanding – I reserve the right to once again change my mind. Surely, if God could make a mistake and repent of making man,

That's not what the Bible teaches about God. It is a distortion. Mens' mistakes are not God's. That is the whole point of the free will of men. They are free to make mistakes and rebel. And they did!

I can acknowledge error and repent of making a god and any decisions about my belief in it.

And he can be convinced to return to Christianity if he is persuaded (through God's grace) by efforts such as my own.

What do I believe now? Like I said, I am not sure. I suppose that makes me an agnostic. At this point, that is the most intellectually appealing position for my tortured thought processes. It allows me the freedom to keep an open mind while absorbing all the viewpoints without completely immersing myself in any of them. You might consider it an R&R from mind control, or perhaps I simply want …………, a sabbatical.

Then there is hope of persuading Dave back into the Christian fold. I think he does sincerely seek truth. He just needs a bit of helpful guidance along the path.

* * *

That is what I said then, and for the most part I would not change a thing. However, as my mind has cleared from the constant programming or self brainwashing I willingly subjected myself to,

And whose fault was that? The fault of Christianity as a whole, or Dave's and the flawed leaders who fostered such things?

I have upped the "Anti", you might say. While I really cannot credit or blame anyone else for the positions on religion I have held, I find that much of the feedback I am receiving from this site implies that I have rejected Christ because of how people treated me. I regret I have written in such a way so as to mislead some on this point. Though I indeed was treated poorly by the bulk of Christians I know, I do not hate or dislike any of them. Neither did I leave the faith solely because of their behavior.

Good, because that would be no reason. I've seen no good reason at all, yet (as one would expect).

I endured trials like that for nearly 30 years, and though unpleasant, it did not discourage me from my commitment to Christ. I remained stalwart for years, reasoning, as many of the people who write me, that Christians may be imperfect, but they are forgiven, and Christ is not like them, and so on.

Very good.

The main point I had hoped to accomplish in reiterating a few of the unpleasant experiences I had with the "chosen few" was to show that there is nothing supernatural going on in the lives of Christians.

That doesn't follow. Some folks sin, and this disproves the supernatural? Huh? What did I miss?

We are taught that the Holy Spirit is within us, transforming us, quickening us, destroying our sin nature, putting to death the "old man" and on and on ad-nauseam. The simple truth is: it is not true. Christians are absolutely no different than any one else.

How, then, would Dave explain, for example, the great success in Christian programs in prisons, and in quasi-Christian groups such as AA? People do change. I know hosts of people whose lives have fundamentally changed for the better because of becoming Christians. I know it from my own life, and from people like my brother Gerry, and many many others.

They do not have GOD ALMIGHTY in their bodies, making them into new creatures.

So sez Dave. He can't disprove the claim. I thought he wasn't dogmatic about things?

Oh, sure, many resist temptation and endeavor to live a pure, moral life, but their thoughts continue to trouble them, and have to be resisted until death. Anyone who claims otherwise is a lying fool.

Yes, of course. That is concupiscence. Any intelligent, honest Christian recognizes that.

Now, of course someone is going to give me one of the stock theological answers to this puzzle, such as, the sin nature will never be destroyed until death.

Well, what would Dave expect us to say?: that every Christian will be a perfect saint and goody two-shoes and to have the slightest temptations or fall into sin? He can't have it both ways. He criticizes sinning Christians as hypocrites, but also wants to mock intelligent Christian analyses of temptation in the Christian life as "stock theological answers." So (like any good dogmatist) he leaves us no chance of giving any serious answers except for his own agnostic ones.

Or they might say that we are never perfectly sanctified in this life.

Yes.

There are plenty of well-rehearsed answers,

But he is not shown that they are wrong. He's simply mocking now. That is not rational; it is merely emotional and subjective. This is very common amongst atheists. Their rejection of Christianity is far more emotional than rational. And that is why Dave stated at the end of his story that "None of this proves or disproves Christianity, I realize". Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself.

all with supporting Bible verses, and interestingly, many of those bland explanations contradict one another, depending on the denominational bent of the various unharmonious voices.

So he sez, but he has the burden of rationally demonstrating it.

I readily admit that I have never been anything more than a layman. I have no official seminary or theological schooling to adorn my walls.

Me neither.

I have, however, read extensively from the writings of Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Martin Luther, John Calvin, R.C. Sproul, the historic Confessions of Faith, commentaries without number, The Sword of the Lord, Charisma Magazine, Bill Bright, Frank Morrison, Hendricks, etc.

I've read quite a bit, too.

Listing all my reading is possible,

Please do!

but I only mention the books I can see from my computer desk. If I were to go to the basement, I would recite dozens of other well known authors in Christendom. I owned a Dake Bible and I own an old Geneva Bible. I have a reprint of Tyndale's original English New Testament. I was, and am, highly interested in the Christian faith. Does all this reading make me the authority? No of course not, but it was not only emotional dissatisfaction which led me to my present position.

I've seen nothing solid thus far that would lead anyone to reject Christianity. I'm still waiting. It's always been this way with every deconversion story I have examined. They build my faith up every time.

The more I studied the Christian faith, its history, how it has mutated and evolved over time, I began to realize that I was not being intellectually honest with myself. How can “the truth once delivered” change so much over the course of 2000 years if GOD ALMIGHTY was running the show?

Human free will. How could Judas betray Jesus if GOD ALMIGHTY was running the show? How could Jesus be beaten and tortured and horribly executed if GOD ALMIGHTY was running the show? Etc. How could there be a hell if GOD ALMIGHTY was running the show? Does Dave think Christians haven't pondered such elementary questions?

For example, Arminianism was heresy to Protestants when the Bible was published in English. Now it is the Calvinists who are held in disrepute.

Protestant internal disputes do not disprove Christianity. It only proves that Protestantism has a sectarian, relativistic tendency. Dave hasn't even considered the truth claims of Catholicism as an alternate to that chaos.

Chances are that many of the Christians who read the mentions of Calvinism, eschatology, soteriology, etc., have no idea what I am talking about.

Sadly true.

That is another topic that contributed to my first suspicions that Xtianity is a false lie: the striking ignorance and loathing for learning that is rife in the Christian community.

How does that prove anything about Christianity? It only proves things about the deficiencies of the sub-groups that Dave moved around in.

Claiming to love god with all their hearts and souls, yet reading His Word, memorizing it, studying theology to better understand HIM, is quite beyond most, if not nearly all Christians.

Yet it is Christianity that teaches that human beings rebel against God and want to go their own way, and have itching ears, and are like sheep, and temptation, and concupiscence, and original sin, and that the world, the flesh, and the devil corrupts them, etc. All of this is amply explained in Christianity itself, so it comes as no surprise.

Finding anyone who understands the history of Christianity prior to Darby's Dispensational gospel is nearly impossible.

That is a huge problem especially in Protestantism, but again, no disproof of anything.

I would try to strike up conversations about theological and historical topics that were churning in my mind only to find blank stares in the Christian's faces to whom I would address myself. Now, that would be understandable if I were addressing novices, or baby believers, but the blankest stares would come from the pastors themselves. One pastor actually admitted to me that he found if very difficult to study the Word of God. He found study of theology very dry and boring and emphasized to me that Christ was relational, seeking a living relationship with his children, not living in dry books but living in beating hearts. Oh, how pious sounding!

And how scandalous . . . but that is a widespread attitude in charismatic and pietistic circles.

No doubt some reading this now have heard such tripe, and maybe some even heard their spirit bear witness to them that, yes that is true, Christ desires a relationship with us. To this nonsense I say that since Christ and his Dad are not talking in any other conventional way except through the words of Scripture in these last days, how is it I can hear His voice, unless I immerse myself in His WORDS? How is it I can say I am filled with the Holy Spirit, I love GOD more than all, I am being made into a new creation, and yet still find studying Christianity to be dull?

Dave is right.

The answer is simple of course. It is dull, and it is dead.

No, the people who say they don't enjoy and learn from God's Word are dull and dim-witted. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There is no living Spirit indwelling believers, and only the compulsive, people like me, have the natural drive to totally focus on boring stuff.

So he sez. He has not proven this. Bare claims are unimpressive without substantiating evidence.

Finally, finding no answers to my questions, I read the books of such people as Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Dan Barker, Charles Templeton, Austin Mills, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, and a host of others. I began to see that there was a whole world of Freethinking Ex-Christians, and NON-Christians out there, people who were fairly invisible to the general public, especially the Christian general public.

Just a note for the record: Mark Twain was not an atheist. Nor was Thomas Paine. He was a deist (as was philosopher David Hume, also often falsely thought to be an atheist):

The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.

My mind was opened to reality, and is continuing to be opened to reality, as the myths and gods of my youth are abandoned to be replaced by reason.

So now we come full circle (atheists and agnostic former Christians always do, so it seems). Christianity is a "myth" and opposed to "reality." It is fundamentally opposed to "reason" by its very nature. Dave now adheres to "reason" rather than "myths and gods." But since Dave himself was quick to add that "None of this proves or disproves Christianity," why is he now writing as if it does? Fresh from complaining that his former pastors never provided answers to his probing questions, now he expects his readers to do the same exact thing? We must accept his mere preaching on his baseless authority (that of an admittedly intellectually unstable man who has waffled and shifted opinions for many years) without any reasoning or evidence?

We must find it compelling to hear him rant and rave now, at this late juncture, that Christianity is a myth and outside of reality, and opposed to reason itself, without being able to probe ourselves as to why he thinks this? Presumably his story was for that purpose, yet he denies that any of it "proves or disproves Christianity". This inane self-contradiction is shot through the entire attempt at giving his story. Using his own proclaimed method, I am right to question it and demand further rational explanations for his current skepticism.

And we shall see how willing and able he is to provide to us what he demanded from other Christians when he was a Christian. so far, whenever I have examined any deconversion, it was met with the utmost scorn and hostility, not unlike that expressed by these pastors that Dave cited, who didn't like anyone questioning them or their reasoning either. And so we shall see if Dave (like other former Christians I have critiqued) follows their example, or a different, higher model of open discussion of competing truth claims, that I have always advocated.

I do not consider myself an agnostic anymore, finding fence sitting untenable. I could say I am now an evil Atheist, or I could use the softer sounding title of Freethinker.

I'm so surprised that I fell off of my seat. How could this happen!?

For now I will simply call myself an Ex-Christian, though there is more to it than being an ex something or another. I no longer believe in any gods or goddesses, they are all primitive imaginings reflecting an escape from fear and ignorance. There are many things we do not know about the world and the universe at large, but not knowing the how’s or why’s of things does not predispose us to believing in a giant Sky Daddy, or Tri-Daddy, or whatever.

Right. And now Dave worships the wonderful goddess of Reason and his own brain, as if it were the end and arbiter of all things.

I want to see reasons for adopting such a viewpoint. I've seen not a single compelling one yet. He claims to be following reason now. Then let him demonstrate that with some solid rational arguments and so-called "freethinking." But as G.K. Chesterton said, "freethinkers' are often so "open-minded" that their brains fall out.

* * *

Dave provides further "reasons" for his admittedly non-reasonable, subjective deconversion in the combox (these are disconnected excerpts):

Christianity is just another man-made, phony cult - that's all.

While touting itself as the answer to man's ultimate questions, all it really does is enslave the mind.

Yes, of course. That's why modern science began in a thoroughly Christian environment and why virtually all major fields of science were founded by Christians who were scientists, and many crucial discoveries were made by these Christian thinking men (Kelvin, Pascal, Boyle, Pasteur, Cuvier, Babbage, Rayleigh, Fleming, Maxwell, Mendel, da Vinci, Ray, Woodward, Steno, Davy, Linnaeus, Faraday, Kepler, Ramsay, Bacon, etc.; Isaac Newton being an Arian).

If you are trying to say there are good people who happen to be Christians, well then I completely agree. If what you are trying to say is that because there are good people who are Christians that Christianity is true, then I disagree.

Works both ways: "If you are trying to say there are bad people who happen to be Christians, well then I completely agree. If what you are trying to say is that because there are bad people who are Christians that Christianity is false, then I disagree." Yet this comprises most of Dave's fallacious reasoning for becoming an atheist. He proved himself, by analogy, that it is fallacious reasoning.

Christianity has condemned all human expression outside of its confining walls to a vague worthlessness.

Absolutely not. Some fundamentalist extremists such as Dave's old buddies may do that, but they do not represent all of Christianity, by any stretch of the imagination. To the contrary, true biblical Christianity respects anything that is true, wherever it comes from. That's what Paul did in Athens, in his sermon on Mars Hill. C.S. Lewis expresses this theme in his book The Abolition of Man, as does G.K. Chesterton in his Everlasting Man. Vatican II stressed it, etc. Dave shows his ignorance, in equating a corrupt, anti-intellectual portion of Christianity with the whole.

The Bible means what it means except when it doesn't mean what it means, therefore this doesn't mean what it means, it means whatever John says it means.

Get it, y'all?

Nope, I confess that I don't.

Whenever Christians start asking questions, it's nearly always to make some point or promote some private agenda.

I ask questions because I am applying the same method that Dave did, that led him out of Christianity. Should he not be subjected to the same scrutiny? Questioning is thinking. That's why I am a socratic.

Science has not presented an adequate explanation for the beginning of the universe. At least, not to my mind it hasn't. But then again, I don't understand quite a few things that scientists have come up with. In fact, I don't even fully comprehend how my car works, or what makes the Internet work. If I were to list all the things I don't fully understand, or don't even understand at all, the list, I fear, would be excessively long.

Why, then, does Dave reject Christianity because he doesn't fully understand many aspects of it? This confirms an argument I made earlier.

How did this god create the universe? What method did he use? When, exactly, did the process begin? What materials were used. How were the materials materialized? Can we replicate any of this in a laboratory?

My assumption is that the answer for these, and any other salient questions, would be: "HIS ways are unknowable."

How is that essentially different from a scientist honestly admitting that we don't have a clue what caused the Big Bang or what existed before it, or how DNA or life itself evolved, or the mechanics of how and why gravity does what it does, or why light travels at the speed it does, and a host of other things that are dark mysteries in science? Why the double standard?

So, in other words, your answer to the question of how the universe began — "God did it" — is no more satisfying or explanatory than the answers from science that you've castigated.

To say "god did it" explains nothing. The beginning of the universe remains inscrutable — beyond our comprehension.

Exactly! Both require "faith" in things that cannot be proven, only assumed. Both include reason, but that reason cannot explain absolutely everything. If things in science can be "inscrutable" why not also some things in religion and about God?

when Christianity condemned the pursuit of science, viewing it as an attack on faith, many centuries of ignorant darkness, disease, and painful death resulted.

This is an extreme exaggeration, amounting to a virtual complete falsehood. If it weren't for Christianity there would have been no science as we know it to begin with. The ancient Greeks didn't originate modern science. Christians did. Even the notorious Galileo episode is a lot more complex than is made out, as I have written about, in three papers (one / two / three).

. . . ignorance is frequently the refuge of the religious.

How tolerant and unprejudiced to speak in such terms of entire classes of people: the vast majority of mankind.

In just a few sentences you've proclaimed to have the ultimate truth, attempted to goad and personally insult those who disagree with you, become angry and offended over constructive criticism , and defended mental laziness as if it were a virtue. Good job.

Obviously, then, Dave will do a far better job in responding to this honest critique.

As far as your comment about the church doing good things throughout history, you really need to take a church history course. Christianity caused the Dark Ages.

Right. Any fool even remotely acquainted with medieval history knows that what is called the "Dark Ages" was a result of barbarianism overrunning Christian environments, not the converse. This is abominably ignorant. Dave doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Has he never read about, e.g., the pagan Vikings murdering monks and plundering monasteries? Is he unaware that these same monks were often responsible for maintaining the heritage of classical (i.e., non-Christian) learning, until the barbarians came in and swept that away? Does he not know that St. Thomas Aquinas was inspired philosophically by the pagan philosopher Aristotle, and that this synthesis caused a huge revival of learning in the 13th century? One could go on and on.

Can there be any doubt, based on the nasty, smartass, self-righteous, arrogant attitudes of the "truly born again™" flocking here lately, that if a holy crusade were to be proclaimed in a new, improved, Christian America, there'd be plenty of volunteers joining "Christ's holy soliders?"

This is truly sad. Religion is complete emotion — thought means little.

To all Anonymous Christian Nazis, I want you all to notice something. If you do a Google search for ex-Christian websites, you'll come up with a few. Then if you do a Google search for Christian websites, count how many you come up with. Then, of those Christian websites, check how many allow comments to be made by dissenting voices. Hell, check how many allow any comments at all!

Then, ask yourself why.

More reason to expect that Dave will be more than willing to openly discuss my critique.

There must be another verse that says something to the effect that: No matter how ridiculous, illogical, stupid, and irrational, anything in this book seems, all of you who want to call yourselves Christians, and go to a wonderful place when you leave this life, must suspend all rational thought processes, turn your brains off to anything except the particular doctrine being promulgated by your particular sect.

Stick you fingers in your ears whenever anyone suggests to you that everything taught by your particular sect is not absolutely and positively the truth, and the very words of God, and repeat over and over. "I know that everything in the bible is true, because the bible tells me so"

Yes. Dave's own brainwashed, anti-intellectual past projected onto Christians en masse. What compelling "reasoning" . . .

I was born in America, where Christianity is the dominant religion, Christianity is the religion that screwed with my thinking for so many years. That's why.

I happen to think those other religions you mentioned are nonsense, but since I didn't loose 30 years of my life following those idiotic religions, I don't personally have any emotional or economic baggage associated with those religions. I have no reason to hate those religions. I do have a reason to hate Christianity.

By way of analogy: You can't hate someone else's ex-wife. But you can hate your own.

I.e., a warped version of Christianity that cannot be equated with the whole. Illogical . . . and it shows that emotionalism is in the forefront of Dave's apostasy, not reason.

* * *

I look forward to Dave's response. I don't expect to get any response from him (and assuredly I won't hold my breath), but I would be delighted to be pleasantly surprised that an atheist would, for once, rationally defend his reasons for leaving Christianity (or unreasonable facsimiles thereof).

Al Kresta on The Journey Home on October 1st. Don't Miss It!

I wanted to advertise a bit for the upcoming Journey Home show (October 1st), because I think Al's story of returning to the Catholic Church is one of the best and most interesting, thought-provoking ones that I have seen. He gave a lengthy version of it in my own home, at my discussion group, that I later transcribed.

I consider Al to be the best talk show host I have ever heard in my life, bar none. You can hear his show, Kresta in the Afternoon, over the Internet, if you don't have a Catholic radio station in your area. He is also the author of the books Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and Why Are Catholics So Concerned About Sin?

I've been friends with Al for 25 years (I've known Steve Ray almost as long also). He was also my pastor for a time in the late 1980s (incidentally, the pastor at this independent, "Jesus Freak" sort of church who was there before Al -- in 1980 when I first started attending -- has also returned to the Catholic Church).

Al and I were in pro-life rescues together in the late 80s and we did street evangelism at the Ann Arbor Art Fair. He has been a great influence in my Christian life. Al's conversion story is also the last one in Surprised by Truth. Mine was second to last. I always got a kick out of the last two being from Michiganders.

I've been on his radio show three times. Those appearances are available to hear for free:

1997

2002 ( Parts one / two / three / four)

2004 (Parts one / two)

Brief Reply to Michael Spencer's "Five Questions For Roman Catholics"

Michael Spencer

Protestant pastor (and self-described "post-evangelical") Michael Spencer, aka "The Internet Monk" has a lively blog that I link to on my sidebar, and also is active on the Boar's Head Tavern forum (I also link to that). Here is my reply to his query (his words in blue).

Let me state up front that the very last intention of mine is to cause any offense to my Protestant brethren. Yet it often is the case that they are offended by Catholic opinions on these sorts of matters. I'm not sure that can be avoided, no matter how gently we reply, because it is the ideas themselves that are controversial to many. We can only try our best to be understanding, tolerant, and charitable, on both sides. May God help me to do so.

Michael Spencer has written some very kind words about me at Boar's Head Tavern (comments of 9-27-07 and 9-29-07):

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. As someone ridiculed by the arsonists [referring to anti-Catholic Phil Johnson's Pyromaniacs blog], I have to have a liking for the guy. Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful.

We appear to have had a breakthrough in the “Catholic thing” here at the IM compound. At least I feel like a ton of weight has been lifted. I pray to the Lord that it’s replaced with peace and joy, and never returns. VII’s statement on Ecumenism has been really helpful, and Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways [we had some private correspondence also]. I thank the Lord for him.

* * * * *

[Update added later:

I really appreciate the kindness and all the time represented in the answers. I haven’t read the thread, but have read the MANY emails that I received. I’ll catch up on the thread later. (Internet has been down.) I especially thank those of you who know that I am not interested in converting to the Roman Catholic Church, but have friends I love who quite possible may some day, and I am asking in reference to my relationship to them. Again, thanks for your gracious answers and the very helpful, positive tone of the discussion. ]

* * *

I have some questions for a knowledgeable Roman Catholic. Pretty important matters.

1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

It all depends on what one means by "valid." Do we have a great deal of respect for Protestant pastors, ministers, clergymen? Absolutely. I certainly do. Some of the people I respect the most to this day are, for example, the pastor under whom I began my serious evangelical Christian walk with the Lord in 1977: (Lutheran) Pastor Dick Bieber in Detroit (now in Halifax, Nova Scotia) or Gus Flaherty (Assemblies of God) who married us in 1984. I have immense admiration for Protestant pastors, most of whom are very godly men, devoted to the gospel and the spiritual edification and growth of their flock. I have lots of pastor friends as well (Baptists, independents, Anglican; you name it). I think I've always shown a great deal of personal respect towards them. And I don't think my outlook is all that different (if at all) from other seriously committed Catholics that I know.

Technical "validity" however, gets into different waters. Catholics believe that a truly valid, ordained clergyman is a priest, who presides over the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist, and has the prerogative to distribute the sacraments. Since most Protestant clergy would not profess to be a priest in the first place (this category was basically rejected in the 16th century, in favor of a "priesthood of all believers" that was essentially different in concept), it almost becomes a matter of apples and oranges. A Protestant pastor would be (in this light) more analogous to a Catholic deacon, who can preach and baptize and do other ministerial, pastoral functions, but not preside over the Mass.

The real clash (and possible offense) would generally be with folks like "high-church" Anglicans or "Anglo-Catholics" or Lutherans, who believe in some sense in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. The Catholic must say that we disagree that the Real Presence occurs in a Protestant church, since from our perspective the apostolic succession without which true ordination is possible was broken in the 16th century by the schism of Protestantism. We do, however, happily acknowledge the validity of trinitarian Protestant baptism, as a valid sacrament. And we regard the marriage of two validly-baptized Protestants also as a valid sacrament (the sacrament of matrimony). Vatican II and subsequent ecumenical documents have stressed the many ways in which we believe that non-Catholic Christians receive grace and many good and spiritual things.

As for being called to be a minister, that is no problem (taking into consideration how evangelicals would define what a minister or pastor is in the first place). I never deny the validity, for example, of my own personal calling as an apologist / evangelist, that occurred in 1981 and was reiterated by God very strongly in 1985 when I commenced my work as a full-time campus missionary. I was indeed called to that work, as is seen in my subsequent career and writing. Nor do Catholics cast doubt upon what Protestants refer to as a conversion to Jesus Christ (or, as they classify it, becoming justified or saved). Again, I do not do so at all, with regard to my own conversion in 1977. Nor do I know of any Catholics who would do so. We would only question whether one was saved in that instant, according to how we interpret biblical soteriology.

2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

Yes, it should be. You are entirely right. it's an ironic case where a Protestant observer who knows Catholic teaching fairly well, actually understands it better than a "cafeteria Catholic" who wants to play games with the faith he supposedly espouses. I've written about various inanities and difficulties of liberalism and dissent in Catholic circles (see my web page on that). I've also explained that Catholics are not at liberty to pick and choose what they like of Catholic teaching, a thing that was strongly emphasized by people like St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal Newman, and my own mentor, the late Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., who was one of the leading catechists in the US, and advisor to Pope Paul VI and Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity. A Protestant would be entirely correct and within his bounds to rebuke a Catholic of this sort, as being at best inconsistent, or at worst, dishonest. For related reading,. see my section on "private judgment" on my Bible: Sola Scriptura web page.

3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

There are many sensitive family matters that the Church respects. We urge potential converts to take their time and think through the issues very seriously and at length, accompanied by much prayer and reflection. If someone is in a long spiritual process where they are possibly considering becoming a Catholic, we would strongly urge this approach.

If, however, a person states that they are absolutely convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, then there comes a point when we would say that they are obligated to be received into the Church, even if it causes difficulty, because they have to follow their conscience. It comes down to the individual situation, but it could indeed possibly be a sin if a person is convinced and goes years and years without acting upon that knowledge. God holds us responsible for what we know.

4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

If they approach the altar with an attitude of solemnity and reverence, even if not agreeing with all that we believe takes place there, we honor that and believe that such a person can receive a "spiritual communion" and/or a blessing from the priest, should the latter decide to do that (a sacramental, not a sacrament, which has a positive effect insofar as the person receiving it is properly disposed and receptive).

I think it would be much the same as when I attend a Protestant service. I recognize that I disagree with the conception they have of Holy Communion, but I respect my surroundings and appreciate the piety and worship being expressed by my Protestant brothers and sisters.

Catholics do believe that agreement in doctrine is required in order to partake of Holy Communion, which is why we have closed communion (like some Protestant denominations; e.g., Missouri Synod Lutherans do). I've written about this general subject.

5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

As for the second question, I would refer back to my reply for #3. Every person must follow their (properly formed) conscience. After all, it is their soul that is at stake, and sometimes a Christian (of any type) has to be unpopular with friends or family for taking a stand that they feel they must take in following God rather than men. I've written elsewhere about how the Church approaches marriage and particularly "headship".

I hope my replies have been helpful, edifying, respectful, and non-offensive to any non-Catholics reading.

Defending Merit, Penance (and Ultimately Prayer) Against Lutheran Josh Strodtbeck's Ludicrous Attacks

Oberon, Titania and Puck with Fairies Dancing: William Blake, 1786

Polemicist Josh Strodtbeck has blessed and edified his longsuffering readers with yet another (involuntary?) attack of verbal diarrhea, spouting off all sorts of ignorant things and equating biblical doctrines with Mormon myths and unicorns, without seemingly stopping to think how it can be (rather easily) refuted:

Can common sense or rationality even be categories in theology? For example, I find the idea that Jesus and the saints earned some kind of quantifiable stuff that's stored in a vast heavenly treasury out of which the pope grants indulgences to be patently absurd, a fiction whose silliness is on the order of the belief that some fellow used magical glasses to read golden tablets that were then whisked away by an angel. It's an idea whose absurdity to my mind cannot be rescued by any amount of reinterpretation of philosophizing. I feel like I shouldn't have to debate whether or not such a thing exists and such a power is wielded any more than I should have to debate whether or not clouds are made by the farts of invisible unicorns. I feel the exact same way about the belief that there's a mystical Virgin floating around in the sky with all kinds of magical powers, such as hearing millions of people simultaneously, appearing in tortillas and grilled cheese sandwiches, snatching scapular-bearers out of hell, and so on . . . There is literally nothing that people won't believe, regardless of education. Even the leader of the Heaven's Gate UFO cult got his BA in philosophy.

. . . When you believe in Jesus, you lose your right to call people's religious beliefs foolish, no matter how absurd they may be...which may be a good thing, because if you call someone's beliefs absurd, you might as well call the person an idiot, and calling people idiots isn't much a prelude to conversion. I'll be[t] some of you were quite offended at what I called absurd in my opening paragraphs and even put on an extra scapular just to spite me. So anyway, losing your right to call out absurdity doesn't justify those beliefs, make them equal with the truth, or even make them less absurd.

Now let's unpack these charges one by one and see whether they are, in fact, as "absurd" as Josh makes out, and whether there is any biblical or rational justification for them (i.e., objective warrant and evidence, not subjective).

As for the explicit biblical evidence for all the essential notions behind indulgences, I wrote about that long ago (1996), and recently presented it on my blog (an excerpt from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism). No critic dealt with that intelligently or rationally. Some of my anti-Catholic critics simply mocked it as patently ridiculous, without making the slightest effort to interact with the reasoning. Josh often does the same. Prejudice and preconceived biases rule the day. Heaven forbid (in this mentality) someone make an actual counter-argument, when the person on the other end is a Catholic.

No problem with indulgences then (rightly understood, which is the rub). Were there abuses that occurred in the Middle Ages? Absolutely. No informed Catholic denies that. The abuses were dealt with by the Church (as I noted in my book and paper derived from it). That doesn't mean that the underlying ideas are false. They are not, because they are thoroughly grounded in the Bible. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But Martin Luther and his radical movement habitually did the latter. Luther himself departed in at least fifty ways from previous precedent by 1520, as I have documented. He was no "reformer"; he was a revolutionary. Blaming Catholicism as a whole for abuses of individuals is as silly as blaming Lutheranism for Carlstadt and others who were iconoclasts, against Luther's will. Every belief-system spawns individuals who incorrectly apply the principles of the system and take them in a wrong direction.

Josh frowns upon "quantifiable stuff that's stored in a vast heavenly treasury out of which the pope grants indulgences." To hear him present it, it is indeed ridiculous and worthy only for scorn and laughter. This is how propaganda works. This is -- again -- what Martin Luther did. He was a master at it. He commissioned asinine caricatures to be made of popes, so that people would learn to laugh at Catholicism, like they would at a clown or a court jester, rather than seriously engage its arguments and its Tradition. One Steve P, in comments on Josh's blog, hit the nail on the head:

Of course it's absurd. It's your idea. Rather than actually define indulgences, you've taken words that theologians and catechists use to explain indulgences ("treasury," "merit," etc.) and strung them together in a way that does sound absurd. You've demonstrated recently that you do have an understanding of logic, which is why it is strange that much of the "logic" you use in your articles is often nothing better than the logic of vague mental association.

The Catholic Church doesn't say that grace is "stuff." On the contrary, it says that grace is the Holy Spirit. That may be an absurdity, but it is not the absurdity you invented in your satirical treatment of indulgences. The Church also doesn't quantify the merits of Christ, but says they are totally sufficient. That also may be an absurdity, but it is not the particular absurdity you made up in your head when you spoofed indulgences.

There is nothing absurd in saying that the subsidiary merits of the faithful are in principle quantifiable (though not in practice or in fact quantifiable by us), since it is obvious that grace produces quantifiably different fruits in one believer vs. another; but as for quantifiability in indulgences, what you are talking about is medieval canonical penances, which were quantified in terms of days. A penitent had x numbers of days of penance, and that is what the time in indulgences is referring to. There is nothing absurd in thinking that time is quantifiable.

Josh has no more intention of seriously interacting with Catholicism and her doctrines than he does of dialoguing with flat-earthers or white supremacists or inhabitants of rubber rooms in insane asylums. He appears to place our beliefs on about the same level. That becomes viciously self-defeating, however, when closely examined (another very involved topic), given the history of the Church and Lutheranism's claims to be a return to the early Church, over against supposed "corruptions" of medieval and subsequent Catholicism.

But getting back to the notion of a treasury of merits; it strikes me that there is no essential difference between merits of the saints applied to others, and the very idea of intercessory prayers offered, and benefits received therefrom, by others. Each thing is an example of a mercy given by God as a result of the grace-inspired and -enabled works or efforts of others. The fact is, that we Christians are in this spiritual battle together, and the Church includes those who have passed on as well. They are still participating.

So how is an indulgence or a treasury of merit different from prayer? I don't see any difference. A Protestant might argue that God simply controls the answers to prayer, and benefits received (without human participation), and this is true. But the fact that the Church has a hand in dispensing indulgences (and penances) is equally biblical and permissible, on the basis of the prerogative to "bind and loose", given to the disciples. The Church can represent God in granting forgiveness. That is based on the explicit biblical teachings of Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23. Through the sacrament of baptism the Church grants the gift of regeneration (and Lutherans agree with us on that). God doesn't simply declare it; He uses physical matter and human participation in order to grant the interior supernatural grace and gift.

Lutherans themselves acknowledge the "power of the keys" and the prerogative of the Church to represent God in granting forgiveness:

Article XXV: Of Confession

1] Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And 2] the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there 3] was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, 4] and pronounced by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins.

(Augsburg Confession: 1530)

5] But this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. 6] For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, John 20, 21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. 7] Mark 16, 15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.

(Ibid., Article XXVIII. Ecclesiastical Power)

[unfortunately, most Lutherans have not retained bishops, and Luther and Melanchthon, early on, chose to grant powers to secular princes rather than to bishops; Melanchthon later on came to bitterly regret and bemoan this: "If only I could revive the jurisdiction of the bishops! For I see what sort of Church we shall have if the ecclesiastical constitution is destroyed." -- letter to Camerarius]

How, then, is a treasury of merit unbiblical at all? It is not. Prayer works the same way. James 5:16 is clear: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects". James (5:17-18) gives the historical example of the righteous man Elijah, who prayed and stopped the rain for three years and a half, then prayed that it would rain again and it did. Elijah had more "merit" insofar as he was a holier man and closer to God. Therefore, his prayers had more power. In the same context, we see the power of sacramentalism and the community of the Church: elders pray and anoint with oil and prayers of faith can heal the sick and bring them forgiveness (5:14-15). So Church authorities and things like oil (physical) and prayer (non-physical) work together to bring blessing and forgiveness and healing. Confession to one another and prayer are linked in 5:16a.

Prayer, then, is no different in essence from works of penance that can be applied on behalf of others. Again, this is a strong biblical motif, going all the way back to Abraham, Moses, and the priestly sacrifice of the tabernacle and temple. Moses makes atonement for other people's sins (Ex 32:30-32). God pardons the Jews because Moses prayed for them (Num 14:19-23). But penance remained (14:23). Aaron atoned for the people with incense, and a plague was stopped (Num 16:46-48; cf. 25:6-13).

Moving on to the New Testament, we see many examples of the Apostle Paul suffering for the sake of others, and this having a concrete effect, to their good. How is that different from "treasury of merits"? It is not at all. It is the exact same concept or idea or dynamic. Something Paul does, in his holiness and righteousness, is extended towards other people, to bless them and give them more grace. God is behind all of it. It isn't Paul's intrinsic meritoriousness (he has none, as a human being subject to the effects of original sin); it is God's grace working through him:

Romans 8:13,17 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live . . . and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [RSV, as throughout]

(see also 1 Corinthians 15:31, 2 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Peter 4:1,13)

2 Corinthians 4:10 Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.

(see also 2 Corinthians 1:5-7)

Philippians 2:17 Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

(see also 2 Corinthians 6:4-10)

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death.

(see also Galatians 2:20)

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come.

(see also Romans 12:1)

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.

(see also 2 Corinthians 11:23-30, Galatians 6:17)

To come at Josh's "argument" (I exaggerate; it is far more a mere gaseous Scripture-free explosion of free association rhetoric and polemics) from another angle; he objects to "quantifiable stuff that's stored in a vast heavenly treasury." Grace, however, is also referred to in Scripture as in some sense "quantifiable". Lutherans and Protestants in general try to deny this; they usually view grace as simply "God's favor"; that which saves one, in a non-quantifiable sense (as in, e.g., Rom 6:14; Eph 2:8-10). The biblical usage is more complex and nuanced than that, however, as I noted in my book, The Catholic Verses, page 187:

Apart from the different meanings of the specific word used, as shown, grace is possessed in different measure by different believers, as seen elsewhere in Scripture:

2 Peter 3:18: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

Ephesians 4:7: “But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.” (cf. Acts 4:33, Rom 5:20, 6:1, James 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5, 2 Peter 1:2)

[emphases added presently; not in my book]

Let's look at the other verses cross-referenced, too:

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Romans 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

James 4:6 But he gives more grace; therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

1 Peter 1:2 chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

In fact, it can be plausibly argued, that when Paul and others use the common greeting of "grace to you" (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; Phlm 1:3; Rev 1:4) it is in the same quantifiable sense: i.e., "may God give you more grace." It doesn't make sense if it is intended only in the broad Protestant meaning (that we agree with as far as it goes) of "you are saved by grace alone".

Why wish, after all, that someone should have or receive what they already clearly possess? If "grace" only means "the free favor by which we are saved" then the Christians to whom Paul is writing his epistles already have this grace (since Protestants believe in a past salvation that is already accomplished). So why would Paul say "grace to you"? It would be like telling a man who has a daughter "I wish you the blessing of a daughter from God" or a man with a nice mansion: "best wishes to you for a nice mansion." That makes no sense. Rather, it seems fairly clear, I think, that st. Paul is stating that he hopes and prays that his readers will receive more grace from God, as in the sense of 2 Peter 3:18, Ephesians 4:7, James 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:2, etc.

As for "hearing millions of people simultaneously" this is rather easily disposed of as well. I replied to anti-Catholic Steve Hays in a paper, thusly:

How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?

Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense.

Elsewhere I wrote:

They are not required to be omniscient to be aware of our requests for intercession, only out of time; and we have reason to believe that all who are with God in eternity in heaven are outside of time.

And again:

[W]e have reason to believe that they are out of time, by God's power, because to be in eternity is to be outside of the realm of time. That allows them to answer many requests for prayer because they have an infinite amount of "time" to do it.

The reasons for thinking that heaven is outside of time would require another lengthy discussion, but I suspect that if one dug deep enough, one could find plenty of Protestant agreement with that notion. It's not just a "Catholic thing." And if this is the case, the garden-variety objection of "how can Mary answer trillions of prayers at once?" vanishes into thin air. The very notion of "simultaneously" wouldn't even apply and is meaningless and irrelevant because when one is outside of time and temporality there is no "simultaneous." In that sense, then, a glorified human being in heaven would have capabilities similar to God, Who is also outside of time. They can "hear" and act upon prayers just as He does, without the necessity of being omnipotent or omniscient, to do so. They need only be outside of time as we know it. Even modern physics has proved that this is not at all an impossible state of affairs.

Half-Truths and Lies: Am I Merely a "Self-Published E-Pologist"? Observations on Related Polemics

I know I should just let nonsense like this roll off my back, but I'm just not that spiritual yet, folks. I admit it. Pray for me. I still have a hard time when people who have been corrected three, four, sometimes ten or more times, still repeat the same old lies, for the express purpose of trying to harm my reputation and name as an apologist. So let me offer this brief post, for the sake of the record.

Lutheran polemicist and incessant trash-talker Josh Strodtbeck posted at the Boar's Head Tavern on 9-27-07 (as "Pirate"), the following ignorant remark, that he must know to be false (having been corrected several times on his own site):

Dave Armstrong is a self-published lay Catholic e-pologist.

That was his entire comment, obviously meant as a potshot to undermine my credibility and put me in a box so that people inclined to disagree with my viewpoint could immediately dismiss my work. Of course, Josh himself is a lay Lutheran with no credentials, a former seminarian (one year), with no published works at all that I know of (not even self-published), who loves to frequent the Internet and trash all kinds of Christians and Christian groups, often acting indistinguishably from how a know-it-all would act, so what does this say about him?

Others (curiously) have used the same line:

. . . a Roman Catholic layman named Armstrong who self-published a book titled, "The One Minute Apologist."

(Lutheran pastor Paul T. McCain, June 2007)

Anti-Catholic James White was still saying this long after I had been published by Our Sunday Visitor (2002: The original Catholic Answer Bible) and Sophia Institute Press (in 2003). All these people had to do was spend five seconds on amazon or Sophia or OSV book pages to disabuse themselves of this silliness. What is so hard about that?

Now, it's true that I currently have ten self-published books out. But that is a half-truth when presented in isolation, and little better than a lie, since I also have four books published by reputable Catholic publishers (three by Sophia Institute Press: A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, The Catholic Verses, and The One-Minute Apologist) and one by Our Sunday Catholic Visitor, the largest Catholic publisher (The New Catholic Answer Bible, co-author of apologetic notes with Dr. Paul Thigpen). I also am author of a popular pamphlet published by OSV: Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked.

Three of these books (excepting The One-Minute Apologist) are also regularly on the amazon Top 100 for the Catholic Theology category (often even in the Top 25). They're doing very well in the small market. So to pretend that I am merely "self-published" (for crass propagandistic or polemical purposes) is ridiculous.

That means also, of course, that I am not merely an "e-pologist" (as if I should be ashamed of that in the first place). I had published magazine articles in 1993 (The Catholic Answer, This Rock) before I ever went on the Internet. My conversion story was published in a book (Surprised by Truth) in 1994. My first book was finished in 1996 before I ever had a website (and now there are four with "real" publishers), and it had a Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. I've been on the radio about ten times and have given talks to a live audience. None of that involves the Internet. Josh can't even get that right.

Yes, I do a ton of stuff on the Internet, and it has played and continues to play a huge role in my name and work being known at all, to the extent that my friend and fellow apologist Gary Michuta kindly described me on his website last month as "the undisputed king of Catholic apologetics on the web." If that is indeed true, why in the world should I be ashamed of it, anyway? It would be an accomplishment to be proud of (in the right sense of that word), it seems to me.

But that is not all I am, as he would like to make out, as if anyone could easily get a book published by a well-known publisher, be on national radio, debate atheist philosophers and scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other things that I have managed by the grace of God, to accomplish in my apologetic career. That seems to be the goal of this approach: to make out that anyone could do what I have done, and therefore to dismiss what I assert in my writing by the mere mention of the half-truths of being merely an e-pologist and/or "self-published" (that anyone can do today too).

Yet others keep spouting this, too, as if it is some unsavory thing to spread Christian (and Catholic Christian) truths over the Internet. What, would these people rather I set up a pornographic site and made a fortune? They're all on the Internet too. But because I have been successful at what I do, somehow it is to be mocked that I do a lot of it on the Internet. My friend Diane Kamer commented (on 6-9-06) on a discussion board, about this sort of mentality:

I hafta say . . . a general observation . . . a little pet peeve of mine that's been building over the years: I get a bit weary of the constant critiques of online apologists. Sometimes it seems as if "apologist" is a dirty word. Why? . . . Often it's their contra-Catholic opponents who derisively dismiss them as "epologists" - but goodness gracious, what do the opponents think they are? If you do any apologetics writing online, then that makes you an apologist (or epologist) by definition. How are you doing anything different from what the Catholic apologists are doing? And why on earth is it such a terrible thing to do anyway? Apologetics is a venerable enterprise. Sure, it's not the same thing as peer-reviewed scholarship, but no one should expect it to be. It is what it is, and what it is has a valuable place and purpose, in my humble opinion.

As a note of trivia, anti-Catholic luminary Dr. Eric Svendsen lays claim to coining the term "e-pologist":

The words “epologist/epologetics” and all their variations (e-pologist/e-pologetics) first occurred on my website many years ago. Don’t ask me the year; I don’t remember. It may have been 1997, but that’s just a guess. If you want to know where those words came from, look no further. I am the source. I coined them. And now it appears I should have patented them when I had the chance.

The words first appeared when I was making mention of certain Roman Catholic apologists who did apologetics solely or primarily online. At first, readers thought I had committed a spelling error and wrote me repeatedly to point it out. Then I was quoted on some Roman Catholic discussion forum, and one of the members there began mocking my use of the word (“what is an ‘epologist’ anyway?”) . . .

From there, Roman Catholic epologists everywhere began using the words with regularity, even creating their own “Epologetics” sections of their websites. There are now more Roman Catholic references to epologetics than Evangelical ones.

( 10-26-04 )

This seems more or less neutral and non-polemical. However, we see Svendsen (who has done a ton of Internet apologetics himself) using it in hyper-mocking terms later:

I have purged all the recent entries on this blog that referenced a certain highly emotional fundamentalist Roman Catholic e-pologist whose adolescent musings I have decided are just not worthy of my attention. I no longer think he and his views deserve the attention and free advertisement he is getting. I'd encourage others who may be dialoguing with him to do the same. He doesn't represent official Roman Catholic beliefs, and he's certainly not a recognized spokesperson for those beliefs. There is absolutely nothing to commend his views; he's demonstrated repeatedly that he is unable to engage in anything but sophistry on every level; he doesn't know how to engage in a fair handling of the biblical text; and to argue with him is to argue with a wall. I'm embarrassed to have mentioned him in the first place. On to more important things.

( 5-8-05 )

There was good reason to believe I was the recipient of this typical Svendsen personal attack, as argued by Patrick, a friend of mine, in a discussion at Steve Hays' Triablogue site, following up on a post of mine (since removed, in order to rid my site of excessive "personal" polemics of this sort). But whether I was or not, it is clear that e-pologist has often (though not always) become a derogatory term of dismissal. For example:

For those of you who have found yourselves in the sad position of debating anything with a Catholic internet e-pologist, . . .

(Frank Turk, aka Centuri0n, 9-21-05)

As for my being a layman, I stand guilty as charged. No argument there. But since Vatican II and many recent popes have enthusiastically recommended both lay apostolates and apologetics by laymen (as well as use of modern media of communication like radio, television, and the Internet), I fail to see how this is somehow a strike against me. Funny that a Protestant (of all people: the folks who push the "priesthood of all believers") would espouse the clergy-laity dichotomy and act as if laymen should sit around sucking their thumbs and letting the clergy do everything in the Church.

In any event, I am not solely an "epologist" unless these fact-challenged critics would like to argue that published paperback books, published articles in magazines, book chapters, radio talks (several times to a national audience), in-person talks, phone conversations, discussion meetings at my home, sitting at book tables at conferences, etc., are all somehow magically transformed into Internet activities.

The sky wouldn't fall down if Josh Strodtbeck stooped to a rare moment of actually providing a rational argument against a Catholic idea, minus the juvenile mockery and cynical propagandistic techniques.

Why Would the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly Possibly Want to Present a Review of My Book, The One-Minute Apologist?

Msgr. George A. Kelly, Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., Dr. James Hitchcock, Dr. Gerard Bradley, and Dr. Ralph McInerny: all active in the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars

I got a big chuckle out of this, in light of the oft-heard criticism from critics of Catholic apologetics (particularly as done by non-academic laymen like myself), that it is somehow antithetical to Catholic scholarship, that it usurps same, or that apologists supposedly claim to be scholars when they are not, or to speak for the magisterium in a way that is improper. Here is one recent quintessential example:

"Professional apologetics" is actually a subculture of post-Protestants within Catholicism. They by and large are not scholars who do critical analysis of primary texts; rather, their main audience is other Catholics and they often self-publish. One could psychoanalyze them all day, but I'll skip that and say that mostly their arguments are 1-liners for the easily amused or the simple. That's because they aren't part of Catholic academia or the Magisterium; they're part of American Catholic pop culture and as such should be taken about as seriously as glow-in-the-dark statues of Mary.

(Lutheran polemicist Josh Strodtbeck, 8-27-07)

Now, granted, I am no scholar, as I've stated till I am blue in the face (including in book introductions). Never claimed to be. Nor do I know why people like Josh keep pretending that I have ever presented myself as something along these lines. But Josh and many others who think like him want to imagine that the work of Catholic apologists is inherently in opposition to good, solid Catholic scholarship. Why is it, then, I wonder, that Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly would even consider reviewing my book, The One-Minute Apologist? Reformed Protestant, oops, "Catholic" blogmaster Kevin Johnson, after all, could only laugh away my book without comment:

When I see things on the Internet by Roman Catholic Internet apologists like the “One Minute Apologist”–what can an informed brother do other than just laugh his head off? I mean, really.

I continue to draw from pop culture to illustrate the absurdity of such an approach–as if this would ever convince anyone who is familiar with the relevant issues let alone handle the issues in question with any sort of respect for other opinions or even the truth of the matter . . . The last thing we need is rabid apologists for any point of view. . . . The sort of (Roman) Catholic I learn from is one that participates in the broader wisdom of the Church over the ages in the Western world. The sort that doesn’t have to argue people into anything because the very gravitas of their view and life is centered in the wisdom that the Church has provided her children over the centuries through a strong Western and Christocentric view of all things.

( 6-21-07 on the ReformedCatholicism.com blog )

The more extreme version of this mentality even pits apologists who are indeed scholars, over against other Catholic scholars (in this case, Dr. Scott Hahn):

A reader who relied on Hahn for his knowledge of Catholicism would have no idea what a skewed picture he’s getting. Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, but his exegetical argumentation is hardly representative of mainstream Catholicism.

Hahn has cast the issues as if this is a debate between Catholic exegesis and Evangelical exegesis—whereas it would more often be an internal debate between a retrograde convert and soapbox polemicist like Hahn over against mainstream Catholic scholarship.

(Anti-Catholic Steve Hays, 5-26-07)

Others go right to liberal, heterodox Catholic scholars and make out that they represent Catholicism, whereas orthodox apologists do not. Some consistency-challenged Catholics get in on the action, too; for example, the following foolish utterance:

Pope warns Catholic theologians against arrogance

It would be nice to see him issue a similar warning to self-styled "apologist" sorts who can be every bit as dogmatic in their opinions as any Catholic theologian but who have a lot less to be humble about (to put it nicely).

( 9-18-07 )

So there is one end of the spectrum of opinion. Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly obviously feels quite differently. Far from laughing off my book or taking it "as seriously as glow-in-the-dark statues of Mary" the editor is calling for a possible review of it. Isn't that odd? Yet here is my book mentioned among possible future reviews in FCS Quarterly, Fall 2007, page 48, sitting next to the work of scholars, priests, even some saints:

If you would like to receive a complimentary copy of one of the books below in order to review it for a future issue, please email your request to Alice Osberger at osberger.1@nd.edu If there are books you know of that should be reviewed, let
Dr. Brian Benestad know at benestadj1@scranton.edu

Thomas Merton:A Book of
Hours,.ed..Kathleen.Deignan,.Sorin.
Press:.Notre.Dame,.IN.(2007),.cloth,.
223.pp.

Interior Castle:Teresa of Avila,.
Dennis.Billy,.C.S.s.R.,.Christian.
Classics,.Ave.Maria.Press:.Notre.
Dame,.IN,.(2007),.Paper,.314pp.

Union With God: Letters of Spir-
itual Direction by Blessed Co-
lumba Marmion,.Dom.Raymond.
Tibaut,.Zaccheus.Press:.Bethesda,.
MD,.(2006),.Paper,.231.pp.

The Pope, the Council, and the
Mass:Answers to Questions the
“Traditionalists” Have Asked,.
James.Likoudis.and.Kenneth.D..
Whitehead,.(2006),.Paper,.374.pp.

Prayer in Newman,.Giovanni.
Velocci,.C.SS.R,.Newman.House.
Press:.Mount.Pocono,.PA.(2006),.
Paper,.94.pp.

Absolute Revelation and Univer-
sal Religion: European University
Studies,.Joseph.Pandiappallil,.Peter.
Lang:.Frankfurt.am.Main,.(2005),.
Paper,.433pp..

Trade, Development, and Social
Justice,.Raj.Bhala,.Carolina.Aca-
demic.Press:.Durham,.NC,.(2003),.
Cloth,.541.pp.

Worthy is the Lamb:The Biblical
Roots of the Mass,.Thomas.J..Nash,.
Ignatius.Press,.San.Francisco.(2004),.
Paper..248.pp.

Transforming Catholicism: Li-
turgical Change in the Vatican II
Church,.David.R..Maines.&.Mi-
chael.J..McCallion,.Rowman.and.
Littlefield.Publishing.Group,.Inc.:
Latham,.MD,.(2007),.Paper,.152.pp.

Making the Church Our Own:
How We Can Reform the Catho-
lic Church from the Ground Up,.
Leonard.Swidler,.Rowman.and.
Littlefield.Publishing.Group:.Lan-
ham,.MD,.(2007)..Paper..pp..162

101 Questions & Answers on The
Eucharist,.Giles.Dimock,.OP,.Pau-
list.Press:.New.York/Mahwah,.NJ,.
(2006),.Paper..139.pp.

We Look for a Kingdom:The Ev-
eryday Lives of the Early Chris-
tians,.Carl.J..Sommer,.Ignatius.
Press:.San.Francisco,.(2007).Paper..
422pp.


The One-Minute Apologist:
Essential Catholic Replies to
Over Sixty Common Protestant
Claims,.Dave.Armstrong,.Sophia.
Institute.Press:.Manchester,.NH,.
(2007).Paper,.143pp.

United States Welfare Policy:
A Catholic Response,.Thomas.J..
Massaro,.SJ,.Georgetown.Univer-
sity.Press:.Washington,.D.C..(2007).
Paper,.257.

Behold, God’s Son!: Encounter-
ing Christ in the Gospel of Mark,.
Christoph.Cardinal.Schönborn,.Ig-
natius.Press:.San.Francisco,.(2005),.
Paper..238pp.

Was Frankenstein Really Uncle
Sam? Vol I: Notes on the State of
the Declaration of Independence,.
Richard.J..Rolwing,.Xlibris.Corp.,.
(2007),.339pp.

Nor (far more importantly with regard to what I am contending) is my book an isolated case of apologetics authors being reviewed, or considered for review. A perusal of back issues of FCS Quarterly makes that clear. The Summer 2004 issue has (p. 46) a glowing review of apologist Mark Brumley's book, How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, by Fr. Brian Van Hove, S.J.:

. . . deserves to be read by every young person who wishes to defend the Catholic faith . . . Apologetics as a vocation must be rediscovered in this post-conciliar period. There is a need to expand its scope. Mark Brumley contributes in an excellent way to this need.

David B. Currie's book, Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (published by Sophia, my own publisher), was reviewed by John F. Kippley in the Spring 2004 issue (p. 23). Currie is the author of the bestselling apologetics book, Born Fundamentalist; Born Again Catholic.

Timothy Drake's book about Lutheran converts to Catholicism, There We Stood, Here We Stand, that was "self-published" by 1stBooks Library (where I first published A Biblical Defense of Catholicism), was positively reviewed ("very readable book") in the Summer 2002 issue (p. 21) by Leonard A. Kennedy, C.S.B.

Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead (Contra Lutheran Josh Strodtbeck)

St. Martin de Porres (1579-1639)

Good ole Josh. Nothing but an objective, reasoning machine, able to see clearly the faults of every Christian tradition imaginable, and always filled with words of edification for his fellow Christian believers. Here is his recent comment on philosophers who convert to Catholicism (almost certainly a thinly veiled reference to Francis Beckwith and also possibly Rob Koons: high profile converts to Catholicism: the latter a former Lutheran):

I always find this interesting. One makes one's career in rational thought, then decides that the most perfectly reasonable thing in the world is to believe that there's a mystical Virgin floating around in the sky, covering the world in her veil and making magical myrrh gush out of consecrated paintings.

What won't people believe? What's next, the dead coming back to life?

Well, yes. The latter would be quite biblical:

Matthew 10:5-8 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

Acts 9:36-41 Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she fell sick and died; and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room. Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him entreating him, "Please come to us without delay." So Peter rose and went with them. And when he had come, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping, and showing tunics and other garments which Dorcas made while she was with them. But Peter put them all outside and knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

Acts 20:7-12 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. There were many lights in the upper chamber where we were gathered. And a young man named Eu'tychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him." And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took the lad away alive, and were not a little comforted.

People were raised from the dead even in Old Testament times, as in the case of the prophet Elijah:

1 Kings 17:17-23 After this the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became ill; and his illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him. And she said to Eli'jah, "What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!" And he said to her, "Give me your son." And he took him from her bosom, and carried him up into the upper chamber, where he lodged, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, hast thou brought calamity even upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?" Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the LORD, "O LORD my God, let this child's soul come into him again." And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Eli'jah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. And Eli'jah took the child, and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and delivered him to his mother; and Eli'jah said, "See, your son lives."

The prophet Elisha also raised someone from the dead (2 Kings 4:17-37). Indeed, even Elisha's bones caused a man to be raised (2 Kings 13:20-21: an explicit biblical confirmation of relics). If it is objected that these were prophets, and hence a special case (hence irrelevant), then we present the words of Jesus about John the Baptist, who is considered the last prophet:

Luke 7:26-28 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, `Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

Now, of course, I am not saying that raising the dead is as simple as anyone going out and praying for dead people. I don't plan on doing so, myself. Like all miracles, it would be an extraordinarily rare occurrence. I don't deny that the apostolic period was clearly one of increased miraculous occurrences (no question about that). But I am maintaining that the dead coming back to life is an entirely biblical notion, so that it is not in a category that can be mocked as utterly ludicrous or impossible (?) by the likes of Josh Strodtbeck.

It can't be so easily dismissed, since Jesus assumes that His disciples would be able to heal the sick and cast out demons as well, in the same passage (as well as evangelize). He doesn't separate raising the dead from the other things as if it were in an entirely different category. In other words, if Josh or someone else wishes to rule out all miraculous occurrences whatsoever, he is free to do so, but then he would be all that much more in contradiction to biblical teaching. Jesus taught that there was such a thing as demons and demon possession. Are we too sophisticated today to agree with Him? Is there no healing at all anymore?

If it is objected that miracles occurred only during the apostolic period, we can reply that there is nothing in the Bible to indicate what is known as "cessationism." In fact, James casually assumes that healing would continue to take place in the Church, by providing an example of Elijah that he applied to the Church age:

James 5:14-18 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Eli'jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Martin Luther didn't deny the possibility of continuing miracles. In his famous reply to Erasmus, The Bondage of the Will, he freely grants this, in his review of Erasmus' introduction (Part II, Section II).

I have in my library the book Raised from the Dead: True Stories of 400 Resurrection Miracles (Albert J. Hebert, Rockford, IL" TAN Books, 1986). The book recounts resurrection stories from the patristic period, as attested by St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the historian Sozomen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose. How about St. Augustine?. He recounted four or five such stories (Cardinal Newman credits him with five). In one such story. St. Augustine affirms the miraculous nature of relics (of St. Stephen, in this instance) and the occurrence of someone being raised from the dead:

When the bishop Projectus was bringing the relics of the most glorious martyr Stephen to the waters of Tibilis, a great concourse of people came to meet him at the shrine. There a blind woman entreated that she might be led to the bishop who was carrying the relics. He gave her the flowers he was carrying. She took them, applied them to her eyes, and forthwith saw. Those who were present were astounded, while she, with every expression of joy, preceded them, pursuing her way without further need of a guide.

Lucillus bishop of Sinita, in the neighborhood of the colonial town of Hippo, was carrying in procession some relics of the same martyr, which had been deposited in the castle of Sinita. A fistula under which he had long labored, and which his private physician was watching an opportunity to cut, was suddenly cured by the mere carrying of that sacred fardel,—at least, afterwards there was no trace of it in his body.

Eucharius, a Spanish priest, residing at Calama, was for a long time a sufferer from stone. By the relics of the same martyr, which the bishop Possidius brought him, he was cured. Afterwards the same priest, sinking under another disease, was lying dead, and already they were binding his hands. By the succor of the same martyr he was raised to life, the priest’s cloak having been brought from the oratory and laid upon the corpse.

(City of God, Book XXII, chapter 8)

St. Irenaeus casually assumed that these things still took place, and that it was folly for heretics to disbelieve it:

2. Moreover, those also will be thus confuted who belong to Simon and Carpocrates, and if there be any others who are said to perform miracles—who do not perform what they do either through the power of God, or in connection with the truth, nor for the well-being of men, but for the sake of destroying and misleading mankind, by means of magical deceptions, and with universal deceit, thus entailing greater harm than good on those who believe them, with respect to the point on which they lead them astray. For they can neither confer sight on the blind, nor hearing on the deaf, nor chase away all sorts of demons—[none, indeed,] except those that are sent into others by themselves, if they can even do so much as this. Nor can they cure the weak, or the lame, or the paralytic, or those who are distressed in any other part of the body, as has often been done in regard to bodily infirmity. Nor can they furnish effective remedies for those external accidents which may occur. And so far are they from being able to raise the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles did by means of prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood on account of some necessity—the entire Church in that particular locality entreating [the boon] with much fasting and prayer, the spirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been bestowed in answer to the prayers of the saints—that they do not even believe this can be possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection from the dead is simply an acquaintance with that truth which they proclaim.

(Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 31, 2)

St. Martin of Tours (316-397) was said to have raised three persons from the dead. Pope St. Gregory the Great tells the story of St. Benedict doing the same. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) is reported to have performed this miracle. Bernard himself testifies that his friend St. Malachy (1095-1148) had raised a woman from the dead. Others who were used by God to perform this extraordinary miracle are St. Patrick, St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231), Blessed Margaret of Castello (1287-1320), St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Catherine of Sweden, St. Joan of Arc, St. Bernardine, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, St. Philip Neri, St. John Bosco, St. Martin de Porres, St. Vincent Ferrer, and St. Padre Pio.

All this, yet Josh thinks belief in this sort of miracle is the equivalent of what he mocks as infantile, fairy tale-like belief in his gross caricature of Catholic Mariology, as "a mystical Virgin floating around in the sky . . . making magical myrrh gush out of consecrated paintings."

Documentation of James White Posts That Are Solely Personal Insults, Without Any Substance or Actual Counter-Reply (Reply to "Turretinfan")

[ source ]

White should have been a sailor, not an apologist. He lacks the proper temperament and demeanor for the latter (see many examples below)

In the recent round of exchanges with the anonymous Reformed anti-Catholic apologist "Turretinfan", he made the following claim in my combox:

[W]hile Dr. White certainly has made personal comments about you, as far as this writer can recall, none of his responses have ever been "pure personal attack" and saying that Dr. White refuses to engage "virtually all" your critiques is definitely an overstatement.

Note, first of all, that TF knows full well that White has ignored many of my critiques. He only denies that he has ignored "virtually all" of them. But I explained what I meant in context; that White "never follows through with an entire discussion with me without eventually descending into pure personal attack." It is true that sometimes he is actually substantive (albeit in error) for a short time. But by the end of that post or almost always in the next post, it becomes personal (often, entirely so).

This is what happened (most notoriously and infamously) in his series of reviews of The Catholic Verses. He got more and more personal and I got tired of it and simply left, when he accused me of "knowing deception" (after I showed him all the books I had read as a Protestant). Here is White's entire post from 12-31-04 (all bolded emphases my own, throughout):

Armstrong's Reading List
James R. White

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception. So far, DA has been unable to provide even the slightest meaningful defense of his own published statements and their refutation. Which is really only marginally relevant to the real issue: hopefully, aside from demonstrating the exegetical bankruptcy of The Catholic Verses, answers are being given to all those observing and learning how to speak the truth to those who likewise would handle the Word from the vantage point of tradition rather than allowing it to speak for itself with its own voice.

Then White (joined by Eric Svendsen, Frank Turk and other anti-Catholics in a wild "feeding frenzy", thinking they saw blood in the water) mocked me for many weeks afterwards, implying that I was a coward and utterly unable to respond, and "melted down" etc. ad nauseum. This occurred in early 2005. I used to have all the documentation on my blog but removed 70 or so papers of personal nonsense like that, some time ago. One can see in the present instance how interaction with anti-Catholics so often (almost always, in fact) becomes personal. This is one of the maddening things for anyone who tries to actually dialogue with anti-Catholics (and why I have often stopped altogether, notably during 2005 and 2006). As my friend Steve Ray wrote recently: "whenever one steps into a mud puddle with White one always feels the need of a shower." How well I can relate to that!

The fact remains that White ignores many of my critiques entirely. Even "Turretfan" knows this, because he was careful and smart enough not to deny it and involve himself in manifest falsehood. White himself has admitted it several times. For example, in a post of 16 April 2004:

Armstrong complained again that I have "ignored" his rebuttals of my position. Yes, in general, I find them to fall so far short of meaningful and relevant that I do not believe them worth the investment of time.

Yet TF wants to give me misery for not replying to his arguments against some of my stuff, while White does exactly the same thing. This is what I call a double standard. TF wants to kiss up to White and not openly criticize him, because he is the Grand Poobah and Big Cheese: the King of the Anti-Catholics. And so it is a naughty no-no to publicly call him on his blatant, wanton, ongoing hypocrisies. That would make TF mighty unpopular in know-nothing anti-Catholic circles.

Note also how TF covers his bases by acknowledging (in a low-key way, but he still did it) that White has indeed made personal comments about me. No conscious, sane person who has followed our twelve-year interaction could possibly deny that, so he was wise to not do so. Elsewhere, TF even admitted that White engages in mockery against me:

When you accuse Dr. White of "falsehoods and misrepresentations and mockeries" and can only demonstrate that he mocks you, your readers are left wondering why you do not demonstrate the more serious allegations.

( 6-19-07 )

In the same post, he rails against and excoriates behavior that he thinks he sees in me: the exact thing that White routinely does (literally hundreds of times by now), against all sorts of opponents:

If you believe that your critics are providing "sophistical inanities," don't simply assert it, demonstrate it. When you dodge the issues and hurl ad hominem arguments and well-poisoning characterizations of your opponents, your readers start to realize that it's bluster not rebuttal.

. . . there is also a significant body of readers who are put off by excuses for failing to rebut what one's opponent has to say.

. . . There is something about your evasion above that gives most of us pause.

Quit trying to go after my person and address my arguments, if you can. And if you cannot, revise your position, striking the errors from your position. Apologetics, Dave, is not about personalities but positions.

So White's hypocrisy is evident. TF knows that he ignores many of my critiques of his work. He knows also that White engages in mockery against me and makes "personal comments." For this we can all be eternally grateful to TF: for his astonishing, noble, heroic honesty in accepting the utterly obvious. It's more than most anti-Catholics will ever admit about their big Hero and Champion, Bishop White. It's bad PR to do too much of it, though. So TF makes sure his implied criticism is muted and subtle enough to not bring White's (and his large fan club's) ire down upon his head.

So far so good (as far as it goes). But TF is very clever and ingenious in how he handles this problem in his ranks. Rather than deny that White engages in personal attack, insult, slander, ad hominem (which he cannot possibly do), he argues that yeah, White does that sometimes, but unlike the Catholics and guys like Dave Armstrong, he mixes in a little bit of substance with his personal attacks, so that they can be excused and winked at as understandable excesses (White makes a similar argument in defense of his frequently unethical and pathetic, despicable behavior and incessant personal attacks, in a post of 1-4-05). "Turretinfan" wrote:

. . . as far as this writer can recall, none of his responses have ever been "pure personal attack" . . .

Now, the contrary is easily demonstrable. And I shall proceed to do so now. I already gave one instance above. This will prove beyond a reasonable doubt in anyone's mind (including sane, conscious anti-Catholics with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser) that White is often guilty of the same thing TF has falsely accused me of: engaging in pure personal attack. First of all, White, of course, denies that he does such things. One of his most ridiculous utterances along these lines was the following:

God knows, and James Akin knows, that my writings do not contain any kind of material like that produced regularly by Catholic Answers. Every mention of Karl Keating, James Akin, Patrick Madrid, or other Roman Catholic apologists, in my newest book, is based upon issues, not personalities. Oh, it would be easy to get into that game. But I continue to strive for a higher standard. I don't want to become like my opposition, whether they be hatefilled [sic] Fundamentalist KJV Only advocates, or hatefilled [sic] Roman Catholic apologists. In either case, I pray God will allow me to not become like them.

( Mirror Mirror: The Decline of Catholic Answers )

White wrote in a letter to me, dated 12-2-96 (since he had sent to his cronies a personal, confidential letter of mine, in an effort to harm my reputation earlier that year -- long story --, I have taken the liberty to reveal his personal letters as well, ever since):

Dave, I don't trust you as far as I could throw you, to be perfectly honest with you. You are no different than the Crusaders of old, you just don't get to use a sword to hack me to pieces (and get a plenary indulgence in the process!). I do not believe that you were being honest, kind, or anything other than your old self when you wrote what you wrote in the list. Your intentions were obvious. When "caught," you dissembled. Period. All the protestations to the contrary are meaningless, since this is NOT the first time you've taken this route. Eventually, wisdom demands that you don't believe the untrustworthy.

Below I shall document, by many examples, posts that are entirely composed of sweeping personal insult:

3/28/04: Dave Armstrong

It is good to know that even on weekends the ever-vigilant Dave Armstrong is reading my blog. J Seriously, only a few hours after posting my response to TGE [Tim Enloe] below, DA (as he is so affectionately known by so many) posted a long, rambling response that, to be honest, has almost nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. I normally try to avoid DA when I write, since he seems to have no end of time nor any interest in actually focusing upon any one topic in his writings. In fact, he has written so much that it seems to be approaching critical mass, and may soon crash the internet due to all of his self-congratulatory self-citation. Anyway, if you dare mention him you will get a minimum of ten times the amount of text in return (witness this situation), and there is simply no end to the verbiage that can be pounded out on a keyboard connected to one of today's high-speed computers.

Be that as it may, what I said was 1) DA lacks the ability to engage the text of the Scriptures in a meaningful fashion, and 2) DA will use anything to attack the truth. Unwittingly he has proven the second proposition true in his lengthy response and the argumentation it contains. As to the first, I simply direct anyone to the "exegesis" presented in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, his 2001 publication. The book is a monument to how to ignore context, avoid grammar, shred syntax, and insert the traditions of Rome willy-nilly into any passage you cite. Sadly, given how rare it is for anyone to honor the Word by engaging in serious AND believing exegesis these days, few in the pews have the process modeled for them consistently in the pulpit or the Bible Study room, and hence are impressed by even this kind of rambling eisegesis. DA thinks himself a modern Socrates, yet, his writing takes wild leaps from topic to topic, inserts endless (and often gratuitous) irrelevant material that serves only to cover the shallow nature of what is being said, and in the end requires one to possess the skill of nailing jello to a wall to be able to respond to it for its utter lack of substance. Take away his quotes from the CCC and Newman, and there would be little left.

To demonstrate this with clarity, let me provide a contrast. DA has published a book in which he seeks to give a "biblical defense" of his theology (it is much more of a defense offered by selective citations of Newman than anything else). It struck me this evening that he "explained" issues regarding Hebrews 7 and Christ's priesthood in his book, and I am writing an article for a journal on the same topic. So, the best way to substantiate what I have said is to just allow the reader to decide. Below I reproduce DA's comments, and after that, my own as they will be published in an upcoming journal article. Click here for the comparison. [ link ]

The second piece did actually make some arguments. I thoroughly responded to them, and was summarily ignored. This is what almost always happens with white: he may get in one round of (semi-) rational reply, but if I counter-reply, he flees for the Arizona hills (either on his bicycle or on foot if he has to split in a hurry to avoid a dreaded real dialogue).

The day before (3-27-04), White had written a post primarily about Tim Enloe, called "Blog Wars II . . ." When he mentioned me, it was pure insult and nothing else:

Roman Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, who lack any meaningful ability to engage the text in a serious manner, have no compunctions about grabbing anything to use as a bludgeon against the truth.

Then there was the famous "caricature war" controversy. I won;t revisit all that. I've written about it several times. But here was one White post, of 15 April 2004:

4/15/04: Dave Armstrong's Sense of Humor

I've taken a great deal of heat for having *any* humor on this blog, and especially for the cartoons Angel was so kind to provide. No matter how accurate his commentary, or how perfectly on-target the satire, there are some who just don't believe there is any room at all for the use of sarcasm, satire, or humor in apologetics.

Each of the cartoons we have presented have not only been accurate in how they look, but they have had a clear application to a particular situation, as anyone knew who listened to the debates or programs to which the cartoon referred can attest. And in no case was anything even remotely like violence suggested. Angel is a professional.

Well, as Rush Limbaugh always says, you really need to leave such things to the professionals. Today Dave Armstrong, Roman Catholic apologist extraordinaire, posted an altered version on his blog. Yes, Rush is right. Leave such things to the professionals. So, the next time you think about complaining about Angel's professional cartoons and the points they make, remember what the "other side" thinks is funny.

[March 2004; source page]

Bishop White: "in no case was anything even remotely like violence suggested"

(copyright 2004; posted on 4-22-04)
[source page and post / photograph URL]

Bishop White: "Each of the cartoons we have presented have not only been accurate in how they look, but they have had a clear application to a particular situation, . . ."

April 2004 was a high point in White's apologetic career, no doubt. He was filled to the brim with personal insults. Here's another entire post from 19 April 2004:

4/19/04: Wow, I Feel Sooooo Much Better

Proving that reasoning and refutation are but minor irritations, Dave Armstrong has reposted his mauled graphic of me. However, his rather less than talented artist removed the blood from my face this time (as I said, I'm so thankful and feel so much better now). And he has chosen, in his own inimitable style to post it on one of his fantasy "debates," where he takes something I've written, works his wonderful Socratic magic (i.e. writes ten times the amount of material and hopes the verbiage will dazzle his audience), and puts "Dave Armstrong vs. James White" at the top. You know, it never crossed my mind, back in 1988/89 when I first started listening to tapes from Catholic Answers and started replying to their claims that someday I'd have folks like DA shooting blanks at me from long range. That's OK. Anyone who took the time to read the exegesis comparison and follow up knows the score. And proving that all things work together for the good, Angel has indicated I should be keeping my eyes on my e-mail in-box. Never know when he might provide us with one of his artistic commentaries on Mr. Armstrong's apologetic endeavors. :-)

Here is a real (and quite illuminating) classic: White's eight-minute rant about me on his Dividing Line webcast (20 April 2004). I made a transcript of it. If you prefer to hear it in audio format, I have preserved that too [link]. Like other similar nonsense, I had removed it from my website, in charity towards White and so as to not bore my readers with White's unsavory antics. But since I am being challenged, and it is being insinuated that Venerable Bishop White doesn't do this sort of thing, here it is, back again, for the record. The text below is a complete, absolutely unedited transcript for this portion of the show. All italics represent White's own frequent emphasizing of words:

Those of you who have been following the blog, uh [laughter], just, I don't know, what do you do with someone like Dave Armstrong, you know? I mean, really, it is a question that you face, because, just simply by being out there, I mean, uh, if you read his materials, he's very very high on himself and, uh, makes sure that you know how many books he's written.

Of course, they're vanity published, but how many books he's written, and uh, you read the top of his page, and it's [mocking tone] exegesis and history and apologetics and philosophy and all this stuff, and you know, in your heart of hearts, that this fella, uh, bless his soul, has no idea what he's talking about. He's read some books, but the important foundational stuff that allows you to actually make sense out of all that stuff, he's clueless; he has no idea what he is talking about, but he writes constantly!

I mean, he must live on two hours of sleep and must type at 130 words a minute. That's the only way that you could possibly produce the kind of verbosity, uh, that he produces. So what do you do? Cuz, it's sorta, sort of; it's really disturbing to me, uh, that I hear from people, and they go, "well, well, whaddya think about what he said about this?" And I sorta, I sorta; I, it's really hard for me to go, "well, have you really thought about, you know, the foundation of this argument, and the background of this argument?" People need to learn how to examine argumentation! And see through fluff! Uh, see through stuff that shouldn't even be called an argument; it's complimenting it way too much to call it an argument! And [sigh] it's just, how do you deal with folks like that?

I mean, uh, you know, he posts this horrific image of me, with an arrow sticking out of my head; blood everywhere, and tries to say, well [mocking, derisive tone] "you had that Angel cartoon about Patrick Madrid and you were stoning him!" Actually, you know, I think Patrick, not only, since he's in Envoy Magazine and they use cartoons all the time, but I think he would be, he -- if you really got him on an honest moment -- he would have to admit that that's one of the best caricatures of himself he's ever seen. I mean, he looks good in that! He really does! He looks better than, well, I think I look alright in mine, too, but he looks good! He looks really good. There's no arrow sticking out of his head. There's no blood anywhere. And everyone knows that it was a part of the debate
that we specifically talked about whether Moses would have stoned you, had you used this kind of argumentation.

[Richard Pierce, President of White's Alpha and Omega Ministries] He looks better than Spurgeon did in the one with Dave Hunt.

Well, uh, but see, now Spurgeon was just a background thing there. I think . . .

[Pierce] Well, he's also being strangled.

[laughter] He was not being strangled; he had a gag in his mouth, but
uh, uh, no, I mean, he really looks good! This; I'm sorry, but Mr. Armstrong's artist isn't an artist. He has no; he shouldn't be doing what he's doing, okay? He's not good at this. Angel is a professional. He knows what he's doing, and he's good at it, and he's making a point. There's no point in anything Mr. Armstrong, in his disgusting little graphic, has produced. But he's got a new one; I mentioned last night on the blog, he's got a new one; they took the blood off. [laughter] It's still the same thing, and [laughter] if anyone's . . . do you know what they could have done, and this is so simple; this would have actually maybe communicated something. And it might have been funny.

But they blew it. Uh, what they could have done, is, if you look at my graphic, the one that's on my blog, the first one that Angel did for me, do you notice something about those little arrows? They're little play arrows. They have the little rubber suction cup on the end. If they had just taken the Roman Catholic one, with a suction cup and stuck it to my forehead. No blood, and then just slightly change, the, uh, visual of the face, to one of surprise or "duh" or something like that, it might have been funny! It might have actually, you know, maybe you coulda made a point with it or something.

[Pierce] Yeah, but there's only one problem with that.

Uh, what?

[Pierce] The problem is that it would have required him to have some original artistry.

[laughter] That's true!

[Pierce ] And I would like to point out that, as the President of the organization . . .

[laughter]

[Pierce] . . . [clears throat] at the bottom of the page where that appears . . .

It's got a little copyright there.

[Pierce] Copyright . . .

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Pierce] So in fact, Mr. Armstrong had to steal it, and modify it.

Yeah, well, he's done that before, and I've pointed out to him that he shouldn't do that, but anyway, that's, that's, aaah, whatever. I'm not overly concerned about that.

Um, but I am, the point is, that would have been funny; that would have been, "oh, ha ha ha", coulda got a little chuckle about it, but the fact that Mr. Armstrong can't see what the first one was all about, and refuses to acknowledge, [mocking tone] "you know, that was really dumb to post that, that was . . ", you know, he just won't do that.

That illustrates, then, what happened in my response to his writings. When you respond to him, and I don't know if anyone followed it, if they went to his blog -- we provided some of the links and stuff -- but, I went through, I provided, I quoted from his book, and then I quoted from the article I had written. And the whole point was to illustrate the difference in exegetical methodology. I have one. He doesn't. And he doesn't because he doesn't know the field. He's just; he doesn't know what he's doing! I mean, that would be like my trying to, to, write to a CPA and criticize uh, an audit that he's done on a major corporation. I'm not trained in that. I don't know the terminology. I don't know the basics, the foundational rules that you're supposed to do and why you put this in this ledger and why you put that -- I don't know that stuff. It's not my area, I; you can go to school and learn those things. Uh, but he hasn't done so.

And so, I just provided as an example. Well, he writes this response which has nothing to do with the text; it has nothing to do with exegesis; it just simply proves my point, but that's one of the things [mocking me] "see, he just ignores this." Well, okay, yeah, I did, because it wasn't worth responding to! I mean, it's just that bad! So, I did respond to it, after he said I wouldn't, and so I responded to it, demonstrated that it had no connection with reality whatsoever, it was really really bad, and his response to that was basically to accuse me of attacking him, and all the rest of this stuff, which for him means, I pointed out that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

When do, where do you draw the line? I mean, it would be so much easier to just ignore all these people, but the problem is, we're one of those few folks that actually gets out there and we get our hands dirty. We actually take on these, these individuals, and show where the argumentation's bad, and you're gonna end up with dirt on your hands, and on your face, when you wallow with some of these folks, and we try to figure out where the line is. This guy [sigh], sadly, there are people who write recommendations of his stuff! I mean, you got Scott Hahn, all these folks, which amazes me. Uh, because you [laughter] look at some of his books, and it's just like "wow! there's just no substance here." It's just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that's the end of the subject. And there's no meaningful argumentation going on at all.

Where do you draw the line, because eventually, I have to trust that the people who are reading these things, and are concerned about these things can eventually go, "hey, wait a minute, that wasn't even a response; that's not even a meaningful argument," without my having to hold their hand and show that to them. But, sadly, in a postmodern world, where, for a lot of folks, if you can produce a response, and spell it right, that somehow means something. The view of logic, rationality, the ability to examine argumentation; let's face it, folks, listen to the political dialogue in our nation! There's not a whole lot of meaningful discussion going on there! And yet you get people all excited; you know, I could play my Howard Dean .wav [audio file] here, you know. [laughter] It's just like, "whoah!" People, people look at this kind of stuff and as long as your mouth is moving, somehow you're making a point! Instead of going, "you know what? That person didn't answer that question, either!, that person didn't answer that question, either," wow! you know, all the rest of that kind of stuff . . . it is, it is, it's a daily battle as to how to decide what you respond to and what you don't.

Well, on a much higher level; on a much much much higher level; uh, on a, on an extremely much higherly [sic] level [derisive laughter], . . .

If anyone wants to see my interjected responses to this slanderous garbage (now removed from my blog), you can still view it on an Internet Archive page.

He was still ranting on 23 April 2004:

James White: Bad, Bad Man

Dave Armstrong wrote a nearly 4200 word "response" to Angel's cartoon, and, of course, it is all my fault. See, Wilson was right: it doesn't matter what you say. UPDATE: Dave then ignored copyright laws, demonstrated he has no one around him who can do original work, took the caricature below, and proved he is beyond all rational discourse yet once again by attaching various altered forms to his fantasy "debates" (remember, DA has never debated me, and will not do so in person). As I said a few weeks ago, since there is no substance to the man's methodology or study, but no end to his time to tap away at a keyboard, what do you do when he starts in with his irrational diatribes? Hopefully the clear demonstration of his incapacity to engage in meaningful exegesis (indeed, even to know what the term means) will help some who have been impacted by his sheer volume of verbosity.

Things got really absurd and ludicrous when I decided to stop interacting with White because he refused to cease issuing personal attacks in his "reviews" of my book The Catholic Verses: (you can see documentation of the "feeding frenzy" from White, Svendsen, and others in the second part of an old paper of mine, from the Internet Archive)

01/03/2005

James White: Meanest of the Mean
James R. White

It is hard to find words to describe the response of Dave Armstrong to the review of his own published work. I mean, when you publish a book, do you expect that no one will respond to it, review it, check it for accuracy, examine it for apologetic coherence? When you claim to be able to perform action X (i.e., provide coherent, accurate exegesis and analysis of biblical passages) do you really think you should be given a pass when you consistently fail to do so? I'm sorry, but up till today the essence of DA's replies has been, "He's so mean! He's engaging in ad hominem!" Yet every example he provides refers to a statement where I am making observations, or providing conclusions, based upon the very factual and exegetical material that Mr. Armstrong has miserably failed to handle accurately (and, of course, he'd cite that as more ad hominem).

But I never dreamed that a total and complete melt-down would take place, resulting in Mr. Armstrong pulling the material off his blog and going into hiding! And yet, you can read for yourself. [links to my paper that I cite in the introduction above] We are asked to believe this was a "long time coming," etc., but let's face it: DA isn't up to defending his published works. There's just nothing to say in defense of on the one hand saying, "Here is accurate exegesis of texts that confound Protestants" and on the other, the demonstration that DA can't do meaningful exegesis, and has made a number of errors in the process of writing his materials. You can try to distract folks with lots of charges of misbehavior on the part of the one pointing out your errors, and you can post dozens of URL's to your previous works, but the fact of the matter is, fair-minded, serious folks can tell when you simply have given it your best and have failed at your task. Perhaps some time off will allow Mr. Armstrong to consider the things he has come to believe to be true outside the field of battle? That would be a welcome thing.

Now, some might ask, "Are you going to continue your review?" Surely. I have been writing "ahead," actually, and have my blog articles through tomorrow evening already written and scheduled to appear via our blog software, including the conclusion of the Luke 1:28 examination regarding Armstrong and an article on Dr. Scott Hahn's claims regarding the same subject. And unless DA pulls his book from publication and distribution, it remains a resource that is in "the field," and hence proper material for response.

The above post is not included in White's January 2005 blog archive. Transcript of Dividing Line webcast of 4 January 2005 (the audio for this show appears to be unavailable now):

Quite honestly, I just don't see that he follows an argument really well. He's very sensitive; if you say anything, he's gonna run off and accuse you of ad hominem, even though he doesn't follow the standard definitions of ad hominem . . . A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. This is a self-published book, alright? There's no editor in the sense of a Bethany House or something involved with this particular book . . . . The man does not know how to do exegesis. It's a fact. I went through it and demonstrated that. But that book really didn't have a lot of distribution. Well now he's put one out with Sophia Institute Press. Now that's an actual publisher. And so that means it's gonna get actual distribution . . . so it would be useful to a wider audience to go ahead and respond to some of the arguments that are presented in the book, The Catholic Verses, . . . there is a consistent pattern of eisegetical misunderstanding, and an inability to deal with the text . . .

It's fascinating to read the comments . . . basically, Mr. Armstrong melted down . . . it does not seem that anyone knows what ad hominem argumentation is . . . the reason that Dave Armstrong is doing this is pretty much the same reason that Dave Hunt won't debate me. He can't. He can't . . . the facts are not on Dave Armstrong's side. He can't respond! . . . Dave Armstrong has gone into hiding . . . because he can't respond anymore . . . once I stop this review and the dust settles, then everything will be back to normal. That's my prediction, anyway.

. . . It is amazing to read what people are saying here; it truly is . . . If you don't read what the other side is saying, you can't call yourself an apologist, can you? . . . if it's right there, and you are writing on the subject of sola Scriptura or against sola Scriptura, and two pages prior to something you do cite, a hole is blown right through your argument, facts are presented that are completely contrary to your own position, and you hide that; you say nothing about it, that's not honest! That's not apologetics! I don't have any respect for that, and I'm gonna point it out! You're misusing your audience when you do that. Aren't you? . . . I would rather have had 20 verses that confound Protestants, and had serious arguments presented, than 95 fluffy pieces; 95 fluffy passages. Most of the time, these passages are cited, and there's no exegesis offered. It's just, "well here's what the text says, and my Catholic tradition says this, and therefore we move on from there." That's not meaningful argumentation . . . if you've been in a serious, Bible-oriented, Bible-preaching church for the past ten years, you should be able to refute clearly and exegetically, at least 90 of these 95 . . . the argumentation is so basic and so clearly fallacious . . . clear, obvious, logical errors . . . Armstrong could throw his hands up in the air and say, "look, I'm not a scholar; I have no scholarly training. I can't read the original languages." But he won't do that. He should! Because if he then said that, what would be the follow-up? "Well, then, you might want to avoid publishing books where you pretend to address these issues . . . you don't actually follow-through on what you claim you're gonna do . . . your refutation is actually based upon your own ignorance; you didn't understand what they were saying . . . there is a club, and as long as it is in service to Mother Church, then we all just pat each other on the back and say "eh, that's great; that's wonderful" . . .

I don't think Dave is an idiot. He's quite adept; he's quite the historian of the Beatles, for example. But that does not give you the ability to actually address the biblical text, does it?

. . . If Mr. Armstrong can't defend his material, then so much the worse for Mr. Armstrong. Maybe he will move on to doing something else. Maybe he'll recognize this isn't something he should be doing. Maybe he'll think twice before putting himself in that situation again.

. . . No one has even tried to document that I have misrepresented Dave Armstrong. They can't. I'm giving the direct citations . . . I'm not misrepresenting him. I'm accurately representing him . . .

More nonsense from 5 April 2005:

04/05/2005

The Most Pathetic Post I've Ever Seen...
James R. White

...at least from an "apologist." This just appeared on Dave Armstrong's blog. You remember Dave Armstrong. Yes, he's the fellow who kept stealing Angel's artwork, having a four-year old butcher it, and posting it on his blog. Same fellow who melted down into a puddle of apologetic goo when I finally invested the time to start working through his book, The Catholic Verses, and that after years of wanting to "debate" me in writing (but, of course, never in person). Same fellow who then took an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics" (convenient use of terminology)---which had the not overly unexpected result of basically killing his blog, which then went into hibernation during Lent anyway. And so now what do I find but a listing of my books and their Amazon sales ranks compared to who else, but DA! Honestly, how utterly pathetic can someone become? It was bad enough that his work was shown to be consistently shallow, and worse that his attempts to respond were shrill and panic-filled (leading to his melt down and his unwillingness to even attempt further defense), but evidently he was stewing a good deal more than anyone knew to stoop this low. Of course, there's a little problem: Amazon is not a major outlet for my works. My own ministry, other Christian ministries, and bookstores (including academic ones: a number of my works are used as textbooks in various Bible schools and seminaries) make up the majority of my distribution. Now, I don't personally care if Mr. Armstrong does in fact outsell me: the Prayer of Jabez sold more books than I will ever sell in my entire lifetime, and it remains a vapid waste of paper. But it truly amazes me that someone who utterly lacks the tools to do the work he claims to do with such expertise continues to be dragged along by the rest of his compatriots. Just another example of "as long as it is in the service of Mother Church, it is all good." What a contrast: we seek to be consistent in honor of the truth, which at times requires us to speak to less-than-popular topics (such as our exposure of the many errors of Dave Hunt). Where is that kind of consistent dedication to truth on the "Roman" side?

The following post (5-26-05) has, oddly enough, disappeared from White's blog archives for May 2005. But it can still be found in a search of White's blog. I documented it:

The Dave Armstrong Arcade Game

A while back I took the time to engage Dave Armstrong's The Catholic Verses on this blog. The response by Mr. Armstrong was 1) bluster and absurdly silly replies; 2) full-scale retreat and a "promise" (again) to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics" like me. Since then, Mr. Armstrong has returned and, evidently, has healed from his wounds, forgotten his own promises, and is now busily non-responding to me all over again (even producing reverse-color purposefully bad pictures originally taken by Mormons). Remember that cheesey arcade game where the little animal pops up out of a hole and you have to bop it back in to get points? The kind of thing you played just because you only had one token left and the real games took two? Well, I may have played that game once, but found it completely boring and not worth even that last token. Ditto, Mr. Armstrong. There is no reason to even respond to a person who, upon being shown to be in error, will reply, "Oh, I don't have to answer that! That person is anti-me, and I take an oath not to respond to his kind...until this topic has passed, anyway, or I have had more time to come up with a response or something." Such is not apologetics, it is excus-a-getics, and is not worth the time it takes to activate the RSS feed.

A post earlier in that same month (5-4-05) has also strangely vanished from White's archive:

If you want to see how to deal with Dave Armstrong, look back a few months to what happened when I invested the time to dig into his book. Response? Bluster, sputter, retreat, collapse, invisibility, Lent.

. . . As anyone can see by going back to the records, Armstrong made the most recent version of his "I will not respond to anti-Catholics" promise after and as a direct result of my critiquing his book. In fact, at first, he tried to respond to my articles (here's an example). But it was painfully clear he was in way over his head, so he all of a sudden had a change of heart and issued his "don't respond to anti-Catholics" decree. Now he would have his readers thinking he actually did so before I began my review, so that I was taking the easy road in going after him only after I knew I would be "safe" from his brilliant and awe-inspiring rebuttals, which, sadly, the world cannot now see because he is so consistent in keeping his oaths. Please! Someone fax over some reality to Mr. Armstrong.

Nor is this sort of non-substantive idiocy merely a thing of the past, or for short periods of time when White lost it or had a bad hair day or something (oops; he has no hair . . .). It continues to this day. White is so desperate to insult me that he had to even resort (on 4-7-07) to making fun of a portrait taken by my wife Judy (my "leather jacket / serious" series from March 2007:

04/07/2007

Ah, There It Is
James R. White

I had wanted to use this picture in my blog article last night, but could not locate it. With a little help this afternoon I was able to find it. Since Dave Armstrong posted this one of himself, I figure he likes it, and I would not want to be one to use a photo of him that he would not like. So this is Dave Armstrong, Catholic apologist. In a tree. I am fighting madly to avoid making the obvious commentary that begs to be made at this point. Really. I am. I'm biting my lip. Or my fingers. Or something. Dave Armstrong in a tree. There you go. No distortions, color fades, or anything else required. Just, Dave, in a tree.
If this just isn't enough for you, there are more. And more. And more.

When "Turretinfan" himself took to defending White's own stuff because white wouldn't, White chimed in with this post, of 14 June 2007:

06/14/2007

From the Mouth of Two or Three Witnesses
James R. White

I could not have said it better, but, it is best when someone else observes, and comments upon, the obvious. Read Armstrong's post. Not even the mention of a single point of criticism of his position. Not once. Just "Oh, woe is me! I'm a victim!" Truly amazing. Please note, I am not reviewing Armstrong's book for the sake of Armstrong. He is beyond dialogue or discussion. But his errors repeat themselves out there in the "real world," and hence the refutation of them...again...is useful for those who refuse to be silent.

A week later I made a joke about a picture of a statue of the "reformers" in Geneva, and this (remember, in a sarcastic vein) proving "idolatry" on the part of Protestants. But White, as always, has no sense of humor when he or his ideas are the target, and so issued this hyper-serious "reply":

06/21/2007

James White Promotes Worship of John Calvin!
James R. White

...or so Dave Armstrong alleges this morning. As an example of his methodology of argumentation (which often includes the, "Oh, look at that issue over there that is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, isn't it interesting?" tactic), Armstrong's attempted response to this blog entry begins by re-posting Dan Borvan's picture from Geneva of the "Reformation Wall" with this subtitle:

James White sanctioned rank idolatry by posting a picture of statues of "reformers" on the same day that he issued a critique of my book's discussion of communion of saints, and mocked statues of Mary and the saints.

For this to be true, of course, it would have to follow that DA has evidence that Dan bowed down to these statues, lit candles to them, prayed to them, and sought the intercession of these men of God. Of course, Armstrong doesn't have that evidence, and, of course, Dan didn't do that, which only shows once again that Armstrong has no compunctions about constructing straw-men.

I note briefly in passing as well that Armstrong's response proves that he is unable to engage the actual texts under discussion outside of relying upon secondary sources. That is, all he can do is try to line up commentators on one side or the other and say, "See, my point is possible because these guys say so." But he is not capable of responding to the substance of the comments regarding martu,rwn, qeatai, etc., for this is beyond his area of study. Now, there is nothing wrong with someone being ignorant of the original languages, exegesis, etc., however, there is everything wrong in being ignorant of these things and yet making repeated pronouncements about the conclusions of the study of these fields.

In an article of 8-25-07, as soon as I am mentioned, it is "pure insult" and nothing else:

Speaking of incoherent vitriol...Dave Armstrong has returned to blogging. I just happened to see a new article on his site. I truly think Armstrong is headed for a full-on meltdown soon, to be honest. The level of "shrill" is peaking. In any case, the article started, "David T. King: anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist pastor...." Poor Dave. He can't even start an article with accuracy. It is well known that David King is a Presbyterian minister, not a Reformed Baptist. Now, that is not for my not trying! We'd love to have David...but alas, my brother remains, as Bill Shishko, a Presbyterian. Anyone reading the response brother David wrote to Armstrong will once again see that Armstrong is helpless when it comes to being refuted. All he can do is throw a fit and grow more shrill, which is why I have a feeling we may see a complete melt-down (again--how many has DA exhibited over the years?) in the not too distant future.

I've cited enough verbatim, but additional examples can be found also (as well, as of course, countless, almost infinite individual potshots, insults, slanderous rubbish mixed in with the occasional rational, misguided argument:

"The Dave Armstrong Shuffle" (4-6-07)

"Dave Armstrong: Hey, Look At Me! I'm Over Here! Hey, Guys! (Updated With DA's 'Response')" (7-12-07)

"Turretinfan": "Catholics Hate Truth and Hate Anti-Catholics, But Let's Dialogue Anyway!"

The title above expresses the essential absurdity and incoherence of this man's outlook.
He has been hounding me to debate him. If I refuse it is -- so he claims -- because I am scared of his profound reasoning ability, etc. He thinks James White is great (as most anti-Catholics online do), but says nothing about the fact that White systematically ignores my critiques of his work and has refused, twice now, do do a live debate in his chat room.

That's fine. Why? Well, because I hate truth and am not serious enough to warrant White taking any of his time to reply to me (not because of the slightest inability or apprehension on his part). So there is that level of analysis, yet Turretinfan wants to debate me, even though I supposedly "hate truth", whereas Bishop White does not. Does this make any sense? Surely not to me. But one tries (thus far, in vain, in my case) to grasp the warped mindset that comes up with this nonsense.

Lately, "Turretinfan" has expressed a willingness to reform his insults against Catholics:

In the meantime, may God give both of us greater grace in our use of negative language,

( 9-25-07 )

Yes. Amen! May He do so, every day. Praise God for His grace and mercy. But there are huge differences here between my language and thoughts, and "Turretinfan's". I do not, for example (as far as I can recall), ever accuse anti-Catholics of hating the truth, or of hating Catholics. But "Turretinfan" (following the example of his hero James White) thinks nothing of making this charge against Catholics (all emphases throughout my own unless otherwise noted):

Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.

May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things, To God be the Glory!

( 9-24-07 )

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are attacking Dr. White: he has been a faithful witness to the truth against the Mordorian tower of the Vatican. What more needs to be said? Unable to attack the truth of what he has to say, they have made the issue personal, falsely accusing a Christian many of various character defects.

Take courage, brother White! God has chosen to bless your ministry with resistance by those who oppose the gospel.

. . . Even more, though, be encouraged to cast off your consideration of the vain babbling of those whose hatred of the truth carries over to hatred of those who preach the truth. If you can, redouble your diligence to shine the light of truth on the accreted darkness of Rome, so that perhaps some may be set free. God knows how many of the elect may be under the oppressive shadow of that regime, and how many true Christians may be deluded by the false claims of that apostate body.

( 8-10-07 )

The doctrines of Rome, which deny the truth of the gospel, are evil because they contradict the Word of God. Those who hold to the doctrines of Rome can fall along a range from those who ignorantly accept the false doctrines of Rome, to those who know the truth but suppress it, because of their hatred of the truth.

. . . one cannot be a good Catholic that accepts all of what Rome teaches and be a good Christian. The gospel of Rome is not the gospel of Scripture, and those who are Rome, whether they behave themselves well or not, are in need of evangelization.

( 5-8-07 )

If "Turretinfan" is serious about reducing his "negative language" I suggest the above gives him a big clue as to where he can begin that process.

Anti-Catholic "Turretinfan" Joins His Cronies in Exhibiting "Anti" Language Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Will this theme ever end among anti-Catholics? Almost invariably, they will object in strenuous terms about Catholic use of the term anti-Catholic (meaning, one who denies that Catholicism is Christian), as if it were the most unethical, outrageous, inaccurate, and unfair thing in the history of the world. Then they'll turn around and use "anti" terms themselves for outlooks that they don't care for. This anonymous Calvinist blogmaster is the latest in a long noble line of such behavior (The Right Reverend Bishop "Dr." James White being the most notorious example):

Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.

[that's right. I have posted probably more written debates with anti-Catholics than any Catholic alive, but that is ignored in order to make this idiotic statement]

May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things, To God be the Glory!

( 9-24-07 )

. . . [Dave's] habit of labeling [sic] people as "Anti-Catholics.". . . Now, I may be overlooking some additional places, but it looks like the short list of non-anti-Catholic opponents of Dave is ever-shrinking. . . . as of 9/24 Dave had labelled some of the present author's writings (which have nothing to do with Catholicism per se, as "anti-Catholic" apparently because Dave does not like them.

. . . Dave relies on (a) assertions that he cannot back up and (b) calling his critics names like "Anti-Catholic" (one of Dave's favorites).

( 9-21-07 )

[The ludicrous thing here is that he makes this observation, yet I don't classify Kevin Johnson and Tim Enloe -- mentioned in the same post as "evidence" -- as anti-Catholics]

And here are Turretinfan's own frequent uses of the "anti" language, despite his vociferous condemnation when others use the completely acceptable term anti-Catholic, that has a long history in scholarly circles:

Centuri0n's post may be taken as representing support of the anti-KJV position more than anything else. . . . a role that many anti-KJV advocates tend to overlook.

( 9-4-07 )

For the moment I want to seize upon one of the more sinister and devious approaches that have been made by those who oppose the plain truth of Scripture.

Specifically, some portion of the anti-YEC [young earth creationism] movement has been spreading lies regarding the age of YEC, claiming that YEC is a 20th century phenomenon.

( 7-30-07 )

[Turretinfan, like Steve Hays, is a young-earth creationist. From the same post:

A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.

Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.

Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd. ]

One notorious anti-Calvinist poster named "FreeGrace" has challeged [sic] not that God prohibits sin, but has suggested that God does not require perfect obedience.

( 7-10-07 )

In a post earlier today, Centuri0n responds to an argument that believers-only baptism is reflective of an anti-soveriegntist [sic] mindset.

( 7-2-07 )

[D]espite the claims of many anti-Reformed apologists, Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a doctrine of Scripture.

( 6-22-07 )

. . . anti-Christian philosophers . . .

( 6-8-07 )

If any of you, gentle readers, are anti-Calvinists considering whether to read Hodge, this criticism by one of his enemies should encourage you to do so.

( 4-22-07 )

. . . many of the anti-Calvinist authors that I have quoted . . .

( 4-12-07 )

Anti-Calvinist Emir Caner Question Answered [title of post]

. . . typical Anti-Calvinist question . . .

To which the Anti-Calvinist will then exuberently [sic] (and mistakenly) respond:

And then the Anti-Calvinist will say . . .

. . . it has become so routine in anti-Calvinist churches . . .

( 3-29-07 )

Challenge to Anti-Calvinists: Author of Sin / Author of Salvation [title of post]

[used three more times in the article]

( 3-26-07 )

. . . a typical anti-Calvinist view of grace. Note that I do not mean to suggest that the people involved are themselves all anti-Calvinists.

An anti-Calvinist mindset . . .

( 3-23-07 )

Is the Deity of the Anti-Calvinist a Failure? [sub-title of post]

The typical Anti-Calvinist's answer would be "yes" if the Anti-Calvinist will give a straight answer. More often then not, the Anti-Calvinist will hem and haw, . . . After all, if we Calvinists agreed with the Anti-Calvinists regarding the sense of those passages, we wouldn't be having this discussion. [all from one paragraph]

The typical Anti-Calvinist's answer would be "no" if the Anti-Calvinist will give a straight answer. If an Anti-Calvinist answers questions one and two with "yes" and "no" respectively, then the conclusion logically follows. . . . both Calvinists and anti-Calvinists can (and sometimes are) unduly swayed by emotions. If so, what the Bible says should make the anti-Calvinist question whether his understanding of the Bible is correct. If the anti-Calvinist believes this, and the Anti-Calvinist believe that God does "want" in that sense to "do" the act of saving each and every person, then the result is universalism, not Arminianism or Huntism. In a non-universalist anti-Calvinist world-view, . . .

( 3-22-07 )

One Anti-Calvinist poster recently commented . . . So, the Anti-Calvinist's statement is technically correct . . .

( 3-13-07 )

One of the most popularly abused texts by the Anti-Calvinists . . .

[twice more in the article]

( 3-10-07 )

A Challenge to Anti-Calvinists . . . [title of post]

( 3-5-07 )

Pastor Modene, an Anti-Calvinist pastor if there ever was one . . .

( 2-28-07 )

Providence is under attack from anti-Calvinists, and Creation is under attack from Evolutionists.

( 2-26-07 )

Turretinfan goes absolutely nuts in a series of older posts, where he uses the term anti-Calvinist repetitively:

1-21-07 (two posts)
1-20-07
1-18-07
1-15-07 (two posts)
1-6-07 (three posts)
12-24-06 (five posts)
12-8-06
12-6-06 (two posts)
12-5-06 (four posts)

Open Forum

A good argument and discussion of ideas is not at all the same thing as a quarrel. Please keep that in mind.

Links to previous two fora (one / two).

Critique of "DagoodS"' Deconversion Story Meets a Sudden Premature Death

I had set about critiquing the deconversion story of atheist DagoodS. He actually started writing it at my request. Alas, now that he has barely started to get to some actual reasons why he or anyone else should reject Christianity, he is expressing such trepidation, and predicting that I won't agree with his reasoning (wow, what a revelation there!) that I have no choice but to back out altogether.

I have less than no desire to find myself embroiled in another tremendous controversy (a la the sad fiasco with John Loftus) over daring to disagree with an atheist's reasoning (i.e., insofar as it is at all) for why he is an atheist. I'm tired of (usually needless) controversy, period. I've had enough of that with the anti-Catholics and was seeking some good discussion. But if there is ill feeling and uneasiness it just isn't worth it for me. I'm sick to death of it.

DagoodS even incorporated the recent controversy over my referring to an anti-Catholic as an "ass" (thoroughly deserved and justified, and on biblical grounds) [link + further discussion] as supposedly evidence that my reasoning was no better than the goofy legalist fundamentalism that he forsook in due course. Clever, original, and nice try (one can't help but admire the eccentric chutzpah of it), but no cigar there. Here is the latest exchange on his blog (his words in blue):

Using Pharisees as a justification for calling another person names? Those legalistic fundamentalists are nodding and slapping themselves on the back with approval of this tactic.

Come on! This is hardly even original. [ link ] (Although I ask a good question in that blog. “Just because you have a right to do it, do you have to do it?”)

Dave Armstrong, I am telegraphing that I believe you will be disappointed in our discussion. I have considered, off and on, writing my deconversion story. Your offer to critique it was obviously just the spur I needed to do so. Thank you.

But Part of my job entails predicting outcomes. The smart money is predicting that you will find that I had the wrong sort of Christianity. That is not terrible interesting to me. Whether I was, in your estimation, 99% correct or 99% incorrect, it is my past. Absent a time machine, there is nothing I can do about it.

If that is the conclusion, as I strongly suspect it will be, I can only shrug. (Remember, I think ALL Christianity is theologically incorrect, so telling me [again] my former belief was wrong is not exactly a news flash.)

I can only move forward; not backward. So where do I go from here? I would think the best route would be to inspect what you claim is the most “correct” Christianity; presumably yours.

And as I look at yours, I am not convinced. Calling someone an “ass” is not prone to generate peace. It is not edifying. Rom. 14:19. It is not loving another. It is not loving your enemy. It is not helpful for building up others. Eph. 4:29.

But I guess none of that means much to you. You think you are justified to do so, and will hold your ground in that regard, no matter what. (Again, the legalistic fundamentalists nod their heads in approval.)

I see this eventually ending with you telling me that my Christianity is wrong. I shrug. You then inform me your Christianity is correct. I look at it, and likewise shrug. If that is “correct” Christianity, I was unconvinced by it when I believed in a god. I am sure to be even less convinced now that I do not.

Hi DagoodS,

Very well, then. I'll stop critiquing now and stop reading further installments. It's obviously too sensitive to you and I'd like to discuss other things, so I will desist.

Your other argument is rather simple to reply to. I already have. You haven't dealt with my reasoning. You simply restated your opinion, but it is no better now than it was the first time. If Jesus can describe someone as a "viper" when they richly deserve it, then I can call someone a donkey when they richly deserve it. Sin can be rebuked. That is quite biblical.

If I sinned in doing so, then so did Jesus. If Jesus didn't, then there are times one can do this and I didn't sin, either, since I have more than abundant reason to call this person an ass.

Not only can it be rebuked, but we are commanded again and again to avoid divisive people who engage in worthless conversation:

For men will be lovers of self, . . . proud, arrogant, abusive, . . . implacable, slanderers, . . . swollen with conceit . . . Avoid such people . . .

(2 Timothy 3:2-5)

. . . nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith . . . vain discussion . . .

(1 Timothy 1:4,6)

. . . avoid disputing about words which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.

(2 Timothy 2:14)

But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

(Titus 3:9-11)

Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to
the doctrine ye have learned; and avoid them.

(Romans 16:17)

Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

(2 Timothy 2:23)

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

(1 Timothy 6:3-5)

There are tons of passages with biblical rebukes. According to your mentality, you would have to say that all of them are sinful and improper and unethical. For example:

Philippians 3:17-19: Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

I am telegraphing that I believe you will be disappointed in our discussion.

And that is why it is doomed and I have already gotten out of it. Your choice.

Discussion on Objections to the Permanent Book Ad at the Top of my Blog

Once again on Josh Strodtbeck's blog I'm being lambasted. One of the things brought up has been concerning the design of my blog. In particular, some folks (Josh himself, vociferously in the past) object to my permanent book ad at the top of the blog.

Lutheran Pastor Gregory House wrote:

You have to admit that Josh's criticism of your site design is valid.

One of his criticisms was, and so I followed it, many weeks ago.

Josh wrote:

I pointed out that they're [book ads] excessively large and ugly. I should not have to scroll through three pages of ads to get to your first post. . . . giant images that force you to scroll through three pages.

Earlier (about three weeks ago) Josh had written:

If you took down the obnoxiously large book ads, what would you have? Some Catholic ranting that he thinks Protestants are mean. Big whoop.

I removed (many weeks ago) the large book images from the top (that were themselves recommended to me by a commenter on my blog, by the way) and have only 11 small images of the e-books I sell (all bunched together, like one medium-sized photo).

But Josh (so it seems) didn't know that and so has to lie about me again:

It's serious advice on website design, but apparently you can't take any advice as anything but an assault on your character.

Right. So I followed the advice because I am a masochist? Interesting . . . what will you come up with next, Josh? I'm an ass when I don't follow your advice and I am when I do. Is there a third choice? :-)

In fact, I will even partially follow the advice a second time, by reducing the size of the permanent ad. I want to move the tax-deductible section off the top, and will instead make a link to that. So there will now be one fairly small book ad permanently at the top (and currently right below it an ad for a friend that I have there for two months).

If someone has a rough time with that, they can lump it. I am a writer. That is a large part of my income (some people seem to think I should be ashamed of that for some reason). In order to sell books (in the tiny Catholic apologetics market) you have to advertise. Economic reality. My publisher has very little money for that. So I have to do a bit myself.

I don't waste my time with sites that are poorly designed. If I have to work to find the actual content, sorry... I have better uses for my time.

If that causes someone to not read any of my 1700 posts online, because it's too difficult to scroll past an ad (that will now be reduced in size a second time), then I encourage them to not visit my site. I'll live. If that is their priority in the overall scheme of things, little of what I write will benefit them, anyway. Different strokes . . . be well, etc.

I think people are far too hung up on images and presentation and too little concerned with content and substance. That's our modern society. If everyone isn't up to the latest technologies and the "in thing" computer-wise, with all the latest gadgets and bells and whistles, then they are irrelevant troglodytes and no one should even bother reading what they have to present. The Madison Avenue mentality . . . I reject it. And I don't care if someone gets upset if I reject it. I've never lived for what the crowd may think of me. I'm a nonconformist and I do what I do based on conscious reflection, not simply following the masses like a sheep. This is one such instance.

If someone wants to have cutting-edge graphics, I don't have the slightest problem with that. I love good graphics, I love art and architecture. I love the work my friend Chad Toney did on eight book covers for me (seen above). More power to them. It's wonderful and great. What I am objecting to is prioritizing image over substance. I reject the thinking shown by Pastor House, whereby he won't even visit my site because he objects to the presence of an ad at the top and how large it might be.

Meanwhile, I get about 850 hits a day on my blog (he gets 85, just for the record), so I must be doing something right. If my designs are so horrendous, then by all means, I'd like to see the snazzy designs get anywhere near the number of visitors I am receiving. Is the proof not in the pudding? Maybe some of those folks don't like how my blog looks, either, but they're getting something out of my writing, ain't they, or they wouldn't keep coming back, to the tune of over one million page views in three-and-a-half years.

And of course, now I'll be accused of bragging. No. I'm saying that in a large sense it is ridiculous to be griping about how my site is designed, when the very purpose of a blog (as in all writing intended to serve some useful purpose) is to get as many readers as one can. I'm doing fine. Why is it that many other blogs get so few readers? Why don't you critics examine that and the possible stewardship issues involved (spending lots of time with little effect) rather than go after my site? So it rings a bit hollow to hear criticisms about an ad, with all those people reading my blog every day.

But like I said, I did follow some of Josh's advice before on that score, and will again today, because I (how did he put it again?) "can't take any advice as anything but an assault on [my] character." :-)

Not "Any" Difference Between Catholics, Muslims, Moonies, and Hindus?

I swear that before today I would not have thought that even a relatively less-informed anti-Catholic could be so clueless as to make an astonishingly ignorant, imbecilic statement like the following:

Thos: [see his blog Ecumenicity]

Am I right in taking your comment as a conclusion that Dave Armstrong is not a Child of the Lamb?

Rhology: (Alan or Aubrey Maricle)

Correct. He doesn't believe in a saving Gospel. Why is he any different than a Muslim... ooops, bad example. Why is he any different than a Moonie or a Hindu?

[from the comments section of this delightful post]

I Certainly Waited (To Do Apologetics After My Conversion to Catholicism)

Received into the Church: 8 February 1991, with "revert" wife Judy (7 months pregnant with our first child) and Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., the eminent catechist who wrote the Foreword to my first book and said my writing was "very Catholic" way back in 1991 (in my opinion, the highest compliment about my work I have ever received).

Good ole Josh Strodtbeck, the ranting Lutheran, who has a curious obsession with apologists of other Christian traditions (and the president of my fan club), wrote recently on his blog:

One thing that just slays me about both Catholicism and Orthodoxy is how if you've got a high enough profile in some Protestant church body when you convert, you're suddenly an expert on your new religion. . . . I'm not saying a convert can't ever publicly defend his new religion. I'm just saying you really should make them go through an initial cooling off period or something before proclaiming them to be professional apologists, sending them on the lecture circuit, or ordaining them (seriously, ordination?).

Since Josh has often (always irrationally and without grounds and scarcely any charity) blasted me as a prime example of a supposedly unsavory, illegitimate, embarrassing apologist and Catholic convert, I thought the fair-minded folks on his blog (and non-Catholics reading this on mine) might possibly be curious about how long I waited after I converted, to do public apologetics:

Conversion: October 1990

Received into the Church: 8 February 1991

First published article (and first time any Catholic apologetics I wrote was public): Jan/Feb 1993 (in The Catholic Answer)

[2 years + 4 mos. after my conversion]

First time having my writing included in a book: Sep. 1994 (Surprised by Truth)

[3 yrs + 11 mos. after conversion]

First time communicating Catholic apologetics on the Internet: March 1996

[5 yrs + 5 mos. after conversion]

First time having my own website: February 1997

[6 yrs + 4 mos. after conversion]

First time talking on the radio about my conversion / apologetics: 8 September 1997 [audio file / transcript]

[just under seven years after conversion]

First time having my book (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism) published (self-published): October 2001

[11 yrs after conversion]

First time doing full-time "professional" Catholic apologetics: December 2001

[11 yrs + 2 mos. after conversion]

First time having my book published by a "real" Catholic publisher: June 2003

[12 yrs + 8 mos. after conversion]

First time on the lecture circuit: never.

[I have given a few talks to small audiences here and there, though]

[almost 17 years after conversion and counting]

First time on EWTN television: never (have turned down offers to be on The Journey Home about five or six times now)

[almost 17 years after conversion and counting]

"DagoodS" Deconversion Story, Part I: Projection, Open-Mindedness, and Presuppositional Issues

"DagoodS" is a friendly atheist with whom I have had many enjoyable dialogues in the past (usually about alleged biblical contradictions). Recently on his blog I asked him if he could write out his "deconversion" story for me to critique, and he has commenced doing so. His words will be in blue:

* * * * *

Where is your deconversion story? May I critique it, or would you be likely to get all angry and throw a hissy-fit like John Loftus did when I critiqued his? :-)

I highly suspect you would not, based on my pleasant past experience in discussions with you, but it never hurts to ask. I didn't think he would get angry, either, based on his sublime, lofty rhetoric on good discourse, posted on his blog.

. . . There is something to be said for good old-fashioned flat-out disagreements talked about amiably. That's about as rare as ice on the sun anymore, sadly . . . but it's something that all open-minded thinkers of any stripe hold in common. Thus I can feel that affinity with you (as I would with, e.g., the ancient Greeks), despite disagreements on theism, etc.

I have never written out, nuts-to-bolts, my deconversion story. Partly because it is not that interesting, partly because I am far more interested in the arguments themselves, not necessarily the background of the person (hence my own background fades in importance), and partly because it seems so…well…narcissist, perhaps? Does the world really care as to the mechanics of yet another deconvert?

I am uncertain what there is to critique. I am on fairly safe ground to presume you think I did something wrong, because I ended up a non-theist, and you are a theist. Where is the surprise in that?

But if you are truly THAT interested, I can put together something. It would help to know what you are looking to critique. Do you want me to start with being born in a logcabin I built with my own hands? Do you only want the point from “There is something rotten in Denmark” or where?

Thanks.

Yep, I'm highly interested indeed. Since I consider you one of the best, most reasonable atheist dialogue partners I have encountered, I'm very curious as to the actual process that led to your forsaking of Christianity. And of course I want to critique that (as you would expect, me being an apologist and all) and try to show that the reasons were inadequate.

. . . what I am interested in the most in your deconversion story [is] the validity or invalidity of the arguments that brought about your change.

Thanks for being willing to put something together for my sake.

I'd like to see exactly what you believed -- broadly speaking -- as a Christian (what tradition), and then see exactly what caused you to lose confidence in that worldview and how that process worked.

I think it would be good for you to sort out your own thoughts and opinions and give them a form that you can present to others. I know that always helps me when I am trying to clearly express something or other in my writing. You get it down on paper and then it is good for future reference and for "taking stock" of where you have been and where you are now.

[The first installment of his deconversion -- dealing only with his childhood -- was then posted on his blog; please read before continuing, or my replies will be considerably more difficult to follow]

Certainly this couldn't be the level of sophistication and complexity that you had of what Christian theology teaches about God as you got older . . .

God as a ticked-off babysitter of errant adolescents trying to get one more ride on the Demon Drop?

No; I refuse to believe that this will be the sort of thing that ultimately made you become an atheist. I look forward to your future installments, whereby you show me that you have / had a decent adult understanding of Christian theology and the Christian worldview.

* * *

Dave Armstrong, I had hoped that one could see a bit more depth than a childhood tale of Cedar Point. (Liked the reference to the Demon Drop.) . . .

Do you see what I did as a child? I created a God in my own image. I (generally) liked the rules with an occasional infraction. My God liked the rules with an occasional infraction. I tended to be rebellious, and lo and behold, what does my God like? A child with a bit of rebellion in him.

Is that not what most humans do? If they believe by faith—by golly their God likes faith. If they are an intellect—by golly their God is proven by logic and reason. Hate gays; so does their God. Love gays; so does their god. If their God makes them lose their job; it is a punishment, or a testing or an opportunity. Because that is what they would do as a God.

While this may be a very simplistic childish depiction of God, coming out of a simple childish human, it is only the greater sophistication of adulthood, and greater ability to rationalize that creates a greater god. The god may change, but the method stays the same.

I fear my presentation of subtlety is not going to get any better. Hey—YOU are the one that started me on this jag; are you complaining already? grin

This is one of the standard, garden variety atheist arguments: religion is simply infantile projection and thinking. Adults grow out of that and get smart and become atheists, but alas, Christians and other theists stay infantile.

If that is where you are going with this, then I am not impressed. I never am with the "psychological" argument against Christianity as a crutch or mere projection, etc.

I want to see if you had (as an adult), an intelligent, self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding. And why you rejected that; not simply psychological analysis.

The god may change, but the method stays the same.

Of course I dispute this. Many people may well indeed think like this (I don't deny it; lotsa folks think all kinds of goofy things) but that is irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity. It only reveals truths about these peoples' method or interior disposition, not about Christianity itself. And hence it is irrelevant.

Unless you deny that Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed and then accepted or rejected, we can't talk about it at all. What do I care about the psychological states of other people in relation to God (i.e., as a totality of why they believe or disbelieve in God, wholly apart from theological considerations and propositions)? How does that resolve whether there is a God or not, to the slightest degree?

Besides, if you want to play the game like that, the tables can be turned, and we can argue that many atheists become that because they had no father or a lousy relationship with their fathers, and projected this onto God, and hence rejected Him. Psychiatrist Paul Vitz has made this very argument:

The Defective Father Psychological Theory of Atheism / Christian Emotionalism and Fideism

I wrote in the above paper, near the end:

Paul Vitz's argument is a completely justifiable rhetorical, turning-the-tables tactic along the lines of "you wish to argue that Christians are psychologically warped and in need of infantile crutches?; very well then, I submit the same sort of speculations a, b, and c with regard to atheism." Such an argument, it should be noted, does not necessarily mean that the one making it agrees with all (or even any) of the content.

. . . It is always easier, it seems, to dish out a particular criticism (the psychological arguments as to why Christians hold their beliefs) than it is to see its possible relevance to one's own view. I readily admit that some Christians do indeed need psychological crutches (but so what, I say; who cares about the poorest representatives of any view?). But I have seen precious little of atheists admitting similar types of shortcomings to any extent amongst atheists. I maintain that the percentage of psychological abnormality is likely to be the same in both groups.

* * * * *

Micah Cowan is another former evangelical Protestant, now atheist (see his views on religion). His words will be in green:

If DagoodS had concluded that his theological understanding had been intelligent and self-consistent, he would not have rejected it; that's kind of the whole point.

That doesn't follow. Consistency is only one test of truth. The truth or falsity of premises is equally important (and how one arrives at them, etc., and what axioms one accepts and why). If the premises are rejected, then the consistent system built upon them is also rejected.

What I was driving at was whether DagoodS even had a decently consistent, cogent worldview as a Christian. I want to know how much he thought through things then, while he still had his Christian presuppositions.

Did he only really start seriously thinking in a skeptical direction? If so, then to compare his later view to his incomplete and insufficient earlier view would be unfair. One would have to compare it with a theistic view that had been appropriately and sufficiently thought through: the best of one school against the best of the other.

It tells us nothing of the truth or falsity of Christianity or of theism for DagoodS to simply tell us that he gave up one inadequate, fallacious, inconsistent worldview for another. I will be examining what he used to believe very closely. So far we have gotten psychology, which proves nothing whatever by means of ontology and metaphysics.

Christians, especially those who had primarily "happy and rewarding" experiences with Christianity, generally become Ex-Christians only through the conviction that all Christian theological and apologetic understanding is fundamentally inconsistent.

But presuming that they didn't believe their own Christian views (when they held them) were absurd and incoherent, this is where they changed their mind: from believing that they had a consistent system, then reversing that opinion. But why did they do it? Something objective has to be present to cause them to reject one system for another (if we can talk at all about it).

So the answer to your question, by definition, is "no", he did not have an intelligent and self-consistent apologetic and theological understanding,

That doesn't follow, because it makes no sense. Obviously, if he was a thinker at all, he must have thought that his old belief-system had coherence and was plausible while he held it. Then he rejected it for whatever reasons he shall reveal to us in due course. He either held that sort of belief and rejected it, or did not have anywhere near a self-consistent, respectable Christian belief-system.

My job is to show that the reasons he gives for rejecting Christianity fail. I've done that with his first observation: the psychological stuff. It not only fails; it is no argument at all to become a Christian or atheist or cross-eyed vegetarian homosexual Rastafarian.

From reading your past several comments, two things are becoming apparent to me: one is that you do not seem to be remotely open to the possibility that he could actually have a sound and reasonable conclusion that has lead to his deconversion;

It would be quite difficult for a Christian to hold such a view. But I'm looking to see what his reasons are precisely because I respect his thinking abilities. Likewise, any atheist worth his or her salt cannot admit, by definition, that a Christian has sufficient reason to adopt that view. That's just the nature of competing propositions. It has nothing necessarily to do with arrogance or intolerance or anything of the sort (though it could in certain hands).

your very request for a deconversion story made it clear that your aim was to discredit, and not to evaluate for reason, rationality or truth.

If DagoodS succeeds in showing us why we all ought to reject Christianity and proves his case, then I will be more than happy to join him in the atheist fold.

In other words, you already have the truth, so anyone who holds an opposing view could not possibly be right.

I believe what I hold to be true, just as an atheist does. No difference. One always holds open the possibility that another view could be more correct. I've yet to see an atheist argument that persuaded me; atheists haven't seen a persuasive Christian argument. No difference again. So why stress such a moot point that applies to everyone? Everyone believes something.

For this reason, I was mildly surprised that DagoodS actually responded with a deconversion story (though he has not yet completed doing so ;) ). There is little to be gained in presenting arguments to someone who has already indicated an unwillingness to listen.

If DagoodS thinks that of me, I shall leave his blog and never comment here again, nor interact with him. But that is up to him to decide, not you or anyone else. He hasn't been persuaded by Christian arguments, either. I fail to see the essential difference. Because he hasn't yet, therefore he must be closed-minded and has already made up his mind, etc.? It doesn't follow. One can be open-minded, but simply not persuaded of something else.

I've changed my mind about many major things. I used to believe in the occult and pro-choice and was virtually a secularist, then an evangelical, then a Catholic. I was far more politically and sexually liberal in the past. So I don't need the smarmy lectures about being closed-minded until you learn more about my own past history of being persuaded of different viewpoints.

If I know anything from what I've seen of DagoodS' refreshingly modest style of writing, then I can confidently state that he, on the other hand, is willing to be proved wrong.

So am I, as I just proved from my own past history. You can't demonstrate that he is any more open than I am to changing his mind. You really think it is likely he will become a Christian again? It's not very likely. Nor is it that I will become an atheist. Doesn't mean people can't talk.

He is willing to honestly evaluate arguments and points being made to him, but has found them so far to be wanting.

Exactly the same in my case, and you can't prove any differently. You act as if Christian arguments and apologetics MUST be closed-minded and couldn't be otherwise. But that is sheer emotional bias.

But by now he is also battle-wizened, and I doubt he will spend much effort towards attempting to convince the obviously inconvincible.

Again, that is up to him, not you. I enjoy my dialogues with him. If he finds me wearisome and invincibly ignorant and intellectually obstinate, then he can say so, instead of a third party speculating about such things.

The other thing that is apparent to me is that you are expecting people to come up with convincing arguments against God, where in fact Ex-Christians never have those (it is logically impossible to disprove God).

I never stated such a thing. I'm interested in why DagoodS rejected Christianity: on what basis? Many things appear to be "apparent" to you about me that simply aren't true, or don't follow.

Instead, they are people who have become convinced that there are no substantial arguments for God, and realize that a rational person must not presume that something exists until a reasonable case can be made that it does.

I will read on with great interest. Thanks for the lecture. How, alas, could I have lasted another day (or live with myself) without it?

* * * * *

Thank you, micah cowan for your outstanding and encouraging post.

Well, I suppose it would be if someone says you are the greatest open-minded thinker since Socrates and runs your opponent down as intolerably dogmatic. I shall wait and see if you accept his jaded speculations in his "outstanding post" about my interior states of mind as well. If so, then our days of discussion are numbered.

Dave Armstrong wanted my story, as it were. Yes, I could write, “My Christian Doctrine Held X and here are all the arguments for and the arguments against. I was persuaded by the arguments against. Next, my Christian Doctrine Held…” Instead I decided to dive headlong into self-absorbed narcissism and write my story in such a way that it would be of interest to people who already knew me AND would not quite be the same boring historical account.

Then it may not be for me, since I was interested in what you claimed to be centered upon: "I am far more interested in the arguments themselves."

Simply put—I am unabashedly writing my own story in my own idiom. Because it is my story, there will be bits that are not persuasive, bits that seem silly, and bits that may not conform to internet debate. I would dearly love to write how I read Eusebuis’ entire works by age 8, read both Koine Greek and Hebrew by age 9, and was translating Coptic Manuscripts by age 11.

Good for you. A thirst for knowledge . . .

No, Dave Armstrong, I was not saying that all Christianity is infantile projection or thinking. (Some Christians do. But, as you correctly point out, this is a mark of humanity, not Christianity. Some atheists, agnostics, skeptics, deists, Jews and any other theistic demarcation do as well.)

Good. One remark near the end sounded to me like this was going to be the central thesis of the deconversion. I'm happy to see that is not the case.

Unless you deny that Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed and then accepted or rejected, we can't talk about it at all.

Ah…and there we return to the perpetual question between you and I, eh? Weighed by whom? Accepted or Rejected by whom?

You and I. Unless we agree upon some objective standards at the presuppositional and axiomatic levels, then we can't talk in terms of competing and disputing opposing ideas.

I agree that Christianity makes truth claims. I agree that those claims can be weighed objectively by neutral parties. And those claims can be accepted or rejected by neutral parties.

There are no neutral parties. But admitting that does not mean that therefore no objective discussion is possible. If that is your position, then all discussion is futile. You're just preaching to the choir, in which case, it would be perfectly ridiculous for me to offer my respectful dissent as a Christian outsider to your worldview.

But you used to hold something akin to my worldview, and that is what interests me. If you're out there saying that Christianity fails because of a, b, c, and d, and no one in your former circles could ever answer your hard questions, etc., then I should think you would be happy that I am here to fill that role that you longed for someone to fill and never found. And my interest is in showing Christians that your arguments against Christianity fail, just as you think there are no compelling arguments in favor of Christianity.

But you claim (if I recall. And I do) that there ARE no such thing as neutral parties.

Yes! I did it again right now! Good memory.

If we have no neutral parties, how can Christianity’s claims be “objectively weighed”?

To the best of our abilities, fairly, and with as much rational objectivity as non-neutral parties can muster up. That's how it is in any field of study. It's just how it is. There ain't no clean slates.

Which one of us denies Christianity makes truth claims that can be objectively weighed?

You, if you believe that because no one is perfectly objective, therefore objective propositions cannot be discussed with a modicum of attempted objectivity. I am not nearly that epistemologically skeptical. I simply admit the truism that we all have biases and axioms, and all have unproven and unprovable assumptions. That actually is a commonality between atheists and theists, but oftentimes the atheist will pretend that he has no such axioms, which is absurd.

Press Release: DAPCS Has Officially Commenced Operations. Join Today! Don't Delay!

See previous related post for background. This was sent to me by my good friend and business associate Stan Williams ("SWC Films" on the sidebar). I add a little in the bracketed section at the end:

Dave Armstrong is proud to announce the official Dave Armstrong Personality

Cult Society (DAPCS) and it's by-laws. If you want to join, agree to the

following by-laws and send in your registration fee. I will send you an

official DAPCS membership card and signet ring for decoding my blog.

As a member of the DAPCS I agree to:

A. Give worship, adoration, and praise continually to Jesus Christ, my Lord

and Savior, to the Holy Spirit and to God the Father.

B. Respectfully honor the Church that Jesus founded on early and following

its teachings as infallibly imparted to men by the inspiration of the Holy

Spirit.

C. Always be skeptical of anything that our leader (Dave Armstrong) writes

or says except those things that can clearly be supported by the teachings

of Jesus Christ as documented in the Bible and interpreted by the

magisterium of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church.

D. Give generously of my tithe and offerings to the Church and her

missions....and as a complete afterthought, $10/year to Dave to further his

ministry and cultish activities. (Donations are tax deductible through the

Bible Christian Society).

E. Attend Holy Mass regularly, go to confession at least once a month

(whether I need it or not), pray and fast regularly for sinners and saints,

and do whatever I can for those unfortunate such as the poor, the aged, and

for unborn babies.

These are the rules, there are no others. Welcome to the Dave Armstrong

Personality Cult Society, where we strive only to worship the one true God,

obey the Holy Spirit, and adore his son, Jesus Christ.

Holy Mary, pray for us, that we might see Jesus as you did.

SIGNATURE

DATE

[print this off, sign, and send to Dave Armstrong {PO Box CULT 0101}, with an obligatory $1.00 lifetime fee to support his apostolate and help him pay the bills. Surely all those one dollar bills from the millions who regularly follow Dave's "interminable" writings will enable him to live in appropriately luxurious accommodations (gold-plated toilets, air-conditioned doghouses, etc.) and never have to worry about finances again. One must, after all, have some benefits as a famous cult leader]

100% Tax-Deductible Donations (Via the Bible Christian Society)

[See the updated version on another page]

Which Classical Composer Are You? (Quiz) I'm Bach (Again!)

I can see that Bach wrote a lot of music; I write a lot of papers. My favorite composers are Wagner, Beethoven, and Mahler, in that order. I love Bach, too (especially "switched-on Bach"), but I am a big-time fan of 19th century German romantic orchestral music (and brass in particular). I like Haydn least of this list, followed by Mozart (but I like Mozart a great deal more than Haydn).

The interesting thing, too, is that I took this same sort of test in the past, but the questions were different, and I came out as Bach on that test, too (followed by Dvorak, Rachmaninov, Clementi, and Gershwin -- none of whom appear at all, below). I scored as Jimmy Stewart in the "Leading Man" quiz. :-)

You scored as J.S. Bach, You are dedicated and intelligent. People who know you don't understand how you get it all done, and you never give up on life. J.S. Bach 100% Haydn 85% Chopin 60% Brahms 60% Wagner 60% Beethoven 60% Mozart 60% Schubert 55% Handel 45% Tchaikovsky 45% Hector Berlioz 45% Liszt 35% Schumann 30% Which classical composer are you? created with QuizFarm.com

The One-Minute Apologist Trashed Along With Scott Hahn's Reasons to Believe / Negative Review of The Catholic Verses

This review (awkwardly entitled, "Books offer answers to faith questions but not all are right") appeared in The Catholic Review: 13 September 2007, page 31. I must say I am highly honored to have my book panned alongside Scott Hahn's (and for similar reasons). The article is distributed by Catholic News Service, and appeared on Tidings Online, Catholic Online, and The Mirror On-Line: The Book Nook. Something is to be said for exposure and the "free advertising," I suppose, even of a bad review.

The reviewer is Graham Yearley, who is earning a certificate of advanced study in theology at the Ecumenical Institute at St. Mary's Seminary and University in Baltimore.

The "review" exhibits, I think, a thoroughly fallacious and shallow mindset whereby ecumenism is pitted against apologetics, as if they were antithetical to each other. I've often written about this. One might opine that Mr. Yearley's academic emphasis on ecumenism has played a role in this particular opinion of his. Without seeing the sort of materials he has studied, I can't say if his school played a role in the jaundiced attitude or not. Nor do I know the slightest thing about his school. But I know that the "ecumenism vs. apologetics" mentality is quite common indeed.

Here it is, in its entirety (i.e., the portion dealing with Scott's book and my own, but his is hardly "reviewed" at all, and mine just a wee little bit):

Three new books seek to answer faith questions raised by Catholics and others, with varying degrees of success. . . .

Reasons to Believe by Scott Hahn and The One-Minute Apologist by Dave Armstrong – are guides for Catholics to defend the teachings of the church. Each author became a Catholic as an adult and each seems anxious to show that Catholics know the Bible just as well as Protestants.

Every church teaching is given ample biblical support. But sometimes the biblical support for certain teachings seems strained at best. Both authors could be accused of triumphalism, of believing that we have it right and, if everybody else doesn't have it wrong all the time, that we have the fullest and best knowledge of God's intentions. Nothing else about Catholicism annoys non-Catholics more.

But our authors don't always have it right; Armstrong doesn't seem to understand papal infallibility at all. But his book has the advantage of being concise and sometimes amusing. As The One-Minute Apologist is already in paperback, it might be wise to stow it in one's book bag or pocketbook in case a pesky Protestant comes up unexpectedly and asks a difficult question.

For a similar exercise in condemnation of alleged "triumphalism" (flowing, I believe, from this same erroneous understanding of what apologetics is about), there is a review of my book, The Catholic Verses, by "Pete", posted on that book's amazon page:

Neither Humble nor Respectful, August 11, 2007

By	Pete (Philadelphia, PA USA) - See all my reviews

I bought this book largely based on the very positive reviews found here, and was surprised and disappointed to find it so different than other readers have found it. Specifically, my impressions are literally opposite to those in the second paragraph of Jonathan Prejean's review.

Personally, I found the book to be VERY emotionally laden. Armstrong seems full of a great deal of bitterness and negativity towards Protestants, and does a very poor job of remaining dispassionate. True, he makes a few formal *statements* about respect for those on the other side of the fence, and does quote Protestants extensively, but I find the entire tone and spirit of the book to be overwhelmingly bitter and defensive. The text is riddled with jabs, sarcasm, mockery, and derision toward Protestants that betray an obvious emotional investment in the subject and make it very difficult to focus on the theological content.

For example, many passages of the book are dedicated not to theological discussion, but to the recounting of specific debates the author has had online with individual Protestants, where he attempts to illustrate in detail how he bested his opponents and made them to look like ridiculous fools. He also heaps a great deal of scorn on such famous protestant thinkers as Luther and Calvin. Far from demonstrating respect for their intelligence or humbly discussing "how reasonable men can disagree," he very arrogantly attempts to portray them as intellectual idiots and as men motivated primarily by conceit and blind anti-Catholic hatred.

Overall, the impression that I got from this book was not that the author was attempting to teach his readers about spiritual truths of which he is convicted, but that his primary purpose was to demonstrate his own intelligence and skill in argument, and to malign and discredit Protestants both individually (whether Luther, Calvin, or the many "internet opponents" he so proudly shames), and as a collective "they."

Despite this unfortunate tone, spirit, and style, I did still find some of the content to be valuable. Armstrong IS clearly intelligent, very well-read, and a logical thinker and good writer. I was raised Catholic and later converted to Protestantism based on personal convictions about doctrinal truths, and I did find the book helpful in understanding more about the scriptural basis for Catholic doctrine. He presents a number of cogent arguments in defense of specific Catholic beliefs -- I just wish it were written without the emotional baggage. Catholics may not be bothered by the tone, but I would caution Protestants to read a few chapters before buying, because the style may make it difficult for you to remain emotionally detached and evaluate Armstrong's arguments for their merit.

I find this extraordinary in its sheer subjectivity. As usual with such emotional-type observations, no actual documented examples are given: nothing objective or factual that a neutral observer (or, say, the author being pilloried) could actually discuss with his critic. I'm always astounded when this happens, because I regard it as perfectly self-evident that if such accusations are made, that they ought to be backed up and substantiated by actual examples. Otherwise, the effectiveness (or persuasiveness) of the critique is about as compelling as someone going on and on about how cherry ice cream is the best on earth, while vanilla is obviously the worst.

How does one rationally argue such a thing? This review is of the same order of thought. There is no way anyone can agree or disagree with it, since it is completely subjective: almost a stream-of-consciousness rant. Even assuming this critic were right about my tone, style, and supposed interior attitude, he gives no one anything tha