Comments on my Open Theism blog

Or, "An example of thoughtful, intelligent discussion."

Here we have Jimmie Jarvis, a thoughtful and intelligent young gentlemen who's also a blog co-contributer, asking me questions about my Open Theism blog that was just before this. I'll admit it: He asked me these questions two weeks ago and I forgot. I blew it, yes. I'm normally really good about responding to people's comments, but maybe it's because I'm used to getting comments on my other blog, not this one.

Anyway, this is his first post:

Oh boy. You've done it now. But wait a second.......time for me to drop a bombshell......I have actually changed my semi-Calvinist position since our beating sessions at the beach. I'm now (and the world gasps in horror) entertaining the notion of Open Theism. Yes, I know. I'm a flip-flopper. But I've come to this semi-conclusion in the last couple of weeks. What has converted me to this heretical mindstyle? God changing His mind. I can't deny that God has changed His mind, most often in the Old Testament. God openly changing His mind (and deeming it necesarry to record it) is pretty heavy stuff. Now, I beleive in a totaly consistent God. I beleive that His nature never changes, nor does His ultimate plan. The way I see it, God is like a chess
master. He knows every possible reaction to every possible action, and how to let Himself be reflected in that. God does, essentially know the future. He can't be suprised. In fact, you could go and say that God authored the concept of action and reaction, and surprise, and therefore is above all of them. What are your thoughts on that semi-logical explanation of a semi-problem, Patrick?

I have very little to disagree with here. His chess master analogy, I think, was a good way to portray it, as long as we're clear that this is a chess master who literally knows all the possible moves and all of the possible consequences, up to the end of the game, that result from each move.

However, I'm not sure I completely agree with, "God does, essentially know the future. He can't be surprised." That, however, depends on what you actually meant.

1. He can't be surprised in the way that he knows all the possibilities of what you can do. You'll never hear God say, "I never thought of that choce." If that's what you meant, then we are in agreement.
2. He can be surprised by the actual choice the person takes. God knows all the possibilites, but doesn't know which one we will actually take.

I think you meant number 1, but just in case...

Now, let's continue to an even better question.

More specifically, do you beleive God is subject to the laws and concepts He created (logic, truth, morality, knowledge, etc.)?

There are several aspects of this question, so let's address each one specifically.

1. Does God transcend logic? Well, define "logic." When I read that, I took it to mean, "Can God do logically impossible things?" or at least, things that are logically impossible for us. There seems to be an issue here, because if you say "Yes," then you must also answer yes to such a question as, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" But if you say "No," some might say you're limiting the powers of God. My answer to this question is "No." However, I don't see that I'm limiting the powers of God, because we shouldn't expect God to go beyond the realm of the true meaning of omnipotence.
2. Does God transcend truth? Well, I wouldn't say God is above truth...I'd probably say something like "He is truth, just as John 14:6 says." I'd argue that the only reason we have a sense of truth and fiction is because there is a God, and it's by his very nature that this occurs. One of the properties of God is, of course, existence. Since truth is determined by God's nature, any lie is about something that essentially doesn't exist. What exists as truth goes with God's property of existence and what doesn't exist as lies goes against God's nature. I hope that makes a little bit of sense...It makes sense to me, anyway. If it doesn't, I'll try to rephrase it.
3. Does God transcend morality? This is the same issue. The only reason we have a sense of morality at all is because of God's very nature. It's not because God says things are good that things are good, or they were good apart from God (as the Euthyphro dilemma suggests) but good things are good because they, like truth, coincide with God's nature. God cannot contradict his own nature, so I wouldn't say he is "above morality."
4. Does God transcend knowledge? Well, I suppose not. God is the sense of knowledge we have who guides us in our descisions. But I don't fully understand this question. Knowledge doesn't seem to be something one can "transcend." Jimmie, if you don't mind and if you still want a better answer, would you mind elaborating on this?

And now, perhaps the most important question of all:

I would say be careful to examine your motives for adopting this position. Is it JUST to render atheist arguments void? Or is it to further understand our Lord? Not that I'm implying you AREN'T adopting this view for that purpose, but wanted to stimulate some thought.

It would be a lie for me to say, "The only reason I did this was to further my understanding of the Lord." But it would also be a lie for me to say, "I did this to render atheist arguments useless." I found that after I adopted Open Theism, I realized that things like the Problem of Evil weren't real problems anymore, so the rendering of atheist's arguments void came after conversion. However, I converted out of, if you will, a lack of choice. It seemed to be the only viable option to me due to atheistic (and Open Theistic) arguments against free will being compatible with foreknowledge. So it's really both, but I feel like it's more of the "understanding of the Lord," answer. If I did indeed adopt it to combat atheistic arguments, I only did it to combat one, and it has greatly increased my understanding of the Lord.

I hope these questions helped you out Jimmie, as well as anyone else who might be reading along.

© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.

Open Theism

Or, "Flirting with heresy"

Well, here it is. This is my confession to the world. I've gone and done it. I've sided with one of the most controversial and hotly debated views about God that Christians have.

I've become an Open View Theist.

Most people who read that probably went, "Huh? What's Open View Theism?" Others, who knew what it was beforehand, probably frowned. So what is Open Theism?

1) There is no truth about future contingents (A contingent truth is something that is true but didn't have to be). Only the present exists.
2) We have complete free will.
3) God knows everything that is true.
4) Since there is no truth about future contingents, God essentially doesn't know the future, or what choices we will make. He does know all possible counterfactuals*, but not what choice we will make.

*Counterfactual - I'll explain this in simple terms. There are hundreds of possible counterfactuals for any given situation. If you saw a peanut butter jar sitting on a table, you could a) pick it up, b) knock it down, c) eat it without picking it up, etc. Those are all counterfactuals.

"That doesn't sound Biblical. Is this supported by the Bible?"

Sure. There are many examples:

• "The Lord frequently changes his mind in the light of changing circumstances or in the light of prayer (Exod. 32:14; Num. 14:12-20; Deut. 9:13-14, 18-20, 25; 1 Sam. 2:27-36; 2 Kings 20:1-7; 1 Chron. 21:15; Jer. 26:19; Ezek. 20:5-22; Amos 7:1-6; Jon. 1:2; 3:2, 4-10). Other times he explicitly tells us he will change his mind if circumstances change (Jer. 18:7-11; 26:2-3; Ezek. 33:13-15). This willingness to change is portrayed as one of God's attributes of greatness (Joel 2:13-14; Jon. 4:2).
• A number of times he expresses regret and disappointment over how things have turned out - even over previous decisions he has made which went array because of human free will (Gen. 6:5-6; 1 Sam 15:10,35; Ezek. 22:29-31).
• Other times he tells us he's surprised at how things turned out, for he expected a different outcome (Isa. 5:3-7; Jer. 3:6-7; 19-20).
• In several passages the Lord explicitly tells us that he did not know that humans would behave the way they did (Jer. 7:3 1; 19:5; 3 2:3 5).
• The Lord frequently tests his people to find out whether or not they'll remain faithful to him (Gen. 22:12; Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 13:1-3; Judg. 2:20-3:5; 2 Chron. 3 2:3 1).
• The Lord sometimes asks non-rhetorical questions about the future (Num. 14:11; Hos. 8:5) and speaks to people in terms of what may or may not happen (Exod. 3:18-4:9; 13:17; Jer. 3 8:17-18, 20-21, 23; Ezek. 12:1-3)." (Boyd)

Also, I'd ask you this. Does it make any sense for God to be sad or angry about something he knew was going to occur? Like, for example, killing Onan because he "spilt his seed?" If God knew the future, he knew that Onan would have spilt his seed on the ground.

"But wait, hold up! You're diminishing God's power by saying that!"

I don't see that I am. I fully contend that God is omniscient, knowing all that can be known. I don't believe the future can be known. In the same way that I think God is all powerful but can't create a rock so big that he cannot lift it, I believe that God is omniscient but can't know what choices free beings will make. I think that knowing the future actions of a free being is logically impossible.

"The Bible says that God knows all things!"

You're right. It does.

"But what about prophesy? How can that be possible if God doesn't know the future?"

I'd say that, to some extent, God predicts/plans the future when it suits him to do so. In these situations, it does. You'd surely that God is much, much wiser than we are? Surely he's wise enough to acheive his purposes while still allowing full freedom.

"What about prayer?"

What about it? It makes the concept make a LOT more sense. If God knew what you were going to pray to begin with, there's no point in praying; of course, I'd argue that you wouldn't have a choice to pray or not if God knew the future.

"So how did you come to this descision?"

It took a very, very long time. The Free Will Argument for the Non-Existence of God struck me when I first heard it (probably...hmm, ten months ago now) and caused very serious doubts in me about it. This is it:

1. God knows the future.
2. God's knowledge is perfect and can't be wrong.
3. God knows that P-Dunn will be typing these words at 3:49 PM on Saturday, September 2nd.
4. Since God's knowledge cannot be wrong, P-Dunn MUST type those words at the given time. There is no choice.
5. God is not omniscient, or he doesn't exist.

I was determined that we have free will. To me, the world and all the evil doesn't make one bit of sense if God predetermines all of our actions. Why would any loving God predetermine that a two planes were going to crash into huge buildings and kill several thousand people? Or why would God predetermine that a man was going to rape a 9 year old girl and bury her alive? He wouldn't have any choice, we can't condemn him for what he's done. This is, of course, ridiculous.

But what about the Free Will Argument? How is it possible that we still have free will, yet God knows our every action? It seems contradictory.

Open Theism makes this problem evaporate immediately. Since I've decided to become an Open Theist, I'm no longer trying to figure this problem out, because Premise 1 is immediately false. In addition, most of the atheistic arguments like The Problem of Evil become much less effective.

I'm going to be checking out God of the Possible by open theist Gregory Boyd, a scholar interviewed by Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ. Maybe you should too.

======================

Boyd, Gregory. "God and the Future." Open Theism Information. <http://www.opentheism.info/pages/information/boyd/god_future.php>

======================

© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.

My experience with EvilBible.com

Or, "What atheists do when they can't take the heat."

According to their "About Evil Bible.com" section, this website is "a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism by revealing the wicked truth about the Bible and religion." It's also one of the most low-quality of all the atheist websites out there. Almost 95% of it is mere argument by outrage, it has many misunderstandings of very simple concepts, and it ignores historical context. The latter of these I decided that I had gotten tired of.

EvilBible (from now on EB) has an article about slavery, of all things. It starts off by saying, "Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do." Of course, this right here has immediately given us a clue of how Chris (the editor) is completely ignorant of slavery as it was portrayed in the Bible. I immediately joined on the forums to see if he was aware of Christian-Thinktank's response to this issue.

Turns out, an atheist had already posted a link. Of course this atheist said that he disagreed and thought that Glenn Miller was just making the word "slave" sound better, not using documented historical references and using scholars with degrees from Oxford or anything (Ha). Then, of course, Chris B posted a single paragraph and thought that it would disprove the whole thing, and this was agreed to by someone named Garinus. The passage:

Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context!

That sentence was bold. He then said, "I get a good laugh at that," etc, and then ignored the rest of the article that went onto explain that sentence/passage very well, and assumed the rest of the article wasn't factual and didn't rip his essay to shreds (it does).

Everyone that knows me and has read my material knows that I'm a very sarcastic person. I don't usually go by the wimpy-Western-strawman-Jesus mindset that we should always be nice to people we're debating with, because honestly, a lot of them don't deserve it. However, I threw that behind me for the moment. I tried to be as nice as possible. Chris had a large list of rules posted before you even get to the discussion forum, so I tried to follow them to the best of my ability as well, and I don't see that I've broken any.

I went onto explain what that passage had meant: it was unparalleled in any of the codes of the law of the day. Many others indicated that you could do whatever you felt like to slaves without punishment, but this Bible passage had an unprecedented punishment that was promised for those who beat and killed slaves (execution). Then I stressed the importance of what was later in the passage: the disciplinary measures were the same from slaves to "free" men.

So Chris first immediately denied the second. He said that elders weren't allowed to beat ordinary citizens with a rod. He also said this in direct conflict with historical record and showed to me that he didn't care what historians like Raymond Westbrook would say, but only what he personally feels is right. After challenging him on that point, he tried to clarify by saying "Criminals aren't ordinary citizens." This is, of course, a cop out. The only reason slaves were ever beaten in this manner was because they had done something worthy of punishment, just as these "criminals" had also done.

Then, Chris plays the whole "Slavery is immoral" card, once again ignoring all historical contexts. He fails to understand the passage in which he critiques: Exodus 21:20-21. He assumes that slaves were beaten for no reason whatsoever. In this verse, the master is given the benefit of the doubt if the slave survives for a few days...It is assumed that his actions were disciplinary in nature. If the slave is killed, it's assumed that he was homocidal.

He says he doesn't believe in moral relativism, which is rather odd, because he's an atheist who has no basis for saying how something became objectively wrong. I attempted to point this out and engage in a small discussion about morality. Someone else even asked, "Why is theistic morality safer than ours?" and I tried to explain it in the nicest, clearest way possible. Then Chris B gave me a bunch of links for the philosophy of Consequentialism¹ and I read through the first (which actually wasn't about Consequentialism, but about the supposed Euthyphro dilemma, and of course the article ignored the third option like every other atheistic writing I've ever read about it) and I promised to read the next few later, when I had more time.

I did a couple of other things. I posted a response to his "Jesus Lied," segment, which is essentially a mini-Marshall Brain essay. I told him that those verses were hyperbole. He said, "That's the most overused excuse ever," and I asked him why it wasn't valid...He didn't respond. Then I pointed out an important error in his judgement. He says on his main page, "It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said 'Thou shall not kill.'" This misunderstands the commandment. The word for kill was very clearly referring to murdering someone in a predatory way. God enacting judgement is not doing such a thing, therefore he doesn't violate his own commandment. So what happened?

They banned me.

I'm not even joking. I don't think I did anything wrong, but they banned me. I thought I was engaging in intelligent discussion with these people, but apparently not.

I sent Chris an email saying, "What was the reason that I was banned from your Discussion Forums? I don't see that I have broken any of your rules." It has apparently been read, but I have not recieved a response from him. This is incredibly cowardly and is honestly jerky. Any good admin of a website will send a banned member reasons why they have been banned.

Oh, wait. Upon further investigation, I discovered why I was banned. When I told him that 99% of slavery in the Ancient Near East was voluntary, he said that it was a blatant lie and he didn't tolerate liars. What he doesn't realize is that this is a confirmed historical fact.

This is ridiculous.

¹ - Consequentialism doesn't solve Chris's problem at all. What has positive consequences for one group of people will have negative consequences for another. It's impossible to say something's absolutely wrong, in this view.

For anyone who cares

Or, "More Brain Bashing"

I've started a new blog as a step-by-step refutation of Marshall Brain's ridiculous Bible-bashing. It's located here.

Coming soon: An article about the Christ-myth. I've had to re-type it several times due to Blogspot and my internet connection being really, really frustrating sometimes.

Is there fire in Hell?

I'm going to post this article despite what I wrote that I'd do in my previous post. Trust me, I'll get to those later.

When someone talks about Hell in general, do you picture a pit of fire where demons with little red tails are poking us and we're burning forever and ever? Chances are, you do. When you witness, have you ever thought, "I'm attempting to save this person from an eternity of burning in Hell!" You probably have. Lastly, I can probably guarantee that you've heard a pastor, friend, relative, or even atheist refer to a place of literal fire known as Hell, painting that same picture of torturous agony.

This picture, however, is not accurate.

The article in which you are about to read is not me trying to "water down" the depiction of Hell in the Bible (rimshot). It isn't me trying to make compromises for God. It is simply me being realistic.

Pope John Paul II shares my view. He stated that Hell is not a physical place but “the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God.” He denied that Hell is a place of fiery torment and described it rather as “the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God.” He further claimed that Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God and that eternal damnation “is not God’s work but is actually our own doing.” (Reuters, July 29, 1999). Even such big name people as Billy Graham can be said to identify with this role.

The only thing I could say for sure is that hell means separation from God. We are separated from his light, from his fellowship. That is going to be hell. When it comes to a literal fire, I don't preach it because I'm not sure about it. When the Scripture uses fire concerning hell, that is possibly an illustration of how terrible it's going to be-not fire but something worse, a thirst for God that cannot be quenched.

So what's the basis? If you, like many other Christians today, read the Bible in plain English devoid of context, you'll surely think otherwise. Just like this guy:

The Lord Jesus Christ spoke more about Hell than about Heaven, and He always described Hell in terms of fire and physical torment. This is not a matter that is up for debate. As for the idea that Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, that is absolute nonsense...Any man who denies or questions these plain biblical facts about Hell is a dangerous false teacher.

Those are some rather strong words. So let's see how this claim holds up.

Key Point One: Darkness

Hell is described as a place of darkness in Matthew 8:12, where it states "But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This same phrase is repeated in Matthew 22:13 and 25:30.

Utter darkness and fire are obviously quite contradictory. Fire would no doubt get rid of the darkness.

Key Point Two: History

"But what about the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth?' What about the 'worm' that doesn't die, according to Mark 9:48?"

Well, contrary to what you might think, the "other descriptions of hell, such as people weeping and grinding their teeth, match with expressions of shame in the ancient world, but not physical pain." (Holding) So, in other words, that more correctly matches with an expression of rage, obviously due to the realization that you has made a terrible mistake. (Strobel 177) Again, this doesn't point to being in physical agony.

In Biblical times, countless animals were sacrificed every week in the Temple. They had a sewage system for all of the guts to flow out and it gathered in a single area, and there were worms constantly eating that disgusting mixture. So when Jesus referred to the worm in Mark, he was referring to how Hell would be worse than even such a disgusting of a place as that. (Strobel 176)

Key Point Three: Metaphors

Other uses of fire in the Bible are clearly metaphors. Take Hebrews 12:29 for example, where God is referred to as a "consuming fire." This is referenced from Deuteronomy 4:24, which adds "a jealous God." No one in their right mind would think that God is literally a burning fire, but rather a just God.

There's a verse that says that Jesus will come again with a sword in His mouth surrounded by flames. This is, yet again, a symbol for justice, the sword being judgement itself and the flames showing Christ coming in judgement. (Strobel 176)

So what makes the depictions of fire in Hell different? You have no doubt heard the metaphors comparing God or Jesus to water. Notice that the metaphor of judgement with fire and thirst fits right in with the metaphor of God's spirit as water. Or, to take it even further, think of your expression of embarassment or shame. When you say your face is "burning", that doesn't literally mean it is, but rather, it's flushed and red. (Holding)

So What IS Hell?

If it doesn't have burning fire, then what is it? I wouldn't say it's an actual, physical place. Put quite simply, it's a state of shame and complete separation from God. There will be incredible emotional torment, but not physical. And when you think about it, seperation from God is probably much worse than any physical pain you could encounter. Notice how Jesus Christ, during all the crucifixion process, beatings, whippings, disertion by his disciples, being spit on, etc, didn't cry out to God until he was covered in sin and His Father rejected him. "Why have you forsaken me?" he said. It was in the moment that God turned his back on Him that he found the burden overwhelming; it was His pinnacle of suffering (Dunn). He knew that, for the first time in his life, he was completely separated from God, and it was obviously quite unpleasant.

Think of how terrible of a world this is right now. The amount of sin is outrageous: underage drinking, drugs, pornography, rampant sex and pregnancy amongst the unmarried, murder, robbery, school shootings...The list goes on forever. You think God seems far away right now? Try taking him completely out of the picture. You have no way of interacting with Him and vice versa.

The thought is terrifying. And that's exactly why we need to step up as Christians and witness. Not because we're saving people from an eternity in fire...Because we're saving them from being out of God's presence for all time.

Conclusion

Due to the fact that flames would override the Biblical doctrine of darkness in Hell and result in contradiction, the verses citing fire making much more sense as metaphors, and the weeping and gnashing of teeth and worms matching historical expressions of shame and waste disposal, we can safely conclude that Hell is not a physical place of literal fire, but a state of shame and complete seperation from God, which is much worse than the former.

==============

1) Holding, James Patrick. "Answers in a Nutshell." Tekton Apologetics Ministries. 31 May 2006 . <http://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/nutshellhub.html#H>

2) Holding, James Patrick. "Torture in hell?" Tekton Apologetics Ministries. 31 May 2006 <http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html>

3) Strobel, Lee. The Case For Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000.

4) Dunn, Dr. Bruce W. "Will there literally be a burning fire in Hell?" Christian Answers. 31 May 2006. <http://www.christiananswers.net/q-grace/hell-fire.html>

===============

Coming Up Next: The Problem of Evil
Then: Why The Skeptical Answers to the Resurrection Just Don't Cut It

Reassuring Update

Hey guys. This is to prove I haven't forgotten about this blog yet. In fact, I have a lot in store.

- An article about the Problem of Evil
- An article about Preterism, and probably a review of the movie The Omen as part of it after I see it
- A review of "God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist", a book by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
- Some additions to my Marshall Boring articles

The only reason the first of these, the Problem of Evil article, isn't already posted is that my computer crashed this morning with the near finished article still on it and unsaved. My hard drive is fried, and therefore I have no way of posting it unless I retype it all on my other computer, which will take a while.

I hope these will be beneficial to everyone.

Marshall Boring - Part Two

Or, “Marshall Shouldn’t-Be-Taken Seriously-by-Anyone-with-a Brain”

This entry is the second part of a rebuttal to WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com. In Part One, I went over how the website is fundamentally flawed due to misreading of scripture extrapolated to the extreme and how he uses purely emotional arguments and nothing rational. In Part Two, I aim to go over how Marshall uses refuted canards about slavery and sexism, has no knowledge of good sources (One would wonder how he made it through college), and his ego and arrogance should be a clear sign to stay away. So let’s get right to it, shall we?

In Chapter 13, Marshall Brain (Henceforth known as Marshall “Boring”) loudly proclaims, “Why does God love slavery?” Then he cites writings by Frederick Douglass to get you to feel sorry for the slaves, which is highly effective, because American slavery was a barbaric atrocity. But what Boring doesn’t seem to understand is that Biblical slavery was nothing like American slavery. He’s never heard of something called “indentured servitude.” He also doesn’t understand that this same kind of “slavery” brought the first of our ancestors to America on their own free will. Even what we all thinks is “slavery” is completely different in the reality of the ancient world.

Raymond Westbrook, in “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law” states:

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for ‘slave’ in all the region's languages illustrates. ‘Slave’ could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his ‘slaves,’ even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the ‘slave’ of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were ‘slaves’ of the gods. Even a social inferior
when addressing a social superior referred to himself out of politeness as,
‘your slave.’ There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were
not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.”

I think that should be enough for Boring to realize his failure to research, but if it’s not, you can see the rest here.

He then talks about animal sacrifices, but really doesn’t do anything except say, “Ewwwww! That’s gross.” Once again, Boring shows his ineptitude for historical knowledge of ancient laws. J.P. Holding explains it like this.

“For the ancient person, an animal was like money. It was their way of giving to charity -- the collection plate, if you will. Furthermore, cultured people of the past had no objection to the idea of vicarious or substitutionary
sacrifice.”

Boring is quick to spout off that that killing animals, “does not have any beneficial effect for anyone,” yet what do you call steak, Boring? But that’s not the point. This section has little substance other than, “The idea of killing an animal, splattering its blood about and then burning its flesh is, quite obviously, absurd and ridiculous. God would have nothing to do with animal
sacrifice.” Notice that we’re not told WHY this is obvious, and notice how this is all relative. He wouldn’t say that about killing the termites that live under his house. He wouldn’t say that when spraying his can of Raid around his living room for spiders. In short, his arguments calling animal sacrifice “absurd” is about equivalent to PETA calling a person eating a hamburger “absurd.” Once again, the question isn’t, “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” but “Why won’t Boring do any research?”

His argument about sexism is immediately flawed. He cites 1 Corinthians 33-35, which according to Boring says that women have to shut up, but that’s not true at all. This is a case of Paul quoting opponents and then refuting them with strong disapproval. We know this because he just did it in verses 12 and 13, there is a definite change in the tone of Paul's writing, and there was an extra word in the original manuscript after that verse that wasn't translated into the NIV: "What?!" (Christian-Thinktank) This, once again, demonstrates that Marshall Boring doesn't know the meaning of the word, "exegesis." (If you don't either, find out.) Among other things, he says that none of Jesus's disciples were women...but wait, according to Luke 8, Mary Magdalene was a disciple. Boring was probably looking at Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" painting when writing that one up.

Which leads me to my next point. He uses terrible sources. One of them is The Da Vinci Code.

All of the rituals in Christianity are completely man-made. Christianity is a snow ball that rolled over a dozen pagan religions. As the snowball grew, it freely attached pagan rituals in order to be more palatable to converts. The process is described succinctly and accurately in the book "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown.

...Excuse me? What's wrong with this picture? Boring is using The Da Vinci Code, a piece of fiction that has an incredible amount of factual errors, as a credible source of Christian doctrine? You've gotta be kidding me. Now, why is this? Because Boring seems to be unaware of anything by scholars that's been peer-reviewed. He's perfectly ready to cite Marilyn Hickey Ministries, Guidepost Magazines, and Rick Warren as uniform sources for Christian doctrine, but he's never touched any of the material by real scholars. If he stepped onto any of the reputable apologetics websites on the internet, he'd probably cringe in fear.

Last, but certainly not least, he's a very egotistical person that doesn't attempt to hide it. He has an entire section on the page called, "Understanding Your Delusion," that basically says that anyone who believes in any religion is equivalent to any adult that still believes in Santa Clause. He cites the Santa story, saying no adult would believe it unless they were delusional. Then the Mormon and Muslim stories, saying that Christians think those people are delusional. Then, he cites the story of Jesus Christ, and says that all the Mormons and Muslims think that Christians are delusional, so the God of Christianity must be imaginary.

I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?

Try again. I have seen no "solid, verifiable evidence." He's done nothing to disprove the Jesus story other than saying, "Duh, Jesus doesn't appear to anyone today, so he must not have resurrected, duh," and "Other people think your stories are false, so, duh, it must be true, duh." Brain hasn't touched the "solid, verifiable evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Other statements he makes, like this, where he waves the "common sense" flag, which he does in nearly every paragraph:

The Bible is clearly the work of primitive men, many of whom were insane. Anyone with common sense can see that. Exodus 21:20-21 alone is enough to prove it. When people insist that the Bible is the word of God, we should ignore them and exclude them from public discourse.

Or this, where he tells his atheist readers to promote the site like crazy, because if any Christian sees it they'll convert (exaggerated):

The way to change the world is to change people's minds. As more and more people openly discuss the fact that "God" and "Allah" are completely imaginary, the world becomes a better place. The people who believe in "religion" look sillier and sillier. Eventually, religion becomes a fringe activity that is meaningless...

...You would be amazed at how much of an effect discussion and linking can have. If
we keep publicly discussing the problems of religion, we will coalesce the
minority and then begin changing the majority. As discussed on this page,
religion will eventually fall to rationality because of the immense weight of
the evidence.

...clearly show that this man, Boring, thinks he's the "normal" one and everyone else is "delusional." But, as I've shown, if anyone's delusional, Boring is.

He even has the nerve to hide text in his HTML code that's insulting to Christians. Here are some of them.

If you are a Christian, you now have a major problem: We have just proven that God did not write the Bible. You have to solve this problem -- if men wrote the Bible rather than God, Christianity is dead. So you do one of two things with these passages. You simply ignore the fact that God condones slavery in the Bible. You continue to believe in God and the Bible anyway. If someone asks you about all of the pro-slavery passages in the Bible, you change the subject. Or you accuse the person of blasphemy. You try to come up with incredibly convoluted explanations for the pro-slavery passages in the Bible. You try to find some sort of bizarre rationalization to explain away an all-loving God who openly advocates slavery in both the Old and New Testaments.

Sorry, Boring, but we've already showed you how your doctrine of slavery is the "incredibly convoluted" one. If you try to disprove history, which you undoubtedly will to conform with your slavery doctrine, you're the one that's delusional.

Instead of acting like a child and turning to religion and all of its bizarre
mythology, what you need to do is grow up and accept reality. Then you need to
make the most of it.

Oh, please. I'd love to see this guy debate with any educated Christian. We'll see if he still says that they're acting like children or not accepting reality. Boring needs to stop calling the kettle black over and over.

Well, that's about it. WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com is nothing but a bunch of whining and complaining, mixed in with misinformed doctrine that as no historical bearing whatsoever, a whole lot of the phrase "common sense," which in itself seems to be missing Boring, him calling things "bizarre" (he really thinks communion is referring to literal cannibalism, which is hilarious in and of itself), terrible use of sources, fundy-atheist hyperliteral Bible reading, and overall stupidity.

F minus for Failure Beyond Belief.

If this isn't enough for you and you want a much more comprehensive rebuttal to this website, in a parody formation, check out Why Does God Hate Deputies? by James Patrick Holding.