False Argument #17: Bible Claims Those Who’ve Never Heard Of Jesus Go To Hell

December 18, 2008

For the past three days I've been spending way too much time on an atheist forum where over a dozen commenters have taken me strongly to task on this issue. Yet strangely, when asked for scriptural support, they offer nothing but the standard verses relating to salvation.

I agree that the Bible says Jesus is the only way to God. Does this mean that those who have never heard of Jesus go automatically to hell? My atheist opponents cry an emphatic yes.

But even a basic Bible education disproves this idea. If this interpretation is correct, then Moses, Isaac, Abraham, Daniel, Isaiah, David, Solomon and ALL of the other Old Testament figures would ALL be in hell, correct? Yet scripture clearly indicates otherwise, and each of these people lived and died before Jesus ever walked the Earth.

Read More →






False Argument #16: Bible Offers Contradictory Criteria For Salvation

December 17, 2008

The question of biblical inerrancy comes up often in debates between believers and skeptics of all stripe, with the typical formula being gross overstatements on behalf of skeptics, and inefficient responses to these gross overstatements on behalf of believers. At the request of a commenter on DA calling himself Brad, I said that I would take a look at an essay titled Foundation of Sand, alleged to prove biblical contradiction and error.
Read More →






On The Argument From Scientific Foreknowledge

December 3, 2008

Quite a few apologists have written books and given speeches making various claims regarding scientific foreknowledge in the Bible. The scope and disparity of the claims varies from ultra-outlandish to fairly credible, but over-eager writers tend to exaggerate these claims, not only to their own embarrassment but also to that of anyone else who thinks there is legitimate scientific foreknowledge in the Bible.

I believe reasonable middle ground exists between the polarized positions that the Bible contains numerous examples of scientific foreknowledge, and that the Bible contains zero examples of scientific foreknowledge. I realize that by simply affirming my position, I risk being perceived with equal scorn as the incipient creationist whose sneaky techniques disrespect the basic rules of logic and reason. However, I think tactics like those prevalent in most creationist outfits actually show a lack of confidence in the Bible. If the Bible really is the word of God, should one have to contrive?

Read More →






Jesus Never Pooped: or, A Better Way To Conduct Exegesis

November 10, 2008

Excuse me for making a generalization here, but I've noticed that atheists tend to approach the Bible much like creationists tend to approach literature on evolution. Certain atheists (for example Richard Dawkins) are publicly fond of bashing creationists for dodgy scholarship, and rightfully so. For example, many of us know how some creationists are overly fond of emphasizing select passages from Darwin or Dobzhansky to support their arguments, while selectively de-emphasizing other passages that might weaken their argument. What's less recognized is the extent to which atheists and skeptics do the same thing (for example Richard Dawkins) when quoting the Bible or the Founding Fathers to support their cases for atheism.

Read More →






The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, II

October 5, 2008

In Part I we discussed the first pivotal misunderstanding of religion I claim compromises the validity of the main thesis in the rather well-written A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM). The second implicit misunderstanding we ought to discuss relates to misinterpretations of salvation, the peculiarly culturally-resilient notion that,

“If the person has been virtuous, the soul is admitted to Heaven for an eternity of reward; if the person has been wicked or sinful, their soul descends to Hell for an eternity of punishment.”

Although the author did not explicitly assert this to be the Bible’s position, this is not a biblical teaching, and it is unclear from the essay whether the author understands the biblical perspective, although many of the questions asked in the case studies raise legitimate concern. The above is nevertheless an erroneous interpretation of scripture frequently straw-manned by critics of all stripe in the general public and academia alike, not surprisingly with little or no counter from theism. I say “not surprisingly” because as the author of AGITM is apt to notice, many pious do not know the Bible with the same degree of expertise they expect of its critics.

As with yesterday’s discussion, this apparent misunderstanding of salvation potentially undermines AGITM’s overall argument and even further lessens its relevance to theism. Although less relevant to AGITM’s main thesis (the argument against spirit / soul), this point of contention is relevant to many of the sub-arguments and questions of whether salvation would be granted under the unfortunate conditions experienced by those in the fourteen case studies. Many and possibly all of the sub-dilemmas raised fall apart when salvation is delineated in a manner compatible with scripture. For it is only in the misunderstood context of the biblical ‘soul’ and the rewards-and-punishments system that such questions as these arise at all:

“One must ask whether these people’s disabilities will affect their eternal fate. Would a Christian, Jew or Muslim who lost their automatic speech be held accountable by God for failing to say the prayers he has demanded of them, through no fault of their own? What about a deeply religious individual who loses the ability to speak except in profanities?”

…or the following from the discussion of frontotemporal dementia (FTD):

“..will God damn people for their genes?”

Read More →






The Theist’s Guide To Converting Atheists: My Response To Ebonmuse

September 17, 2008

The atheist blogger Ebonmuse has for nearly a decade now hosted an essay on his website titled The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I was originally pointed to the essay from a link on another atheist blog asking believers to consider potential facts or situations that would sway them from belief.

What follows is my initial set of responses to this essay.

Read More →






On The Old Testament, Slavery And Gospel Music

September 3, 2008

The Bible is an object, and like any object, it can be used for many purposes.

After the Flood in Genesis 9, Noah planted a vineyard, got drunk and fell asleep naked. Apparently, Noah became angry with Ham, one of Noah’s sons, for telling his brothers about their father’s nakedness and having him covered. It doesn’t seem like that big an offense to me, but in the next verse we find Noah pronouncing a curse on Canaan:

"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers." (v9:25)

Read More →






An Atheist Paralell To God Of The Gaps Thinking

August 21, 2008

Lately I've noticed an atheist parallel to God of the Gaps thinking. I was in the blogosphere the other day when I stumbled on a piece called CSI Deuteronomy where the author takes the fifth book of the Bible to task. The reason was an awkward phenomenon the ancient Israelites were supposed to undertake for unsolved murders occurring outside of city boundaries.

The passage from the Revised Standard Version reads:

Read More →






False Argument #9: Bible Claims Sun Revolves Around Earth

May 17, 2008

Science itself is a continually evolving enterprise and mistakes are a natural part of the evolutionary process. For religious expressions of this peculiar human ability to error, one need look no further than the well-publicized story of the Italian scientist Galileo, (1564-1642) prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Church on grounds that his claim Earth revolved around the sun was heretical. First we must secure accurate definitions of the pertinent terms.

The word heretical can be defined as contrary to the chartered traditions of the Church, and heliocentrism is the notion that the sun is the center of our solar system. Is this idea at arms with anything the Bible actually says, or was it at arms with the power structure’s interpretation of scripture at that particular time?

Read More →






On Discrepancy, Difficulty and Contradiction

May 16, 2008

Even the most unyielding Fundamentalist cannot deny the incontrovertible fact of difficulties and apparent contradictions in the Bible, but in all fairness it must be pointed out that from the standpoint of logic and critical scholarly analysis, difficulties are not synonymous with errors. Here’s an easy way to see how this works. Let’s say you and your friend witness a robbery in which there were three robbers. Your friend was at one end of the street in front of the bank and you were at the other end near their getaway vehicle. Your friend sees all three robbers run out of the bank with the loot and take off down the street, disappearing from his view. Then, one of the robbers gets a bad feeling that the getaway is going to fail; so he ditches his loot and takes off running down an alley. A wino finds the ditched loot and happily makes his way to the liquor store. By the time the robbers arrive at the getaway vehicle, you see two robbers, not three. During the police report, your friend states for certain that there were three robbers who took off on foot, while you state for certain that there were only two. Your friend admits that he never saw any getaway vehicle, while you maintain there was. A third person comes up and reports that he saw a wino find a bag of money, something which neither yourself nor your friend can testify to. Note that although we have several difficulties and apparent contradictions here, all three witnesses are one hundred percent correct in their statements.

There are many situations like this in the Bible, particularly related to the gospels, with typical charges including conflicting statements of Bible writers regarding the accuracy of crucial historical events such as the birth or death of Jesus. The test scholars apply to documents to check for contradictions and errors is known as the internal evidence test, and it deals basically with discrepancies within a given document. In my opinion, related to factual matters, the Bible passes the internal evidence test with such flying colors that I will not address the subject in great detail here, but for the sake of demonstration one example will be included for study. For those who wish to research the issue more fully, see Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties as a great starting reference on the subject. For specific arguments, refer to the index of false arguments