The Classical Argument for Christ

I’ve posted a whole series on the classical argument for the existence of God. Of course, as a Christian, I often get asked, “So, even if this Prime Mover exists, why should I believe in the Christian “God? Why not other religions?” 

This is a fair question and one that cannot be answered with the same deductive reasoning as with the metaphysical argument for God, but there is a logical connection we can make for the incarnation of God in the person of Christ, and why an invisible, transcendent, and infinite God would communicate with humankind this way. 

This argument builds on the previous set of arguments so you should have a basic understanding of the Classical Argument of the Existence of God before you continue here. To save verbiage, I’m only going to summarize here, and will either reference a video by Classic Theist titled, “An Argument For Christianity” for further philosophical background, or I will refer to some of my previous posts that are relevant to a particular point.

I should also point out that I’m not making a theological argument for Christ here but a logical one that’s derived from the previous arguments mentioned. I have plenty of other posts that make theological and biblically-based arguments for Christ.

In part three in the Argument for God, I listed some of the attributes that necessarily flow from Pure Act or Subsistent Existence Itself. The graphic below (from Classic Theist) uses light through a prism to illustrate how we, who are contingent and finite beings, perceive God (analogously) through various attributes, even though God is infinite and not actually made of parts or composite in nature. All of these attributes flow from His Pure Act (called “Absolute Simplicity”).

Here is a summary of the classical argument for why God creates (for the explanation of each point, you can to go to the video here).

a) God is the essence of goodness by virtue of being Pure Actuality.
b) Goodness is self-diffusive or self-communicative or has a tendency to share itself.
c) The higher or nobler the good the more intimately it will diffuse or communicate or share itself.
d) God’s creation of the world is a result of the outpouring of Himself beyond His own essence.

God is love

One of the attributes that diffuses from God’s essence is love (see part three). Love, here, does not mean emotional affection but willing the good of the other (benevolence). Therefore, love is necessarily relational. And, in order for God to be love, He must be able to express it within Himself, apart from His creation. The love between the Father, Son, and Spirit within the Trinitarian life of God expresses this perfectly (see series, “The Trinitarian God“).

If God’s essence is love, which is willing the good of another, it follows that He is self-diffusive, self-communicative, willing to share Himself, and we would ultimately have to apply that to God’s relationship to His creation.

Why Humankind?

Now, we can get to the question of the incarnation of God in Christ. Of course, there’s the theological and soteriological argument for the incarnation of Christ, but there are also logical reasons for why an invisible, transcendent and “wholly other-than” God would communicate with His creation through a human being in particular.

The Aristotelian view is that humankind is a rational animal, but I think there’s something more fundamental to this that has been taught throughout the centuries by church fathers, theologians, philosophers, even beyond the walls of Christianity…that man is really a compendium, a summation, or a microcosm of the whole universe in one substance. All hierarchies of being are existent or adhere within him.

  1. There is corporeal reality. We are composed of the basic, non-living chemical elements that permeate the entire physical universe.
  2. There is in man the principle of life, and on all the levels…base-level bacterial and vegetative capacities with bacteria and plants. We share the capacity for instinct and higher sensation, as with the animals.
  3. There is in man the intellectual principle that has the capacity to know God Himself, truth, and immaterial substances, such as universals, etc.

All these show that humankind is a microcosm of God’s creation…thus, if God were going to communicate or share Himself with creation in a full and intimate way, it would seem that the best way to do that would be to take the one substance and the whole creation within it (humankind) and unite absolutely to Himself in the fullest and mose intimate ways possible.

Aquinas said the following:

“It belongs to the essence of the highest good to communicate itself to the highest manner to the creature, and this brought about chiefly by His so joining created nature to Himself that one person is made up of these three: the word, a soul, and flesh, as Augustine says. Hence, it was manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate.”

What better way is this union expressed than in the incarnation of God in the hypostatic union of Christ. And, from this divine union, we can see why Jesus is the way to God (John 14:6). For God has joined Himself to humankind with the incarnation of Christ and, therefore, joined Himself to all humankind. 

For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature]. 10 And you are in Him, made full and having come to fullness of life [in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and reach full spiritual stature]. And He is the Head of all rule and authority [of every angelic principality and power]. (Col. 2:9-10 AMP)

For further explanation on how we can know this God through Christ, you can read my posts, “How can we know God?” and “Why Christ must be God for us to be in Him.”

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics, Love, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

227 Responses to The Classical Argument for Christ

  1. Gary says:

    There is no evidence in this post that specifically points to Jesus of Nazareth as the Creator. A Creator who has not yet been identified could have all the attributes that you describe above.

    • John Branyan says:

      There is no “yet to be identified” creator that possesses the attributes necessary to be the Creator. Your statement indicates that you do not understand the argument. Your comment is akin to saying, “A force that has not yet been identified could have all the attributes of gravity.”

      • Gary says:

        Nonsense.

        Provide evidence that the Creator of the universe, who possesses the above described qualities, is Jesus of Nazareth.

        • John Branyan says:

          Provide evidence that the force keeping you on the Earth is gravity.

        • jim- says:

          It’s obvious that gravity keeps your feet in the ground. It is not obvious in the least that it is caused by a supernatural god just because you want to think that.

        • John Branyan says:

          How do you know gravity keeps your feet on the ground? How do you know it’s not an invisible angel sitting on your shoulders?

        • jim- says:

          The same reason I know that comment was stupid

        • John Branyan says:

          And what is that reason?
          Faith?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Actually, Jim, it’s more obvious than gravity. You exist and continue to exist. You are a being currently existing in an essentially ordered chain and you are in motion (potential-actual), dependent upon outside motive forces for your continued existence. Explain your own existence.

        • John Branyan says:

          …you seriously think that’s more obvious than gravity to a guy like Jim?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Probably not. I suppose we just exist and gravity works. Don’t question it or confuse us with logic.
          Yup, no faith required.

        • John Branyan says:

          That is almost word-for-word what Jim actually said.

        • jim- says:

          I am here Mel without explanation. You say it’s an outside force and that has to be god, but things in Christianity are never what you say, and this is the problem. Isaiah 5:20 and Matthew 23 are talking about the preachers, who are the wicked. Who consistently tells you one thing while we consistently see another? Who fails to see the obvious in front of them while clinging to explanations? Nothing has changed since Matt 23 was written by an astute observer of religion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I am here Mel without explanation.

          No, Jim, you are here in denial of explanation. And regardless of what you think about Scripture (which is irrelevant here), the point is that you use faith to explain your continuing existence and gravity. And this only exposes the utter failure of materialism (naturalism) as a coherent worldview. As David Bentley Hart said in his book, “The Experience of God”:

          “The most a materialist account of existence can do is pretend that there is no real problem to be solved (though only a tragically inert mind could really dismiss the question of existence as uninteresting, unanswerable, or unintelligible).” (p. 44)

          And we can think of the “anything but God” materialist guru, Sean Carroll, here. “So the universe exists, and we know of no good reason to be surprised by that fact.” Like that is saying anything meaningful at all. In other words, don’t think about WHY we’re here. We’re just here.

          …Materialism is among the most problematic of philosophical standpoints, the most impoverished in its explanatory range, and among the most willful and (for want of a better word) magical in its logic, even if it has been in fashion for a couple of centuries or more.” (p. 48)

          So, Jim, you DO live by faith (or intentional denial) every moment you exist and stay stuck on the earth for some reason.

        • jim- says:

          I don’t live by faith at all. None of these things we are discussing change anything. They are neither here nor there. Tou assume I ponder on these things. I don’t. They just are, and to focus on one being more valid than on other is just your guess. This is a long road to backtrack on again Mel. My existence depends on biology and principles of the universe that go beyond some of our understanding right now, but with faith bases being so wrong so often, I would make a safe bet and say you are wrong here as well. I certainly wouldn’t place a bet on a supernatural system of totalitarian surveillance (god) that even comes after you when your dead. Sounds like a control game. Chris Langan’s CMTU uses a lot of similar language, explaining itself by referring to itself as many of your posts allude, and though the speech is eloquent at times, it is still wrong. Incoherence is one thing he uses to define evil. You use that term frequently, while maintaining it yourself because of belief without facts and your unwillingness to see the hand in front of your face.

        • John Branyan says:

          Please provide evidence that you don’t live by faith at all.

        • jim- says:

          Let me clarify. I don’t live by faith at all in the sense that I need to believe in something to feel satisfaction and peace in my life. In fact it’s quite the contrary. The portion of my life where faith was implied, was the anxious and uncertain portion. When you give up on false hopes and deal in what is, then peace flows through the veins like I never experienced in religion. In religion, nothing is as it is purported, and when I finally took a look at what I was told and read, versus what is actual, I left it because NOTHING adds up to anything helpful or viable. It was a sort of damnation to human potential. Don’t be afraid to look around you. Religion is a useless tool propped up at every turn with excuses. So, I have no faith or need to play such games. The paradox of faith and reality is great, and walking away causes me no worry at all. My life is full and happy.

        • John Branyan says:

          Provide evidence that your life is full and happy.

        • jim- says:

          I am content. Come out to my place for a visit. Life is good. I know it’s hard for you guys to understand because your worth is wrapped up in solving your doubts and answering WHY? But take god from your equation and you shall see, its not at all like I was told and warned. That’s a funny thing. Literally nothing works, yet you hang in to it. What is causing you years of convincing and deliberation, goes away in an instant when you call it off because it doesn’t work. The horse is dragging you full speed, all you have to do is let go of the rope.

        • John Branyan says:

          You have provided a testimony. I’m sure you understand that your personal experience is not evidence. I need testable, verification that you do not employ faith. I also need evidence of your happiness. Otherwise, you’re no better than Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Exactly. All I’m hearing from Jim is feelings and emotions, actually a weird form of denial.

        • That goes both ways Mel. There is more than ample verified evidence and psychological tests of human Mob-mentality, the Placebo-effect to show that ALL humans are susceptible to “feelings and emotions.” Forms of denial as you assert. You need to go further, go deeper. You are falling short with distinctions.

        • jim- says:

          You do not have faith john? By your word alone do I know. It certainly isn’t in the way you treat people. I remember what it’s like to cling to the absurd, but you are the master.

        • John Branyan says:

          You are still clinging to the absurd.
          I’ll need to see evidence to the contrary.

        • jim- says:

          Also, I think Mel means well. I also think he is lacking in one area, just as you probably are. He told me that not believing in god was truly incoherent to him. Just imagine what it must be like to not even imagine what it’s like outside of your own belief. That is unimaginable to me. I could think like a Buddhist today, I could imagine what it’s like to be a Muslim, or a Hindu. I get their points. Try for a day to live in my shoes. There is a problem when you can’t even imagine another way. I’m not that closed off thank god

        • John Branyan says:

          Provide evidence that you can imagine what it’s like to be a Hindu. Evidence, Jim. Not testimony.

        • jim- says:

          At least I am willing to look. That is not testimony. You are trying to get me to write a book here and I don’t believe in gods. None of them. Based on no evidence in them

        • Mel Wild says:

          We don’t believe in the gods either.

        • jim- says:

          The Bible is very clear there are more than one god, “if” any of it were true at all. It was the long drawn out explanations that came up with the triune stuff. I’m not completely apathetic to all these things, I am curious to know how it all happened, I just don’t believe it was a who that made it happen. Therefore, there is no why it all happened. Clinging to faith did nothing but delay my progress as a person. I believed in Christian morality which is short sighted to say the least, and always centuries behind what a regular person would do in their own without the abusive relationship

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, Jim, so you view Christianity as an “abusive relationship.” That says a lot right there. I can understand that from some versions I’ve seen and experienced.

          But your “divorce” aside, why don’t you think it’s a “who” when you’re a who? Explain to me how impersonal random particles come together to create sentient, conscious, intentional beings who search for meaning and have discussions like this?

        • jim- says:

          Research on consciousness and having souls is another “because the Bible says so” But arguments and data are finding more rational explanations for matter and consciousness, even in the fact it can be duplicated artificially. So it’s not really going to be isolated to organic creatures. I’m in no hurry, but the quick answer in the Bible to solve curiosity isn’t it. This is not an area I follow closely, but have as of late. Interesting to see the arguments and counter arguments. Very interesting.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Research on consciousness and having souls is another “because the Bible says so” But arguments and data are finding more rational explanations for matter and consciousness, even in the fact it can be duplicated artificially.

          That’s really funny. So all the books by materialists and their fanatical attempts to make consciousness come from matter is not another “says so” thing? I have never heard any people more religious and wacky than when materialists are trying to explain consciousness! At least Dennett is philosophically consistent when he says it’s all an illusion. That’s where materialism has to lead us eventually…to an illusion.

          Btw, I am also interested in the study of consciousness. I will write on it from time to time. Like our continuing existence, it’s the most empirically real thing there is, yet it defies scientific explanation.

        • Jim, so you view Christianity as an “abusive relationship.”

          • 1 Samuel 15:3
          • Numbers 16:49; 21:1-2; 21:6; 25:1-11; 31:1-35
          • Deuteronomy 2:14-16; 2:21-22; 2:33-34; 3:6
          • Joshua 6:21; 7:10-26; 8:1-25; 10:10-11; 10:26; 10:28-42; 11:8-12; 11:20-21
          • Judges 1:4; 1:8-25; 3:7-10; 3:15-22; 3:28-29

          Just this list is around 25,000,000 humans slaughtered. Yeah, I’d say it is CLEARLY abusive, more so because Jesus/Yeshua approves of his God’s Covenants of blood-thirsty behavior.

        • John Branyan says:

          You are not “willing to look”.
          Instead, you dismiss important questions with “the universe has no explanation”.

          You have been provided with evidence for God’s existence.

        • jim- says:

          You have provided a story. No proof at all

        • John Branyan says:

          So you admit you aren’t really interested in evidence.

        • jim- says:

          I’ve seen the “evidence”. I believed in it for many years. It’s just not compelling or verifiable

        • John Branyan says:

          “The universe has no explanation” is not compelling or verifiable either.

        • jim- says:

          You’re in a hurry to prove what you believe. I’ll wait on it.

        • John Branyan says:

          You’re not waiting on anything. You said your existence has no cause.

        • jim- says:

          It doesn’t as far as anyone knows. If you come up with evidence, I’ll certainly look at it and even join in the group hug. But, after 50 years nothing has added up to what we are taught. It’s all a shell game but there is no prize even if you think you guess right.

        • John Branyan says:

          Provide evidence that the universe does not have a cause. Otherwise, you’re no better than Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          We can admit that there are black holes or multi-dimensions, quantum tunneling, even though we may never actually observe them or have any conclusive evidence for them, because we have the mathematical theorems for them. Yet, you reject the same type of deductive logic and reason that tells us that there must be a fundamental fully actualized cause that is necessarily outside of the material world. So, again, your argument doesn’t add up. You just gave up “abusive religion” for incoherence. But I’m glad to hear you’re still looking.

        • jim- says:

          I feel the same only in reverse for you. Lol. Good day!

        • Mel Wild says:

          Well, I hope you don’t give up on logic and reason just because you had a bad experience with religion. Because if you don’t give up, you’ll eventually jettison the incoherence of naturalism and materialism.

        • jim- says:

          As far as faith is concerned just remember, things aren’t always what they seem, even after they seem like it.

        • If I may Jim, there’s another domain Mel lacks in severely:

          Second Temple Judaism/Messianism contrasted with Hellenistic Apotheosis. 😉

        • Great explanation Jim. When there is no longer any need for fear of a hidden, invisible imagination of a sadistic blood-thirsty God, you are indeed liberated to live this life fully, happy, accountable, and very empowered! It doesn’t get ANY better than that does it? 😉

        • Mel Wild says:

          You don’t live by faith? LOL!, You live in denial of your own existence past your biology. But thank you for making that clear and proving Hart’s point.

        • jim- says:

          Why do I need to consider your words Mel, when they have no effect one way or the other? I don’t sit around and wonder, but I do know that faith was a dead end that never added up to the flowery explanations.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Why do I need to consider your words Mel, when they have no effect one way or the other? I don’t sit around and wonder, but I do know that faith was a dead end that never added up to the flowery explanations.

          But, yet, here you are using words, Jim. Why are you here commenting if it doesn’t matter to you? If I truly didn’t care, I wouldn’t be here at all. And you say you KNOW that faith is a dead end. Actually, that’s a faith statement because you cannot prove that. Furthermore, you don’t know why you’re here, so you’ve only proven by your words that you DO live by faith every moment you breathe, which is quite ironic when you say it’s a dead end. I think you mean, “anything but God” no matter what the cost.

          Sorry, but there is nothing coherent in what you’re saying here. Your actions express something altogether different that these words you’re using.

        • jim- says:

          I speak because there are others stuck in the faith trap that might need a little help. That all. I’m happy someone pointed out the reality to me

        • Mel Wild says:

          Stuck in a faith trap? LOL! There you go again, making faith statements.

          So, if you can’t explain your own existence how do you know you’ve been shown “reality?” Sounds to me like you’ve rejected whatever “God” you thought you were following for “blissful” incoherence and denial. I would keep searching if I were you.

        • jim- says:

          I’ve rejected what doesn’t add up. If two plus two didn’t equal 4 I would check that math. I’m not using faith to abandon prayer, it doesn’t work, so I moved on to the next. Really quite simple after you wash out all the excuses

        • Mel Wild says:

          And then you accepted the ontological incoherence of materialism? Sorry, that doesn’t add up.

        • jim- says:

          I didn’t say that.

        • Mel Wild says:

          But you don’t seem to think it’s important to know why you’re here, right?

          I guess what I’m trying to ascertain is what exactly did you think was a dead end. Because you’re still obviously practicing faith. Was it religion? The version of Christianity you experienced? Your answer is rather vague.

        • Btw Jim, 2-mins + 2-mins doesn’t always = 4-mins depending on gravitational forces and point-of-reference, or point-of-measurement. 😉

        • jim- says:

          The casual observer can see that in order to make classical arguments work, you have to imagine a lot and then hang on to it because you spent a lot of time on it. It reminds me of Titus-Bode law, it doesn’t work but it sounds cool so people have continued to try and prove it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The casual observer can see that in order to make classical arguments work, you have to imagine a lot and then hang on to it because you spent a lot of time on it.

          No, that would only show that the “casual observer” doesn’t really understand the classical argument. The arguments already do work from a logical standpoint. For instance, the classical arguments for the existence of God can be proven by logical deduction. And none of the arguments are based on imagination, or even the Bible per se, but on solid logic and observation. Although it does take some actual non-casual thinking. But it can also be said that the casual observer risks having an incoherent ontology by not thinking through these things. So, it would be good for them not to ridicule what they don’t understand.

        • No one needs to listen or read anything from anyone other than God and His Holy inerrant immutable Bible, right? 🙂 Go straight to the source!

  2. Gary says:

    Wait!!!

    Now we are back to arguing for the existence of a Creator. I am asking for evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator. Could you PLEASE give evidence that demonstrates that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I never said or even implied that this post is about proving that Jesus is the creator. This post is tying the logical argument for existence of God to a logical argument for the incarnation of Christ.

      And, again, the terms of your “evidence” and question is bogus. You cannot prove or disprove who the invisible and infinite creator is by scientific methodology. It’s a fallacious question as I told you in the previous post.

      • John Branyan says:

        Gary is conceding the possibility of a creator. His error is suggesting that the creator could be one of several possibilities. He is appealing to a “yet to be discovered” creator which is incoherent given the necessary attributes of the ultimate source of reality.

        • Mel Wild says:

          We’ll call this creator “ABG” (Anything but God). And we will live in denial of any incoherence that may suggest to a thinking person.

      • Gary says:

        Exactly! I cannot provide evidence for the identity of the Creator and neither can you! There may be good evidence for a Creator but there is NOT good evidence for the identity of that Creator. You are continuing to bait skeptics into debating the evidence for a Creator to avoid providing evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Creator.

        Dear skeptics: If you continue debating Pastor Mel on the existence of a Creator, you have fallen into a trap from which you will never escape. The philosophical debate will go on, and on, and on, and on. There will never be a winner.

        STOP TAKING THE BAIT!

        Force Pastor Mel to provide evidence that a first century peasant from northern Palestine is the Creator of the universe and Ruler of the Cosmos, then you will see just how weak his Christian belief system really is.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, Gary. One more time. You DON’T prove Jesus is the creator with scientific methodology. Your question is fallacious and bogus. You are framing a counterfeit argument.

          But carry on, continue your childish behavior and playground taunts. You only make my point.

    • John Branyan says:

      Wait!!!!
      Now you are back to asking the same incoherent question. You can’t just ignore the previous exchange, Gary. Provide evidence that gravity is the force keeping us on the Earth.

  3. Gary says:

    “Okay, Gary. One more time. You DON’T prove Jesus is the creator with scientific methodology.”

    Excellent. Thank you! Thank you for answering my question.

    Although Christians will use scientific theory and methodology as evidence for their belief that a “Prime Mover” created the universe and everything in it (“All scientific evidence to date indicates that something can never come from nothing. Therefore, a force outside of the universe, working outside the laws of our universe, must have caused the Big Bang; the creation of our universe.”

    Yet when asked for evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is this Creator, they are coy and evasive, claiming that the IDENTITY of the Creator (the very same Creator whom they allege CAN be proven to exist by scientific theory and methodology) cannot be proven by scientific methodology.

    That’s precious.

    Why don’t you just admit it, Mel: The only evidence you have for Jesus of Nazareth being the Creator of the universe is:
    -alleged first century sightings of a walking/talking corpse
    -alleged eyewitness accounts in four 2,000 year old books, two and maybe three of which plagiarized the first
    – and probably most importantly, your personal feelings and perceptions that the spirit a dead corpse permeates the universe, including inside your body in a place you call “the soul”, giving you life direction and occasionally performing parlor tricks for you.

    Not good, Mel. Not good.

    • John Branyan says:

      Be careful.
      You’ve jammed your fingers so deeply into your ears you might poke a hole in your brain…

    • Mel Wild says:

      No, Gary, you only show you don’t understand the difference.

      One, we CAN logically connect PHYSICAL members of an essentially ordered causal chain in THIS natural world to show that things are in motion. The problem is that when we take it to its ultimate end, we INEVIDIBLY and logically are forced to admit that this Prime Mover, who must be fully actualized, is immaterial, infinite, and OUTSIDE of the material world. This is a logical inevitability, not a religious faith statement.

      Two, we CANNOT prove that this immaterial and infinite creator who must exist outside of the natural world with scientific method.

      These two statements are not mutually exclusive. You are trying to conflate the two. So, no, Gary, not good. Yours is a totally fallacious argument.

      • John Branyan says:

        Wanna bet he asks about Jesus again?

        • Gary says:

          No. I’m done here. Anyone with an education and a functioning brain can see what is going on here…

          The trickery of a snake oil salesman: Using a lot of impressive sounding sesquipedalian terminology and other shenanigans in a deceptive attempt to get you to buy something that is completely fictitious and not worth two cents.

        • John Branyan says:

          At least the snake oil salesman leaves me with a bottle of snake oil. You haven’t even offered that much.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha, right. But don’t confuse me with logic and reason. Well, any excuse will do. I wish you the best.

  4. Scottie says:

    Mel, did I read you correctly when you replied to Jim that you think it takes faith to believe in gravity?
    Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      What I meant is that we believe in gravity, that it will continue to hold us, even though we can’t really explain why it is so. In that sense we have faith in something we don’t understand or see. That’s faith.

      • Scottie says:

        Well OK, you have the right to see it that way, but I am forced to say I don’t Mel. I have confidence and trust that has been earned that gravity will continue and the explanations of why it will continue and how it works are well explained by the scientists who have studied it. This is a subject with a long history of experiments and reason. You can see gravity at work in space with the accretion experiment on video. This is not simply math on a chalkboard, this is real physical experiments. Our scientists do have a great understanding of gravity and the lay people have a reasonable one. So I find it far different than having faith in something. I do not think you deny science, I think you are smarter than that. Trust and confidence in somethings is earned, faith is simply given. Maybe it is a failure to communicate. Thanks for answering. That was bothering me on your reply to Jim. Be well. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          It shouldn’t really bother you, Scottie. Yes, we know gravity is real, we can see it work, yet we still don’t know what it is. We have not explained gravity, we only see how it works. It’s not a matter of testing. In fact, the most empirical evidence you and I have is our own existence, yet we cannot explain why we continue to exist with science. We can only go so far. You also have consciousness, which is the most real and empirical thing there is, yet we still don’t know for certain what consciousness is.

          So, testing and empirical evidence doesn’t rule out faith. You still are left trusting in some things that there are no explanations for. And while we can be reasonably certain these things will continue, we reason that continuation by faith because we cannot explain them.

          I hope that makes sense.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel I thank you for your reply but I respectfully disagree. Hugs

  5. Gary says:

    Maybe for hardcore older Christians the philosophical mind games that Mel and other apologists use to defend Christianity are appealing, but I hope that younger, less indoctrinated (brainwashed) Christians will see through the smoke and mirrors of this strategy and realize that no amount of philosophical psycho-babble changes the core claim of Christianity: that a bloated first century corpse escaped its sealed tomb and flew off into outer space.

    Educated people should not believe this kind of nonsense.

    I believe that we skeptics should continue to cut through the smoke and mirrors tactics of Christians and go for the jugular: The conservative/traditional Christian belief system is superstitious and silly. And we should repeat this statement over, and over, and over again until no child in our culture will want to admit to his friends that his family believes in virgin births, water walking, and corpse reanimation.

    • John Branyan says:

      The atheist/humanist belief system is incoherent and mean. I do not need to repeat this because rational people can deduce it for themselves by reading your comments. Your continued references to water walking and corpse reanimation make it obvious that you still don’t have the vaguest idea what arguments are being raised.

      I believe that you are confusing skepticism with dogmatism. Angry screeds are not a good substitute for evidence and logic.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Gary, I’m sorry but there is nothing sophisticated or even rational about your appeal to whoever you’re trying to talk to here. It certainly wouldn’t appeal to any objective thinking person. First, to dismiss thousands of years of robust philosophy as “mind games” or “smoke and mirrors” is vacuously imbecilic, not even rising to the level of anything meaningful. Second, it seems you just ridicule anything you don’t agree with. You sound like a raging fundamentalist.

      I’ve tried to have a respectful and mature conversation with you here but you are obviously very angry about Christianity, which is obvious from your belligerence. Sorry, but you can rant all you want. Your vapid mockery has no traction here. Again, I wish you the best.

      • Gary says:

        Do not confuse determination with anger.

        I am involved in one the greatest movements in human history: the debunking of religious superstitions; superstitions which cause division, hatred, discrimination, and violence. I have no problem with liberal Christianity which believes that Jesus was a good man whose death served as a “resurrection” of the spirit of forgiveness, of love, self-giving, and pacifism. My issue is with forms of fundamentalist Christianity which teach that human beings must believe that obedience and worship of a first century human sacrifice will prevent their eternal torture in the after life.

        It is an evil belief system that must be exposed and debunked.

        • John Branyan says:

          “It is an evil belief system that must be exposed and debunked.”

          Then quit whining get to debunking it, Gary.
          I suggest you get yourself at least a high school level understanding of religious philosophy.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I agree with John B, Gary. You need to chuck the angry pop atheism and pseudo-history and fallacious argumentation of Hitchens and Dawkins and their ilk and read Nietzsche instead. At least he understood Christian theology and philosophy and what’s at stake if you actually removed religion from society. Of course, he died stark raving mad but, unlike your contemporaries, he was brilliant.

          You’re not going to debunk anything with the arguments you’ve been parroting here. Again, you just sound like the anti-Christian version of dogmatic Fundamentalism. You might get some traction with the gullible and uninformed but you’re pretty much going to be tuned out by most thinking theists and Christians.

          And don’t be too idealistic and zealous about your mission. It will probably lead to great disappointment.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I read a lot of scientific articles and it always makes me chuckle when a new article comes out that says something like “Scientists capture first images of thing in history”. And it is some black and white blury photo of a far away star or whatever… I always pause and think “wait a minute… So, all of those cartoon pictures I was shown in school as a kid were guesses and you’ve been saying that you knew everything about this thing and that you were sure it existed in a specific state for decades and you’ve never even seen it?” You can usually filter through their wording and it is FULL of statements like “this COULD indicate…” or “which leads scientists to believe their MIGHT be… blah blah”… people really need to read carefully how many times they flip between a “might mean” and then transition directly to a “this IS because” in the same article. Their faith is strong.

  7. Gary says:

    I very much realize that my appeals to reason, science, and common sense will have no effect on the heavily indoctrinated members of your cult. Sadly, persons like you and Branyan are a lost cause. Nothing I say will ever change your minds.

    However, my goal here is not to change YOUR minds, but to appeal to the reason and common sense of the less indoctrinated among you, such as those Christian “lurkers” reading this post who are on the fence about the religious beliefs they inherited from their parents. I ask them to use their educated brains and answer this question: Regardless of the fact that the universe may or may not have been created supernaturally by a supernatural Creator (science has not discovered an answer to this question, at least not yet), how probable is it that if a Creator exists he was at one time a first century peasant, executed for sedition, whose corpse escaped its sealed tomb and later levitated into space where he now rules on a golden throne at the edge of the Cosmos as Almighty King of Heaven and Earth?

    Or is this just an ancient tall tale?

    You decide, folks.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I very much realize that my appeals to reason, science, and common sense will have no effect on the heavily indoctrinated members of your cult. Sadly, persons like you and Branyan are a lost cause.

      You see, right here, you’ve lost any thinking person. You make vacuous accusations that don’t even make sense. Heavily indoctrinated? You mean, like anyone who has a lot of education? Appeals to common sense and reason? You have outright rejected reason in these logical arguments and called them “mind games.” You don’t even understand the argument so you just sound angry and silly when you say these things.

      I think you would do well to read the study in the comments by “consoledreader” brought up on the last post. Christopher Silver, who himself is an atheist, did some research on different typologies of atheists for his dissertation. He first interviewed a large group of atheists and asked them a series of questions to get a sense of how they self-identify, then from there he developed six typologies, each with a description: Intellectual Atheist, Activist, Seeker-Agnostic, Anti-Theist, Non-theist, and Ritual Atheist.

      The study found: Anti-Theist Type had the highest levels Narcissism, Dogmatism, Anger, were the least agreeable, had the least positive relations with people, but also had the highest levels of autonomy.
      You may also wish to check out this article on some studies done that get into more of the WHY this may happen.
      And see this study:
      The many faces of dogmatism

      • Gary says:

        You are certainly free to deflect attention to the alleged deficiencies in my character and education, Mel, but the fact remains: Hidden by all your philosophical sophistry, you believe that a first century corpse was reanimated by an ancient middle eastern deity and later levitated into outer space. And most egregiously, you insist that every human being on earth must also believe this tale under threat of eternal torture

        Do no let Mel distract you from the issue at hand, Readers: Does reason and common sense tell you that Mel’s belief system is true or is it superstitious fiction?

  8. “Maybe for hardcore older Christians the philosophical mind games that Mel and other apologists use to defend Christianity are appealing, but I hope that younger, less indoctrinated (brainwashed) Christians will see through the smoke and mirrors…..”

    Ohh, trigger alert! I’m so glad atheists don’t engage in psychological mind games designed to indoctrinate children and force them to accept a nihilistic world view, to rob them of their hope, to remove their common sense and ability to think rationally. Just saying. That is some ugly stuff and it is motivated by nothing more than selfishness, by a desire to recreate people into one’s own image. Narcissistic supply. Trying to throw virgins into your own volcano.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Ohh, trigger alert! I’m so glad atheists don’t engage in psychological mind games designed to indoctrinate children and force them to accept a nihilistic world view, to rob them of their hope, to remove their common sense and ability to think rationally. Just saying. That is some ugly stuff and it is motivated by nothing more than selfishness, by a desire to recreate people into one’s own image. Narcissistic supply. Trying to throw virgins into your own volcano.

      LOL! Exactly, IB. Perfectly said. Yes, and let’s not bring up the failed experiments by secular science, like eugenics and other absolutely gruesome human experimentation, and all the human atrocities by atheist and agnostic despots of the 20th century. More people were murdered in secular wars and in the name of secularism and atheist ideology in the 20th century than in all human history.

      Btw, I just posted some observations I’ve made on this dogmatism today. 🙂

  9. Well, I disagree pretty much with everything in this post and what it presupposes. Surprise, surprise, huh Mel? LOL

    Nonetheless, I hope you will allow and kindly (bravely) keep this comment posted. I also hope for the sake of civil, informative, alternate (much more comprehensive) history that incorporates all extant sources of the 1st – 4th century CE Levant and Fertile Crescent — more critically the Hellenistic Roman Empire — including Independent or Non-Christian sources that reveal an entirely DIFFERENT narrative of “Christianity” or Christology, instead of just Judeo-Christian or Hellenist-Christian sourced tunnel-vison. Also included are Secular viewpoints about Theism/Monism, and a plethora of philosophical, ontological, etymological, and epistemological arguments against Theism/Monism. I scrutinize and examine Christianity’s binary-forms of supernatural Revelation: General and Special.

    Where can this equitable, expansive work be found? A long, long Page on my blog under “My Library” called Why Christianity Will Always Fail. I warmly invite anyone, absolutely anyone to go read it (a few times!) in its entirety, including the many many support-links embedded for further, deeper, more secular-humanist knowledge and/or less ignorance.

    Thank you. 🙂

    • Mel Wild says:

      Well, I disagree with just about everything you said, so there we are.

      I read your post and found nothing new that has not been debatable, disputed, or even debunked. Of course, you can find criticism of Christianity throughout its history without looking very hard if you need a reason to be against it. And there are plenty of bad example from which to build your straw man. Nothing new or mysterious there. But, again, most of your arguments against Christianity have been either already been debunked or they are just another point of view, as you say.

      What’s interesting to me if that you don’t actually engage the arguments made in these posts but simply use it as an opportunity to propagate your anti-Christian humanist talking points. Oh well, again, there we are. No point in arguing about it.

      • What’s interesting to me if that you don’t actually engage the arguments made in these posts…

        Interesting remark. Let’s look at that opinion another way. How many comments have I made, and replied to your comments here Mel over the last 3-5 months? And how many have you made on my blogs?

        And again, as I’ve brought up to you before (and borrowing your implications you are trying here to assert)… How many other ‘opposing’ blogs do you frequent and engage in discussion/debate?

        If you are genuinely honest Mel, you’ll easily see our past visits, comments, and replies are very lop-sided on one blog only. LOL 😉

        And I seriously doubt you read all of it word for word, including the multiple embedded links to extended information. Any reason why you didn’t comment anywhere, not even a thumbs-up? Come on Mel, be honest… you are really not interested in any viewpoints that do not fully support your own world-view and beliefs, right? And if you’d like to ask that question to me as well, I’m more than happy and ready to answer it… fully! 😊

        Nevertheless, thank you sir for allowing my comment here. It was all I really hoped for.

        • Mel Wild says:

          How many comments have I made, and replied to your comments here Mel over the last 3-5 months? And how many have you made on my blogs?

          And this is irrelevant. How many times you comment here doesn’t mean any of those comments are engaging the post. My point is that your comments had almost nothing to do with points made in the post. You just went on your usual anti-Christian attack and used it to promote your own site.

          If you are genuinely honest Mel, you’ll easily see our past visits, comments, and replies are very lop-sided on one blog only. LOL

          Again (sigh)…this is irrelevant to my point. Of course, it’s lopsided, but it’s not dishonest. I really don’t care to go and argue with humanists and atheists on their blogs. I don’t have that kind of time or even the inclination. But you would be wrong to think I haven’t heard and understand your arguments. Many of the points you made with your post I have argued here. I just find it’s a pretty fruitless endeavor to argue with people who don’t care to be persuaded, in my opinion. I’m only doing it here for believers who want to know what and why we believe what we do.

          Furthermore, my “genuine honesty” does not depend on whether I go on your blog or not. But if I do go there, my comments will be related to your specific post. I won’t use it to promote my own blog or continually repeat talking points.

          Come on Mel, be honest… you are really not interested in any viewpoints that do not fully support your own world-view and beliefs, right?

          Again, irrelevant to my point about you not engaging my post. So, why don’t you be honest, Professor Taboo. You are not really interested in the theistic/Christian worldview because it doesn’t line up with yours, right?

          Here’s the thing. I have let you say your piece and promote your worldview without censorship here, even though you have not engaged directly with the post (aren’t YOU being a little bit dishonest here?). And you certainly have a right to have a differing view. But, again, you would be wrong to think I haven’t heard your arguments before, or that I would agree with them.

          But I would appreciate if you would keep your comments relevant to the specific post and not use it as an opportunity to evangelize and promote everything you (don’t) believe in. Anything beyond directly relating to the post smacks of ulterior motives to me, not honest discussion.

        • (sigh)

          Okay. Then let me get on a subject that is very relevant for both of us, The Classical Arguments Against Christ. And to add, it could also be titled The Classical, Modern, and 21st Century Arguments for Hellenistic-Christology, not Second Temple Judaism/Messianism. Those titles are certainly and obviously quite relevant to this post and most all of your posts. These are what I offer to your posts that are laden with tons of presuppositions which you do not present (fairly) in your posts. I like to point that out when it is needed. If you do not like others presenting valid alternative starting points, and counter-points and counter-arguments to your posts and their presuppositions, then make your blog private and accept only members (parrots?) to your blog.

          I will assume Mel you’ve done some missionary work, abroad as well as domestically, if domestic is truly any level of real missions work given the majority of American Believers here falsely think our DoI and Constitution were/are Christian-based.

          You should see with these following bible passages the implied relevance to your blog, this post, comments and discussions with the “Christian” concept of LEAVING the church-bubbles and temples and getting OUT into the “evil” world:

          “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…”

          “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us…”

          “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

          “And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.””

          “…that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

          And here is one of my favorites about getting out of tiny comfort zones and demonstrating a degree of real faith and be out among the lepers, the sinners, the (supposed) worst of unGodly society… 😉

          “And He was saying to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.””

          Indeed, there are few laborers with noticeable, genuine courage of/from Christ who literally go out into ‘the jungles’ among the heathens and ungodly. LOL 😛 So you see Mel, you staying stuck here in this temple of echoing followers I don’t think portrays what those NT passages above are advocating or encouraging — it DOES matter where you are seen and what you are saying/debating… with ALL of God’s creatures according to His Scriptures. You shouldn’t take my numerous comments here over many months (MY jungles & enemy territories) negatively or as irrelevant. In many ways you have failed to realize, these have been opportunities for “Jesus,” right? And that despite the lop-sidedness of engagements, you often appear as if you do not want any non-believers here challenging you and “your God.”

          Besides, you can never ever lose, right? (Ephesians 6:11-18) 🤭

        • Mel Wild says:

          Professor, you don’t know me at all so spare me your sanctimonious pretensions. And why should I “preach the gospel” on your site or any other site of those who seem to vehemently hate Christ and are so set on spreading their vitriol? The gospel is to those who are open to it. To those who have no interest in following Christ (or worse, who are set on leading others away from Christ), we are told to “wipe the dust off our feet” and move on.

          And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. (Matt.10:14)

          Or how about this one from Jesus…

          “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine…” (Matt.7:6)

          Or how about this one for those who spend their time trying to turn young followers away from Christ…

          “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. (Mark 9:42)

          You are neither innocent nor is your heart right to hear the gospel; so, again, spare me your sanctimony.

          And “echoing followers?” LOL! That’s rich. How hypocritical of you. I went to the post you linked in your comments. Do you know what I found? 41 comments; ALL echoing followers! Not one dissenting comment! Hmmmmm… I think you need to look in the mirror when you make these accusations. Btw, you’ll notice that most of my comments on these posts come from anti-Christians. Hardly an echo chamber here.

          And, btw, the classical argument is a specific philosophical argument, not whatever vitriolic diatribe you wish to post. So, again, you have not addressed the particular subject at all. All you’ve done here is defend your irrelevant comments. So, believe whatever you want. Just don’t think for a minute that it will fly here. But if you want my respect you will keep your comments relevant.

        • See below new comment. 😉

  10. Hi Mel,

    I submitted a comment yesterday which had a weblink embedded. It has probably gone into your Moderation folder. Would you check please?

    Thank you. 🙂

  11. Alright, on the absurdities of Classical Arguments of Christology…

    Theological religion is the source of all imaginable follies and disturbances: it is the parent of fanaticism and evil discord. It is the enemy of mankind.
    — Voltaire

    A cumulative conclusion from a large library of history’s greatest philosophers on and against ontological, Greco-Roman (Hellenist) supernatural non-sense…

    For the first three centuries CE the Church was relatively powerless and did little harm. It taught fellowship, tolerance, peace, love, justice, mercy, and so on, to the extent of encouraging Christian soldiers to desert the Imperial Roman armies. For the next 1,500 years it was extremely powerful and harmful throughout Europe. Almost identical to the Hebrew Sectarian beliefs it caused division, persecution, war, hatred, and injustice, and practised the most spectacular viciousness and brutality. The Christian Church, in its numerous guises, had a less than enviable record on a wide range of social issues. It has befriended and supported totalitarian, authoritarian, and extreme right-wing regimes. It has abused its power and opposed legal, political and educational reform. It has also opposed liberties and human rights. It has opposed science and rational medicine and taught a wide range of nonsense, insisting that illness was caused by evil spirits, witchcraft and sin. For many centuries the Church maintained its position by a combination of fraud and terror, opposing advances in learning and suppressing the truth. Where Christian dogma has been strongest, so has poverty, misery and ignorance. Christian Churches were wholly responsible for the deaths of millions whose only crime was to dissent from their current version of orthodoxy.

    In its heyday the Christian Churches practised routine persecution. They tortured, mutilated, branded, dismembered and killed as a matter of course. They condemned to death any who questioned their dogmas. They burned Jews, heretics, apostates and pagans in large numbers. They imagined enemies everywhere and had them exterminated. Among their countless victims were women whose chief crimes seem to have been living alone, looking old, keeping pets, and knowing something about herbs and mid-wifery. Christians even persecuted their fellow believers. It is sobering to reflect that over almost 2,000 years Christians have never been persecuted by any of their supposed enemies as viciously as they have been persecuted by fellow Christians.

    Over the last 200 years the Churches have been losing power (understandably) and have become relatively harmless again in proportion to their diminishing influence outside the USA. But the USA is one of the poorest educated nations in the full spectrum of the Humanities and historical Social Sciences. They have sought to obliterate the evidence of their historical behaviour, substituting sympathetic histories with their members as heroes, e.g. the Confederate States of America, racism, slavery, and bigotry. In this, they have sadly been largely successful, again due to general ignorance of the populace. Most people in the developed world, even non-Christians, have a largely (though distorted) positive view of Christianity and its historical record. Of course, this is a quite amputated “historical record.”

    Once again Churches preach fellowship, tolerance, peace, love, justice and mercy. One is reminded of a dangerous recidivist criminal. When in custody the Christian is mild, reasonable, plausible, friendly, and ready to be “the Martyr.” But as soon as he is at liberty the Christian commits the same crimes again and again. At the moment the Christian is in the custody of secular society, he is looking forward to God’s next Joan of Arc parole. At all times and in all parts of the world, mainstream Churches have oppressed people exactly to the extent that they have been able to. This pattern could continue in the future. There is no reason to doubt that it will.

    Take a minute, remove the rose-colored sunglasses, breath, and suspend your natural familial and native homeland biases, and closely, VERY closely examine and scrutinize your 4th-century CE Canonical Bible. I guarantee you WILL see that it is overly laden with Hellenistic Apotheotic Christology and really NOTHING of what Jesus the Nasoraen was trying to reform about his ungodly Jews.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Since you clearly have no wish to actually engage the subject like a mature human being and only want to use it as a pretext to vent your anti-Christian vitriol and selective church history, we’re done here.

      • That would be wrong Mel.

        You do not care to venture out of your specific posts here nor to venture out of your bubble here out into the real world OR on WordPress/internet into non-Christian sites/dialogue. No one is able to really engage you here (maturely or otherwise) because here on your blog YOU make all the rules and rig the topics and constantly REFRAME everything to your liking. It isn’t really open dialogue for all things religious, or theistic, or philosophical, or true Church history. At least you do keep your blog open to the general public… for everyone beyond fundy Christians; I’ll give you that and applaud you there sir. 🙂

        • John Branyan says:

          “Over the last 200 years the Churches have been losing power (understandably) and have become relatively harmless again in proportion to their diminishing influence outside the USA. But the USA is one of the poorest educated nations in the full spectrum of the Humanities and historical Social Sciences.”

          Bravo, Professor! I say again BRAVO!!!
          Perfection!
          This is absolute PERFECTION!!!!
          It radiates with a radiation that is radiant!
          BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Without question, this is the finest statement of objective truth that has ever been written.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You do not care to venture out of your specific posts here nor to venture out of your bubble here out into the real world OR on WordPress/internet into non-Christian sites/dialogue.

          And that would be wrong, Professor. Again, you don’t know me at all yet you seem to think you do. WordPress represents about 5% of my footprint in the “real world.” If anything, WordPress itself is the “bubble.” It’s an avatar world, not the real one where there is transparent and honest face-to-face dialogue. No one really knows one another as a real person here. I’m engaged in a lot of other more meaningful things and I also engage with a lot of people who don’t believe like I believe. But I do like to write and explain why we believe what we believe, so that’s why I’m here at all. But I don’t see WordPress as a way to experience the real world. Far from it.

          My intention is not to reframe things but to keep the conversation specifically to my points. But I will say, you like to reframe “true Church history” yourself with selective historical references, framed by an anti-Christian bias. Most of them are either arguable or unprovable. Some are true but far in the past and not relevant today. But I’m not interested in playing that “history” game.

          I ask for relevant comments, not because I’m afraid of conflict or difference of opinion/worldviews, but because of simple lack of time. For this reason and others, I truly don’t care to venture out to a lot of anti-Christian sites or discuss every irrelevant topic someone can bring up here (unless I can answer it briefly). And I certainly don’t care to have my site be a receptacle for Fundy anti-Christian evangelism. I have brought up a very wide range of topic in the 750+ blog posts here which can be relevantly discussed. Some of my posts have even been critical of traditional Christian views.

          Anyway, thanks for understanding. Gotto go. Busy day.

        • Nan says:

          Mel, related to the Professor’s sources, you stated … Most of them are either arguable or unprovable. Truth be known, nearly everything to do with religious topics are “arguable or unprovable.” Christians has their “sources,” non-believers have theirs … and essentially it all boils down to interpretation and one’s personal perspective.

          No matter how many quotes, videos, articles, or research is presented (on either side), until a person is open to “new information,” neither one is going to budge.

          Hope you have a good day. 🙈🙉🙊

        • Mel Wild says:

          I would essentially agree with your point. It works both ways. People can use history to either justify their belief or their unbelief. That’s why I don’t put a lot of stock in historical criticism. As Walter Wink said, the idea of disinterested or unbiased historical study is pure fantasy, seen now as a bankrupted 18th century ideal.

          But that doesn’t mean that I dismiss anything negative in Church history. There is certainly a lot that actually did happen and were atrocious by any standard and not defensible. It’s just that it’s not the whole story; it’s just the part anti-Christians like to focus on and write books about..

        • Interesting, with a few tweaks I could copy/paste that reply then address it to you Mel. LOL

          See, your frame of reference is quite narrow, quite small. IOW, you do not consider other viewpoints, other perspectives well at all. There seems to be no evidence that you venture outside your bubble into other aspects of life, culture, and world-views, much less fairly express them here on your blog.

          I guess it is a good thing that we are both busy guys — we’d drive each other insane otherwise; well, I would do it to you I’m sure. Hahahahaha! I am way too familiar with religious zealots and their pathologies. 😉

        • Mel Wild says:

          Of course. But you’re wrong to think that I don’t consider other views or am not aware of them. I’m familiar with most, if not all, the irrelevant anti-Christian talking points you’ve brought up here. I just don’t agree with them. Some aren’t even coherent, as I have pointed out in other posts. So, sure we can talk about each other’s delusions and pathologies, but I don’t care to waste time talking about every possible subject in the comments section. Especially, since you’re no more open to a Christian view than I am an anti-Christian view.

        • Especially, since you’re no more open to a Christian view…

          And on that you are wrong again Mel. Sorry. I spent 11-years, intense years, in the full-blown born-again Christian lifestyle, ministry, and missions. Went into it from a background and Agnostic parenting — perhaps one of the more/most neutral backgrounds a child and teenager can be taught — and finally just decided genuinely to give “God” the full chance to show Himself, and all He is biblically claimed to be/do. Eleven years. Went to seminary 3.5 years, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jax, MS — became even MORE thoroughly educated in Scripture and proper exegesis. Therefore, your assumption is based on your own personal imagination.

          Now, I’m sure — if I remember correctly on your blog — YOU will claim that your entrance into Fundamentalist Christianity was from a bad and/or secular, lost, or painful life without God/Christ. A very common testimony among millions of hurting, lonely pre-Christians. I think your “conversion” was from a traumatic experience/event?

          Nonetheless, I needed to correct you in your false assessment of me. But then again, you wouldn’t really know, right? Which is also quite common with Fundy “born-again” Christian zealots… deep down they don’t care to come out from their ivory towers into the REAL WORLD with real people, no matter their lifestyles even though that’s exactly where Christ spent the majority of his time on Earth. I’ve witnessed that my entire life within American churches; was/is rampant. Different in West Africa, but there most all of tribal traditions supercede many biblical Christian doctrine making it yet another distorted convoluted Christian-faith along with all the other 200 – 2,500 various denominations… and yet from ONE single bible!!! Hahahaha!!! How very messed up. And yet again, the same problems and failures existed in the Levant some 1,900 years ago too. I challenge ANYONE to go and exhaustively, fairly, checkout the verified history, and that includes ALL INDEPENDENT SOURCES (i.e. non-Christian, non-Judeo-Christian sources) too. Once Second Temple Judaism is rightly and extensively understood, it is obvious that Christianity is really just Hellenistic Apotheotic Christology started by a man (Paul) who NEVER met or knew Jesus in-person face-to-face. By 73 CE the mighty Roman Empire destroyed the Sectarian Jews and their reforms they and Jesus/Yeshua was radically trying to implement. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm this. 😉

          Anyway, not that too many “faith” believing Christians want to step-out of their comfort zones to learn correct ancient history of Syro-Palistine, Rome, and Jerusalem. LOL 🙄

        • Mel Wild says:

          Nonetheless, I needed to correct you in your false assessment of me. But then again, you wouldn’t really know, right? Which is also quite common with Fundy “born-again” Christian zealots… deep down they don’t care to come out from their ivory towers into the REAL WORLD with real people, no matter their lifestyles even though that’s exactly where Christ spent the majority of his time on Earth.

          This is nothing but prejudicial nonsense. And you think you do know me? HAHA! There is obviously no one who can correct your exalted views! You call me a “Fundy born-again Christian zealot” and then you expect me to respect anything you say? You, sir, are an arrogant ass. Plain and simple. You think you have some superior knowledge about Church history, which you like to preach to all of us ignorant Christians because you keep parroting it every chance you get, but you’re just of lot of condescending and sanctimonious hot air. You know nothing about me but you seem to think you do. You just paint every Christian with the same derogatory brush under a pretense that you’re so positive and open to all views. Haha! NOT!

          When you first came here you thanked me for extending respect and grace to you, which I did. My default is to be respectful to those who are respectful to me and can dialogue in a mature way on the topic. But you’ve continually shown nothing but disrespect for me or my views. Your true colors are showing now and it’s very clear to me that you have no interest in an honest conversation. All you want is a platform to spread your vitriolic anti-Christian poison. Now I see why people like Branyan just dismiss you and make fun of your comments. You are a total waste of time to talk to. Good-bye.

        • Good bye Mel. Am I banned or does this blog still offer non-censored alternative viewpoints? 😁

        • John Branyan says:

          You mean “Brain Yawn”.
          Congratulations! Now that you’ve finally decided to stop casting pearls before swine the real fun can begin! I recommend reading Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal to get you in the proper mindset moving forward.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Now that you’ve finally decided to stop casting pearls before swine the real fun can begin! I recommend reading Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal to get you in the proper mindset moving forward.

          LOL! Good analogy. Jesus has some good tips for these apostates, too. I’m thinking “Brood of vipers, fools, blind guides, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs…

          I like your style, John. I probably won’t (fully) go that route. I will continue to be respectful to those who are respectful here. But as I told the exalted Professor, I can totally see why you just mock him and his ilk. They’re great fodder for comedy and they deserve nothing but derision. They’ve divorced God so now they’re like angry ex’s on the Internet, going on Christian sites under a pretense of open discussion so they can bully the unsuspecting with their poisonous vitriol. I will probably let them blather on here, though. They do make a good case in point, and prove how incoherent and silly they really are. 🙂

        • John Branyan says:

          Absolutely! Let them speak!

          The heathen are still willing to talk to you. I wouldn’t want you to change your style under any circumstances.

        • Scottie says:

          Professor Taboo, you have such a large body of knowledge about the christian religion and christian history. It is amazing. Hugs

        • Thank you Scottie. I’ve been told that I missed my calling in life…

          of forensic investigator, considering ALL possibilities and angles. Most people — with staunch biases — don’t care to do the same (lazy), or are victim to degrees of psychological denial and delusions. The human brain is an utterly FASCINATING organ, yet quite gullible too. 😉

          Anyway, I thought your questions and their implied multi-faceted answers were very enlightening, if one has no ‘blinders’ on. 😛

        • John Branyan says:

          “The human brain is an utterly FASCINATING organ, yet quite gullible too.”
          Of course, your brain is the exception. You’ve got ALL possibilities and angles covered. No wonder Scottie is so smitten!

        • Mel Wild says:

          It appears that the exalted Professor is the one person among us who has no blinders on, no biases, just pure awareness and fully evolved sentience.
          Of course, we’ll have to overlook the fact that he has no coherent answer for his own continuing existence, but hey, let’s not quibble over minor details. 🧐🤪😝

        • John Branyan says:

          All Hail Professor Taboo!

          The godless hordes exalt him as the authority on Christianity while mocking actual believers (like you). It would be like researching the working conditions at Google by interviewing a post office clerk.

          Atheism is quite literally the dumbest worldview on Earth. It is suitable only for fools.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Atheism is quite literally the dumbest worldview on Earth. It is suitable only for fools.

          Now, if the Exalted Professor were here, he would need to correct you, John. Go stand in the corner now until you can be a good boy. He is not an atheist. He’s a free-thinking secular humanist who doesn’t believe in God. That has nothing to do with atheism that doesn’t believe in God.

        • John Branyan says:

          Have the Professor help you out.

        • Scottie says:

          Ah, unable to put your feelings into words? I would say from what I have seen the knowledge the Professor has shown to clearly have clearly out paces your own. As you just admitted. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          LOL!
          Get a room.

        • Scottie says:

          Again meaning? Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          Seek the wisdom of the Great and Powerful Professor Taboo. Let his light guide you to the answer. Trust Taboo, Scottie! Trust Taboo!

        • Scottie says:

          I do John, because of evidence from past behavior. Speaking of past behavior, yours has also shown clearly who you are. Somewhere I read “You shall know them by their actions”. Your actions speak very loudly. Have a great day. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          LOL.
          Your actions speak loudly too.
          Get a room.

  12. Scottie says:

    Mel I hope you are doing well. Can I ask you an off topic question? I know you hate to be asked about stuff not relating to your posts, yet I really would like your opinion on something and have no other way to ask you. If you prefer I do not ask it here, OK. Just let me know. Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      Sure. I may be able to answer right away. I’m in and out of my office a lot today.

      • Scottie says:

        Thanks. No rush. I have seen this 22 year old college man firebrand preacher named Matt Powell all over the news and internet recently. I watched several hours long interviews with him. Have you seen anything he has claimed or said? I wondered your views on his positions? If you have not heard of his views I could list a few or if you would rather not comment on the situation I understand. Be well. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sorry, I’ve never heard of him.

        • Scottie says:

          OK. Thanks anyway. I had just wondered as you and him have such widely different views of the same God and holy book. I can not see you repeating or endorsing the things he says. For example he wants the government to “humanely’ execute gay men, also adulterers, non virgin woman, and disobedient unruly children. Yes he thinks it is OK to murder bad children because god says so in his holy book. He is stanch YEC as the bible says so. He came to the public view because while preaching he gave a rant that all atheist are “video game playing coke drinkers”. He really doesn’t seem to understand science on things and doesn’t care. He is a big time believer in the stuff said by Kent Hovind. He has a following because he is young and very energetic when preaching. He is really popular which confuses me. As I said I can not see you endorsing these extreme views. Thanks anyway. Be well. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie, based on what you said, you are right. I would not endorse him at all. He actually sounds like an extremist nutjob to me.

          Unfortunately, really bad theology mixed with emotional issues (anger, hatred, etc.) can create religious monsters who think they’re serving God. It understandably does create a lot of confusion for those looking at this from the outside.

          One last thing. His popularity doesn’t say anything about his character or that he is accurately representing Jesus. All one has to do is see if this sounds like something Jesus would say. In this case, certainly not, although the Pharisees of Jesus’ day might’ve said something like this. Jesus called them murderers.

        • Scottie says:

          Thank you Mel. I agree with you, and I understand there are extremes to any group / idea. What confuses me is that there is so many different interpretations of the same story, same book, same god. Why couldn’t an all powerful, all knowing god manage to make it self understood and clear. Also why would that same god tolerate those who misrepresent its message. It really does not look good for a deity. It makes it look to me, an atheist , like it was all man made up. Be well. Hugs

        • Outstanding question Scottie! Sheds a lot of light on the subjectivity of “faiths,” organized(?) religion, and the fallacy of Monism/Theism via humans. 😉

        • John Branyan says:

          An all powerful, all knowing God has made himself understood and clear to both you and Scottie. You are choosing to reject Him. Simple as that. Period. End of discussion.

  13. Scottie says:

    Hello Mel.

    I will continue to be respectful to those who are respectful here.

    This was from your conversation with John. You say In the same reply

    … I can totally see why you just mock him and his ilk.

    Really Mocking is christian now? You are fond of saying do not believe people’s claim to be christian if they don’t act it. You don’t follow the christian religion you have told me many times, you follow Jesus the Christ. Did Jesus go in for a lot of mocking? Did he want that example of his followers to be known as rude , mocking, insulting , and smug? Because I have tried to be respectful to you and your viewers even when we disagree, yet you not only agree with John’s mocking and insulting but you agreed with it. I can not pass judgement on your relationship with your diety, I won’t do that, but I also will let you know that agreeing with John’s rude and insulting behavior soils your representation of your gods ways in my eyes. It lessens you and makes me question what your standards are for treating your fellow man. If we were standing together and John started lashing out being rude and insulting to another person such as me, would you say at that time you agree with his style? If what you have claimed about the love of your deity, he wouldn’t be so happy with that, would he? Oh well, have a good day. I can see my input is not wanted around here. Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      Hi Scottie. As I said, I will continue to be respectful with people who are respectful. You’ve been respectful to me and I don’t think I’ve treated you with disrespect. I hope that will continue.

      As for mocking, maybe that’s a strong word. But then why should the Professor continually mock our views and not be chastised? Why it is okay for him to do that? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. And it’s not a Christian virtue to continually extend grace to people who are clearly not interested in honest exchange but who are condescending, belligerent, disrespectful, and only trying to turn people away from faith. Jesus Himself called these kind of people, like the hypocritical Pharisees of His day, a brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, and blind guides. Why? Because they came to Him under a pretense, not only to test and accuse Him, but also to turn people’s hearts away from God. It’s one thing to have honest doubts or not believe, it’s quite another to actively bully people who believe and try to turn them away from God. That’s reprehensible, according to Jesus.

      It’s very clear that the good professor (and some of the others who come here) have no intention of honest dialogue. He just wants to promote his own agenda and has been consistently disrespectful with his snide remarks. It’s actually annoying more than anything. So I don’t apologize for what I said. I think I’ve put up with this long enough now. As John B said, I’ve just been “casting my pearls before swine,” as the saying goes.

      To be clear, I’m always open to people who are honestly seeking and asking questions. I will also continue to defend what we believe. But this is not a depository for anti-Christian prejudice and vitriol. I’m not interested in that type of exchange. Certainly, people can disagree with us but don’t you think it should be a respectful disagreement? Anyway it’s not just the Professor doing this so I’m just pointing at him when I say this. Some of the others are a lot worse.

      So, I guess you can do what you want with this, but you are always welcome here, Scottie.

      • Scottie says:

        Mel you may remember that in a disagreement on morals and social good John not only insulted me on your blog but did an entire post on my position and called me a coward repeatedly. He misrepresented what I said even when I did screen captures to show what was really said. He insulted, mocked, misrepresented, and flat out denied what I said on your blog, and then you agreed with him. I lost a lot of respect for you that day. I was not going to ever come back to talk with you again , but decided to give you another chance. My questions to you did not involved Professor Taboo’s comments. They did involve John’s and your increasing lowering yourself to his standards.

        I have no problem admitting there are people with more knowledge retention and memory recall than mine. Professor Taboo, Ark, Nan, John Z, and Aron Ra are some of those. I can not remember as much as they do off the cuff as is said. There are people who specialize in logical arguments such as you, Matt Dillahunty, and Daniel Dennett to name a few. I cannot understand the logical steps required but I can reason and understand what is used as input affects the outcome answer.

        I do not need to defend anyone you have disagreed with to see your actions while doing so. I see what you claim to follow and how you actually do follow those claims. You say you have been casting your pearls before swine, which I take to mean you think you are not being appreciated for what you are posting, and even mistreated. But did not your deity say turn the other cheek? I am not a biblical scholar so please how many times did Jesus say to forgive those who trespass against us? Mel it is not just those who comment but there are far more “lurkers”, they read and they think on what is said. It is like doing a play to an audience you can not see. If you descend to what John does, you will turn off more people than you attract. Your message may be sound and good, but your delivery will be poison.

        You ask me about people turning away from your god. That is on your god. He should be able to make himself clear and open to anyone. if he was as powerful as you and the muslims claim allah is, and the hindus in their gods and all the other many faiths people worship, shouldn’t he have been able to make a never changing lasting work of his own wants? When you speak of your god doesn’t the holy spirit speak through you? If your god is real and doing that, is not your job to speak freely and openly without anger or remorse? Telling his tale? I think there was also testing by fire I heard of. If you can not give your version of your god here on your own blog without taking the heat and fire of disbelievers are you distorting him by becoming what he wouldn’t accept? Must you become the devil you fight against to protect the god you love?

        Have a good week. Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      I can not pass judgement on your relationship with your diety, I won’t do that, but I also will let you know that agreeing with John’s rude and insulting behavior soils your representation of your gods ways in my eyes.

      And I can respect that, Scottie. I’m not judging you either. Personally, I have atheist/agnostic friends who take your view and we get along just fine. My point was that I can understand why John Branyan is at this point with some of the anti-Christians on the Internet like the professor. And I gave you the reasons why in my previous comments. I just want to make that clear. I would never show disrespect to someone honestly asking questions here (or having a differing view).

      • Scottie says:

        But Mel, you agreed with and condon John’s attacks on me. You are agreeing with a bully who is attacking someone who has done you no harm nor intended to. I think of it this way. I have seen videos done by groups testing to see how people react to bullying. You may have seen them. They use young actors and set them up in a fast food place. Then the group started to mistreat one of them. You can see people around them getting upset at this, but they almost always look away or get up and leave. Only rarely does anyone step up and address the issue and try to help the bullied person. It really is a test of who we are .

        Anyway I guess we all have to decide our standards, what we want to do, who will try to be , and what stands we take that shows who we are. None of us are always correct or do the right thing all the time. I have been called on the carpet a few times by Nan when I got over eager to prove a point, and she was correct to do so. If we can not tell our friends where we stand and allow, how can we do so with those who disagree with us? But there is a correct way to do so that makes the point real. Be well. I have much thinking to do. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          How have I done this, Scottie? I said I understood John’s derision of the professor for the reasons I gave you. Those comments had nothing to do with you.

        • Scottie says:

          I saved the page where John attacked me. I also saved your comments on his page agreeing with him. Do you need me to send them to you?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Are you talking about comments on this post? I didn’t direct any at you.

          Possibly, the way the comments are layered here it looked like I was responding to you, but I assure you I was talking about how I understand why John is that way with people like the professor. He responded to that comment. Is that what you mean?

        • Scottie says:

          No Mel, I am talking months ago when we were talking morality on your blog. You gave your view of where it comes from and I gave mine. We went back and forth and then decided to respectfully disagree. John then made a post where he attacked me personally, to which you comment in agreement with him. Nan also posted on this on her blog. It was really upsetting, but I am old enough to know that sometimes people are not always as we might want them to be. I did come back to your blog, and I think I have always treated you well. Yet again I am attacked on your blog and you take no action to disapprove of it. What am I to think Mel? Actions over words? Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay. Fair enough. I don’t remember that particular incident, but I do try to treat you will respect. Of course, none of us are perfect. I would need to see that in context. What was the title of the post? Do you remember? I will look at it and respond.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, I’ve tried to read the post you referenced and all the links. My single comment was my personal response to the literal onslaught from several bloggers on that post. Even though it took a lot of my time (probably too much), it doesn’t stress me out because I personally didn’t buy the arguments.

          Btw, I can appreciate that you didn’t like being dragged through JB’s post that way. All I can say is, welcome to my world! Several anti-Christian bloggers are constantly dragging me through their posts, taking my comments out of context and distorting what I say. And I wouldn’t even be aware of most of them if people didn’t tell me about them. And, to be fair, I think John B was pointing out the incoherency of atheist’s appeal to morality because it benefits culture. The Muslim reference was a refutation of that logic.

          We all need to have thick skin I guess. Still, I can choose how much time I want to spend with people who aren’t open to anything I would say. You, of course, have that same freedom. That was basically my original point on this thread.

        • Scottie says:

          I can agree to the thick skin, and I really am not bothered by John so much because I do not respect him. I do have respect for you. So your comments have more weight. I do agree in that one post you were not offencive. However the post that was taken off of on your blog you did agree with John in his attacks. That may have been because you felt under the gun, or you may have been really busy and not noticed the content. That is not for me to be able to tell. I simply am saying as clearly as possible in the weird way humans communicate that when you agree or go along with those making fun of others, it reflects on you. It makes you one of them. Hey have a good night, I guess we are going to watch a movie and turn in early. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie, there’s a lot of things I probably agree with John B on, theologically and philosophically, and that will reflect in my comments,, but you would have to be more specific on exactly how I’m agreeing with personal attacks by doing so. I’m not seeing that. Of course, I may have missed something. But John himself has denied that he attacked you personally (he admitted attacking your arguments/ideas) and has asked you to point that out.

        • Scottie says:

          Never mind, I tried to point out two things. One you are known by your actions. John is know to attack anyone who disagrees with him , on your blog and his. If you agree with him or encourage him, you become just like him. I wouldn’t want that for myself. It sure won’t get me to consider the deity that is said to speak through anyone like that. But it is your blog. You read the comments, you write the replies. If you do not see what I, and others, have tried to point out I have no way to convince you. Be well, be happy, be safe. Hugs

        • Scottie says:

          Mel one last thing before I go to bed. It is not about the comments you allow on your blog. Everyone learns something from them, good or bad,. It is your agreeing / supporting then that shades your blog and you position, on your blog or others.
          Have a great night. Hugs

        • Scottie says:

          Oh I sent you the link but it is in moderation. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          I got it. Any comment with a link automatically goes into moderation. I will look at it asap.

        • Scottie says:

          I only seen one comment responding from you on the post. The rest will be on your blog post preceding this one. But the point is the behavior on the blog degenerated in to grade school playground bullying crap, and you did not choose to disassociate yourself from it. And again on your blog, how many times did John make a sexual insinuation for me to get a room with Professor Taboo. Did you not ban Ark for such a thing? Yet John can do it repeatedly? Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          I think the “get a room” comment had to do with what seemed like your gushing flattery of the professor. I don’t think it was meant literally as a sexual slur. It’s just a common idiom (like “bromance”). That’s the way I understood it, anyway.

        • Scottie says:

          I have completed you and was not suggested we get a room? I have complemented others here and used them as sources and not been told to get a room. No Mel if you don’t see that John was using a sexual slur then you are being willfully ignorant. Did you not notice my repeated attempts to get him to clarify and he wouldn’t? He got evasive. That should tell you something. I have seen enough bigotry to know what he was implying. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay. I don’t cannot comment on what he was intending by the comment. I can only give you my perspective.

        • Scottie says:

          Ok. I respect that. However you run your blog. You decide what is appropriate and what is not. I mentioned you banned Ark because he suggested something you felt unappreciated. Yet you not only let John attack people commenting on your blog ( which you can control ) you endorse him and his view. That confuses me Mel. Can you see why it would? Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie. I have let a LOT of anti-Christian insults, outright slander, and poisonous vitriol go uncensored on this blog. For instance, John Z has more comments on my blog than anyone else, including Christians, and there is no one more obnoxious and insulting than he is (with the exception of Ark). John B uses humor to point out atheist absurdities, and maybe he goes too far, but that is FAR outweighed by the disrespectful behavior I get from many of the Christian haters here.

          I will consider more tightly monitoring disrespectful comments but understand that most of your anti-Christian blogger friends (with the exception of a couple) would all have to be banned if I did so with John B. Of course, then I would be accused by them of censoring and running away. I guess it’s damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

        • Scottie says:

          We all have to decide what represents us on our blogs Mel. I have a policy on my own blog I have enforced since 2007. You may attack the ideas of anyone and everyone, but personal attacks will not be tolerated. I think you are misunderstanding the thrust of what I am saying. You are a pastor correct? Would you let pass the comments in your church you have seen on your blog? That may seem an unfair standard considering what you may face in the comments, but Mel you are the one claiming the higher standard. In fact due to your position, I consider you a leader in your community and so get to set the standards of how your side responds. I served two tours in the US military to protect your right to practice your faith. However is it wrong for me to be upset when you claim one thing and then do another?

          You say John Z has been insulting. Yet on your blog I have learned a lot of science from John’s responses. For example the first mover argument you made many posts on. John was able to help me understand a basic flaw in the argument you presented. Your god knows I do not have the education , nor I think the logical training to follow it through like you did , but he pointed out you are starting from knowledge of the 1300’s. With our current knowledge of todays physics the argument you make breaks down. I did not insult your view, I merely weighted each side. I have to go, Ron my husband , wants to go out to dinner. Mel I have enjoyed our talk. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          You say John Z has been insulting. Yet on your blog I have learned a lot of science from John’s responses. For example the first mover argument you made many posts on. John was able to help me understand a basic flaw in the argument you presented.

          Sorry, Scottie, but you’ve been buffaloed by the appearance of knowledge here. In reality, John Z understands absolutely nothing about the classical argument for God or the “prime mover.” His arguments were fallacious and irrelevant. Seriously, he has proven this over and over again to me with his comments. So you haven’t really learned anything there. He makes the same mistakes that Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris made in their books. They didn’t understand the argument either, but it didn’t stop them from mocking it either. It would do you good to actually take the time to understand the argument for yourself and not just take Zande’s word for it. I assure you he doesn’t understand it, and that would be immediately obvious to anyone who actually does.

          Anyway, I appreciate your honest questions and respectfulness here, Scottie. Talk to you later. Enjoy your dinner.

        • John Branyan says:

          Scottie admits that he doesn’t understand the argument but instead of trying to get a grasp on it, he places his trust in someone who is just as muddled as himself.

          And it’s simply untrue that he has been “attacked” or “abused” in any of these discussions. That’s a cop-out excuse to get away from the conversation.

        • Mel Wild says:

          As I said to Scottie, I guess I understood your comments he found offensive were more pointing out the absurdity of the atheist’s moral argument than a personal attack.

          But from what I can decipher, he’s objecting to is exactly the kind of stuff I deal with here from his friends all the time. It was the atheists like Ark and Zande and Tildeb who came here in attack mode in the first place. I know I just have to have thick skin. Thats what Scottie needs to understand if he’s going to be chums with these angry ex’s.

        • John Branyan says:

          Scottie has taken his fair share of angry swipes too. I’m so used to the vitriol that I barely notice it anymore. If he could cite a specific instance where I personally attacked him, I would immediately apologize.

          I won’t apologize for making atheism look foolish though. A wise person notices when his argument falls apart and makes adjustments. A fool gets offended and ends the discussion.

        • Scottie says:

          Let’s talk about that a minute. John made the point you can not use 13th century understanding of the universe and physics in an argument made for today with today’s understanding of those things. I can understand that point. We have learned a lot about the universe and what makes up the universe tha simply was not known then. In 500 years there will be a lot of stuff we did not know about today. Will we still be using arguments for 1000 Ad or from the renaissance to prove our points? Had a great dinner thanks. I had king prime rib and fries, carrots and a bowl of chili. Ron had the chili and the Broasted chicken with baked potato and carrots and he had a soup. We are simple folk and enjoy simple foods. Have a good night. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          Scottie,
          You are correct. We have learned a lot about how the universe works. However, none of the arguments raised by classical theology are based on a 13th century understanding of physics or science. If you don’t want to take my word for it, ask JZ to tell you how modern science refutes classical theology and paste his answer back here.

        • Scottie says:

          John he already did that on one of Nan’s blog posts. Wish you had read it. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          Do you remember what he said?

        • Scottie says:

          Read this post on Nan’s blog. https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/is-god-necessary/ John, Mel , and others were talking about it. John was able to show why the argument was wrong, and why it does matter that we have expanded our knowledge since the 13th century. Basically our knowledge of the universe and mathematics which was not known then have made the argument flaws and simply not needed. I will warn you to have a cup of coffee or beverage with you when you do, there are like 250 comments to read, and they are worth thinking on. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          There are no modern scientific discoveries that invalidate the arguments of classical theology. If you (or JZ) can refute that statement, I am all ears. It should not be necessary for me to review a 250 comment list. If there is a flaw in my argument, it should be easy to point it out.

        • Scottie says:

          And repeat the work already done because you want to be lazy and have it done for you. SOrry no. If you want to know what was said then read the comments. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          You are the lazy one, Scottie.
          The flaw in the argument would be easy to explain if you understood it. The reason you’re sending me to Nan’s blog is because you don’t have the vaguest idea how to respond to my statement.

        • Scottie says:

          John lets review. An section of comments dealt with this subject including Mel’s responses. I cannot give you both sides well enough to do justice to the arguments unless I copy and paste the whole thing here for you. That is silly, even you have to admit. I do know how to respond to you, and I am doing it. You just don’t like the answer. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          Scottie lets review.
          I made the statement that modern science has not refuted classical theology arguments. You can either agree or disagree. If you know how to respond, do it. Sending me to another blog is an obvious dodge.

          So which is it? Do you agree or disagree?

        • Scottie says:

          John, Mel and I are having the same conversation you and I are. Seems silly to me to do this twice. Read my replies to him and his replies to me. There is no dodge here John. Do you not tell people to read the bible if there is a question over what is written? Should I memorize every line of book to tell you that it exists and what it was about? I am satisfied that John Z, Professor T, Nan, sklyjd, nationofnope, Ark, and all the others made clear convincing cases against a prime mover, a necessary god, and the basic ontological argument put forth by Mel. So I am content. If you don’t agree fine. IF you want to know what was said specifically read the discussion. Either way we are done. I have to go soon for oral surgery and do not intend to spend the rest of my morning going in circles with you. Be well. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          Agree or disagree.
          Simple question, Scotty.
          Refusing to answer is absolutely a dodge.

        • Scottie says:

          Now I can honestly saying you are wasting my time. It ends. Bye. Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          And I can honestly say you have no rebuttal for my statement.
          Fleeing the conversation soils your reputation in my eyes. It lessens you and makes me question what your standards are for treating your fellow man.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie, be honest here. Are YOU willing to do the hard work of understanding the Classical argument? Or are you just taking John Z’s word for it? For, I HAVE read all 250 comments (remember, I was part of that discussion) and I assure you, neither John Z, nor Prof. Taboo, nor anyone else there, understood the argument at all. All I have ever heard from its detractors are caricatures and cartoon versions of the argument.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel if those people could not and did not understand it, then I don’t have a chance to. Hard work or not. I understood what I felt was the majority thrust of the argument. Every logical step to me was not fully understood I admit. I even told you I felt the beginning premese was wrong. In the comments I told you I felt the chain of events or logic you were building did seem to need you to start with a presumed premise, which later was confirmed by the others. So I may or may not have understood more or less than I thought. I did respond at the time to you, John, Professor, Nan and anyone else who wanted to add to the discussion. What more would you have me do? Simply put two sides of a question were offered. I agreed with the best of my understanding with the side in opposition to your view. It was not personal. I weighed what I understood on both sides, and I agreed with the other side. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Mel if those people could not and did not understand it, then I don’t have a chance to. Hard work or not.

          They don’t understand it because they DON’T WANT TO understand it. They either avoid it and dismiss it, like Nan and Professor Taboo, dismiss philosophy altogether (like Hawking did), or they plunge in headlong with total ignorance, thinking they’re refuting something they don’t understand at all. It’s that simple, Scottie. I seriously doubt that they will never take the time to learn it. Therefore, you will not get the truth about this argument from them. And, sorry, but it’s just imbecilic for them to argue against something they are totally ignorant of. It’s not like there aren’t resources to help anyone understand it if they care to.

          Understand, this argument has been developed over 2,300 years. You’re not just going to knock it down with some cartoon version straw man. And 100,000 comments won’t change that. But there are many good books, but also videos. For instance, there’s a YouTube playlist by former atheist, Mathoma, that explains it here, or the one by Classic Theist here. The information is there if you care to understand it.

          And, yes, I agree. It is rather hard to understand at first if you’re not used to logic and philosophical argumentation, but you DO have to do the hard work of thinking and learning if you’re ever going to get to the truth. Don’t just take second-hand information. That’s like Christians getting accused of taking a preacher’s word for something but never checking it out for themselves. You either need to understand it or admit that you don’t want to understand it. But it’s absurd to me that Nan would’ve posted an ontological argument yet she doesn’t want to understand the argument (because it’s “too technical). Well then, she shouldn’t have posted it in the first place.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel you say they don’t understand because they don’t want to. On that same comment section the same was said about you. It is like people saying “no you are not me” repeatedly. How could I prove you want to understand their point? How could I prove they want to understand yours? How about we start with assuming it is an honest difference of opinion based on world views and education. You assert your conclusion is correct based on your studies, they do the same. To assume bad faith on either side is to be able to read minds and assign motives to others that could easily be false. Can you see this. I do think in this case the people involved showed the “work” that backs up their assertions. You showed yours both on your blog and in the comments at Nan’s. John Z showed his “works” of his argument. So did the others. I just felt theirs was more convincing to me. I do not assign bad faith to you over this, nor should I to them. Mel you say they are totally ignorant and they say you are willfully refusing to see their points. He said she said? I am not going there. This was not a personal attack, but a presentation and refutation of ideas. I simply don’t see it your way. Hey have a good week and enjoy the weekend. I have my third oral surgery to look forward to in about two hours. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Mel you say they are totally ignorant and they say you are willfully refusing to see their points. He said she said? I am not going there. This was not a personal attack, but a presentation and refutation of ideas. I simply don’t see it your way.

          That’s fine, you are free to see it however you want, but then just admit you don’t know. And there are a lot of things we can agree to disagree on because they can’t be known. But understand that deductive logic is not one of those subjective things. The truth is, your pals DON’T know what they’re talking about with regard to the classical argument, and they (and atheists in general) have only shown me that their ontology (why we exist) is totally incoherent. Which I would think that “why we exist” would be important to everyone. And I’m not just saying it’s incoherent to be argumentative. If they did understand the argument, I would gladly acknowledge that. But, if they honestly did, it would undermine their whole anti-theist position, so I doubt if they will ever seriously attempt to understand it because, truthfully, they’re sold out to their anti-theist dogma.

          Hope all goes well with your surgery.

        • Scottie says:

          Thanks. It is hard to do but with my bones dying problem we are trying to save my jaw. Also my teeth.

          Look Mel the problem is you say they don’t understand the argument. You said Stephen Hawking arguments were in condensable and gibberish. You disagree with Carroll and Krusse. You seem to have the idea that only you know the real argument and only you understand it. You claim atheist don’t understand it. No one but you. Does that sound reasonable to you? really? If you alone in the world understands it then publish a paper or work on it to be peer reviewed. You could be famous. But maybe only you understand it because you are wrong. That has to be a possibility of only you are correct in a world of people with different ideas.

          If you alone understand this thing, and no one else does, then I can not know it as you do. It really is that simple. Because you disagree with all other interpretations. Got to get read to go. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie, I am certainly not alone in this! Yes, I’m going against the pop science of the day, I am standing on a firm foundation of 2,300 years of philosophical development and logic. And, while I have a lot of respect for Hawking, every person you named is a committed naturalist and/or atheist. They will not seriously consider any alternative view. They are committed to denying any need for God no matter how absurd or unprovable their argument may be. That is obvious from their writings. And, again, all of their refutation is irrelevant to the classical argument.

          Again, hope the operation goes well. That’s got to be hard to go through. Talk to you later.

        • Scottie says:

          It was hard Mel. Basically I have had to have three quadrants of my mouth operated on. I have had an infection no one caught and it was eating my jaw bone in spots under and around the teeth. They had to take three teeth , do three bone grafts, and this time they found the infection so deep up in the jaw it was about to break into the nasal cavity. They say it will take four months to heal. Thanks for the well wishes. Now to the comment part.

          Mel are you saying these smart people deliberately deny a god despite evidence for one because they want to be atheists?
          I don’t believe that. There are scientist who are religious in many fields of study. They don’t agree and deny your deduction because they disagree with it, not because they are trying to promote no god. That idea is almost conspiracy level stuff Mel.

          I have saved the web sites you sent and one from another source on this issue. I will read them. But I am not promising what I find will change my mind. Like I said some pretty top level minds have disagreed with you on this.

          Lastly you used the word philosophical. That is philosophy and the problem with that is very few philosophers agree even with each other. What does Dan Dennett say about this? He is very well known even if I don’t watch him because I think philosophy is just mind games with no evidence to back it up. They start where they want, and they reach where they plan to be, and they make the middle work it out that way for them. But hey that is me. You clearly feel differently about the subject and you have that right.

          OK got to go, I see you have left me another comment and to tell the truth I am barely holding on right now. I could pass out at any time. They gave me the longest lasting pain killer they had but they said when it wears off I was going to be really hurting. I already am. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          John made the point you can not use 13th century understanding of the universe and physics in an argument made for today with today’s understanding of those things. I can understand that point. We have learned a lot about the universe and what makes up the universe tha simply was not known then. In 500 years there will be a lot of stuff we did not know about today. Will we still be using arguments for 1000 Ad or from the renaissance to prove our points?

          Scottie, this is exactly what I mean by John Z making an irrelevant argument based on ignorance. I tried to explain the argument to him dozens of times and he still doesn’t get it (but he sure thinks he does!) The age (13th century) of the argument has nothing whatsoever to do with it. You might as well ask if mathematics and logic will still be relevant a thousand years from now. And if it isn’t then all science and knowledge would be rendered obsolete and useless, too. Let me make this as clear as I can. There is no scientific discovery, including quantum vacuums, wormholes, multiverses, etc., that challenges the argument in the least bit. This would be a logical impossibility because of what is required for a prime mover or “subsistent existence itself.” And to just dismiss it leaves you with ontological incoherence. This is why you need to take the time to actually understand the argument for yourself.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel did you not read the whole argument John Z made about the energy and matter = 0 and so there was never nothing. There never was a point of nothing to come from, it was all there. There is no need for something to kick start it because it was already in motion.
          So yes new understandings and abilities do matter. If I tried to grow crops as they did in the 13th century I would have a miserable harvest because we simply know more about the whole thing now.
          We have the knowledge and science our ancestors did not. Please read the post again if you doubt me John really did lay it all out. https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/is-god-necessary/
          Have a great day. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, of course. I not only read it but also contributed many comments. Again, John Z’s points may be an argument against a “god of the gaps” (which I don’t believe) or Personal Theism, but it was totally irrelevant to the classical argument. That was the point I made on that post which no one seems to care to grasp. M Theory, fluctuating quantum vacuums, whether there is a traditional cause and effect, or any other unprovable theory (which these are), still doesn’t not refute the argument. You are still left with an incoherent ontology and no explanation for your continuing existence. This is a logical certainty.

        • Scottie says:

          OK I guess we must again respectfully disagree. I am sorry I can’t seem to see your point, while I can see the points made by John. Maybe I am blinded by a bias towards science which I admit to having. Have a good day, and enjoy your weekend. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Fair enough, as long you understand that you are disagreeing with something you don’t understand. Yes, we are all biased but if we want to know the truth we must do the hard work of learning these things. Otherwise, we are living by faith, whether it be that there is no God or that there is. If you want to understand it, admittedly, it takes some intellectual work. But, at least, you would know what you’re disagreeing with.

        • Scottie says:

          I guess I see it differently Mel. I understood the main argument John made based on science. Science that was not know when the argument was first formed. The science shows there is not a need for the argument in the first place. That seems to be the crux of the problem between you and the rest of us on the that comment section. I guess I look at it like trying to give an argument for Apollo’s chariot pulling the sun across the sky during the day when we know now why the sun moves across the sky and it doesn’t need a deity to perform it. Does that put my and I think a few others view into perspective? Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          I understood the main argument John made based on science. Science that was not know when the argument was first formed. The science shows there is not a need for the argument in the first place.

          That is absolutely not true. Science was well-known when these arguments were developed. And you’re only promoting scientism, not science. Science is simply a methodology to describe natural phenomenon, nothing more. It has no ability to explain why anything exists. In fact, if you refute the logic of the classical argument for God then you must refute the very foundation of science.

          I guess I look at it like trying to give an argument for Apollo’s chariot pulling the sun across the sky during the day when we know now why the sun moves across the sky and it doesn’t need a deity to perform it.

          And you would be looking at it as an irrelevant cartoon version that has no resemblance whatsoever to the classical argument.Again, you’re only arguing against a “god of the gaps” or some demiurge, not the classical position.

          Scottie, just admit that you don’t care to know the truth about this. It would save us all a lot of time. I don’t want to go on for another 250 comments when it’s clear you don’t care to understand my position. Have a good day.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel I will admit I do not want to know your truth as you want me to, because I don’t believe it. Not proven to me. Mel I went back and read all the comments between you and John. I even read a few of the Professor’s. Mel you did not convince me. They and you talked about the arguments, what was part of it, what was not part of the arguments. At one point you confused me with this:

          This prime mover would be that which brings something from nothing. The argument has never ever been that there was a point where nothing at all existed.

          Well gee, to bring something from nothing would imply there was a nothing to bring something from, I would say.

          I found this to be very persuasive.

          When Mel mentions “infinite regress” he’s 1) committing the fallacy of composition (what’s true for a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole), 2) demanding time be absolute, which it isn’t, and 3) deliberately ignoring (or perhaps he simply doesn’t know?) that the math doesn’t support this. The sum total of matter in the universe cancels the sum total of negative gravitational energy, giving us a universe with zero net matter/energy. According to the brilliant minds of the Carroll’s and Krauss’ of the world, that is literally a universe from “nothing,” which means there was never “nothing.” You cannot have “nothing,” so there was always something, and that something was always in motion…. A non-contingent, perfectly natural universe, no “prime mover” required.

          This is why Carroll says “we know of no good reason to be surprised by that fact”.

          I told you again and again, I don’t believe your position. Yes I do believe in naturalism, natural philosophy, scientism as you like to say. I think it is great. I do like the scientific way. I do not believe in what can not be shown to have any evidence for, such as gods and the supernatural. That is my worldview. For my position Mel, you did not prove your case to me. John Z and the Professor did. No hard feelings. Have a grand week. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie (sigh), okay. No disrespect intended, but your quote is nonsensical. It absolutely HAS committed infinite regress which make it ontologically incoherent. To say I commit the fallacy of composition only shows a complete ignorance of the argument. Technically, that is an argument against things “ordered accidently” and not things “ordered essentially” (which is our position). This is why this is frustrating. None of you bother to understand the argument, you just parrot people like Strauss and Carroll, and then you think you’ve refuted it with your straw man. And, yes, I know “ordered accidently” versus “ordered essentially” are very technical terms (which I took the trouble to explain in a post) but understanding them would show you why my position is miles apart from what this person thinks I’m saying. And for any meaningful discussion the argument should be understood first, otherwise, it just disingenuous and a waste of time. They’re no better than the dogmatic fundamentalists they rail against.

          Scotties, just be honest. Admit that you don’t want to understand it or believe it and we can leave it at that. That’s totally fine. But you’re not going to get away with misrepresenting my position here and not get push back. Again, be well. I hope your operation goes smoothly.

        • Scottie says:

          Hello Mel. I don’t think I have tried to misrepresent your position. I read what you wrote and what the others wrote and I agreed with them and not with you. That was not an insult nor was it a misrepresentation. I have not once tried to say you said this or that. On Nan’s blog I asked you several time to clarify for me what you’re saying and you were good enough to do that. This was not an attack and to tell the truth I was not fixated on what comment section we were talking in. Again this is not personal and I have not made it so. I have not said “Mel said this or that and it was…”. All I have said is two sides of an argument was put forward and I found the other side more convincing. I also found the information offered by the side that disagrees with you more convincing. I didn’t say I full understood either side of the argument in depth. For what I understand of this I disagree with you. Period. From what I can read those on Nan’s blog also disagreed with you. For your own words the listed scientists disagree with you. You still say you are correct. OK you can do that. You are on your blog and even elsewhere you have the right to say you think you are correct. Especially in a philosophical argument / debate. One thing about philosophy is you can have your view on something totally at odd to someone else because it is not evidence based. It is a thought experiment. So it seems to me it would be expected people would disagree.

          I can not say I don’t want to understand. To me understanding everything would be the ultimate heaven. When I wonder what you would do for an eternity if you could live forever it would be to study and understand everything there is to know. But humans are limited, some more than others. I wont ever understand everything. I won’t be able to study most things in any real depth. That is why doctors specialize, why biologist do not study rocks to become rock experts, why engineers don’t study paleontology to become ancient history exprests. The average person has to have confidence in the expertise of the experts in their fields. That is why we call them experts. I am not an expert and never will be at my age in any science field. I can however be well rounded in what I read / watch and can form my opinions based on what I know and the information for experts who have shown they are credible. So I can not tell you I don’t want to understand. I also can not claim I fully understand logical deduction arguments. I can tell you I have heard you and the others and from what I do understand I disagree with you and agree with them. At this time. Be well Mel. You and I have been around the pole on this enough times to wear a deep path. Isn’t it time to simply agree to disagree? Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          You see how it works, Mel?
          It doesn’t matter how politely and thoroughly you respond to him, once he decides he’s been “attacked” the conversation is over. Moving forward he’ll do nothing but wag his finger at you for not being “nice”. It reflects badly on you to allow my hateful screeds.

          Thanks for putting up with this. I’ll be posting this recent exchange in a day or two. 🙂

        • John Branyan says:

          I never attacked you Scottie.
          Not once.
          You are slandering me.

        • Scottie says:

          Sorry I misspelled inappropriate. I did not mean unappreciated. Hugs

        • Scottie says:

          Do you really condone this behavior? Hugs

        • John Branyan says:

          I’d love to see the post too.
          Sometimes Scottie excuses his own disrespectful behavior when his feelings get hurt.

        • John Branyan says:

          Ah. I remember this.
          I genuinely feel sorry for Scottie. He really doesn’t seem to have a point of view. He simply regurgitates what the other atheists say. Whenever he’s challenged his response is to be “hurt”. There’s no way to communicate with him without damaging his paper-thin feelings.

        • John Branyan says:

          And for what it’s worth…nobody stepped up to answer Scottie’s cry for help.
          Nobody.
          His intellectual overlords left him alone against my cruel theology. Why isn’t he “hurt” by this obvious betrayal?

        • Scottie says:

          I have to say Mel it hurt, it really did to see John call me names and insult me, and then you adding a comment agreeing with him. Hugs

  14. mrsmcmommy says:

    Ugh.
    This comment thread with Scottie literally makes my stomach hurt.
    THIS is what happens when Atheists believe a Christian’s mission on earth is to earn their respect and “win” them over to the Lord.

    The first time I ever commented to Scottie, I told him I was getting the impression that he thinks of himself as a prize all Christians are racing for. He’s the carrot and I am the horse. (He kept warning me that my behavior wasn’t going to “convince him to go to church.” or “Take god seriously” exactly as he has implied here over and over and over and over.)

    I don’t understand why anyone indulges that sentiment. Who cares what he thinks?
    Instead of being worried that Scottie won’t “respect” them anymore (because, again, who cares?), I think Christians should tell him the truth: “You will earn MY respect when you demonstrate you have the ability to think–which you haven’t done yet.”

    • Mel Wild says:

      I understand what you’re saying and I certainly don’t expect to win over Scottie. If I did, that would be great, but it’s not a realistic goal. And it is quite ironic that we get accused of not thinking and following feelings when that’s all they ever do! They only like to parrot their version of thinking that others have told them to think. Of course, if you don’t want to believe, any story will do.

      But I’m not going to be combative about it and will extend grace to anyone if they are going to be respectful. I make my comments mostly for the argument’s sake and to help other believers understand the argument and point out the absurdities and incoherence of the atheist’s arguments.

      • mrsmcmommy says:

        I’ve got bad news, Mel. The above comment will be interpreted as combative. 🙂 (Of course, you already know that…)

        Literally the only thing you can do to appease Scottie for a time will be to throw both JB and under the bus. Tell him you denounce everything John has ever said or done. Tell him you are deeply sorry for any and every hurt, regardless of the context. Tell him you believe JB is a poor excuse for a Christian and that both you and God denounce everything he stands for… Tell him that the thing you want more than anything is respect from Atheists. 🙂

        That will work.

        For awhile.

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! True.

          I certainly don’t care about what atheists think of me. And I would never throw JB under the bus because I don’t think he’s as combative as they want people to think. Yes, he is hard on their imbecilic absurdities, and is funny about it. These absurdities should be pointed out. Perhaps, that’s off-putting. Of course, so is Jesus calling the hypocrites of His day a “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” That wasn’t very nice of Him either! And it seems to me that the angry ex’s who divorced Jesus are the Pharisees of our day so, as I said, I see why JB would take this tact.

          My approach is different. I guess I will play the straight-man. 🙂

        • mrsmcmommy says:

          I support that!
          And I also will stand behind you if you want to tell the Atheists that we don’t always agree about everything. All of us have different approaches, and not all styles are equally effective.

          But, yes, I think the Atheists misunderstand what we mean by “effective.” The goal is to speak truth… Not necessarily to make them feel good.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yup, our styles are different, but not what we actually believe.

          But, yes, I think the Atheists misunderstand what we mean by “effective.” The goal is to speak truth… Not necessarily to make them feel good.

          Which is ironic to me since they like to accuse us of being led by our feelings and not the cold truth. Yet, when you show them iron-clad logic and truth, they whine that it’s too technical! I use too big of words! Quite funny, actually. 🙂

      • John Branyan says:

        Pointing out incoherence is how you get labeled “combative”.
        Scottie admits multiple times that he doesn’t understand the argument. Then he insists that he’s “weighed” both sides and opted for atheism. I will admit that I don’t know how to engage this thinking without seeming condescending.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I will admit that I don’t know how to engage this thinking without seeming condescending.

          I agree with that. I don’t think I know how to do that either! As I told Scottie, it’s a “damned if I do, damned if I don’t” situation. There’s no honest dialogue. But I’ve learned one thing: no amount of logic, or even patient explanation, is ever going to get them to think beyond the echo of their own dogma.

  15. Pingback: Why does God create? | In My Father's House

  16. Pingback: GOD’S EXISTENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF PROOF – Citizen Tom

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.