Are Christians Uniquely Averse to Criticism?

anti-theists

Atheist deconversion stories

atheists

constructive criticism

criticism

deconversion

deconversion from Catholicism

deconversion from Christianity

defensiveness

former Catholics

former Christian atheists

offended by criticism

sensitivity to criticism

thin-skinned

2021-09-25T19:08:43-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Brief Exchange with Atheists (Including Archaeology)

Last updated on: September 25, 2021 at 7:08 pm By Dave Armstrong

These took place in a combox on anti-theist atheist Jonathan Pearce’s A Tippling Philosopher blog. JMallett‘s words will be in blue, Traveller‘s in green, Geoff Benson‘s in brown, Erp‘s in purple.

*****

[I posted a link to a recent article of mine]: OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations (“From Noah to Joshua”: the Hebrew Scripture is Extraordinarily Accurate & True to History).

Your blurb reads like a National Enquirer headline, Mr. Spam.

Thanx! If it’s spam, then I’m sure Jonathan will delete it.

Part and parcel of writing is a catchy, descriptive title. Mine is that, and I prove the confident claims in the article itself.

He’s too nice. Would you allow someone to do the same thing on your blog?

Of course. It’s on-topic. The OP claimed: “For Christians, they often start off with the idea of making the Bible say what they want it to say. This underwrites their confirmation bias.”

So I give him 25 arguments from archaeology and science; in other words, independent and external and objective confirmation of the biblical text, which isn’t circular at all.

Not that he’ll ever likely reply, but if he wants to actually seriously interact with a Christian viewpoint regarding this biblical text he is so often obsessed with, the opportunity is always there.

I would not only allow such a thing, but (gasp!!!) interact with it as well, and if it is false, roundly refute it.

Dave, why do you think your arguments are groundbreaking? Have you ever put yourself into the shoes of the Egyptians or any one of the cultures that were not Hebrew? What if you were born an Amalekite? Could your belief just be a product of your surroundings?

I made that exact argument several times in my paper above: the Hebrews drew from surrounding cultures: especially Egyptian. In King Tut’s tomb was found a box very much like the ark of the covenant. The Sinai Covenant was largely drawn in format from existing treaties that were typical of the 13th century BC but not long after, etc. I cite an Egyptologist who wrote three volumes just on that topic alone.

But you guys will never seriously interact with things like that because they are too objective and concrete. You stick with subjective mythology that no one can answer because it’s irrational and arbitrary . . .

It’s not about the seeking of truth here. It’s about making all Christians and Christianity and the Bible (by using relentless straw men) look stupid and idiotic so you can pretend that you have refuted Christianity. That game doesn’t work with me: never has and never will.

I was once a fundie, so you can stop the generalities. We all know that the Hebrews were influenced by the people around them. Yahweh was Baal and El and maybe a few others all rolled into one god. What if you were born an Amalekite? Or born into a Muslim family?

Yep; so many atheists were. I never was.

Then Romans 2 applies if you never heard or understood the gospel:

Romans 2:13-16 (RSV) For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

That’s if you are ignorant. But there are also the obstinate ones who know the truth and reject it. Paul dealt with them in Romans 1:

Romans 1:21-23 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Your choice!

Still just words from a guy who thought Isaiah 42:6-7 was meant for him. Sorry, I’m waiting for a real god to speak for itself. I’ve heard enough of its heralds.

You have to have ears to hear. If you don’t, you won’t. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Jesus speaks loud and clear to those of us who are willing to listen to Him, and follow Him as disciples.

Some humans are just wired to believe.

And some are wired to believe nonsense. “A fool convinced against his will believes the same things still.”

It just means everyone is created equal is load of ……

Do you think people that were once believers but lost their faith are fools? I didn’t ask to stop believing. My faith left me.

It’s silly and simplistic to come up with one explanation for a huge class of people. There are a host of possible reasons, but as I alluded to, generally they come down to one of two broad categories: 1) obstinacy and rebellion or 2) ignorance and having been led astray by false ideas, coupled with an inadequate understanding of the Christianity they rejected, and of the apologetics whereby it can be rationally defended.

This leads to them being slim pickin’s for anti-theist atheists who know all the tricks and methods for talking Christians out of their faith. Thus, those like you who (I think) deny that mere obstinacy is the cause, would, it seems to me, be quite open and willing to have discussions with Christians, to try to be re-convinced of the rationality and superiority of Christianity.

But of course the opposite is the case in every atheist forum I have ever been to. The game is to mock and insult Christians and Christianity, so as to have a false assurance of the supposed vast superiority of atheism. If the latter were indeed the case, then y’all ought to calmly, cordially, rationally refute Christian counter-arguments, rather than merely insult Christians. That’s what people who are confident in their positions and eager to share them with others (share the joy) do. But again, we see the opposite.

Therefore, I suspect that many cases of former Christian atheists are indeed due to obstinacy and rebellion at bottom, because the insulting behavior is the manifestation of it.

But that’s just me speculating based on observation and reason. Only God knows the eternal fate of any given individual, and their heart at any moment of time.

***

Science is the only tool we have for understanding reality. We can use other tools to decide how we live with that reality, but science is the only game in reality town.

Science is the only tool we have for understanding reality.

That statement is not itself science. It’s not even philosophy. It’s simply a bald statement offered without evidence.

Therefore, it must not be “reality.”

Therefore, it’s a false statement.

Ergo, science is not the only tool we have for understanding reality.

But of course this is logic, and you didn’t include that in your litmus test for fields of knowledge that lead us to reality. Is mathematics out the window, too? Science is a philosophy, of course, so you can’t exclude philosophy from the equation, either. You are viciously self-defeating here, any way you look at it.

And it’s blatantly obvious to anyone who isn’t taken in by the epistemological ludicrosity of scientism or science only.

I’d include mathematics as science and I’d argue that logic is science. Long words and flowery phrases aren’t going to change my point.

Neither one is empirical, and both entail axioms to get off the ground. To equate them with science is a non sequitur. They are essential building blocks of science, just as philosophy is, but not the thing itself . . .

***

[E]xplain [to] me then why Genesis does not mention that the Moon has mountains, Venus has phases like the Moon, Jupiter four large moons, Saturn a ring, and the Milky Way is actually formed by countless stars. The kind of stuff that can be guessed with even a very basic telescope.

Explain also why Genesis is right and not for example Hesiod’s Theogony, as this is described by some cosmological theories as the pre-Big Bang state.

Why is Genesis required to mention all those things? Where does such a notion come from? It’s not presenting itself as a science textbook.

The OT does, however, present a remarkable knowledge of germ theory in the Mosaic Law, from the 13th century BC: some 3100 years before modern science figured it out. Why? The last time I brought this up the other person got “bored” and that was the end of that pseudo-discussion. See: The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases.

The Genesis and biblical teaching of creation ex nihilo is backed up by science: Seidensticker Folly #42: Creation “Ex Nihilo”.

***

I note he is copying some of this discussion thread over to a new post on his own channel since he can’t get people to comment there.

Christians (apart from apologists like myself whose job is to refute them) care little about atheist topics. This is news to you? We’re not obsessed with views other than our own; consequently we would never get threads of 770 comments with mostly about ten people commenting over and over. It has nothing to do with trying to get comments. I’m simply recording my public dialogues for the record for future reference on my very extensive Atheism page.

But you guys love to flock together to help make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy and peachy keen about atheism, all comfy-cozy in groupthink bliss, making fun of and savagely caricaturing any outsider who dares enter your sacred bubble, and justifying and rationalizing your (quite frequent) departures from Christianity.

Those of us who converted from Protestant to Catholic went through that phase for a year or two (hobnobbing with other converts) but it was a passing phase. We all want to feel like we’re part of a group that understand us; that we can relate to. But Christians don’t engage in the massive slanderous, mud-throwing avalanches that we observe in atheist forums.

The fact that y’all feel a great need to do that indicates, I think, something important about yourselves (seems to me a great insecurity and lack of conviction). Occasionally (breath of fresh air after the noxious stench!) I observe atheists getting over this phase and no longer being obsessed with mocking and deriding Christians 24-7. They get it, and have passed on from the anti-theist fetish.

So would you have the common courtesy to note that you will be doing so, so people can choose to opt out.

Sure: I will be doing so. All of this is public material. I am all for a free and open exchange of ideas and habitually publish dialogues with everything from both sides (a thing hardly anyone does anymore). I have well over 1000 dialogues on my blog. If someone doesn’t have confidence enough in their position to have it cited on a Christian site, then I suggest they avoid me. Almost all here avoid true dialogue with me, anyway (just as you are doing right now).

Personally I’m not sure which is worst, the Scylla of extreme mythicism of some atheists or the Charybdis of Biblical literalism of some Christians (mostly non-Catholics). Neither group knows much about the field of history.

Perhaps start with a survey of the sources and methodology such as

Grabbe, Lester L. 2007. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London ; New York: T & T Clark.

I’m not a biblical literalist. I seek to interpret the texts the way they were intended to be interpreted, in light of things like over 200 figures of speech used in Hebrew literature (collected in a huge volume in my library).

If you’re gonna read skeptical commentaries on the Bible, also read the best in scholarship that doesn’t play fashionable theoretical games, but rather, looks at objective, verifiable, external data that backs up the Bible:

Kenneth A. Kitchen (b. 1932), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003)

James K. Hoffmeier (b. 1951), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford University Press, 1996)

James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford University Press, 2005)

If you were so confident in your position, you would already be interacting with my article above: which follows this objective methodology; rather than Jonathan’s purely subjective, arbitrary methodology, where mythical schemas imagined in people’s heads for the sake of an agenda are forced onto the Bible. But of course you don’t want to do that! You’d rather crawl over a football field of broken glass first.

***

Photo credit: Kristendawn (9-25-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: I made the point (among other things) at the atheist venue, “A Tippling Philosopher” in an exchange with three atheists, that archaeology is an independent, external verification of the Bible.

exchange with atheists

2021-09-01T18:12:26-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pearce’s Potshots #45: “Unholy Questions” for God

Last updated on: September 1, 2021 at 6:12 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a response to his article, God: Some Unholy Questions for You (8-27-21). I thought it would be fun to reply to many of these. I have no immediate answer for some. That’s fine. I don’t have to have all the answers (even as an apologist); don’t claim to know all of them. And I would say it’s no problem at all for Christianity if we can’t answer every jot and tittle that an atheist comes up with (or that we may come up with ourselves). It’s simply the limitations of human knowledge. The atheist religion of science (and it is their religion) doesn’t have all answers, either: just as is the case with every field of knowledge whatever, but that causes no atheist that I know of to fundamentally question science or scientific method.

One simply acknowledges that they don’t know everything. Moreover, in the case of Christianity, Judaism, and classical theism, which posit an infinite, omniscient God — Who created the entire universe an all its marvels — with intelligence beyond anything we could possibly comprehend, it’s fully to be expected.

But most of these questions are quite answerable, a good number are easily answered, and/or exhibit Pearce’s significant lack of knowledge of Christian theology. I do (all that said) appreciate the questions, and the opportunity they offer to clarify many things.

Lastly, God says it’s okay to ask questions. Jesus even made a post-Resurrection appearance specifically for Doubting Thomas, because he was a hard-nosed empiricist who wouldn’t believe that Jesus had risen, despite all the miracles he had already witnessed and eyewitness reports from his close friends. God says, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18, RSV). It’s only deliberate obstinacy, rebelliousness, and pretentiousness that God opposes in no uncertain terms.

God knows whether we are sincerely questioning, with the goal of following truth wherever it leads (up to and including belief in and allegiance to Him), or simply taunting and attempting to make Christianity, Christians, and God look foolish or too silly for any intelligent person to believe. God knows Jonathan Pearce’s motives for asking these questions. I won’t play God and judge those. He himself says that these questions were “designed to be in some way, at some times, a little irreverent. But when it was that, and at all other times, the questions had a layer or dimension to them that was deeper than at first glance.” Fair enough.

I’ll simply offer some replies on behalf of God (if anyone can dare do that; but St. Paul refers to Christians as “God’s fellow workers”: 1 Cor 3:9), for the hoped-for benefit of sincerely and honestly seeking atheists and thinking Christians alike.

***

3. Do you find anything funny?

The Bible consistently exhibits a sense of humor from God, that I have written about several times (one / two / three): particularly a sort of sarcastic, pointed humor. It’s quite evident in how He acts towards His chosen people in the Old Testament, with many examples of mocking and “so you think you know more than I do?” tweaking humor. He told the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute (Hos 1:2), as a visual image of Israel’s unfaithfulness to Him. He also told the prophet Isaiah to walk around naked for three years (Is 20:2-4) “as a sign and a portent against Egypt and Ethiopia”: many of whom were to be led away as captives by the Assyrians.

Jesus is God, of course, in our belief, and His words are filled with humor, from talking about “first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:5), to calling James and John the “sons of thunder” (Mk 3:17), and many other examples.

My own favorite “Bible humor” isn’t from God, but from the prophet Elijah, who taunts the false prophets on Mt. Carmel in his “contest” with them:

1 Kings 18:27 (Contemporary English Version) At noon, Elijah began making fun of them. “Pray louder!” he said. “Baal must be a god. Maybe he’s daydreaming or using the toilet or traveling somewhere. Or maybe he’s asleep, and you have to wake him up.”

Toilet humor in the Bible . . . Truth be told, it’s the devil and lots of stuffed-shirt “know-it-all” sorts of atheists who have no sense of humor, though Satan is himself a highly comic and mockable figure, as C. S. Lewis noted:

[I]t is a mistake to demand that Satan . . . should be able to rant and posture through the whole universe without, sooner or later, awaking the comic spirit. The whole nature of reality would have to be altered in order to give him such immunity, and it is not alterable. At that precise point where Satan . . . meets something real, laughter must arise, just as steam must when water meets fire.

What we see in Satan is the horrible co-existence of a subtle and incessant intellectual activity with an incapacity to understand anything. This doom he has brought upon himself; in order to avoid seeing one thing he has, almost voluntarily, incapacitated himself from seeing at all . . . He says ‘Evil be thou my good’ (which includes ‘Nonsense be thou my sense’) and his prayer is granted. (A Preface to Paradise Lost, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1942, ch. 13 [“Satan”], 95, 99)

It’s left-wing, largely secular thinking — not Christianity — that is currently killing humor by its ridiculous “woke” and “cancel culture” mentality. Comedians like Bill Maher have complained mightily about it, and he recently stated, “I’d much rather play Milwaukee than San Francisco.” I was just reading in The Guardian today how John Cleese of the Monty Python comedy group is protesting against this, too.

The implication of the question is that God and by extension, the Bible, and Christianity are humorless and dour. This is why I gave a long answer, because I would strongly contend that the exact opposite highly tends to be the case.

4. Given that you are a perfect being, and laughter is, to me, one of the most supreme joys of the world which would count towards any idea of perfection, have you ever experienced laughter?

Actually, Christians believe that God the Father has no emotions at all (what’s called impassibility), as part and parcel of His immutability (unchangeability), so He is merely conveying humorous images to us in ways that we can understand (anthropomorphism and anthropopathism). But we see that humor is very much part of the Godhead when we look at Jesus, Who would have been (among many other things) a very funny and charming guy to be around, as the new TV series, The Chosen, conveys refreshingly well. Thus, if we ask the question, “does God laugh?” the answer is assuredly “yes!” because Jesus is God and He laughed and frequently engaged in humor. He not only laughs “with us” He also suffered terribly for us, so that God can relate to us — empathize with us — in that very important way.

5. If you have laughed before at, say, a funny joke, or a misfortunate slip on a banana skin, how does this fit in with your foreknowledge, since you knew the punch line was coming?

Jesus would experience that in His human nature, which didn’t know everything. He knew (in His omniscience in His Divine Nature) that He was gonna raise Lazarus from the dead, yet He still wept, because He was compassionate and caring.

6. Can you please explain to me adequately how you can be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit simultaneously?

I can’t, but to me it’s not surprising at all that an infinitely intelligent Creator-God would have qualities that are virtually incomprehensible to us. It’s certainly no “difficulty” anymore than the incomprehensibility and “illogical” nature of things like quantum mechanics and dark matter and dark energy (currently the huge mysteries in physics and astronomy) cause anyone to disbelieve in scientific method.

7. What does the Holy Spirit really do that you couldn’t do yourself as God the Father?

Nothing. It’s Jesus the Son Who does things that the Father by definition can’t do (like take on human flesh in the incarnation, and suffer on the cross, and die, and rise again): since the Father is spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is. The three Divine Persons are one in essence.

8. In other words, a perfect being should not necessitate any other part of itself, so why do the Holy Spirit and Jesus exist?

The classic answer is so that God can experience relationship within Himself, and so the three Persons can love each other. Jesus exists so that the human race can know what God would be like if He became a man, as He in fact did. He proves how much God loves us and also acts a a model of behavior (“love one another as I have loved you”).

9. In order to have the properties of being the Holy Spirit, these properties must be different from the properties of Jesus and God the Father. These distinct properties must not be synonymous to the characteristics of the others in order to be labelled and recognised as the Holy Spirit (and not the others). How can something have distinct properties that are also synonymous (i.e. the Holy Trinity)?

The only difference is that He is a distinct Person. The three can refer to each other and have relationship.

10. Do you have a central ‘I’, a sense of self?

Yes. “I am that I am” and “God is love.”

11. In what way do you view the world and everything that happens simultaneously?

A Being Who is completely out of time (as God is) can do that. C. S. Lewis drew the analogy of an author and his or her book. The author can go on a vacation for a month and leave his book-in-progress. The “time-frame” in the book remains exactly the same as when he left it. But when he comes back, he enters into the reference-frame of the book and continues creating. We see that in the movies of his Narnia books, where the two worlds operate in different time-frames. They can experience years or seeming years in Narnia and come back to WWII England, exactly at the point in time that they left it.

12. By seeing what happens on earth, what vision do you use, since a human’s vision differs from a bat’s, bull’s or a spider’s, and is not ‘better’ but different and all these visual perceptions rely on the actual physical eyes?

Excellent question. I have no idea, but I suspect that it is a function of omniscience that God the Father “sees all” without a physical apparatus to do so. We know that this is possible (that not all vision is ties to material eyes), from some human observations, as noted on the site, Mental Floss:

As many as 60 percent of patients experience phantom eye syndrome, a group of researchers report in the journal Opthalmology. Some patients who had an eye removed due to cancer reported experiencing visual sensations even without the eye. They said they could see shapes, colors, and even figures in their missing eye. A few people had very specific illusions. They distinctly saw images of wallpaper, or a kaleidoscope, or fireworks, . . .

There have been many documented examples of premonitions, where people “saw” things before they happened, and they did indeed happen as they saw. We have no idea how that works, but it happens, so it’s one of life’s mysteries. I suspect that it involves the same sort of ability that God has. In effect, they “saw” things out of time, as if they were preset: precisely as God does.

Another example would be many many examples of those who died temporarily on an operating table and their souls floated above their physical body and they could “see” what was happening (what the doctors were doing, etc.), and accurately report it when they came to. That, too, is sight without eyes or any physical thing to convey it. If human beings can do that, by analogy, God can all the more.

13. If you are perfect, then from whose point of view is your perfection?

Your own. You are entirely self-sufficient, in need of nothing, and you would know that by experiencing it. We can have a dimly analogical experience of something remotely similar: say we are on a wonderful vacation and feel that we are in “paradise”: in need of nothing: floating on a wonderful turquoise ocean by a white sand beach; wonderful dishes are brought to us to eat; we see beautiful mountains, trees, and animals (preferably with a loved one, too, so it’s shared). For those few fleeting moments, perhaps it’s true. We have no needs and are perfectly content and happy. For God, this is extended to everything. He has no need of anything.

14. Therefore, is perfection (as an objective quality) even logically coherent, and if so, how?

Sin derives from rebellion against God (thinking we know better than he does). God can’t rebel against Himself, so He simply is what He is (love) and can’t be otherwise.

15. Do you have any interests or hobbies, things that you like doing more than others?

Seeing that as many people as possible (given human free will, which he can’t control, by definition) can be saved and enjoy perfect bliss in union with Him in heaven for eternity. He does all He can to bring this about:

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

I would say that is God’s overriding “hobby” or “interest” and thank heavens it is, for our sakes!

16. Have you ever wished for a challenge in the way that a great chess player wishes for the ultimate challenger (and to defeat them!)?

Sounds like what I just wrote about in #15 might be that. How does He get as many saved as possible, when human beings have a free will and tons of countering influences that lead to resisting Him and the road to heavenly bliss.

17. We know from the bible that some things please you (“And God was pleased”). In this manner, it can be inferred that some things please you more than others. Thus you must have favourite entities that please you the most within a range of entities. Who has been your favourite actor or voice to have played you in a film (let’s face it, everyone likes Morgan Freeman)?

I would imagine Morgan Freeman. Intelligence, dignity, compassion. That accurately reflects God. He wasn’t trivialized, per the usual atheist mockery and yucking it up . . .

But of course this includes portrayals of Jesus. I would say (and perhaps God would agree!) they were best done in Jesus of Nazareth, The Passion, and The Chosen.

18. Can you change at all, or are you immutable, unchanging?

No (if we are referring only to the Father).

19. If you are immutable as many say, does that mean you are not omnipotent, since you cannot change (or is it that you choose not to change)?

No, because omnipotence means power to do all that is logically possible, and this is logically (and also ontologically) impossible.

20. Can you ever feel surprise?

That’s incompatible with being omniscient and immutable.

21. Without sensory organs, can you feel anything?

That gets back to impassibility: dealt with in #4.

22. Since to be perfectly just means to exact the correct punishment for the crime, and to be perfectly merciful means to be more forgiving in the face of crime than justice would have you be, can you be perfectly merciful and perfectly just at the same time?

Yes; no problem for a perfectly loving and omniscient Being.

23. Can you actually be insulted by anything?

Rebellion against Him would in effect be that, though He would not feel the emotions that we do at, say, the disobedience of a child, or betrayal of a friend.

24. Do you, as an omnipotent and almighty being, get annoyed when somebody takes your name in vain?

I think with God, it’s a sadness (again, insofar as he can “experience” that in His impassibility) at the knowledge (which He would already have) that people are on their way to hell and an utterly horrible, miserable existence for eternity, while the alternate path is so entirely possible. IN terms of Jesus, His sadness was well expressed in Matthew 23:37 (reply to #15 above).\

25. Why did you wait 13.5 billion years to create man?

God doesn’t wait at all. He’s eternally “present.” That’s only how we see it.

26. What were you doing in those 13.5 billion years?

See the previous answer.

27. Can you ever get bored?

No; being perfectly self-sufficient.

28. Do you have an image or visual format?

Jesus is the image of the invisible Father (Col 1:15).

29. You stated in the Ten Commandments that you are a jealous God; is this true?

Not literally. This is an example of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. It’s a way for God in effect to communicate the notion: “don’t worship these other so-called (not real) ‘gods.” It will not go well for you if you do. ‘They’ won’t fulfill you or make you happy and joyful and at peace like I will.”

30. Since you ask so much of us, why can’t we just sit down and have a one-to-one conversation with you like we would with our friends?

Feel free. It’s called prayer:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

31. Is it vain and self-indulgent to insist that we praise and heap worship on you and is it a need that an omnipotent God would not have?

No, and yes. See: Why Do We Worship God? Dialogue with an Atheist.

32. How is creation doing?

The created have made a mess of it, insofar as the influence of the innumerable sinful and irresponsible stewards among them spreads. In and of itself, it’s doing as wonderfully as always.

33. Can you create a rock that is too heavy for you to lift?

It’s logically impossible and so it ultimately is a senseless and meaningless question.

34. If you can / can’t do the aforementioned task, does this mean you are not omnipotent, or is this merely a silly logical head-scratcher?

No; it means that the questioner is thinking illogically and/or doesn’t know the actual theological meaning of “omnipotent.”

35. Does logic, then, exist outside of you, and do you have no power over it?

That’s correct. It is what it is. God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. He can’t pretend that He has not created the universe. He can’t make 2 + 2 = 3. He can’t make a square a circle. Etc.

36. How much do you influence / interfere with the universe on a daily basis?

He’s incredibly influential, in His providence and His supervision:

Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

Hebrews 1:3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.

37. Since you cannot, by definition, know what you don’t know, and cannot know that you don’t know something, how do you know that you are omniscient?

The same way that I can know for sure that I am sitting her typing this and that readers will read it (hello out there!). We can have sure knowledge about particular things. God simply has sure knowledge about all things, by the nature of the case.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON JONATHAN’S BLOG

ME: Reply in progress [I had not yet posted this reply on my blog when the following discussions took place]. Think what you will of me (many here obviously utterly despise me). At least I seriously interact with your arguments.

LastManOnEarth Are you claiming to speak for the god? Isn’t that just a little presumptuous? Perhaps it would be better to wait until JP posts a series of Unholy Questions for Dave Armstrong, no? #stayinyourlane

ME: So according to you, we have to wait for God to answer? No Christian can tackle the questions, according to what we believe the Christian theology of God would suggest as possible answers, without getting this hogwash dumped on their head? We just sit here and shut up, rather than be uppity Christians? That’s cute.

Moreover, Jonathan wrote: “I discuss the conception of God as understood in classical theism.” Therefore, it is completely to be expected that a classical theist would reply in order to clarify where Jonathan has possibly misrepresented what said classical theism believes about God and why it does.

LastManOnEarth If it’s not too much to ask, I’d rather hear the responses directly from the character in question. There are quite a few randos claiming to speak for this fellow. I wouldn’t want to be misinformed by an overzealous unauthorized would be spokesmodel. * ME: This is sheer idiocy. According to you, only atheists can sit here and ask these questions about God: to God. One perspective only. We all know He’s not gonna appear in the clouds and answer. I would say He has virtually answered all of this already: in the Bible. That’s His revelation. So we answer from the Christian classical theist point of view: simply expounding upon that same Bible. There is nothing improper at all. *

Anthrotheist Atheism as a position is a count point to theism as a position, and has no relevance on the existence or unlikelihood of hypothetical deities. If there were no theists there would be no atheists because there would be nothing for them to disagree about, as far as beliefs in gods go. Atheists flip the bird at theist’s lunacy and hypocrisy, not at a supreme being that we don’t believe exists. * ME: Exactly, and that’s why a theist can and should answer this stuff; precisely because you (and by extension, Jonathan’s list of questions) are flipping the bird at “theist’s [supposed] lunacy and hypocrisy” and because his paper is a counter “to theism as a position.” Yet above it was said that it was utterly presumptuous for me to answer. We see through those games. Your insulting honesty is much more refreshing than LastManOnEarth’s clueless stupefaction.

* Makoto I mean, I have a feeling no god is going to appear in the clouds and answer anything, either, but I’m not claiming there’s a god out there, so it’s no surprise at all to me when it doesn’t happen. But, just to be clear, you’re going to be answering from the bible.. the same bible that does say the god it is describing has appeared as a talking bush and a form that allowed it to walk, talk, even wrestle with people, and so forth, correct? That’s the book you’re basing your answers on because “we all know he’s not gonna appear in the clouds and answer”? * ME: Mostly biblically based, with some speculation, per the nature of the questions asked. It’s remotely possible that God could turn up in Jonathan’s house, just as He did for Doubting Thomas, but it’s exceedingly unlikely, just as with all miracles. So until that happens, it’s not at all improper or unexpected for Christians / theists to offer some speculative, provisional guesses as to how God might reply (based on what we know of Him, primarily from Scripture). * God appeared on this earth for 33 years (though He was known publicly for only three), and this is recorded at length in four books of the Bible. But that’s never good enough for atheists to believe in Him. * Makoto Which is fine, but how is that different than someone else doing the same with another holy work? If they follow the same process, unless someone’s god shows up, then it’s just speculation based on the readings.

For that matter, I’ve done the same with my friends, working out how Anakin Skywalker would respond to various questions based on the Star Wars books and movies we’ve consumed. It’s fun and interesting, but without a Darth Vader showing up, it’s also all guesswork. The big difference here is that you’re saying there’s actually a god out there, while we can all agree there’s no such thing as a Dark Lord of the Sith.

ME: It’s not essentially different. It’s only as good as one’s familiarity with the Bible and Christian thinking. I claim some significant credentials on both counts, having done Christian apologetics for literally forty years: the last twenty, full-time, with eleven books published by actual publishers (not just self-published) and many articles in reputable Catholic journals.

So I speak based on what I know (however much that is). But I do know some things and as an apologist I could hardly resist such an article. In fact, I really enjoyed replying to it and I think my replies will have some educational value, if I do say so.

Will there be good dialogue as a result? I truly hope so, because I think it would be fun and interesting for both sides, but judged on past experience here, probably not. Most (not all!) atheists simply have too much hostility for any constructive dialogue to take place. ‘Tis a pity, because we will have to learn to get along in this world, and really should get to know each other (and how the other guy thinks) much better.

Makoto I’m glad we agree that it’s not essentially different. And to be honest, as an atheist, I expect that I could likely answer the questions well as (what I consider) the “god” character from the Christian bible. I’d probably be able to do it fairly well, I think, as I do read, and compare stories, and think.

But we’re back to the same position of – I’m answering based on my reading of a character, as you are. That character either cannot or will not answer for itself. So it can be interesting to see how different people come up with different interpretations of how that character would/might answer, but the being itself remains silent.

ME: And I reply that He has abundantly revealed Himself in the Bible. That is its purpose. There are arguments about how to interpret it, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the basic aspects of the nature of God (classic theism).

Karen Silver My late cousin, a math professor, said that quantum mechanics was your practical joke. Why would a deity play practical jokes? * ME: Why do you even think it’s a joke in the first place? It’s simply complex and incomprehensible to us (as it was even to a great mind like Einstein’s): exactly what we would expect of the creation of an infinitely intelligent Being. You really think that IF God exists, that everything He says and does will be simple as pie to us? I think that’s an utterly implausible position. It would be like an ant comprehending algebra or chemistry or even something like a Beethoven symphony. It’s above their capacity.

***

Photo credit: KELLEPICS (10-17-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce has a bunch of “unholy questions” for God. I do my best to answer them, according to my knowledge of Christian theology & theology proper (i.e., of God).

Trinitarianism & Christology

unholy questions for God

2021-07-10T15:37:47-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pearce’s Potshots #40: Manure-Comments on His Blog

Last updated on: July 10, 2021 at 3:37 pm By Dave Armstrong

Matthew 5:11-12 (RSV) Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. [12] Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Luke 6:26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

John 15:18-20 If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. [20] Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Jonathan MS Pearce’s blog, A Tippling Philosopher has no ostensible rules of conduct, so virtually anything goes, and it is open season on Christians. To be fair, Jonathan has at least feebly opined that he would like more civil discussion to occur in his environs (though he appears not to ever enforce such a notion). On 5-19-21 he wrote the post, “Another Comment Appeal” which included the following:

The comment threads here . . . could be more productive and civil.

I would like polite and civil discourse. . . .

Please please simply deal with the ideas and do no[t] attack the person. . . . we should be convincing people to our frame of mind. If they are not ready, attacking their personality forcefully and without civility will not work in our favour. . . .

[L]et’s ALL think about the way we interact, who we are appealing to, who we think our audience is, and why we say what we say in the way we say it.

I already responded to this on 5-20-21. I had documented a “feeding frenzy” against me on his blog in a post dated 3-18-21; also a wholesale massive attack that took place on fellow anti-theist atheist Bob Seidensticker’s blog, in August 2018.

Pearce has written several recent posts wholly in response to me, or predominantly so. This has brought out (as always) the long fangs and the slanderers in his comboxes. I would like to document just a small sampling of these (no more than 10%, if that) of some of the worst from three comment threads, underneath the articles Chiasms, Multiple Sources, Armstrong, and Chasms in Rationality (7-7-21), Debunking the Genesis Flood I (7-4-21): below the ten asterisks; also a few more (bonus) from Ruddy Flood Thing Again. And Armstrong. (7-3-21): underneath the ten plus signs.

Still wanna be an apologist, and particularly to atheists? This is what it’s like. In-between this constant avalanche of worthless insults, a good conversation here or there can be had. But any anti-theist atheist forum (at least any I have ever seen, and that is 24 years of constant interaction online as an apologist) will end up like this if you dare to disagree as a Christian, and especially if you dare to forbid such slander on your own blog, as I do, and (horror of horrors!) ban foul-mouthed, acidic folks. Then you will be lied about and attacked like you never have been in your life.

***

AtticusOSullivan you pathetic excuse for a human being.

no one gives enough of a s#@t about you to despise you, Dave.

Neko what Dave is saying is not Catholicism.

Can’t take the fundie out [of] the convert.

3lemenope you openly profess believing things as ridiculous as young earth creationism [never have in my life]

Nobody owes you anything but a snort and a laugh of derision.

Lark62 You are a disgusting, dishonest, contemptable [sic] flaming a%$&@#e.

. . . flaming hypocrite, given your consistent record of misrepresenting the words of others.

Beau Quilter Armstrong’s . . . perfectly happy to engage in all other prejudices.

John Grove You are a bigot, Dave.

Omnicrom You are really good at running away Dave . . . You make obnoxious, hypocritical tone arguments like nobody’s business.

JMallett Damn dude, seek professional help.

Freethinker your ignorance is bottomless, Dave

**********

HairyEyedBombThrower More sleazy click farming, Dave? . . . You’re shameless.

. . . sniveling wretch who imputes to others your own worst qualities, a la Goebbels [a high-level Nazi]

You suppress anybody who disagrees with you [I suppress anyone on my blog, rather, who can’t bring themselves to be civil and non-insulting. Thus, dozens of anti-theist-type atheists have been banned on my blog. Not my problem]

WCB . . . dishonesty and unwillingness to debate fairly.

You won’t try to have a reasoned discussion with knowledgeable atheists because you lose those debates [see for yourself how well I fared in hundreds of such encounters]

We cannot expect reason, and rational, critical thinking from you.

Ignorant Amos You’re a liar.

You’re lying you shameless scumbag.

Neko You censor people who tell you the truth about yourself.

Beau Quilter We already knew you don’t “believe” in science. That much is obvious.

Omnicrom He’s been breaking the commandment against false witness for 25 years now.

++++++++++

BensNewlogin I think you are not very sincere . . . you’re calling your god a liar.

Clearly, Dave believes in astrology. And magic.

Omnicrom You lie all the time.

Neko he’s a vainglorious windbag, so to hell with him.

***

I said that I had left Jonathan’s forum and “moved on” in May, but alas, I got drawn in when he wrote several posts that I responded to, and he counter-responded to. At first I would simply post notice of my reply. But people would start responding, and I’d get drawn in again. It’s clear now, however, that the only wise and prudent course is to totally ignore these atheist forum cesspools of fanatical hatred against any and all Christians who dare to dissent and make arguments disbelieved by the Faithful Believer-Atheists.

The few who are capable of sustaining a rational, civil, non-insulting discussion (and there are some, however few; every rule has its exceptions) can always come to my blog, where we engage in normal discourse.

I had been even more definite about leaving a month before, on Jonathan’s page, writing:

You claimed that you were actually happy I commented here, so that it wouldn’t be an “echo chamber.” But after being the target of 9,614,376 insults (which don’t faze me at all and only embarrass those who make them), and becoming sick and tired of the endless verbal diarrhea and mud pie fights, I decided at length that I am through with this stinking cesspool of a “forum.”

Serious discussion across differing viewpoints (with only very rare exceptions) does not occur in the toxic environment that is present here and in every atheist forum I have ever seen in 24 years of active online participation.

Here and there, one can accidentally stumble across pockets of rationality and cordiality even in this noxious manure-laden mud field, but it’s so rare that it ain’t worth the trouble anymore: so I have decided. My patience with it (even though it is often a source of high comedy or comic relief) is now exhausted.

Things will proceed as they always have. . . . I’m through here.

Jonathan specifically asked a month after that for “polite and civil discourse” and urged his minions of rabid followers to “simply deal with the ideas and do not attack the person.” They do so, anyway, and (here’s the thing) he does nothing about it.

This time I need to go cold turkey and never visit these pathetic places again. I will likely keep critiquing Jonathan’s posts, (and potentially any public atheist post, if it is a topic worth devoting time to), but I won’t visit the toxic, noxious comboxes there anymore: not even to notify Jonathan — in courtesy — of a reply. Even then (if I merely do that) I get accused by several clowns of cynically, unethically “using” Jonathan to get more clicks on my blog (as we saw in at least one attack above).

This is a ridiculous assertion that I have dealt with before. Apart from the pitiful remuneration I get from pageviews, people on my blog don’t care all that much about atheism and its never-ending attacks on Christianity and Christians, and writing about it has never drawn big numbers to my page (or many at all). In other words, I have no self-interest in going to atheist forums and trying to rationally interact, and I get a ton of misery from the nattering nabobs who are nearly ubiquitous there. I go because I am trying to reach even the hardest and most hardened cases of non-believers (and silent observers who are everywhere as well).
*
In the end, there are other relevant Bible passages that would guide such a decision (after we gave it a shot):

Matthew 10:14 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. [14] And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.

2 Timothy 2:23 Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.

Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.

As always, anyone is welcome to visit my blog and comment, provided they are civil and charitable and interested in dialogue, not merely preaching or condemning. I continue to meet the rare atheist or agnostic who is willing and able to do this, and when it happens, we have great discussions, such as my recent lengthy and thoroughly enjoyable exchange with “axelbeingcivil” on the problem of evil and “problem of good” [see part I and part II].

***

Photo credit: Jan Tik [Flickr / CC by 2.0 license]

***

Summary: I expose the “manure-comments” that regularly occur on atheist Jonathan Pearce’s blog comboxes at my expense. He has denounced them, but the offenders never stop shoveling the . . .

anti-Christian hostility

2026-06-05T23:59:03-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pearce’s Potshots #38: Chiasmus & “Redundancy” in Flood Stories

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:59 pm By Dave Armstrong

Also, a Summary Statement on Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis

*****

Jonathan Pearce, in his concerted effort to absolutely avoid engaging in any exegetical debates about Genesis with me, lest the sky fall down (see my first and second reply to him concerning the Flood, and a third related paper), has repeatedly noted that the stories about the Flood in Genesis are redundant and needlessly repetitive. This, in turn, so he assumes without adequate evidence, is an irrefutable indication of multiple authors being in play (the Documentary Hypothesis [“DH”]). My current reply is an effort to show that a biblical literary technique known as chiasmus can more plausibly explain this, without necessary and/or knee jerk recourse to DH.

First, let’s document his cocksure magisterial utterances in this regard:

The Pentateuch contains some irreconcilable issues that fall into four categories: repetition (redundancy), contradictions, discontinuity, terminology and style.

The basic principle is that these four issues demand an explanation.

The only thing that makes sense of this is that there are multiple sources (over multiple time periods) that have been redacted to produce the finished document. (7-2-21)

What a pointless repetition [Gen 6:19] even if it didn’t contradict. This is known as redundancy and is a major reason why the DH/SH exists. There are doublets and triplets all over the Pentateuch that have no discernible raison d’etre (and even some things four times). (7-2-21)

Look at this passage and tell me it makes sense on its own without needing a theory that proposes multiple sources woven into a single narrative: [cites Gen 7:6-13] . . .

Repetition, redundancy and contradiction.

I really wish Armstrong would read his Bible. (7-2-21)

I will also furnish you with an account of redundancies in the Torah (from Baruch J Schwartz’s chapter “The Documentary Hypothesis”, . . . (7-2-21)

[T]he Noah’s flood myth is a good example of the multiple sources of the Pentateuch evidenced by both redundancies through repetition and contradictions. (7-3-21)

Of course, the key to repetition was the word “redundancy” that he conveniently forgets. The issue with redundancy in the Torah is that the repetitions serve no purpose. That’s the point. (7-3-21)

. . . the days, the number of animals and every other instance of contradiction, repetition (redundancy), discontinuity, and stylistic and terminological divergence. (7-3-21)

There is simply no use for the repetition in the Genesis flood accounts. What is it we are so obviously going to forget about those details that we so desperately need to remember? (7-3-21)

Before we begin, let me make a comment about Catholics and the Documentary Hypothesis / Theory. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, writing about the Documentary Hypothesis (1-1-13) stated: “It is . . . possible for a Catholic to hold a number of positions, from full Mosaic authorship, to the documentary hypothesis, to intermediate positions, depending on how one sees the evidence.”

After yet another exercise of sheer mockery and pompous “know it all” condescension from Pearce in his combox, including his revelation that once again he read virtually none of my paper that he supposedly “responded” to, and describing my argument as “apologetic nonsense” and “disingenuous construction”, I wrote there:

Catholics are free to accept or reject DH / Mosaic authorship as they please, and at least one pope (St. John Paul II) believed in it. You seem to worship DH as the Holy Grail. To me it’s something I don’t believe in, based on what I have seen. I’m free to do so as an orthodox Catholic. There is no requirement that I must believe it. If someone else does (up to and including great heroes of mine, like Pope John Paul II) that’s fine. Live and let live. It’s a big ho hum and a yawner.

Pope St. John Paul II referred to the “Yahwist” source (the “J” in “JEPD”) in 16 of his addresses or writings: 15 of these were general audiences (1979-1980), and the other usage was in his papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995). He referred to “Elohist” in three general audiences (1979-1980). But Pope Benedict XVI never did so. Nor did Pope St. Paul VI, Pope St. John XXIII, Ven. Pope Pius XII, or Pope Francis. Benedict XVI was certainly as good of a Bible scholar (if not better) than John Paul II. I note also that he did refer to DH before he was pope (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) in his book, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall: a book that I have in my library and which I have cited several times.

But back to the immediate topic:

There can certainly be various reasons for repetition: one obvious one being its obvious utility as a teaching and memorization device (as I have already noted in this larger exchange). Another quite plausible thing is something I was excited to learn about this very day: a Hebrew literary technique called chiasmus. Jimmy Akin (in whose article I first saw it mentioned) provided a good basic summary:

The biblical authors commonly structure their material according to a literary form known as chiasmus.

This involves a sequence of elements that can be divided into two halves, with the second half being a mirror image of the first, like steps leading up one side of a pyramid and down the other.

A simple example is Jesus statement that the “first will be last, and the last first” (Matt. 19:30), which has an A-B-B’-A’ structure.

This chiasmus occurs in a single sentence, but there are much more involved ones in the Bible, ones that span large blocks of text and that serve as a major organizational principle for an entire book.

This is the case with Genesis. Much of the book is organized into large chiastic structures.

Pearce, who ludicrously fancies himself as a big expert on the Bible, never mentions “chiasmus” or “chiastic” on his blog. So he can learn something from this, too (i.e., making the huge assumption that he reads this article, and doesn’t give up in a hissy fit after the second paragraph.

Wikipedia (“Chiastic structure”) offers an excellent overview. After noting the basics of chiasmus, as Akin did, it elaborates:

Chiastic structures that involve more components are sometimes called “ring structures”, “ring compositions”, or, in cases of very ambitious chiasmus, “onion-ring compositions”. These may be regarded as chiasmus scaled up from words and clauses to larger segments of text.

These often symmetrical patterns are commonly found in ancient literature such as the epic poetry of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Classicist Bruno Gentili describes this technique as “the cyclical, circular, or ‘ring’ pattern (ring composition). Here the idea that introduced a compositional section is repeated at its conclusion, so that the whole passage is framed by material of identical content”.[1] Meanwhile, in classical prose, scholars often find chiastic narrative techniques in the Histories of Herodotus:

“Herodotus frequently uses ring composition or ‘epic regression’ as a way of supplying background information for something discussed in the narrative. First an event is mentioned briefly, then its precedents are reviewed in reverse chronological order as far back as necessary; at that point the narrative reverses itself and moves forward in chronological order until the event in the main narrative line is reached again.”[2]

The article continues:

Mnemonic device

Oral literature is especially rich in chiastic structure, possibly as an aid to memorization and oral performance. In his study of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, Cedric Whitman, for instance, finds chiastic patterns “of the most amazing virtuosity” that simultaneously performed both aesthetic and mnemonic functions, permitting the oral poet easily to recall the basic structure of the composition during performances.[6] Steve Reece has demonstrated several ambitious ring compositions in Homer’s Odyssey and compared their aesthetic and mnemonic functions with examples of demonstrably oral Serbo-Croatian epic. [7]

Use in Hebrew Bible

In 1986, William H. Shea proposed that the Book of Daniel is composed of a double-chiasm. He argued that the chiastic structure is emphasized by the two languages that the book is written in: Aramaic and Hebrew. The first chiasm is written in Aramaic from chapters 2-7 following an ABC…CBA pattern. The second chiasm is in Hebrew from chapters 8-12, also using the ABC…CBA pattern. However, Shea represents Daniel 9:26 as “D”, a break in the center of the pattern.[8]

Gordon Wenham has analyzed the Genesis Flood narrative and believes that it is essentially an elaborate chiasm.[9] Based on the earlier study of grammatical structure by F. I. Andersen,[10] Wenham illustrated a chiastic structure as displayed in the following two tables.

Chiastic structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative A: Noah and his sons (Gen 6:10)

B: All life on earth (6:13:a)

C: Curse on earth (6:13:b)

D: Flood announced (6:7)

E: Ark (6:14-16)

F: All living creatures (6:17–20 )

G: Food (6:21)

H: Animals in man’s hands (7:2–3)

I: Entering the Ark (7:13–16)

J: Waters increase (7:17–20)

X: God remembers Noah (8:1)

J’: Waters decrease (8:13–14)

I’: Exiting the Ark (8:15–19)

H’: Animals (9:2,3)

G’: Food (9:3,4)

F’: All living creatures (9:10a)

E’: Ark (9:10b)

D’: No flood in future (9:11)

C’: Blessing on earth (9:12–17)

B’: All life on earth (9:16)

A’: Noah and his sons (9:18,19a)

[Dave: see a much nicer, more visually appealing version of this]

Within this overall structure, there is a numerical mini-chiasm of 7s, 40s, and 150s:

Chiasm of the numbers 7, 40, and 150 α: Seven days waiting to enter Ark (7:4)

β: Second mention of seven days waiting (7:10)

γ: 40 days (7:17)

δ: 150 days (7:24)

χ: God remembers Noah (8:1)

δ’: 150 days (8:3)

γ’: 40 days (8:6)

β’: Seven days waiting for dove (8:10)

α’: Second seven days waiting for dove (8:12)

Use in New Testament

Form critic, Nils Lund, acknowledged Jewish and classical patterns of writing in the New Testament, including the use of chiastic structures throughout.[11]

The article, “Literary structure (chiasm, chiasmus) of Book of Genesis: Chiastic Structure and Concentric Structure and Parallel of each pericope” is a marvelous compendium of no less than 81 spelled-out uses of the technique in the book of Genesis alone. If it weren’t already obvious, I note that it would be extraordinary for four authors to construct such obviously deliberate literary techniques or devices, across their allegedly intertwined stories. Thus, chiasmus is a strong argument for single authorship and/or Mosaic authorship of Genesis. And there are massive examples in the other five books of the Torah as well, as I will document.

As just one example from this article, I offer the section on the covenant with Noah: which occurred right after the account of the Flood:

[8]The Covenant with Noah (Gen 9:1-17) A(9:1-7)

Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat (9:4)

(בשׂר)

B(9:8-11)

never again shall all bodily creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood (9:11)

(המבול)

C(9:12)

A sign of the covenant

(אותהברית)

C'(9:13)

A sign of the covenant

(לאותברית)

B'(9:14-16)

the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all mortal beings (9:15)

(למבול)

A'(9:17)

This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all mortal creatures that are on earth (9:17)

(בשׂר)

A: Flesh. B: All creatures never be destroyed by the waters of a flood. C: A sign of the covenant.

Gen 9:1-7 A(9:1) Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth (9:1) B(9:2) the human is in charge of beast, birds and fish (Human as the administrator of the animals) C(9:3) Eating creatures is permitted D(9:4) Only flesh with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat (9:4) C'(9:5) Shedding blood is prohibited B'(9:6) If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed (9:6) (Human as the administrator of the human) A'(9:7) Be fertile, then, and multiply; abound on earth and subdue it (9:7)

Gen 9:8-11 A(9:8-9) covenant with you and your descendants after you (9:9) (covenant for future) B(9:10) Covenant with every living creature A'(9:11) covenant with you, that never again shall all bodily creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood; (9:11) (covenant eternal)

Gen 9:12-17 A(9:12-13) The sign of the covenant B(9:14-15a) God will recall the covenant with all living beings C(9:15b) the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all mortal beings (9:15) B'(9:16) God will recall the covenant with all living beings A'(9:17) The sign of the covenant

Biblical Chiasm Exchange: a site devoted to comprehensively listing all instances of chiasmus in the Bible, lists no less than 100 of them in Genesis, 55 in Exodus, 26 in Leviticus, 38 in Numbers, and 64 in Deuteronomy. This is 283 times in the Pentateuch. Lots of “pointless repetition” and “redundancy”: as Pearce (who is likely no longer reading this article) would put it.

The book of Psalms contains a whopping 196 instances, which is more than one per Psalm. As an elegant example from a very well-known passage of Scripture, here is the chiastic structure of Psalm 23:

A. 1 The LORD is my shepherd;
I shall not want.

B. Food and drink

2 He maketh me to lie down
in green pastures:
he leadeth me beside the still waters.

C. security

3 He restoreth my soul:
he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.

D***. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley***
of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil:

C’. security

for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff
they comfort me.

B’. Food and drink

5 Thou preparest a table before me
in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.

A’. 6 Surely goodness and mercy
shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
for ever.

Isaiah, my favorite Old Testament book, contains 119 chiasms in 66 chapters. Jeremiah has 87, Ezekiel, 71.

The New Testament continues the technique, with the Gospels exhibiting 101, 63, 92, and 81. For a relatively famous example, see a portion of the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5:22-48.

The book of Acts has 84 chiasms. Romans leads the way in the Pauline letters, with 33.

See another paper specifically about Noah’s Flood and chiasmus, and a second.

An in-depth examination of chiasmus in classical literature, noted many examples in Homer and cited another scholar who found 1257 examples in Livy and 1088 in Tacitus.

Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties.” That’s from the Introduction to his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898): a very useful volume in my own library. He devotes 31 wonderful pages to a slightly larger category of literary devices that he calls “Correspondence” (pp. 363-393).

***

ADDENDUM: Exchange with Pearce on His Blog

[this was his preliminary “response” to the above paper]

Jesus wept, your first paragraph.

Another item for your not-to-read list. First paragraph and out. LOL

Dude, to think I’m not engaging with you is ridiculous.

You’re right. Far from me to think you don’t engage. You do, after all (just going by your own reports) read one paragraph of each of my lengthy new articles responding to you. Credit where due. Seidensticker, Madison, and Loftus don’t read my rebuttals at all and never ever respond (and ban me from their sites as an extra bonus). At least you respond with fine comedic material and non sequiturs. You’re funny and entertaining, whereas those guys are grim as the grim reaper.

I’ve just spent 2 solid weeks researching the documentary hypothesis and writing a chapter on it for a forthcoming book. Have you actually read any source material on the documentary hypothesis? I mean, really? or have you only read conservative evangelical supposed critiques of it?

I use your method. I get through one paragraph and think to myself, “this is hogwash!” and then stop reading.

Oh, okay, so that’s how to dismiss an entire discipline of rational scholarship…

I haven’t dismissed it at all (in the sense of claiming that no orthodox Christian could possibly believe in it). To the contrary, I have noted how Pope St. John Paul II believed in it, and to some extent, also Pope Benedict XVI. I do not. I simply have no interest in it and it has no bearing whatsoever on my arguments. Can you not grasp that? Go argue with someone who actually believes in the thing!

You have dismissed something I think you barely understand.

Whatever the case, I’m not the one to wrangle with about it. It’s not my burden to defend it, anymore than it is your burden to defend the existence of God. I defend the non-contradictory nature of Sacred Scripture, which is an issue that goes far beyond DH.

As I mentioned recently, you assumed there was a contradiction in a particular passage and then went on to say that DH adequately accounts for it. I denied the presence of a contradiction in the first place. Thus, that discussion was prior to the application of DH. It was at the level of premises.

It is your burden of proof since you are asserting a single authorship of a book that is clearly not. You need to provide positive evidence of this. You have it the wrong way round.

I am not asserting that at all in these particular arguments. I’m simply defending what we have in the text, as non-contradictory, and a local Flood (and often, non-literal texts) as opposed to a universal one.

My arguments stand on their own, whether the Pentateuch was written by one person or a hundred.

I do think that my recent discovery of chiasmus is quite consistent with single authorship and makes little sense if it is four or more. But I wasn’t trying to prove that. I was showing that this remarkable technique truly is present in the text: massively in the Flood story and at least 81 times in Genesis.

You’ll likely simply ignore it. That’s your frequent “out” and technique of avoidance and evasion, as I’m discovering more and more.

Yesterday you were carping on and on about how I completely ignore the Epic of Gilgamesh Deluge story and had nothing to say about it. In fact, I was addressing it in my second paper published on the same day you were making the false claim, and had done so a few times in my writings. So you were dead wrong. And you simply ignore what I said.

Yesterday you were also waxing delusionally about how DH would shut my mouth and how I couldn’t possibly have any reply to it in any possible universe. Yet here I am today offering a fairly striking explanation (the literary technique of chiasmus) of the “redundance” that you see everywhere in Genesis. So you were dead wrong again. And you will in all likelihood ignore what I said about this, too, lest you stumble into what could be a very interesting and fascinating discussion indeed.

You have no interest in that, in the final analysis. Your goal is to make out that I am an imbecile, idiot, and ignoramus. Your increasingly shrill and boorish comments about me personally and my beliefs and research are specifically designed to give precisely that impression to your adoring, fawning audience.

***

Photo credit: bytrangle (1-19-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce has taken to belittling Genesis as “redundant” & then using the Documentary Hypothesis as his “go-to” answer to everything. But Chiasmus better explains this.

150 days

40 days and 40 nights

alleged Bible contradictions

Documentary Hypothesis

2021-07-03T19:13:45-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pearce’s Potshots #37: Length of Noah’s Flood Redux

Last updated on: July 3, 2021 at 7:13 pm By Dave Armstrong

*****

I am replying to Pearce’s paper, Armstrong, the Genesis Flood Contradictions and Multiple Sources (7-2-21), which in turn was a response to my Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither? (7-1-21).

As is obvious from the title of my previous paper, I didn’t set out to refute or even engage the Documentary Hypothesis (DH): which (full disclosure, if it isn’t obvious) I reject. I simply provided three critical papers of mine: one being a collection of links. My point of view could be set forth without reference to whatever position one holds on the DH, because it was claimed that contradictions existed in the biblical text (i.e., however constructed or by whom) as to the length of Noah’s Flood.

A person who accepts the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (as I do, and as the Catholic Church does) think that it doesn’t contradict whether or not some form of DH is true and an accurate understanding of the Pentateuch / Torah. Thus, all his carping on about DH is perfectly irrelevant to my argument. I specifically chose one part of his argument: the claim of contradiction. Pearce wrote in his paper that I responded to:

[I]n one part of Genesis the flood is 40 days and nights, and in another it is 150 days. These sorts of contradictions . . . [my bolding and italics]

In his present paper he refers back to this:

I posted a quick, “Look, here’s a biblical Genesis flood contradiction, and it’s one of the famous ones for illustrating the multiple source issue”.

He assumes it is a contradiction and then proposes that multiple authorship (good ol’ DH) can explain the “contradiction.” Like the socratic that I am, I go right to the premise. I deny that the contradiction is present in the text in the first place. That’s a matter of logic and exegesis, not elaborate, wildly speculative and subjective theorizing as to authorship. Two texts can contradict whether one author wrote them or two. They can also be logically consistent whether one author wrote them or two. Therefore, the question of DH is, to repeat, a non sequitur in relation to the very particular, specific argument I was making.

But I do want to briefly address one arrogant charge and falsehood that Pearce throws out:

[N]o serious Pentateuchal scholar adheres to the mosaic authorship and single-source proposal for the Pentateuch. I have listened to countless scholars attest to this. No conference, no symposium, no meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature entails any scholar advocating for mosaic authorship or a single source of the Pentateuch. It just doesn’t happen.

Yet the view of Mosaic authorship is very common. In apologetics only. There is a vast chasm that separates serious Hebrew Bible scholarship and Christian apologetics.

One of the articles I linked to in my collection of critical articles about the DH was “The Documentary Hypothesis” (Alice C. Linsley, Just Genesis, 1-11-10). She writes:

The Documentary Hypothesis was the topic of heated discussion recently at Stand Firm. A priest made this this facile comment:

But the overwhelming consensus of modern scholars is that the Pentateuch is indeed a composite of multiple traditions, coming from a wide variety of times and places and reflecting a considerable variety of theological viewpoints and group interests.

To which a a layman, Michael A. responded:

The more I thought about this, the more irritated I became, because it is such typical liberal humbug: “This is what everyone is thinking don’t question it”. Yet it is quite untrue – *numerous scholars reject the documentary hypothesis. I assembled a quick list, broken down into (a) liberals or other; (b) jewish (a huge field of scholars that the liberals always ignore); and (c) conservative christian:*

(a) liberal or other

*Rolf Rendtdorff “problems of process of transmission in the Pentateuch”, trans English 1977

*R.N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch 1995.

*Whybray acidly comments: “There is at the present moment no consensus whatever about when, why, how, and through whom the Pentateuch reached its present form, and opinions about the dates of composition of its various parts differ by more than five hundred years.”

*Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.

*Richard S. Hess, Israelite Religions, 2008 [This is a huge and detailed study on the subject]

*Literally from left field are scholars like Gmirkin in “Berossus and Genesis” 2006 who argues that the entire Pentateuch was written in the 3rd century BC! Obviously his position is radically different to mine (I believe it was written/edited by Moses, as Jesus said). Yet the end result is the same: Gmirkin rejects the documentary hypothesis.

(b) Jewish

*Umberto Cassuto completely debunked the DH. His “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch” is still highly recommended reading (1966 in english)

*Yehezkel Kaufmann (1950s)

*Cyrus H. Gordon (1960s)

There are plenty of recent Jewish scholars who reject the Documentary Hypothesis:

*Dr. Yohanan Aharoni

*Amos Hakham

*Rabbi Dr Joshua Berman

*Rabbi Yosef Reinman

(c) Conservative christian

*John Bimson

*Bryant Wood

*Colin Smith

*R.K. Harrison, An Introduction To The Old Testament 1970

*K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient And The Old Testament 1966

*Gleason Archer (d. 2004) of Fuller and Trinity.

*Walter Kaiser of Gordon-Conwell

*Ronald F. Youngblood

*James Orr, The Problems of the Old Testament

*R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament

*J Gordon McConville

*T Desmond Alexander

*Edwin Yamauchi

*Prof. Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History 1969

*Prof. Randall W. Younker, 1999

*Duane A. Garrett 1991.

*Derek Kidner, Commentary on Genesis

*J Harold Greenlee

*Prof. Claude Mariottini

*Joseph Blenkinsopp 1995.

*McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1988

Liberal scholars are of course unaware of any of these, in their intellectual ghetto. Go figure.

Catholic writer Mark Shea provided (in 2002: link unable to be found) a funny satire on Documentary Theory, using The Lord of the Rings:

One standard staple of biblical criticism for the past century has been the theory that the Old Testament isn’t composed of “books” that somebody “wrote” but is instead a pastische of “sources” that religio political factions “assembled”. If you find yourself thinking “Only an academic–and a German one–could suppose that the foundational literature of Western civilization could be pasted together by a committee and only an academic–and a German one–could suppose that you find out what the text really means by dissolving it in the acid bath of deconstruction to tease out the supposedly original Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P) and Deuteronomic (D) sources”, you’re right. The theory has run into trouble (since nobody seems to agree on which cut n paste fragments belong to which source and nobody knows why the editors who allegedly stuck all these sources together did what they did. But, as with pure naturalistic theories of evolution, your task is to shut up and bow to your superiors, not ask obvious questions.

In the spirit of redaction criticism, Bruce Baugh now offers some preliminary theories on the variation in sources used by the makers of the Two Towers. I think he’s on to something. Jackson is clearly operating from Rohanian sources for purely political reasons. Truly educated people can see these things right off the bat. It’s obvious to any thinking person that the whole “Tolkien Authorship Myth” must go. The Lord of the Rings was not “written” by a so-called “author” named “Tolkien”. Rather, it is a final redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch, to Elvish Chronicles, to Gondorian records, to tales of Rohirrim which were only transcribed centuries later. The various pressure groups which preserved these stories all had their own agendas. For instance, the Gondorian records clearly seek to elevate the claims of the Aragorn monarchy over the house of Denethor. So the record has been sanitized. Indeed, many scholars now believe the “Faramir being healed by Aragorn” doublet of the “Frodo being helped by Aragorn” is a sanitized version of the murder of Denethor by Aragorn through the administration of poison. “Faramir” never existed and is a corruption of “Boromir”, who died under uncertain circumstances in the wilderness. Since the scenes of Aragorn healing “Frodo” also take place in the wilderness, most scholars conclude that “Frodo” is a mythic echo of Boromir, whose quest for Power is like Aragorn’s quest for the Throne. Perhaps, Boromir was one of Aragorn’s first victims. Of course, the whole “Ring” motif appears in countless folk tales and is to be discounted altogether. The real “War of the Ring” was doubtless some small tribal dispute that was exaggerated by bardic sources, much like the Exodus or the Fall of Troy. Gandalf appears to have been some sort of shamanistic figure, introduced to the Narrative by W (the Westmarch source) out of deference to local Shire cultic practice.

Rohan seems to have been of much help to the establishment of the Aragorn monarchy and so R sources find their way into the final version of the LOTR narrative, but greatly altered so as to give Theoden a subordinate role. Meanwhile, we can only guess at the Sauron and Saruman sources, since they seem to have been destroyed by the victors and give a wholly negative view of these doubtlessly complex, warm, human and many-sided figures. Scholars now know, of course, that the identification of Sauron with “pure evil” is simply wrong. Indeed, many scholars have become quite fond of Sauron and are searching the records with a growing passion and zeal for any lore connected with the making of the One Ring. “It’s all nonsense, of course,” says Dr. Gol M. Smeagol, “There never was such a Ring. Still… I… should… very much like to have a look at it. Just for scholarly purposes of course.”

That noted, we move on.

I am supremely confident in what I am claiming, . . .

Excellent! Then maybe he will interact point-by-point with my argument this time: a thing that he scarcely did in this paper.

Perhaps I am just really bad at this. I apologise to you all.

I appreciate it. That’s much more likely. He’s a prisoner of his own relentlessly false presuppositions.

Armstrong, in looking for some “win scenario” took on the simple claim of the flood lasting 40 days and nights vs 150 days and went with it, broadly writing a piece on how the rains lasted forty days but the flood took 150 days to recede, so there is no contradiction,

Yes I did. That was my issue. I pick out things that can be objectively discussed, as matters of logic (+ exegesis, if required) or fact. This was one such item. I have a long history of dealing with alleged biblical contradictions, as Pearce himself is, I think, well aware.

and isn’t Pearce rubbish…

Not Pearce, just many of his nonsensical and incoherent or factually dubious arguments.

The thing is, I have to respond because there will be lurkers here who might want to know how to respond to things like this.

How kind and considerate of him.

What he failed to quote was some in-between bits. But before we get onto that, literally look at his own quote:

Genesis 8:3-4 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated; [4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar’arat.

Genesis 8:5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

This makes no sense. The waters abated at the end of 150 days.

Yes, after 150 days they reached their highest level and started to recede. “Abate” according to Dictionary.com means “to reduce in amount, degree, intensity, etc.; lessen; diminish:” It doesn’t mean “disappear.” Likewise, the Hebrew word châsêr (“abate” in Gen 8:3; Strong’s word #2637) means, in this instance, “to fail, to be lessened”: according to Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: a standard Hebrew linguistic reference.

Various English translations of Genesis 8:3 more clearly indicate that the waters just started the process of receding after 150 days. They weren’t totally gone (hence, the passage is not saying that the entire Flood was over, with all the additional flood water on the earth’s surface totally gone):

NIV . . . At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down,

NKJV . . . At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

NASB . . . at the end of 150 days the water decreased.

Amplified Bible . . . At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had diminished.

ASV . . . after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

Douay-Rheims . . . and they began to be abated after a hundred and fifty days.

JPS Tanakh 1917 . . . after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

Knox . . . beginning to abate, now that the hundred and fifty days were over.

Moffatt . . . began to subside . . .

Armstrong has quoted himself into a corner! This is precisely what the DH/SH solve.

Also, we have a verse that he did include, but didn’t dwell on. I use, always where possible, the NASB as a Bible translation as it is renowned as the most accurate. Here is Genesis 7:17:

17 Then the flood [l]came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

The footnote for the “flood came” is that is can be translated as “it was”. So, here we have the flood was “upon the earth for forty days”. NOT, it rained for forty days, but “it was upon the earth for forty days” and “it lifted up the ark”. The waters lifted up the ark for forty days, not the rain from above.

We know this is a differentiation from the idea of it raining for forty days because Genesis 7:12, from which 17 is an idea continuation, states:

12 The rain [i]fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Let’s put them together:

12 The rain [i]fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

17 Then the flood [l]came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth.

At most, at best for Dave, we have a 40-day rain and then a 40-day flood (80 days in total).

This is just silly. Plainly, in context, this particular use of flood was synonymous with the forty days of rain. Hence, some Bible translations make this equation crystal-clear:

Knox For forty days that flood came down on the earth . . .

Moffatt For forty days and forty nights rain fell upon the earth . . .

Amplified Bible The flood [that is, the downpour of rain] was forty days . . .

Pearce tries to play with cross-referencing to force the larger text to fit into his erroneous schema, by asserting that Genesis 7:12 and 7:17 differentiate “rain” and “flood” (even though both refer to forty days). I could just as well do cross-referencing with regard to “waters” / “water.” After all, 7:17 refers to “the flood” and then appears to equate this with “the water increased” (as opposed to saying “then it subsided” or “then it dried up”). In Pearce’s ridiculous, contrived, and mythical 80-day Flood, the water would have to dry up after the second forty-day period referred to in 7:17. But it does not do so. Rather, “the water [“waters” in RSV] increased.”

In fact, “flood” and “water[s]” appear together, in a synonymous use seven times in RSV, in Genesis 6, 7, and 9 (including 7:17):

“flood of waters”: 6:17; 7:6

“waters of the flood”: 7:7, 10

“The flood . . . the waters increased”: 7:17

“waters of a flood”: 9:11

“the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh”: 9:15

If we are to consult immediate context, Genesis 7:18-20, 24 repeat four times that “the waters prevailed”: with 7:24 adding that they did so “a hundred and fifty days” (not forty or eighty!). It was after 150 days that the waters “subsided” (8:1), “receded from the earth continually” (8:3) and “abated” (8:3). They “continued to abate until the tenth month” (8:5), which was the eighth month after it started to rain (see 7:11). The waters didn’t totally dry up till “the first month, the first day of the month”: when “the waters were dried from off the earth; . . . the face of the ground was dry” (8:13). This was about ten-and-a-half months from the beginning of the torrential rains, and it was when the Flood ended, in any reasonable reading of the plain texts.

Therefore, Pearce’s “exegesis” (or I should say, eisegesis) is atrocious, as always. He sees only what he wants to see, and this is the hallmark of all skeptical, hostile, hyper-rational “can’t see the forest for the trees” eisegesis and Bible “interpretation” [choke] from those who approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog: big knife in hand.

Now let’s see the in-between bit he forgot to quote:

**Genesis 8:6:**6 After forty days Noah opened a window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

So, next, he opens the window after the fortieth day! How convenient Armstrong forgot this.

Genesis 8:6: “At the end of forty days” (RSV) is not forty days after the beginning of the Flood, but forty days after the time mentioned in the previous verse: ” in the tenth month, on the first day of the month . . .” That’s the context. Then after Noah sent the raven and the dove out, 8:13 asserts: “in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth” (the end of the Flood).

Then Pearce tries to smuggle in another alleged pseudo-“contradiction” having nothing to do with the duration of the Flood:

Let’s look at the wider context (don’t read the NIV translation as they try to bodge this in utter dishonesty):

**Genesis 7:2-3:**2 You shall take [a]with you [b]seven pairs of every clean animal, a male and his female; and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, [c]seven pairs, male and female, to keep their [d]offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

And:

Genesis 6:19: 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

What a pointless repetition even if it didn’t contradict.

I have dealt with this already: Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20] I have refuted atheist anti-theist Bob “the Bible Basher” Seidensticker now 72 times: without a single peep of a reply.

Pearce then goes into reams of more analysis of DH (which is utterly beside the point of my paper) and chastises the Bible for “Repetition, redundancy and contradiction”. To the contrary, “repetition is a great teacher.” I typed in those words for a Google search and tons of stuff came up. Pearce seems oblivious to the possibility that such repetition was a deliberate tactic of one author, rather than supposed proof of multiple authors. If he wants to see “redundancy” Genesis 7:6-13 can’t hold a candle to Psalm 136. It repeats the same phrase: “for his steadfast love endures for ever” 26 straight times, in as many verses.

The sad end result (for him) is that Pearce hasn’t refuted a single point of my paper, whereas I have now strengthened and bolstered my argument all the more, which I always do when a challenge is kept up or increased (unless, of course, it is something I have conceded; and I do gladly concede where the facts and arguments and evidence warrant it; just as I did in a major way in converting to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism).

***

ADDENDUM: Pearce’s “Reply”

Ruddy Flood Thing Again. And Armstrong. (7-3-21)

Here, Pearce doesn’t interact with even a single one of my many exegetical arguments against his charge of contradiction as to the duration of the Flood. He simply repeats endlessly his uncritical praise of the Documentary Hypothesis. At least he was kind enough to include words of mine (seen above, near the beginning) that show how all of this is perfectly irrelevant to my own arguments, which never were about the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place (that’s his pet argument, but has nothing to do with mine):

My point of view could be set forth without reference to whatever position one holds on the DH, because it was claimed that contradictions existed in the biblical text (i.e., however constructed or by whom) as to the length of Noah’s Flood.

A person who accepts the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (as I do, and as the Catholic Church does) think that it doesn’t contradict whether or not some form of DH is true and an accurate understanding of the Pentateuch / Torah. Thus, all his carping on about DH is perfectly irrelevant to my argument. I specifically chose one part of his argument: the claim of contradiction.

Thank you, Jonathan. If only you could figure out that this renders all of your carping on and on about DH and how supposedly not a single Bible scholar in the history of the universe (with an IQ higher than a pencil eraser) has ever denied it or has been critical of it, null and void. You’re arguing one thing; I’m arguing another. We are literally ships passing in the night.

[for more on the Documentary Hypothesis, see: Jimmy Akin, “Who Wrote the Books of Moses?”, Catholic Answers, 1-1-13]

Rather than engage my exegetical arguments, Pearce — showing remarkable (and to me, surprising) intellectual cowardice — decides to opt out with sweeping, unsubstantiated generalities:

I don’t think any of your criticisms of my points hold water. . . .

If Armstrong seriously thinks he has answered my with his apologetic discourse here, trying to special plead his 40 vs 150 day issue is coherent, he is sadly mistaken. I really have nothing more to say since all of my original points hold. He just hasn’t touched them.

Pearce takes another misguided blank shot:

And as for the Epic of Gilgamesh, he didn’t even mention it.

Because he definitely has nothing to say to that.

It’s true that I didn’t in this paper, because it had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was arguing: which was a logical / exegetical matter having to do with a few biblical texts in Genesis. And that was, of course, why I didn’t deal with it: not Pearce’s wishful mythology that my mouth and mind are sealed shut as to that issue, in abject fear, due to his profoundly unanswerable utterances.

In fact, I dealt with it several times in my companion-paper, also posted yesterday, along with this present one, in response to someone in his own combox (and announced in the same place): Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought (7-2-21; revised a few times today on 7-3-21, as I found some more interesting and relevant material).

I dealt with it at the very end of the paper, noting that two reputable Protestant scholarly sources that I cited at length and linked to (online versions in their entirety) both addressed the issue. It was in the initial version of the paper before I added material to it and removed some, excepting the very last sentence, that I added today. All of it was written before I read Pearce’s new article today, making this criticism. Thus, his statement that I allegedly have “nothing to say to that” is ridiculous (adding to a long collection of such utterances of his against me — and the Bible — and Christianity). Anyway, here is the end section of my “Local Flood” article from yesterday:

[Baptist theologian Bernard] Ramm [author of The Christian View of Science and Scripture] also discusses “The Babylonian Flood account” on pages 247-249. It can be read online at the link. In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, George Frederick Wright (see the link above) also devotes significant space to it in his sections 9 and 10: for those who want to understand the true nature of the comparison of the Babylonian and biblical accounts. Here are a few striking differences, as elucidated by Wright:

The dimensions of the ark as given in Ge (6:15) are reasonable, while those of Berosus and the cuneiform tablets are unreasonable. According to Gen, the ark was 300 cubits (562 1/2 ft.) long, 50 cubits (93 2/3 ft.) wide, and 30 cubits (56 1/4 ft.) deep, which are the natural proportions for a ship of that size, being in fact very close to those of the great steamers which are now constructed to cross the Atlantic. The “Celtic” of the White Star line, built in 1901, is 700 ft. long, 75 ft. wide and 49 1/3 ft. deep. The dimensions of the “Great Eastern,” built in 1858 (692 ft. long, 83 ft. broad, and 58 ft. deep), are still closer to those of the ark. The cuneiform tablets represent the length, width and depth each as 140 cubits (262 ft.) (II. 22, 23, 38-41), the dimensions of an entirely unseaworthy structure. . . .

The accounts differ decidedly in the duration of the Flood. According to the ordinary interpretation of the Biblical account, the Deluge continued a year and 17 days; whereas, according to the cuneiform tablets, it lasted only 14 days (II. 103-7, 117-22). . . .

[T]he duration of the Deluge, according to Genesis, affords opportunity for a gradual progress of events which best accords with scientific conceptions of geological movements. If, as the most probable interpretation would imply, the water began to recede after 150 days from the beginning of the Flood and fell 15 cubits in 74 days, that would only be 3 2/3 inches per day–a rate which would be imperceptible to an ordinary observer.

Despite these massive differences, (((J_Enigma23))) on Pearce’s blog wrote:

As stated numerous times, the Biblical flood also reads very much like the Flood myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Right. The Babylonian ark was 262 feet wide, deep, and long (a giant cube), whereas the biblical ark has similar proportions to actual ocean liners in our time. The biblical Flood lasted over a year, and the waters subsided over seven months’ time. But the Babylonian Flood lasted 14 days. That doesn’t sound “very much like” to me. There are several parallels that can be drawn, but having massively different boat descriptions and duration lengths are certainly essential differences.

I have also addressed it (albeit briefly) now and then in my 3600+ apologetics articles through the years. For example, in one of my 46 utterly unanswered refutations of atheist David Madison (dated 8-7-19), I wrote:

It’s often noted that there is a Deluge account in the Epic of Gilgamesh; therefore, this casts doubt on the story of Noah’s Flood. But why would it? Is it not more plausible to assert that if in fact (for the sake of argument) such a major Flood had occurred, that other cultures besides Hebrew culture would more likely know about it, rather than not? Say for the sake of argument that the Bible had mentioned Halley’s Comet. We now know that it passes by the earth every 76 years. No doubt many cultures have some written record of observing it. But if the Bible had happened to mention it, it would immediately be suspect because non-Hebrews also wrote about it? Clearly not. . . .

In fact, Catholic apologist G. K. Chesterton, in his masterpiece, The Everlasting Man, argued that it is precisely to be expected, and is an argument in favor of Christianity, that there are many precursors to it: especially in the paganism that flourished in the previous 500 years or so. Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis, in his book, The Abolition of Man, has a section at the end (“Illustrations of the Tao”) in which he shows (and rejoices in) many similarities of world religions.

Young Lewis (very much like myself in my teen years) was enthralled with Norse mythology and Wagner’s operas, etc., and was an atheist. He became a theist after a discussion with J. R. R. Tolkien, in which the latter noted that “Christianity was a true myth.” It had never occurred to Lewis that there could be such a thing as a myth that actually happened. I have written about supposed “pagan elements” in Catholicism: which is a charge that anti-Catholic Protestants often make. It’s fascinating to now see an atheist former Methodist minister use the same fallacious tactic:

Is Catholicism Half-Pagan?

Is Catholicism Half-Pagan, & a Blend of Gospel & Lies?

I had also dealt with it in an analysis of a deconversion story, about four months earlier (3-28-19):

[words of an atheist, in green] One week, he began a 4 part series on the story of Noah and the flood. He came at it from a totally different perspective than I had ever heard or thought of before, and I was enthralled. On the 4th Sunday, he mentioned that there were different interpretations of the story within the church, and he brought up the fact that the flood story actually appeared in earlier writings that were not biblical at all. I was stunned. Could it be true that the bible borrowed the flood story from earlier secular writings (hint: Epic of Gilgamesh)? It was just a fable?

Huh? The reasoning here is very convoluted. How is it that simply because another culture also had a story of a massive Flood, therefore, somehow it becomes a “fable”? Isn’t it much more likely and plausible that an event of such shattering magnitude would be recorded by someone besides the Hebrews? Therefore, the mere presence of a similar story elsewhere is no disproof of the biblical account at all.

Pagan or heathen parallels or precursors do not necessarily “disprove” the biblical account. Thus, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) notes how such parallel stories of the Flood, confirm, rather than disconfirm, the historicity and trustworthiness of the Bible:

The historicity of the Biblical Flood account is confirmed by the tradition existing in all places and at all times as to the occurrence of a similar catastrophe. F. von Schwarz . . . enumerates sixty-three such Flood stories which are in his opinion independent of the Biblical account. R. Andree . . . discusses eighty-eight different Flood stories, and considers sixty-two of them as independent of the Chaldee and Hebrew tradition. Moreover, these stories extend through all the races of the earth excepting the African; these are excepted, not because it is certain that they do not possess any Flood traditions, but because their traditions have not as yet been sufficiently investigated. Lenormant pronounces the Flood story as the most universal tradition in the history of primitive man, and Franz Delitzsch was of opinion that we might as well consider the history of Alexander the Great a myth, as to call the Flood tradition a fable. It would, indeed, be a greater miracle than that of the Deluge itself, if the various and different conditions surrounding the several nations of the earth had produced among them a tradition substantially identical. Opposite causes would have produced the same effect.

I was deeply shaken to realize that the bible was not the historically accurate document I was always told and completely believed it was.

I don’t know why. It certainly wasn’t because of the above things mentioned, because that conclusion simply doesn’t follow.

That’s an awful lot from someone who (according to the inimitable and polemics-prone Jonathan Pearce) supposedly “definitely has nothing to say” about the topic, ain’t it?

***

Photo credit: Noah: The Eve of the Deluge (1848), by John Linnell (1792-1882) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce invents pseudo-“contradictions” & engages in lengthy irrelevant diversions on the Documentary Hypothesis, in analyzing the length of Noah’s Flood.

150 days

40 days and 40 nights

alleged Bible contradictions

2021-07-01T13:02:34-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pearce’s Potshots #36: Noah’s Flood: 40 or 150 Days or Neither?

Last updated on: July 1, 2021 at 1:02 pm By Dave Armstrong

*****

I am replying to Pearce’s paper, The Flood Myth Contradictions Explained by the Documentary Hypothesis (6-29-21).

For those uninitiated, the Pentateuch contains some irreconcilable issues that fall into four categories: repetition (redundancy), contradictions, discontinuity, terminology and style. There is only one coherent solution: it was compiled using multiple sources, and written at multiple times. Though there are several alternative theories, they all agree on this point. The Documentary Hypothesis remains the best theory for the job, and work that is constantly being carried out in academic institutions across the world further refine it.

See:

Documentary Theory of Biblical Authorship (JEPD): Dialogue [2-12-04]

Documentary Theory (Pentateuch): Critical Articles [6-21-10]

C. S. Lewis Roundly Mocked the Documentary Hypothesis [10-6-19]

Pearce cites Tim Callahan’s The Secret Origins of the Bible (pp. 65-66) in agreement:

[I]n the J narrative the flood is caused by rain alone, and it rains for 40 days and nights (Gen. 7:12, 17). The P version is far more grand and complex. . . . the flood lasts 150 days rather than 40 (Gen. 7:24).

Pearce then repeats the bogus charge in his own words:

The simple fact of the matter that in one part of Genesis the flood is 40 days and nights, and in another it is 150 days. These sorts of contradictions are ten-a-penny and are best resolved by multiple sources writing at multiple times and being woven together by redactors.

Genesis 7:4 (RSV) For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights . . .

Genesis 7:11-12, 17 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. [12] And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. . . . [17] The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3-4 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated; [4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar’arat.

Genesis 8:5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

Genesis 8:13-14 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. [14] In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

I truly do wonder (after examining and refuting hundreds of accusations of “contradiction!”) whether Bible skeptics like Pearce even read the texts they are so quick to accuse of internal inconsistency. This is one of the more ridiculous alleged “contradictions”: but — inexplicably — it’s an old chestnut from the hoary old volumes of doctrinaire anti-theist atheism: passed down to yet another generation of gullible and irrational fools.

Pearce creates the ersatz pseudo-“contradiction” by distorting language to his own ends: “in one part of Genesis the flood is 40 days and nights, and in another it is 150 days.” But of course “the flood” and “how many days” it rained are two different things. By trying to make both texts refer to “the flood” he seeks to create a contradiction:

40-day Flood vs. 150-day Flood

If indeed, that is what the texts stated, it would be a contradiction. But the texts actually state the following notions:

40 days of rain (Gen 7:4, 12, 17)

Waters of the Flood “receded” or “abated” after 150 days, which was the point of the “high water mark” or deepest water (Gen 8:3)

Noah’s Ark rested on Mt. Ararat in the fifth month after the Flood began (Gen 8:4)

Waters of the Flood “continued to abate” at the time of the eighth month after the Flood began (Gen 8:5)

The waters finally “dried” up about eleven months after the rain began (Gen 8:13)

To present it more basically and logically:

It rained 40 days.

The resultant waters reached their highest level and then started receding after 150 days.

3) The Flood waters were still receding after eight months.

The Flood waters finally dried up after eleven months.

None of this is “contradictory” in the least. If someone wants to say the Flood was 150 days long based on remaining waters (Gen 8:3), this isn’t true, either, because the Bible still refers to water that “continued to abate” after eight months, and the final drying after eleven months. They are all quite obviously referring to a continual process of the waters receding and drying up. It’s a matter of degree. The only “absolute” numbers in this textual sequence are 40 days of rain and eleven months’ total time before the waters of the Flood dried up.

Pearce’s claim isn’t even internally coherent. He cites Callahan, claiming that “the flood lasts . . . 40” days, based on Genesis 7:12, 17. But Genesis 7:12 never references the “flood”; only “rain.” 7:17 states “The flood continued forty days upon the earth” but this is followed by “and the waters increased . . .” Then the next verse says, “The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth . . .” It’s clearly not saying that 40 days was the entire duration of the Flood.

Thus, subsequent verses refer to 150 days, five, eight, and eleven months’ time of the Flood waters still being present. Pearce thinks that Genesis 7:24 is asserting a Flood of 150 total days. But again, it is not. That was the high water mark, after which the water started receding (8:3). The only duration that makes any sense at all in the biblical texts is neither 40 days nor 150, but rather, eleven months, based on Genesis 8:13.

When floods occur, first it rains (or sometimes it could initially be from a tidal wave / tsunami). Rivers and lakes start to rise and overflow their banks; and in urban environments sewers overflow, basements flood, etc. (one of my sons just experienced this, in his basement). This leaves extra water around for various lengths of time. It takes time to dry up. Thus, the Bible simply states what is a perfectly obvious fact that we have observed many times.

So, for example, we see the headline: “Harvey floodwaters will take more than a month to recede” (Laura Italiano, New York Post, 8-30-17). After two hurricanes in Florida in 2016 and 2017, waters were still receding after 16 months: five months longer than the time Noah’s Flood took to dry up!:

Since Central Florida was visited by Hurricanes Mathew on October 6, 2016 and Irma that made landfall on September 9, 2017; the St John’s River has not returned to its normal state. [by January 2019] . . .

As I write this today in mid-January of 2019 the water levels are still not back to normal! Some of the land is still flooded. (“16 Months Later, Water Is Still Receding…”, Doug Little, 1-22-19)

Conclusion? No biblical contradiction is present, but plenty of self-contradictions exist in Jonathan Pearce’s and other anti-theists’ pitiful attempts to falsely accuse the Bible of contradiction, with regard to the length of Noah’s Flood.

Related Reading

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; rev. 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood & Catholicism: Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Seidensticker Folly #49: Noah & 2 or 7 Pairs of Animals [9-7-20]

***

Photo credit: The Subsiding of the Waters of the Deluge (1829), by Thomas Cole (1801-1848) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Atheist anti-theist Jonathan Pearce seeks to assert that Scripture contradicts itself regarding the duration of Noah’s Flood. As usual, it does not do so at all, but he is self-contradictory.

150 days

40 days and 40 nights

alleged Bible contradictions

Liberal / Modernist Theology

2021-07-01T16:53:28-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Pope Francis’ “Endorsement” of Fr. James Martin, SJ

Last updated on: July 1, 2021 at 4:53 pm By Dave Armstrong

Does it Entail a Denial of Church Teaching on Gravely Disordered Homosexual Sex?

First of all, if we are seeking to be objective and honest (as well as charitable) we have to interpret this incident in light of past pronouncements. Pope Francis has made it very clear that he accepts all of Church teaching on this matter. See my recent paper: Pope Francis vs. Same-Sex “Marriage”: The Record [3-25-21]. About ten days before that, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had answered “Negative” to the question: “Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?” This was done with the pope’s approval. The Catechism is also clear on the topic.

These all involve very clear, unambiguous affirmations of traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality and the intrinsic nature of (sacramental) marriage as between a man and a woman. Sodomy (a word we scarcely hear anymore) remains a grave mortal sin. So does non-procreative and “contraceptive” sexuality: whether between a man and a woman or two men or two women.

With that background, let’s now take a look at what the pope wrote with regard to Fr. James Martin (well-known for his outreach to the LGBTQ community). Crux (6-27-21) reports his words in a personal letter to Fr. Martin (words not from the pope bracketed):

I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal and your capacity to be close to people, with that closeness that Jesus had and which reflects the closeness of God. Our Father from Heaven becomes close with love to each of his children, each and every one of them. His heart is open for everyone one. He’s Father. The ‘style’ of God has three characteristics: closeness, compassion and tenderness. This is how he comes close to each one of us.

[Francis also told Martin that, thinking of his pastoral style, the pope sees he’s constantly] trying to imitate this style of God. You’re a priest for everyone. I pray for you so that you continue this way, being close, compassionate and with a lot of tenderness.

[Lastly, Pope Francis said that he prayed for Martin’s] parishioners [whom God] has placed within your care [for you] to protect them, and to make them grow in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My friend Joe Garcia translates the same letter as follows:

June 21, 2021

Rev. Fr. James Martin, S.J.

Dear brother, Thanks for your mail and the photos. Thank your nephew for his kindness to me and for having chosen the name Francis…and congratulate him for the socks…they made me laugh. Tell him I pray for him and for him to, please, do the same for me. Regarding your P.S., I want to thank you for your pastoral zeal, and for your capacity for being near to [these] persons, with that nearness Jesus had and which reflects the nearness of God. Our Father in Heaven approaches [“gets near”] with love each one of His children, each and every one. God’s “style” has three marks: nearness, compassion, and tenderness.

In this manner He gets close to each one of us. Thinking of your pastoral work, I see that you continually seek to imitate this style of God’s. You are a priest for all [men and all women], just as God is Father for all [men and all women]. I pray for you, that you may stay that way, being near, compassionate and with much tenderness.

I also pray for your faithful, your “parishioners,” all those whom the Lord places [on you] for you to care for them, to protect them, and for you to make them grow in the love for our Lord Jesus Christ. Please, do not forget to pray for me. May Jesus bless you and the Holy Virgin protect you. Fraternally, Francis

Now, is there any denial of Church teaching in that letter? No; we can’t possibly say that there is. The argument at this point (particularly among vocal papal critics) concentrates on Fr. Martin’s teaching, which is said to contradict Church teaching. Therefore, if the pope praises him, by implication, he must be praising the dissenting, heterodox views as well. That’s not only illogical, but reading in-between the lines, and this is often a problem among those who are quick to judge the pope and place him in a theologically liberal / dissident / heterodox category.

As an apologist and well-known defender of Pope Francis (for whatever it’s worth), I have never found that he denies any Church dogma or doctrine, and I have defended him now 194 times (including this present instance). No one has ever accused me (i.e., with any solid, objective evidence) of not being theologically orthodox. I accept all that the Church obligates and binds Catholics to believe (all dogmas and doctrines that are required). I utterly detest theological liberalism and dissent and have a web page about that, too.

So, what are our choices in how to interpret what the pope has done? Roughly the following, in my opinion:

The pope knows full well that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching on sexuality (assuming for a moment that he does), and wholly endorses his departures by implication, in praising him. He’s sending a message (wink wink) to people in “his camp.” This would amount to him equivocating and lying through his teeth in all those instances where he clearly affirms traditional Church teaching. And his reactionary critics (e.g., Abp. Vigano, Taylor Marshall, Steve Skojec, Peter Kwasniewski) and many non-reactionary ones as well (e.g., Phil Lawler) think precisely that about him, as I have documented many times. This is the “Pope Francis as a conscious subversive agent of Satan” interpretation.

2) The pope is aware that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching (assuming he does), and in blessing him, is being “diplomatic”: i.e., praising the things he does which are good and simply not commenting on the bad, dissenting things, which he himself disagrees with. If this were the case, I would say that the pope — with all due respect and reverence — was being negligent, in not addressing sin and dissent where it needs to be addressed.

The pope is unaware that Fr. Martin denies Church teaching (assuming he does), and so blesses him in ignorance and naivete.

The pope believes (rightly or wrongly, as to the actual facts to be ascertained) that Fr. Martin adheres to Church teaching, and is blessing his compassionate outreach efforts, which don’t entail such a denial, and are in line with the Catechism’s call for compassion and acknowledgment that a homosexual condition (as opposed to sexual acts) is not itself a sin.

Personally, though I haven’t followed Fr. Martin’s ministry and public statements at all, my guess is that #4 describes best what happened.

I can picture many people wondering how I can think that, and perhaps thinking that I am myself naive and out of the loop; a special pleader (I’ve been called all these things and many more). Well, let me explain (for those who think enough of my work and integrity to continue reading). I have seen one instance where Fr. Martin flat-out asserted that the Bible was wrong or in error about homosexuality. In a tweet on 10-23-19, he wrote:

Interesting: “Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well and nowhere attacked it as unjust.

Note that he is referring to sexual activity, not just orientation. As for the Bible’s view of slavery is an extremely complex issue. As an apologist, I have written at length about it twice:

Seidensticker Folly #10: Slavery in the Old Testament [8-20-18]

Seidensticker Folly #11: Slavery & the New Testament [8-20-18]

In short, the issue of slavery is not analogous to the nature of permissible sexuality. Of course Fr. Martin’s casual dismissal of the inspired revelation of Scripture doesn’t sit well with me, as one who defends the inspiration and infallibility on a weekly basis. That’s the arbitrary theologically liberal / pick-and-choose cafeteria mentality that I despise. And it’s arguably the root of the problem with dissent.

So what exactly does Fr. Martin believe? And can he be trusted in his report? That’s the $64,000 question. Todd Aglialoro, who edited three of my four bestselling books, and is now an editor and writer at Catholic Answers (CA wanted to hire me in 2011, and published my book on sola Scriptura), wrote the article, “What Does Fr. James Martin Really Believe?: Four questions in search of clear answers from the celebrated pro-LGBT priest” (9-19-19). What he rhetorically asks in this article is what I would ask, too (and I wish Fr. Martin would reply):

Assuming people’s sincerity is a good and noble thing. But Fr. Martin makes it hard sometimes, and this latest tweet, in which he refers approvingly to a same-sex “marriage” and parenting arrangement, is just another example to throw on the pile. This leaves many observers with a massive disconnect between his assertions.

But maybe some simple followup will fix that. Maybe we can get to the bottom of all this by engaging Fr. Martin’s own interest in… Catholic questions. In that spirit, I respectfully pose to Fr. Martin these four questions, along with an open invitation to make public his answers on Catholic.com or Catholic Answers Live.

1. Does God positively will that some people possess and act upon homosexual desires as their natural, correctly ordered sexuality?

Father, when you tweeted “Pride Month” greetings to your “LGBTQ friends,” urging them to be “proud” of their “God-given dignity” and “gifts” and their “place in the world,” did you mean to insinuate that homosexuality is a gift from God and thus something to embrace? Has God given them a gay nature? (You don’t say it in so many words, but it’s hard to think you’re ignorant of the subtext of the words you chose.) And you seem to suggest just that when you claim that such people are “born that way,” as you did this past June.

If this is the case, homosexual acts cannot be said to be immoral. In fact, prohibiting homosexual acts (as the Church does) would be immoral, because it would prevent people from being who God made them to be and doing what God wants them to do. Then it would make sense to advocate for the de-stigmatization of homosexuality and to encourage those with SSA to fully actualize their attractions as a lifestyle. This could explain your consistent support for Catholic gay ministries that affirm homosexual activity while ignoring or throwing shade on those that don’t. It would also provide context for your reference to homosexuality as “a loving act, a form of love… that I have to reverence.”

Do you believe this?

2. If you don’t believe this, aren’t you doing gay people a disservice?

If you think that homosexuality is not a nature given by God, does not have a sexual expression that is moral and ordered to a person’s happiness, then the only other option is that it is unnatural, that its sexual expressions are immoral, and that, however mixed with real friendship or real virtues it may be in any given situation, it’s ultimately ordered away from happiness.

In which case, doesn’t saying that gay people are born that way, and insisting on using the gay-affirmative language that people with SSA “use for themselves,” have the effect of affirming people in what will make them unhappy? To say nothing of leading them away from eternal life? . . .

3. Do you think it is possible for two persons of the same sex to be married?

. . . when you refer to a man and “his husband” and their child; when you are chronically silent on the legal movements to redefine marriage and family despite your influential Catholic profile on the issue; when we do the math and realize that endorsing same-sex marriage is the only logical end point of endorsing homosexuality as God-given and natural—it’s only fair to wonder whether you assent to this teaching. . . .

4. When you say that you assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, which propositions do you have in mind?

Same basic question, only broader: Fr. Martin, when you claim that you assent to Catholic teaching on homosexuality, what are you specifically thinking of? Is it the full package: condemnation of homosexual acts as disordered and intrinsically immoral, affirmation that our sexual faculties are ordered toward marital love between a man and a woman, a basic biblical anthropology of sexual difference and complementarity, and so on?

Or do you have in mind a minimalist or cloudy Catholic sexual morality in which very little is actually unchangeable “Church teaching,” which would make assent pretty meaningless? This would make sense of your claim that “for a teaching to be really authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God,” but that Catholic teaching on homosexuality hasn’t been “received” by the “LGBT community.” Is that it? . . .

Here’s a chance to put the suspicion to rest (or confirm it). A chance to tell your many fans and foes alike what it is that you do believe and are trying to accomplish, and put an end to all the speculation and the strife. “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’” (Matt. 5:37).

To read this, it sure seems — at least prima facie – as if Fr. Martin is deliberately equivocating; talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing at one time, and another at another time (depending on the audience), and might possibly be (at worst) an outright deceiver. And this is what Pope Francis himself is accused of.

Yet Todd also mentions another very curious thing:

[D]espite repeatedly seeming to approach or even transgress the limits of Catholic moral teaching on sexual matters, he has steadfastly maintained that he does not challenge that teaching. None other than Robert George, with whom he struck up an unlikely friendship in 2017, has gone to bat for him publicly, stating that when Fr. Martin says he’s faithful, we should take him at his word.

American legal scholar and political philosopher (and Thomist) Robert P. George is a widely respected orthodox Catholic and political conservative. This is well worth looking into, and may provide a key in how to interpret Pope Francis’ letter to Fr. Martin. Dr. George is convinced that Fr. Martin accepts Church teaching on homosexuality:

Fr. James Martin, S.J. is a friend of mine—someone I admire for his impressive gifts and talents, and especially for his uncompromising pro-life witness and the great heart he has for people of all faiths (and none) who suffer, struggle, or are victims of misfortune or injustice. My friendship with Fr. Martin, who is best known for his efforts to shape Catholic ministry to our brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria, and my willingness to engage him in dialogue and commend him when I believe he is right, have upset some Catholics who fear that he works to undermine the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and marriage. They seem to want me to withdraw my friendship which, some have suggested, “gives him cover.” I must decline.

To be sure, there have been legitimate grounds for concern that Fr. Martin rejects some of the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage. Comments of his in various venues have invited the inference that he does not count these as Church teachings after all. So in an essay here at Public Discourse last October, I asked him to clarify his views. He has since done just that in an America magazine essay clearly, accurately, and quite beautifully setting forth the Church’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of a man and woman, on the intrinsic immorality of non-marital (including same-sex) sexual relations, and on same-sex sexual desires as objectively disordered.

Fr. Martin’s explicit recognition of these principles as genuine Church teachings—together with his repeated insistence that he does not reject any of the Church’s teachings—removes doubt (at least for those of us who take Fr. Martin at his word and do not suppose him to be lying about what he actually believes): Fr. Martin accepts the Church’s teachings, including those on sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Whatever ambiguity or perhaps error there may have been before his recent piece in America, Fr. Martin has left no room for detractors (or, for that matter, supporters) to suppose that he believes marriage can be between persons of the same sex or that homosexual conduct can be morally good—propositions that are clearly in defiance of Catholic teaching.

In particular, it would now be unfair for his opponents—and dishonest and disloyal for his friends—to suggest that he considers same-sex sexual relationships morally licit, much less capable of forming a marriage. For this would be to accuse Fr. Martin of lying either (a) in his recent America article spelling out the Church’s teachings on these issues, or (b) in his frequent and consistent denials that he rejects any Church teaching.

If Fr. Martin is lying, which I resolutely do not believe he is, then he, of course, is answerable for that to God. But please note that by the same token, anyone who falsely accuses him of lying is also answerable to God.

For my part, I will keep pursuing friendship with Fr. Martin, and truth-seeking, mutually respectful dialogue on points of disagreement—points that aren’t, then, matters of definitive, settled Catholic teaching. In that spirit, I want to highlight and again thank him for his recent articulation of Catholic teachings pertaining to marriage and homosexuality, and clarify the closely related pastoral questions on which we do disagree. (“Fr. James Martin, Friendship and Dialogue, and the Truth about Human Sexuality”, Public Discourse, 6-17-18)

Dr. George cites at length Fr. Martin’s answers to his questions, from his article, “What is the official church teaching on homosexuality? Responding to a commonly asked question” (America, 4-6-18). I cite a good portion of it:

Homosexual acts are, according to the catechism, “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.” (The bulk of the catechism’s attention to homosexuality is contained in Nos. 2357-59.) Consequently, the homosexual orientation (and by extension, any orientation other than heterosexuality) is regarded as “objectively disordered.” . . .

In terms of sexuality, all sex is “ordered” toward what are called the “affective” (love) and “generative” (having children) ends, within the context of a marriage.

Consequently, according to the traditional interpretation of natural law, homosexual acts are not ordered toward those specific ends and so they are deemed “disordered.” Thus, “under no circumstances can they be approved,” as the catechism states. Consequent to that, the homosexual orientation itself is viewed as an “objective disorder” since it can lead to “disordered” acts. . . .

Since homosexual activity is not approved, the person may not engage in any sort of sexual activity: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Here the catechism means celibate chastity, since every person is called to the chaste expression of love—even married couples. (Broadly speaking, chastity, in Catholic teaching, is the proper use of our sexuality.)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that gays and lesbians can and should approach “Christian perfection” through chastity, with such supports as “the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace.” In other words, gays and lesbians, the catechism states, can live holy lives.

Needless to say, all these considerations rule out same-sex marriage. Indeed, official church teaching rules out any sort of sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman—thus the church’s prohibitions on activities like premarital sex, adultery and masturbation.

Fr. Martin ends his article by stating:

[I]t is important for the institutional church to understand the lived experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics. It is also important for this group of Catholics to understand what the church believes and teaches.

Dr. George in his article above then notes his disagreements with Fr. Martin:

So where do we disagree?

Mainly, I think, on whether same-sex attraction (or other forms of feeling related to sexuality, such as the dysphoria or dysmorphia people have in mind when they use the term “transgender”) is a valid basis for establishing one’s identity, and whether we ought to recognize and affirm identity built around same-sex attraction (or those other forms of feeling). Fr. Martin believes we should. I believe we shouldn’t. . . .

On the question whether we ought to affirm “LBGT identity” and speak in terms that signal that affirmation, I strongly believe my position against doing so is more consistent both with the overall teaching of the Church pertaining to marriage and sexuality and with the values that teaching upholds. But I have no doubt that Fr. Martin would contest that point. Since, however, I cannot say that the magisterium of the Church has definitively adopted the position I affirm—I’ve had to draw some inferences, and I’m certainly not infallible—it is incumbent on me to listen carefully to Fr. Martin’s counterarguments and to be willing to give them fair, open-minded consideration. . . .

Having said these things, I would appeal to Fr. Martin to reconsider his support, which has been enthusiastic and vocal, for organizations such as New Ways Ministry and Out at St. Paul’s—organizations that unambiguously contradict and seek to undermine the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual morality. His support for these organizations—motivated by his laudable desire to reach out in a welcoming spirit to those whom they purport to serve—leads people to wonder whether he is being honest in saying that he does not himself reject the Church’s teachings. New Ways Ministry has twice been severely rebuked by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Out at St. Paul’s has explicitly claimed that Pope Francis is “wrong” to reaffirm the Church’s teaching on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Fr. Martin stands with the Pope and the Church, as I do. But that cannot be done consistently with an endorsement of Out at St. Paul’s.

So there it stands. One can have various opinions as to Fr. Martin’s overall views on these matters (I confess to being skeptical, myself). In those areas where they disagree, Dr. George notes that they are not yet defined by the Church, and so diverse opinions are able to be held (though he thinks his opinion — and I fully agree — is “more consistent both with the overall teaching of the Church pertaining to marriage and sexuality”).

As regards Pope Francis’ opinion of Fr. Martin and his ministry work, then, why could it not be along the same lines of Robert George’s opinion: i.e., an orthodox Catholic accepting at face value a proclamation of Fr. Martin that he, too, accepts Church teaching on the wrongness of homosexual acts, and an endorsement of his outreach efforts only in ways that are perfectly consistent with the teaching of the Church and the Catechism?:

2358 . . . They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. . . .

That seems plausible to me, and it remains true, that — in light of other very clear statements of Pope Francis on the grave sinfulness of homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage” –, we have no reasonable, objective grounds to believe that he thinks any differently in his remarks to Fr. Martin. Dr. Robert George added (which will be a good conclusion):

[W]hich of us is not a sinner who falls short and is constantly in need of love, mercy, and compassion? I would add that it is deeply un-Christian to vilify those who experience same-sex attraction or to regard those who yield to the temptation to engage in homosexual acts as somehow more depraved than those who commit other sexual sins—or sins of, say, dishonesty, pride, greed, or envy.

On all of this, I’m on the same page with Fr. Martin, as I understand him in light of the America article. We stand with the Church. It is not merely that we “reject the sin, but love the sinner,” though we do that; we reject the sin because we love the sinner—radically love him, willing his good for his own sake, affirming the teaching of the Church in all its richness because we recognize that it is liberating and life-affirming.

***

Photo credit: Kerry Weber (6-19-12). Fr. James Martin, SJ [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: I offer an explanation & interpretation of Pope Francis’ glowing statements to Fr. James Martin (with an analogy to Dr. Robert George), which doesn’t entail the pope 1) denying any Church teaching on homosexuality, or 2) lying.

Papacy & Infallibility

Sexuality and Gender Issues

blessing for LGBTQ couples

Pope Francis & homosexual marriage

Pope Francis & same-sex couples

Pope Francis & same-sex marriage

sacred tradition

same-sex marriage

Theological Liberalism

2026-06-06T00:45:01-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bible & Archaeology / Bible & Science (A Collection)

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:45 am By Dave Armstrong

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE / BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible [1-24-23]

Introduction for My Book: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible + Near Eastern Archaeological Periods and Timeline of the Patriarchs [1-24-23]

“Dig Deep and Defend the Bible” [promotional article for for my book: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible] [ Catholic Answers Magazine, 10 July 2023]

Free “Book”: The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (163 sections) [as of 9-30-24]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [National Catholic Register, 3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (short summary points from my book, The Word Set in Stone) [National Catholic Register, 3-30-23]

Abraham

Abraham, Warring Kings of Genesis 14, & History [7-31-21]

Ehrman Errors #1: Philistines, Beersheba, Bible Accuracy [3-18-22]

Sodom Obliterated (Chapter Four from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [1-26-23]

Walking the Journey of Abraham (Chapter Three from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [3-2-23]

Amorites

Arameans, Amorites, and Archaeological Accuracy [6-8-21]

Bethlehem

Archaeology & First-Temple Period Bethlehem [4-6-23]

Camels, Domestication of

Camels Help Bible Readers Get Over the Hump of Bible Skepticism [National Catholic Register, 7-21-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #67: Camels Make an Ass of a Man [3-1-22]

Chariots, Iron (Judges and Joshua)

Pearce’s Potshots #41: 13th c. BC Canaanite Iron Chariots [7-16-21]

David, Saul, and Solomon / Kingdoms of Judah and Israel

Rarity of Non-Biblical Mentions of King David Explained [9-16-21]

King Hezekiah: Exciting New Archaeological Findings [12-13-22]

Archaeology & Solomon’s Temple-Period Ivory [1-28-23]

Archaeology & King Rehoboam’s Wall in Lachish [1-31-23]

Archaeology Confirms Dates of Five Biblical Battles: Battles at Beth She’an (c. 926 BC), Beth Shemesh (c. 790 BC), Bethsaida & Kinneret (732 BC), and Lachish (701 BC) [2-6-23]

King David: from “Myth” to History (excerpt from my 2023 book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible) [3-14-23]

“King David Versus King Arthur” is only available as Chapter Eleven of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

King Solomon’s “Mines” & Archaeological Evidence [3-24-23]

Ziklag (David’s Refuge from Saul) & Archaeology [3-29-23]

King Ahab, Queen Jezebel, & Archaeology [4-7-23]

Fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), Archaeology, & Biblical Accuracy [4-10-23]

Assyrian King Sennacherib, the Bible, & Archaeology [4-17-23]

Archaeology & Ten (More) Kings of Judah & Israel [4-20-23]

Solomon’s “Impossible” (?) Wealth & Archaeology [4-25-23]

Solomon’s Temple and its Archaeological Analogies (Also, Parallels to Solomon’s Palace) [4-25-23]

The Queen of Sheba, Solomon, & Archaeology [4-27-23]

Archaeology, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba [National Catholic Register, 6-2-23]

Archaeology and King Solomon’s Mines [National Catholic Register, 6-29-23]

Was King David Mythical or Historical? [National Catholic Register, 7-24-23]

Edomites

Edomites: Archaeology Confirms the Bible (As Always) [6-10-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #42: 12th c. BC Moabite & Ammonite Kings (The Broad Definition of “King” in the Ancient Near East, + Biblical Use of “Chiefs of Edom”) [7-19-21]

Exodus / Hebrew Bondage in Egypt

Seidensticker Folly #5: Has Archaeology Disproven the Exodus? [8-15-18]

A Pharaoh’s Death (Ex 2:23) & Exodus Chronology [7-27-22]

Egyptian Proof of Hebrew Slaves During Jacob’s Time [2-17-23]

When Was the Exodus: 15th or 13th Century B.C.? [4-15-23]

Evidence for Hebrews / Semites in Egypt: 2000-1200 B.C. [5-3-23]

Did the Hebrews Cross the Red Sea or the “Reed Sea”?: And Which Specific Body of Water Did They Cross, According to the Combined Deductions and Determinations of the Bible and Archaeology? [5-9-23]

Biblical Hebrew Names with an Egyptian Etymology [5-9-23]

Ezra

Ezra: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

Garden of Eden

“Search for the Garden of Eden”: available only in Chapter One in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

General

God: Historical Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-9-15]

Archaeology: Biblical Maximalism vs. Minimalism (+ Dates of the Patriarchs and Other Major Events and People in the Old Testament) [9-9-21]

OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations (From Noah to Joshua”: the Hebrew Scripture is Extraordinarily Accurate & True to History) [9-21-21]

Timeline of the Patriarchs: A Summary [Facebook, 9-28-22]

Genesis: Table of Nations

Genesis 10 “Table of Nations”: Authentic History [8-25-21]

Table of Nations (Gen 10), Interpretation, & History [11-27-21]

Gerasenes / Gadarenes

Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Swine, & Atheist Skeptics [7-25-17]

Gerasenes, Gadarenes, Pigs and “Contradictions” [National Catholic Register, 1-29-21]

Goliath

Goliath’s Height: Six Feet 9 Inches, 7 Feet 8, or 9 Feet 9? [7-4-21]

Gospels: Accuracy of

Are the Gospels & Acts “Propaganda”? (Unpacking a Statement from Historian A. N. Sherwin-White) [2-16-22]

Hebrew Language

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

Archaeology & a Proto-Hebrew Language in 1800 BC [1-31-23]

Hittites

The Hittites: Atheist “DagoodS” Lies About Christian Apologists Supposedly Lying About How Biblical Critics Once Doubted Their Historical Existence [1-10-11, at Internet Archive]

Habitually “Lying” Christian Apologists?: 19th Century “Hittites Didn’t Exist” Radical Skepticism and Examination of Atheist DagoodS’ Replies and Charges [1-15-11, at Internet Archive]

Hittite Skeptics Chronicles, Part III: Specific Citations of Denial (Budge, Sumner, & Conder) and Biblical Historical Accuracy (in the Time of Elisha) [1-19-11, at Internet Archive]

Great Hittite Wars, Part IV: Lying Christian Egyptologist M. G. Kyle?: Atheist DagoodS Disputes Sir A. E. Wallis Budge’s Reported Hittite Skepticism [1-21-11, at Internet Archive]

“Higher” Hapless Haranguing of Hypothetical Hittites (19th C.) [10-21-11; abridged 7-7-20]

“Israelites” as a Title

Pearce’s Potshots #27: Anachronistic “Israelites”? [5-25-21]

Jesus

The Census, Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem, & History [2-3-11]

“’Bethany Beyond the Jordan’: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus’ Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan” [8-11-14]

Archaeology: Jesus’ Crucifixion, Tomb, & the Via Dolorosa [9-18-14]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” (with Jimmy Akin) [7-25-17]

Reply to Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce: “Contradictory” Genealogies of Christ? [7-27-17]

December 25th Birth of Jesus?: Interesting Considerations [12-11-17]

Seidensticker Folly #4: Jesus Never Existed, Huh? [8-14-18]

Was Christ Actually Born Dec. 25? [National Catholic Register, 12-18-18]

The Bethlehem Nativity, Babe Ruth, and History [National Catholic Register, 1-1-19]

Are the Two Genealogies of Christ Contradictory? [National Catholic Register, 1-5-19]

Jesus’ Resurrection: Scholarly Defenses of its Historicity [4-12-20]

Jesus’ December Birth & Grazing Sheep in Bethlehem (Is a December 25th Birthdate of Jesus Impossible or Unlikely Because Sheep Can’t Take the Cold?) [12-26-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #11: 28 Defenses of Jesus’ Nativity (Featuring Confirmatory Historical Tidbits About the Magi and Herod the Great) [1-9-21]

Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents: Myth & Fiction? [2-10-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #52: No Tomb for Jesus? (Skeptical Fairy Tales and Fables vs. the Physical Corroborating Evidence of Archaeology in Jerusalem) [11-10-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #64: Archaeology & 1st Century Nazareth [2-25-22]

Quirinius & Luke’s Census: Resources on the “Difficulty” [2-26-22]

Cana: Archaeological Comparison of “Rival” Sites [3-29-23]

What We Know About Nazareth at the Time of Jesus [National Catholic Register, 11-24-23]

“Upper Room” (Last Supper & Pentecost) & Archaeology [9-30-24]

Job

Book of Job, Archaeology, History, & Geography [4-1-23]

John: Historical Accuracy of

Archaeology & the Gospel of John’s Accuracy (Ch. 15 of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible) [3-2-23]

Joseph (Patriarch)

“Joseph in Egypt”: available only in Chapter Five of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan / Era of the Judges

Pearce’s Potshots #32: No Evidence for Joshua’s Conquest? [5-28-21]

What Archaeology Tells Us About Joshua’s Conquest [National Catholic Register, 7-8-21]

Ehrman Errors #5: Hazor Battles “Contradictions”? (Including Possible Archaeological Evidence for the Battle of Deborah in Judges 4) [3-23-22]

Ehrman Errors #6: Joshua’s Conquest & Science [3-23-22]

Archaeology & Judges-Era Lead & Tin Trade [1-26-23]

“Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan” is now only available as Chapter Ten in my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

Samson’s Death-Scene: Archaeological Confirmation [3-27-23]

Did Samson Really Destroy the Philistine Temple With His Bare Hands? [National Catholic Register, 4-28-23]

Joshua’s Conquest: Rapid, Always Violent, & Total? [5-1-23]

Judas & the Thirty Silver Coins

Judas’ “Thirty Coins of Silver”: Archaeology & History [6-18-23]

Luke: Historical Accuracy of

“St. Luke Knows His Stuff” is only available as Chapter Fourteen of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023).

Moabites & Ammonites

Pearce’s Potshots #42: 12th c. BC Moabite & Ammonite Kings (The Broad Definition of “King” in the Ancient Near East, + Biblical Use of “Chiefs of Edom”) [7-19-21]

Moses and the Pentateuch

Did Moses Exist? No Absolute Proof, But Strong Evidence (Pearce’s Potshots #35, in Which Our Brave Hero Classifies Moses as “a Mythological Figure” and I Reply!) [6-14-21]

Using the Bible to Debunk the Bible Debunkers (Is the Mention of ‘Pitch’ in Exodus an Anachronism?) [National Catholic Register, 6-30-21]

Archaeology, Ancient Hebrew, & a Written Pentateuch (+ a Plausible Scenario for Moses Gaining Knowledge of Hittite Legal Treaties in His Egyptian Official Duties) [7-31-21]

In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai (Fascinating Topographical and Biblical Factors Closely Examined) [8-16-21]

The Tabernacle: Egyptian & Near Eastern Precursors (Archaeology Entirely Backs Up the Extraordinary Accuracy of Holy Scripture Yet Again) [9-8-21]

Fascinating Biblical Considerations About Mount Sinai [National Catholic Register, 11-23-22]

Does the Pentateuch Claim to be Inspired Revelation? + Do the Several Third-Person References to Moses in the Pentateuch Prove That He Didn’t Write It? [12-14-22]

Moses Wrote the Torah: 50 External Evidences (Reply to Atheist “Lex Lata”) [12-14-22]

Moses, Science, and Water from Rocks [Catholic365, 11-18-23]
*

Nehemiah

Nehemiah: Archaeological & Historical Corroboration [3-31-23]

Archaeology Supports the Book of Nehemiah [National Catholic Register, 11-30-23]

New Testament

Ten New Testament Archaeological Confirmations [5-11-23]

Noah’s Flood

Noah’s Ark: Josephus, Earlier Historians, & Church Fathers (Early Witnesses of the Ark Resting on Jabel [Mt.] Judi) [3-16-22]

Biblical Size of Noah’s Ark: Literal or Symbolic? [3-16-22]

Peter

Archaeology & St. Peter’s House in Capernaum [9-23-14]

Philistines

Pearce’s Potshots #33: No Philistines in Moses’ Time? [6-3-21]

Ehrman Errors #1: Philistines, Beersheba, Bible Accuracy [3-18-22]

Prophets

Prophet Elisha and Archaeology [4-4-22]

Prophet Elijah and Archaeology [4-13-22]

Is There Any Archaeological Support for the Prophet Daniel? [National Catholic Register, 4-25-22]

See “Digging Up Proofs of the Prophets”: Chapter Twelve of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023).

Sodom and Gomorrah

Sodom & Gomorrah & Archaeology: North of the Dead Sea? [10-9-14]

Sodom Obliterated (Chapter Four from my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible) [1-26-23]

Tower of Babel

Pearce’s Potshots #54: Tower of Babel; Who’s the “Idiot”? [11-24-21]

The Tower of Babel, Archaeology, & Linguistics [4-13-23]

Linguistic Confusion and the Tower of Babel [National Catholic Register, 6-21-22]

Tower of Babel: Dialogue with a Linguist [6-26-23]

* * *

Helpful General Articles from Others

53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically (Bible History Daily / Biblical Archeology Society, 10-13-20)

SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY AND THE BIBLE / SCIENTIFIC HARMONY WITH THE BIBLE

Adam and Eve (and Genetics)

Historicity of Adam and Eve [9-23-11; rev. 1-6-22]

Defending the Literal, Historical Adam of the Genesis Account (vs. Catholic Eric S. Giunta) [9-25-11]

Adam & Eve of Genesis: Historical & the Primal Human Pair [11-28-13]

Adam & Eve & Original Sin: Disproven by Science? [9-7-15]

Dialogue with Philosopher Dr. Lydia McGrew on Adam and Eve and the Polygenism vs. Monogenism Genetics Issue [Facebook, 5-11-17]

Only Ignoramuses Believe in Adam & Eve? [9-9-15]

Animals: Mythical

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

The Bible and Mythical Animals [National Catholic Register, 10-9-19]

Pearce Pablum #71: Dragons in the Bible? [3-4-22]

Demonic Possession

Demonic Possession or Epilepsy? (Bible & Science) [2015]

Disease / Germ Theory

Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs [12-10-19]

Seidensticker Folly #36: Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases [3-16-20]

Bible on Germ Theory: An Atheist Hems & Haws (. . . while I offer a serious answer to his caricature regarding the Bible and genetics) [8-31-21]

Earth: Creation of

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources) [10-23-15]

Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time: + Refutation of a Clueless Atheist “Biblical Contradiction” [5-11-17]

The Genesis Creation Accounts and Hebrew Time [National Catholic Register, 7-2-17]

Earth: Sphere

Biblical Flat Earth (?) Cosmology: Dialogue w Atheist (vs. Matthew Green) [9-11-06]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

Carrier Critique #3: Bible Teaches a Flat Earth? [3-31-22]

Evolution, Theory of

Catholicism and Evolution / Charles Darwin’s Religious Beliefs [8-19-09]

Dialogue with an Atheist on Evolution [9-17-15]

My Claims Regarding Piltdown Man & the Scopes Trial Twisted [10-10-15]

Scripture, Science, Genesis, & Evolutionary Theory: Mini-Dialogue with an Atheist [8-14-18; rev. 2-18-19]

Catholics & Origins: Irreducible Complexity or Theistic Evolution? [6-17-19]

Why I Believe in “Non-Miraculous” Intelligent Design [6-20-19]

Debate: Can Intelligent Design Be “Non-Interventionist”? (vs. Dr. Lydia McGrew) [6-21-19]

Exodus and Moses

Acacia, Ark of the Covenant, & Biblical Accuracy [8-24-21]

Science, Hebrews and a Bevy of Quail [National Catholic Register, 11-14-21]

“Out of Egypt with Moses,” “The Ten Plagues and their Aftermath,” and “The Red Sea, and Miracles in the Desert” are only available in Chapters Seven to Nine of my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 15, 2023)

Manna: Possibly a Natural Phenomenon? [5-5-23]

Flood & Noah

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; rev. 5-10-17]

Adam & Eve, Cain, Abel, & Noah: Historical Figures [2-20-08]

Noah’s Flood & Catholicism: Basic Facts [8-18-15]

Do Carnivores on the Ark Disprove Christianity? [9-10-15]

New Testament Evidence for Noah’s Existence [National Catholic Register, 3-11-18]

Local Flood & Atheist Ignorance of Christian Thought [7-2-21]

Local Mesopotamian Flood: An Apologia [7-9-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #47: Mockery of a Local Flood (+ Striking Analogies Between the Biblical Flood and the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927) [9-30-21]

Pearce’s Potshots #48: Flood of Irrationality & Cowardice [10-1-21]

Noah’s Flood: Not Anthropologically Universal + Miscellany [10-5-21]

Debate: Historical Local Flood & Biblical Hyperbole [11-12-21]

Pearce Pablum #72: Flood: 25 Criticisms & Non Sequiturs [3-8-22]

Atheist Jonathan MS Pearce’s Straw Man Global Flood [8-30-22]

Garden of Eden

General

Dialogue w Atheist on Christianity & the Scientific Method [7-19-01]

God and “Natural Evil”: A Thought Experiment [2002]

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Richard Dawkins & “Religion vs. Science” Mentality (+ Galileo Redux) [3-20-08]

Reply to Atheist Scientist Jerry Coyne: Are Science and Religion Utterly Incompatible? [7-13-10]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

Books by Dave Armstrong: Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? [10-20-10]

Typical “Science vs. Catholicism” Criticisms (and Myths) from an Agnostic Scientist Refuted [7-29-11]

Science and Christianity (Copious Resources) [11-3-15]

Dialogue with an Agnostic on Catholicism and Science [9-12-16]

Richard Dawkins: D- Grade for Science & Christianity [5-23-18]

Seidensticker Folly #21: Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

Seidensticker Folly #23: Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science [9-9-19]

The Bible is Not “Anti-Scientific,” as Skeptics Claim [National Catholic Register, 10-23-19]

Modern Science is Built on a Christian Foundation [National Catholic Register, 5-6-20]

Seidensticker Folly #44: Historic Christianity & Science [8-29-20]

OT & Archaeology: 25 Fascinating Confirmations (From Noah to Joshua”: the Hebrew Scripture is Extraordinarily Accurate & True to History) [9-21-21]

“Nature Miracles”: Natural Hypotheses for God’s Actions (For Example: Noah’s Flood, Parting of the Red Sea, Quails, Earth Swallowing up Sinners, Sodom & Gomorrah, & Water from the Rocks) [10-30-21]

Goliath

Goliath’s Height: Six Feet 9 Inches, 7 Feet 8, or 9 Feet 9? [7-4-21]

Herod Agrippa “Eaten by Worms”

Herod Agrippa I “Eaten By Worms”: Myth or Plausible? [6-20-23]

Jericho

Jericho and Archaeology — Disproof of the Bible? (Here is one possible explanation for the high level of erosion in Jericho) [National Catholic Register, 9-26-21]

Jericho: Did the Walls Collapse Due to Resonance? [5-1-23]

What Made the Walls of Jericho Fall? [National Catholic Register, 5-20-23]

Jesus

Resurrection Debate #4: No “Leafy Branches” on Palm Sunday? [4-19-21]

Resurrection (?) #10: “Blood & Water” & Medical Science [4-25-21]

Carrier Critique #2: Crucifixion Eclipse? [3-30-22]

Darkness at Jesus’ Crucifixion — Solar Eclipse or Sandstorm? [National Catholic Register, 4-15-22]

Jonah

Was Jonah in the Belly of a Whale? Yes, But . . . [3-27-23]

Did God Raise Jonah from the Dead? [National Catholic Register, 4-20-23]

Medical Science

Carrier Critique #4: Bible & Disease & Medicine (+ Medical Advances Made in the Christian-Dominated Middle Ages) [3-31-22]

Miracles and Science

The Resurrection: Hoax or History? [cartoon tract; art by Dan Grajek, 1985]

Silly Atheist Arguments vs. the Resurrection & Miracles [2002]

Biblical and Historical Evidences for Raising the Dead [9-24-07; revised for National Catholic Register, 2-8-19]

Dialogue with an Atheist on Miracles & First Premises [12-18-10]

Exchange on Miracles & Hyper-Rationalism [12-7-15]

Dialogues with Atheists on Miracles [6-8-16]

Does God Still Perform Miracles? (Some Evidence) [5-26-18]

Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Brief Exchange [7-3-18]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]

Miracles & Scientific Method: Dialogue with Atheist [2-22-19]

Atheist Desire for Amazing Divine Miracles / Incorruptibles [2-23-19]

David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #6: Chapters 5-6 (Supernatural & Miracles / Biblical Literary Genres & Figures / Perpetual Virginity / Healing & Belief / Persecution of Jesus in Nazareth) [8-18-19]

Seidensticker Folly #39: “The Sun Stood Still” (Joshua) [4-16-20]

Reflections on Joshua and “the Sun Stood Still” [National Catholic Register, 10-22-20]

Debate On Miracles Vs. An Atheist [1-6-23]

Patriarchs: Old Ages of

969-Year-Old Methuselah (?) & Genesis Numbers [7-12-21]

Souls and Spirits

Seidensticker Folly #8: Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

Seidensticker Folly #71: Spirit-God “Magic”; 68% Dark Energy Isn’t? [2-2-21]

Dark Energy, Dark Matter and the Light of the World [National Catholic Register, 2-17-21]

Star of Bethlehem

Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus (Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men & Jesus’ Birth & Infancy) [12-14-20]

Timeline: Star of Bethlehem, Herod’s Death, & Jesus’ Birth (Chronology of Harmonious Data from History, Archaeology, the Bible, and Astronomy) [12-15-20]

Who Were the “Wise Men,” or Magi? [National Catholic Register, 12-16-20]

Conjunctions, the Star of Bethlehem and Astronomy [National Catholic Register, 12-21-20]

Star of Bethlehem: Refuting Silly Atheist Objections [12-26-20]

Route Taken by the Magi: Educated Guess [12-28-20]

Star of Bethlehem: More Silly Atheist “Objections” [12-29-20]

Astronomy, Exegesis and the Star of Bethlehem [National Catholic Register, 12-31-20]

Pearce’s Potshots #12: Supernatural Star of Bethlehem? (Biblical View of Astronomy, Laws of Nature, and the Natural World) [1-11-21]

Star of Bethlehem: Natural or Supernatural? [1-13-21]

Bible Commentaries & Matthew 2:9 (Star of Bethlehem) [1-13-21]

Star of Bethlehem: Reply to Obnoxious Atheist Aaron Adair (Plus Further Related Exchanges with Aaron and a Few Others in an Atheist Combox) [1-14-21]

Star of Bethlehem: 2nd Reply to Arrogant Aaron Adair [1-18-21]

Star Researcher Aaron Adair: “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!” [1-19-21]

Star of Bethlehem & Magi: 20 Fascinating Aspects [1-22-21]

Ehrman Errors #9: Star Stopping Over a House?! [3-25-22]

Did the Star of Bethlehem Move Like Tinker Bell? (+ Discussion of Micah 5:2: The Prophecy of Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem) [12-19-22]

Star of Bethlehem: Scientific Verification (vs. an Atheist) [12-20-22]

Was the Star of Bethlehem a Natural Celestial Event? [12-21-22]

“The Star Went Before Them” (The Word Set in Stone) (Retrograde Motion and the Phenomenological Language of the Bible) [7-24-23]

Universe, Origin of: Cosmological Argument / Big Bang

Cosmological Argument for God (Resources) [10-23-15]

Cause of the Big Bang: Atheist Geologist Challenged [4-21-17]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

Seidensticker Folly #38: Eternal Universe vs. an Eternal God [4-16-20]

Seidensticker Folly #42: Creation “Ex Nihilo” [8-28-20]

Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible [National Catholic Register, 10-1-20]

Universe, Origin of: General

Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” [8-19-15]

Clarifications Regarding My Controversial Atheist “Reductio” Paper [8-20-15]

Exchanges with Atheists on Ultimate Origins [11-19-15]

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms [National Catholic Register, 10-16-16]

Atheists & Inherent “Omnipotent” Creative Qualities of Godless Matter [7-26-17]

Dialogue w Atheist on the Origin of the Universe [6-23-18]

Dialogue with an Atheist on “God of the Gaps” [6-24-18]

Vs. Atheist David Madison #38: Who is Insulting Intelligence? (. . . with emphasis on the vexing and complex question of the ultimate origins of matter and life) [12-11-19]

Seidensticker Folly #75: Why a Universe at All? [11-5-21]

Debate: a Universe Self-Created from Nothing? [11-9-21]

Universe, Origin of: Teleological Argument / Intelligent Design

Albert Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”: In His Own Words [originally 2-17-03; expanded greatly on 8-26-10]

Theistic Argument from Longing or Beauty, & Einstein [3-27-08; rev. 3-14-19]

Teleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources) [10-27-15]

Dogmatic Materialist Scientists vs. Intelligent Design [10-29-15]

Seidensticker Folly #41: Argument from Design [8-25-20]

God the Designer?: Dialogue with an Atheist [8-27-20]

Universe: Sustained by God

“Quantum Entanglement” & the “Upholding” Power of God [10-20-20]

Quantum Mechanics and the “Upholding” Power of God [National Catholic Register, 11-24-20]

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible [1-24-23]

Introduction for My Book: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible + Near Eastern Archaeological Periods and Timeline of the Patriarchs [1-24-23]

***

Photo credit: Kenneth A. Kitchen is the dean of biblical archaeologists in our time. His book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, was published in 2006. [from the Amazon book page]

***

Summary: I collect hundreds of my blog posts having to do with the Bible & archaeology (scientific evidence that supports its accuracy) & also the relationship between the Bible & science, generally.

Updated on 30 September 2024

Bible and Tradition

historical accuracy of the Bible

Philosophy & Science

archaeology & the Bible

Bible & archaeology

Bible & Science

biblical archaeology

science & the Bible

2021-05-21T11:44:15-04:00

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Atheist JMS Pearce Sez His Combox Will Be Civil (Right!)

Last updated on: May 21, 2021 at 11:44 am By Dave Armstrong

Jonathan MS Pearce is a prominent online atheist. He runs the blog called A Tippling Philosopher. I have had several dialogues with him, where he is perfectly civil. But his comboxes are a completely different story. Yesterday he put up a post where once again he called for civility in his comboxes. He wrote:

So it’s that time of the month where I am having to talk about commenting again. We have got to a situation where Bert [co-blogger on the site] is getting a little bit frustrated (and that is probably understating it a good deal), and I am even receiving a couple of unsolicited messages about it from randoms. . . . The comment threads here are active. And that is great. But they could be more productive and civil.

I would like polite and civil discourse. But I would also like high-level discourse. And this is where the tension arises. We have two problems:

That which is said in the first place.

That which is said in reply. . . .

So, what am I asking? Please please simply deal with the ideas and do no[t] attack the person. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard. Fellow skeptics – we should be convincing people to our frame of mind. If they are not ready, attacking their personality forcefully and without civility will not work in our favour.

There should be two courses of action:

Robust and well-formed and evidenced argument.

Ignore them.

If people are exhibiting trollish behaviour, think about what they are seeking – attention. Don’t give it to them. . . .

Anyway, over the next few months, I will be developing a new comments policy. I am going to think long and hard about how best to approach this. As with every moral scenario, it is all about the goal. What do I want? What do I want my gaff to be? What do I expect of my commenters and why?

In the meantime, let’s ALL think about the way we interact, who we are appealing to, who we think our audience is, and why we say what we say in the way we say it.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, if there is a solution, there’s no point getting angry; if there is no solution, there is no point getting angry.

Easier said than done, right? But still…

I hate to be a “wet blanket” over against a worthy cause, but I replied there:

Too little too late for someone like me, who has already become completely fed up with not just the double standards in moderation of this forum, but those of all atheist forums I have ever seen (and, to be fair, almost all Christian forums, too; this is a problem of nonexistent or inherently flawed moderation across the board).

Jonathan had said that he was happy I and other Christians were here, so it wouldn’t be an echo chamber. A few other people (amidst the general clamor, stench, and din) said that I offered a few things of substance now and then, too.

I do commend him for at least seeking a higher (albeit ethically rudimentary or elementary ) ideal, but I don’t believe it’ll ever happen in fact. Atheists simply have too much hostility towards Christians. If they aren’t allowed to express that, soon this won’t be an “echo chamber”, but rather, a ghost town.

Many Christians have had it with ubiquitous atheist verbal diarrhea. I ain’t alone, believe me. Any atheist who actually wants discussion with theists and Christians will soon have to seek it almost exclusively on our sites (I predict).

Now people can blast me as a hypocrite since I already said I had left. Go ahead. Ignore Jonathan’s advice. This is simply an exception (so don’t try to interact with me). I have been trying to have a discussion with atheists for far too long (though there were a few here who could actually sustain an amiable and rational discussion, as I have happily acknowledged), so — patience exhausted — I have now moved on to other areas of my apologetics (and there are many).

Best wishes in trying to find educated Christians (able to engage in real and substantive dialogue), who are willing to endure the ridiculous nonsense that always ensues within minutes. But I suppose you can always find masochists and contentious folks who actually enjoy ludicrous exchanges.

There are atheists who have become fed up with all the incessant mudslinging and lack of substance, too. I mentioned two of them in articles below. One who goes by the nickname “DagoodS”: a worthy opponent with whom I have had several dialogues and met in person as well, gave up on these discussions, just as I have, for the same reason. He wrote:

I still review some theistic discussions and websites, although I very, very rarely post, and even then, it quickly fades to nothing. . . .

I stopped arguing because I became bored. It was interesting for a while, and I had a huge passion for it. . . .

[T]he internet became a cesspool of vicious war where it was no longer sufficient to have the best argument; you MUST call the enemy (and every person who disagrees in the slightest is an enemy), every name conceivable, the worst vermin who ever lived, and the most idiotic person walking the face of the earth. It is not enough to disagree-you must destroy. . . .
*

So I have moved on from the internet. Still enjoy lurking and keeping up to date. Still read the memes and the pithy snopes-debunked quotes on Facebook or twitter. But I stay out. . . .

Why I have disappeared from internet Christian debates? Because I am busy pursuing other interests with my wife, my family, my friends and my life. (2-27-18)

Of course, he is talking mainly about how Christians treated him. I never denied that many Christians online act like morons and jerks (especially to atheists and leftists). That’s why I already stated above that Christian comboxes are almost as bad as atheist ones, and I rarely visit them, either. Both sides have to realize that the unethical behavior is a disgrace, and to cease doing it. Where DagoodS and I fully agree, as an atheist and a Christian apologist, is that one ought to simply be able to have normal discussions, without the rancor and (as he put it) “cesspool of vicious war.”

It didn’t happen on Jonathan’s blog. I had hoped beyond hope that it could and would. Now Jonathan’s blog partner Bert has had enough of it. I think atheists would do well to learn from my experience and now my decision to leave and cease attempting dialogue with atheists (at least for some time if not indefinitely), and also the report of a thoughtful, articulate atheist like DagoodS. I think Jonathan truly does desire good discussion to occur. But it never will without a “no tolerance for B $” moderation policy. Take it for what it’s worth . . .

“DagoodS” made the move from anti-theist atheist (always trying to prove us wrong and show how silly we supposedly are) to what might be called a “pro-active atheist.” I highly commend him for that, as far as it goes. Rather than concentrating on the negative, he is simply living (and enjoying) his life as an atheist and letting Christians live theirs.

I respect that. Me: I have sought to find common ground with atheists: to be ecumenical: to show that we are not anti-science and anti-reason or anti-evidence and that we have many of the same basic human goals as atheists do. It hasn’t worked (the hostility and massive misunderstandings are too great), and I am left hyper-frustrated and disgusted yet again. When idealism dies it’s an ugly and very sad thing.

The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians [9-15-15]

Angry Anti-Theism Strikes Again! (“Dave Armstrong is Delusional”) [3-31-17]

Illogical Angry Atheists: Five Typical Examples [7-21-17]

Not Many “Angry Atheists” Online? You be the Judge [7-22-17]

Reply to a Condescending Agnostic Re Science [6-25-18]

Hysterical Frenzy vs. Me on Atheist Seidensticker’s Blog [8-10-18]

Sex, Lies, & Videotape (“Discussion” w Angry Atheist) [2-15-19]

Atheist Eloquently & Admirably Denounces Anti-Theism [4-12-19]

“Angry Atheist” Ring-Around-the-Rosey Example #763 [8-4-19]

Anti-Theist Atheist Snobfest & Insult Extravaganza [12-7-20]

Atheist Blogger Renounces Angry Anti-Theist Obsessions [3-16-21]

How Anti-Theist Atheists “Argue” Online (I.e., Insult) (examples from Pearce’s own blog, of insults against myself alone: made between 3-11-21 and 3-18-21) [3-18-21]

***

Photo credit: [Pexels.com / Pixabay / CC0 license]

***

Summary: JMS Pearce is one of many atheists who have claimed that their comboxes will be civil and free of [innumerable] insults. My reply: this virtually never happens, and it won’t this time, either.

***