Dialogue: Sexist, Misogynist Bible and Christianity?

Sexuality and Gender Issues

women in Christianity

women's rights

2026-06-05T23:55:51-04:00

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.

Vs. Atheist David Madison #39: Jesus the Xenophobic Bigot?

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

And did Jesus minister exclusively to Jews and not Gentiles at all (an alleged Gospel inconsistency)?

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. You can see (by the number in the title) how many times I have replied to his videos or articles. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the ultra-insulting Debunking Christianity blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

John “you are an idiot!” Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices of my replies (er, sorry, rants, rather).

This is one of the replies to Dr. Madison’s series, “Things we Wish Jesus Hadn’t Said” (podcast episodes 13-25). I have already replied to every previous episode. He states in his introduction to this second series:

[A]pologists (preachers and priests) who explain away—well, they try—the nasty and often grim message in many of the sayings attributed to Jesus. Indeed, the gospels are a minefield; many negatives about Jesus are in full view.

I am replying to episode 13, entitled, “Matthew 15:22-28, Jesus calls a Gentile woman a dog” (7-23-19). Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue, and those of other atheists in purple, green, and brown.

*****

Matthew 15:22-28 (RSV) And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” [23] But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” [24] He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” [25] But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” [26] And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” [27] She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” [28] Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

In this installment, Dr. Madison trots out what is apparently a big favorite of anti-theist atheist polemicists. This is my fourth time dealing with it, so it’s nothing new. One atheist who goes by the nick “BeeryUSA” stated that this very thing ( a complete misunderstanding on his part) made him cease to be a Christian:

I recall the precise passage that I was reading when I realized that Jesus was actually a xenophobic nationalist . . . and therefore could not be any kind of god I could worship:

Matthew 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So this psycho Jesus refuses to treat a woman’s daughter simply because she was a Canaanite. All of a sudden, my desire to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt melted away and, with my new-found skepticism, it didn’t take long from there for all the rest of it to unravel.

Likewise, Bible-Basher Bob Seidensticker (whom I have refuted 35 times with no reply whatsoever), opined:

At the end of the gospel story, Jesus has risen and is giving the disciples their final instructions.

Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

This is the familiar Great Commission, and it’s a lot more generous than what has been called the lesser commission that appears earlier in the same gospel:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6)

This was not a universal message. We see it again in his encounter with the Canaanite woman:

[Jesus rejected her plea to heal her daughter, saying] “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” (Matthew 15:24–6)

You might say that a ministry with limited resources had to prioritize, but that doesn’t apply here. Don’t forget that Jesus was omnipotent. . . .

Let’s revisit the fact that Matthew is contradictory when it says both “Make disciples of all nations” and “Do not go among the Gentiles [but only] to the lost sheep of Israel.” There are no early papyrus copies of Matthew 28 (the “Make disciples of all nations” chapter), and the earliest copies of this chapter are in the codices copied in the mid-300s. That’s almost three centuries of silence from original to our best copies, a lot of opportunity for the Great Commission to get “improved” by copyists. I’m not saying it was, of course; I’m simply offering one explanation for why the gospel in Matthew has Jesus change so fundamental a tenet as who he came to save.

Dr. Madison’s buddy, John Loftus also chimed in, along the same lines, in his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages). I have now critiqued it ten times without (you guessed it!) any counter-reply from him. In it, he wrote:

[H]e also called a Syrophoenician woman part of a race of “dogs” and only begrudgingly helped her (Mark 7:24-30). (p. 123)

Now, Dr. David Madison comes along in his podcast and makes these claims:

But guess what? In Matthew 28, at the end of the Gospel, verse 19, the resurrected Jesus says, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” . . . this Jesus quote was probably added to the story then [50 years after Jesus’ death] and it certainly does not match, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The Gospel writer didn’t notice much, contradictions, sometimes. . . . what a nasty thing to say: “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” . . . The ideal Jesus that people adore is punctured by this Jesus, quote: this insult, calling her a dog.

Apologists Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt thoroughly dispense of this “objection” concerning Jesus’ use of the word “dog” (complete with a good dose of sorely needed humor) in their article, “Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?”:

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” . . . Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews…. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” . . .

Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added). . . .

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. . . .

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

As to the groundless charge of internal contradiction (sent to Israel only / disciples evangelize Israel only “vs.” evangelizing the whole world), here is my reply:

First of all, being sent to Israel doesn’t also mean that He would ignore all non-Israelis. This is untrue. The woman at the well was a Samaritan. He told the story about the good Samaritan who helped the guy who had been beaten, and concluded that he was a better neighbor than a Jew who didn’t do these things. He healed the Roman centurion’s servant, and commended his faith as better than most Jews. The Bible says that He healed this woman’s daughter (and highly commended her mother for her faith).

In the whole passage (blessed context), we readily see that Jesus was merely asking (as He often did) a rhetorical question. In effect He was asking her, “why should I heal your daughter?” She gave a great answer, and He (knowing all along that she would say what she did) did heal her.

I fail to see how this passage proves that Jesus didn’t give a fig about non-Jews. He healed the Canaanite woman’s daughter! How does that prove what atheists contend? Jesus heals a Canaanite girl (after being asked to by her mother), and that “proves” that He only healed and preached to Jews; hence it is a “contradiction”? Surely, this is a form of “logic” that no one’s ever seen before.

Another example, even more famous, is Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-29). He shares the Gospel very explicitly with her, stating that He is the source of eternal life (4:14), and that He is the Jewish Messiah (4:25-26): a thing that she later proclaimed in the city (4:28-29, 39-42).

The text even notes that — normally — Jews avoided Samaritans: “The Samaritan woman said to him, ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar’ia?’ For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” (4:9; RSV).

A third instance of Jesus’ outreach beyond the Jews is His interaction with the Roman centurion:

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper’na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” [7] And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” [8] But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,’ and he goes, and to another, `Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,’ and he does it.” [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Note how Jesus not only readily healed the Roman centurion’s servant (8:7, 13), but also “marveled” at his faith and commended it as superior to the faith of anyone “in Israel” (8:10). And that led Him to observe that many Gentiles will be saved, whereas many Jews will not be saved (8:11-12). But there is much more:

A fourth example is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37). The whole point of it was to show that Samaritans were truly neighbors to Jews if they helped them, as the man did in the parable. I drove on the road (from Jerusalem to Jericho) which was the setting of this parable.

A fifth example is from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus told His followers, “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14).

A sixth example is the common motif of Jesus saying that He came to save not just Jews, but the world (Jn 6:33, 51; 8:12 [“I am the light of the world”]; 9:5; 12:46 [“I have come as light into the world . . .”]; 12:47 [“to save the world”]; ). The Evangelists in the Gospels, and John the Baptist state the same (Jn 1:29; 3:16-17, 19).

A seventh example is Jesus praying for His disciples in their missionary efforts: “As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:18).

An eighth example is the parable of the weeds, which showed a universal mission field fifteen chapters before Matthew 28: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; [38] the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; . . .” (13:37-38).

A ninth example is Jesus’ statements that “all men” can potentially be saved (Jn 12:32; 13:35).

The book of Acts recounts St. Peter and St. Paul massively reaching out to Gentiles. I need not spend any time documenting that.

As anyone can see, the evidence in the Bible against this ridiculous atheist critique is abundant and undeniable. Jesus never says (nor does the entire New Testament ever say) that He came to “save Israel” or be the “savior of Israel.” Anyone who doesn’t believe me can do a word search (here’s the tool to do it). Verify it yourself. He only claims to be the “Messiah” of Israel (Jn 4:25-26): which is a different thing. When Jesus says who it is that He came to save (i.e., provided they are willing), He states explicitly that He came “to save the lost” (Lk 19:10) and “to save the world” (Jn 12:47).

Likewise, St. Paul states that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). Last I checked, sinful human beings were not confined solely to the class of Jews or Israelis.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

***

Photo credit: The Woman of Canaan at the Feet of Christ (1784, by Jean Germain Drouais (1763-1788) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Bible and Tradition

anti-Christian bigotry

David Madison

divine inspiration

2026-06-05T23:55:51-04:00

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.

Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. You can see (by the number in the title) how many times I have replied to his videos or articles. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, atheist author and polemicist, the extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the notoriously insulting Debunking Christianity blog.

Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, in order for himself and Dr. Madison to avoid replying to me. Obviously, I have “hit a nerve” over there. In any event, their utter non-responses and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I will. If my replies go out unopposed, all the better for my cause.

This is a reply to a portion of Dr. Madison’s article, Christianity Gets Slam-Dunked (8-16-19). Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

A review of Tim Sledge’s Four Disturbing Questions with One Simple Answer

. . . I always welcome books that expose the flaws, especially one that is as highly readable as Tim Sledge’s short new book (120 pages), Four Disturbing Questions with One Simple Answer: Breaking the Spell of Christian Belief. With ease and precision, Sledge focuses on just four realities that do indeed shatter the Christian spell.

. . . for thirty years he was an evangelical Southern Baptist minister, a Number 10 Christian. In his longer book, Goodbye Jesus: An Evangelical Preacher’s Journey Beyond Faith [my review is here], Sledge mentions his practice over the years of relegating his reservations—things about the faith that didn’t make sense—to a corner of his mind that he labeled, Exceptions to the Rule of Faith. Eventually the items deposited there became too weighty.

In his new book he distills many of these into four knockout categories, hence the title, Four Disturbing Questions:

(1) The Power Failure Question
(2) The Mixed Message Question
(3) The Germ Warfare Question
(4) The Better Plan Question

[. . . ]

This is the Germ Warfare Question:

“Why didn’t Jesus say anything about germs.” (p. 46)

We may wonder: Just when did Jesus become a full participant in the Holy Trinity, i.e., knowing everything that God knows? John’s gospel tells us that Jesus was present right there at creation. It’s bit difficult to reconcile this with a Galilean peasant preacher who could very well have been illiterate.

Really? It’s pretty tough to be illiterate when one reads biblical texts in a synagogue:

Luke 4:16 (RSV) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read;

Moreover, there are the several instances of Jesus rhetorically asking about whether His detractors had read various Old Testament passages (ones that He had obviously read), with the words, “have you not read . . . ?” And there are His many references to “scripture[s]”: with which He was obviously familiar. But I guess this is the sort of “higher-level learning” and logic that is (amazingly enough) beyond Dr. David Madison, doctorate (in biblical studies) and all. For him, Jesus was — more likely than not — illiterate.

But if John got it right, why not use his time on earth to pass along really useful knowledge?

Sledge provides a helpful survey of discoveries about microbes in the 19th and 20th centuries, after billions of humans had suffered horrible deaths from disease. Yet we have a thousand pages of Bible that gives no information at all about how the real world works. “But it’s hard to argue,” Sledge says, “that any time was too soon for humans to learn about the microscopic organisms that cause so much sickness and death—germs.” (p. 35)

Yet Jesus the moralist was more concerned about sin. “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” (Mark 7:15). Sledge is generous, but gets in his zinger: “…Jesus was focused on the importance of inner spiritual change over outward religious ceremony. But wouldn’t this have been a great time to explain that they should wash their hands for health purposes, a good time to tell people about germs, a good time to talk about why they should be careful where they get their drinking water, along with a few tips about sewage disposal?” (p. 42)

“Why didn’t the God of the universe—walking among mankind in the flesh as Jesus—do a sidebar talk on germs?” (p. 43)

“God had been watching silently for thousands of years by the time Jesus came along. It was late in the game, but couldn’t the Son of God—the one described as the Great Physician—have made a greater contribution to human health than healing a few people while he was on earth?” (p. 46)

Horrendous suffering—both human and animal—is built in; it’s just how the world works. Any theism that posits a caring, Master-Craftsman god, collapses on that fact alone, and this Sledge chapter is a good primer for those who rarely consider the implication of germs for their concept of a good God.

***

It so happens that I have already thoroughly answered this challenge. Atheists mostly recycle old chestnuts in their arsenal of Christian-bashing pseudo-pseudo [fallacious] supposed “arguments”. Thus, we observe that atheist Bob Seidensticker, whom I have also refuted 35 times (and again with utterly no reply back, since he is just as much an intellectual coward as Dr. Madison) brought this up in his hit-piece, “Yet More on the Bible’s Confused Relationship with Science (2 of 2)” (12-2-15), where he pontificated:

10. Germs? What germs?

The Bible isn’t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?

I’ll re-post my lengthy and (I think) devastating reply to this accusation in a moment. But first let me provide my previous answer to his closing lie / potshot:

Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn’t know it, neither does religion.

That’s not true. As shown, Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.

St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, both rejected astrology long before modern science, while even the most prominent modern scientists in the 16th-17th centuries, such as Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler firmly believed in it.

I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice to decisively refute a foolishly ignorant universal negative claim.

And of course, modern science (virtually the atheist’s religion: “scientism”), for all its admirable qualities and glories (I love science!) is not without much embarrassing error and foolishness, and skeletons in its own closet: like belief in the 41-year successful hoax of “Piltdown Man”. This is true even up to very recent times, as I have detailed for atheists’ convenience.

***

Here, then, is my reply (from over two months ago, contra Seidensticker’s similar “argument”) to the supposed “slam-dunk” against Christianity (made by Tim Sledge and ballyhooed by Dr. David Madison): alleged ignorance of God and the Bible regarding germs and their devastating effects:

***

Once again, five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper: “According to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.”). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Doctors today often note how the patient’s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).

***

Further note of 12-10-19: since Jesus observed Mosaic Law, including ritual washings, etc., He tacitly accepted (by His example of following it) the aspects of it that anticipated and “understood” germ theory. The knowledge was already in existence.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865), the Hungarian-Austrian physician, who discovered the principles of germ theory and hygiene, some 3000 years after Moses taught them in what became the Old Testament. Better late than never! This file comes from Wellcome Images, a website operated by Wellcome Trust, a global charitable foundation based in the United Kingdom. Refer to Wellcome blog post (archive). [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license]

***

Philosophy & Science

anti-Christian bigotry

Bible & infectious diseases

Bible & germs

Bible & sanitary conditions

Bible & Science

David Madison

Sexuality and Gender Issues

divine inspiration

2019-11-04T20:11:20-04:00

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.

Dialogue: Are Jesus, the Bible, & the Church “Sexist”?

Last updated on: November 4, 2019 at 8:11 pm By Dave Armstrong

Karin S. Tate is a Catholic and a PhD Candidate in History and Classics. She stopped by my blog to offer a critique of my paper, Is Male-Only Priesthood Sexist? (2007). Her words will be in blue. I will add further rounds of dialogue if / as they occur.

*****

This idea of “roles” in the Church is not without merit, I think, but not in the way you represent it. Rather, look at scripture – which admonishes that we each serve according to her/his abilities and talents . This is how God intends us to work—not by the dictates of gender but as human persons each with an intrinsic, God-given dignity and equality. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The Church is not reflecting this right now, and it is being prevented from doing so by thinking that is, I’m sorry, self-serving when employed by men who do not want to share the ministry.

This, of course, is part of a larger, more complex and nuanced discussion than you represent it as being. I disagree with this interpretation of what it means that Christ was a man, and what “appropriate roles” God intends for women in the church. I think that you (and the Church) might take more time to think about the implications of all your arguments, especially with regards to the equality of human beings, male and female. Is the male only priesthood sexist? Absolutely, yes, and one day the Church’s eyes will be opened, the scales will fall off, and it will see. But first we need to rid ourselves of this notion that God chooses that women have less access to the full expression of their servanthood, their baptism, and their priesthood than men (1 Peter: 2.5-9). Consider Mary and Martha. Mary, sitting at the feet of Jesus, has chosen the better part, Jesus says, and Martha, working away in the kitchen, has chosen hers (Luke 10). Both characters here are female, but that is often ignored. You would have us all be Marthas, and ignore that Jesus called some women to be Marys. Even more, he said that Mary’s part should not be taken from her.

Thanks for commenting. What denomination are you, Karin?

I don’t see how our view can automatically be regarded as “sexist.” I would have to see how you interact with my arguments in order to understand why you would think that (i.e., a true back-and-forth dialogue, which I would love to do). But you chose not to do that. Nor is differential gender roles a denial of equality in the least.

Hi Dave. I’m Catholic, and I did write a much longer engagement with your arguments but only sent the last little bit. Like I said, this is a more complex issue that needs more nuancing and I don’t think it can be done justice in this venue. I would also appreciate a back-and-forth. There’s a lot going on in each argument you present, and a reasoned, respectful reply would I think require a step-by-step examination. I am just not sure the comment section of a blog is the place.

It’s designed (at least on my blog) to be the perfect place for interaction with my arguments. We could do email, but in any event I would want to put the whole thing up as a dialogue (as I always do), so it wouldn’t be “private” in either scenario. Thus, why not here?

Now, I’m curious about what was in the “much longer” reply! :-)

The first rather obvious question is: why did Jesus choose all men for His twelve disciples? Was He (God incarnate) a sexist, too? Also, you appeal to the usual Pauline passage [Galatians 3:28] about male-female equality (I love that one); yet the same Paul in talking about bishops, casually assumes that they will always be men, by stating that they should be a “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2, RSV); and says the same even about deacons (1 Tim 3:12).

By the way, I’m not automatically opposed to women deacons. I think it could quite possibly be a very good thing. But I will accept whatever Holy Mother Church decides about that.

This may be the first obvious question to you, it is not so for me. But ok, let’s start there. Why did Jesus choose all men for his twelve? Was/Is God incarnate sexist?

No. Absolutely not. He is perfectly holy, and sexism (properly defined) is wrong, so therefore (i.e., after granting the prior premise) He is not sexist.

Well, first, I do not presume to know the mind of God.

Neither do I. But we can analyze and ponder how He he revealed Himself in Holy Scripture and through the Church that He established.

I do know that throughout the Bible God deals with humans as He finds them. . . . The whole story of scripture is of God taking humans where they are at, which is never at God’s level, obviously, and inviting them to more. God meets us where we are.

I agree. But He does so in a manner that is not fundamentally compromised, self-contradictory or “two-faced.”

Do you think that God endorses murder because he brought down the walls of Jericho or killed the Egyptians by closing in the water?

I would call that judgment, not murder. It’s a species of “just war” if you will, which is fully permitted and not inconsistent with God’s character because He is the judge of humankind.

Enter Jesus into first century AD Judea. Here, God met the people where they were at, patriarchal society and all. Was that His endorsement of that society? No. So I have to conclude that Jesus chose 12 men as his main disciples because that was what it took to meet those people where they were at, to get His message out. Not to put too fine a point on this, if Jesus had chosen women in the context of that time, he would have been considered a mad man. He would have been laughed out of the synagogues and temples, and his female followers raped and harassed. I do not think that that means that Jesus thought “oh yeah, this is the way it should be.” But He lowered Himself and became man.

I think this is about the best argument you could have for your position, and indeed, I have argued similarly (twice) with regard to slavery, in response to atheist charges that the Bible and Christianity were either pro-slavery or lax on the matter.

I think that ultimately, however, your position breaks down into several self-contradictory pieces. We both agree that God is holy and not a sexist (I am assuming). So we have to interpret the data that is provided in the inspired and infallible revelation of Scripture (that I am also assuming that you accept, or else that is a huge can of worms itself, if you do not).

So you have to explain why both Jesus and Paul say and do things that seem contradictory (granting your position). As I already noted, you cited Paul’s scripture about “no male and female.” But he also no doubt expresses other things you would reject as sexist. And it can’t all be explained by “gradual / progressive revelation.” So this forces you logically to have to pick and choose which portions of Scripture you like and think are true, and which you think are perhaps added later by a bunch of chauvinist / sexist men with an agenda.

But therein lies one of your problems. There is no consistent and non-arbitrary way to pick-and-choose in such a manner from Scripture. Jefferson tried to do it by taking scissors to all the miraculous elements of the stories of Jesus. But it can’t be done. If you do that, it turns out there there is no Jesus at all: including not a Jesus Who rose from the dead and conquered death, or died in a way that supernaturally atoned for our sin.

It’s like peeling an onion. There is no core, like an apple. You keep peeling and it ends up with nothing at all. Atheists use this method of pick-and-choose and claims that stuff was “added later” to the Bible. But what they never do is provide a consistent methodology for explaining how they know this in any particular instance. I know, because I have engaged in probably well over a hundred online debates with atheists by now.

So this is one major problem, as I see it, with your position. There is another major one that I will discuss in due course.

As for scripture assuming bishops and deacons are men—I study ancient texts and ancient male authors always use the male as the default assumed sex. A crowd of men and women is “men” or “brothers”.

That’s not always the case. I did a quick search in RSV of “men and women” and found 25 matches.

I also found eight NT instances [if my math is right] of “sister” used in a non-literal fashion (i.e., not as a sibling; in the “sister in Christ”. sense).

Were there female bishops?

No.

What is the evidence?

Good question!

There is supposedly little evidence for women deacons, for example, and what there is, is hotly debated.

Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen’chre-ae,

What exactly this meant, is debated.

I do know that it is a common fallacy to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not. Men have written history and have excluded women almost completely from their telling. Other problems present themselves when we look at how the evidence that does exist (I’m talking broadly of female action in the ancient world now, not about bishops) has been dismissed out of hand, misinterpreted, or ignored by male academics working from their own biases.

That’s true. But this gets us to what I believe is a second serious flaw in your analysis. Catholics believe that God the Holy Spirit guides His Church, and protects it from falling into error. We believe that Holy Mother Church is, therefore, both infallible and indefectible (in the positions that it binds its adherents to). This Church has always held that priests and bishops are confined to men. And it does so because 1) that is how Jesus set it up, and 2) because the priest literally represents Jesus Christ, as an alter Christus.

So you say that the absence of women priests is clearly sexism. This would mean that both God’s character and His power are implicated: that He couldn’t guide His Church so as to progressively incorporate women priests and bishops, via development over time: just like everything else developed (not evolved): including even the doctrine of Christology and trinitarianism. Development involves no change of essential characteristics.

So why hasn’t this happened? Well, because such teachings were part of the original apostolic deposit, and they can’t change; they can only consistently develop.

But even prior to that, you have to explain why it is that you automatically assume that a male-only priesthood is sexist and somehow contrary to gender equality. There are all sorts of roles that are unique to one gender. I can’t be a mother, as much as I try, no breast-feed. Those things are confined to women. I can’t experience the wonders of bearing a child in my own body for nine months. Why would you assume that because the priesthood is a thing confined to males, that this is somehow denigrating to women? As I noted in my paper above, there are now several Doctors of the Church who are women, and the Blessed Virgin Mary is the very highest, most sublime human being who ever lived, and venerated as such.

Are we to believe that a parish priest is of a higher stature than St. Teresa of Avila or Mary the Mother of Jesus? It’s absurd. This being the case, I don’t see how “sexism” could possibly be asserted. I could see how it possibly might in a Protestant denomination that doesn’t revere Mary and has no women saints (let alone Doctors), but not in Catholicism.

So rather than get hung up on this, let’s talk about how Jesus treated women. If Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), why not read that as Jesus’ endorsement of women as worthy of full participation in the church?

Yes, I do read it that way. Jesus treated women with immense respect and appreciation.

He instructed Mary Magdalene to go tell the men about the resurrection (John 20:17). Why is that not read as further proof that Jesus assumed full female participation?

It is read that way. But it is no proof of a female priesthood. It’s not because whenever the unique roles of priests are discussed, it is always with reference to men only; for example, forgiving sins of others (absolution). This was discussed with His disciples, because they represented the future priests. We’re also told (i.e., we laypeople) to forgive each other any sins, which included women, but this was a non-formal, non-sacramental meaning.

Because of human failing; because of sexist assumptions.

Not necessarily at all. That is the presupposed filter you apply to it. But you have to explain that inspired Scripture and a divinely guided Church can bring about this result: by means of a perfect, holy, loving God.

If God’s punishment for Eve (woman) was that she experience pain in childbirth and be subject to her husband (Genesis 3), that should be proof that women being subordinate to men is the result of the Fall; it is not how God wants it to be.

It depends on what one means by subordinate. Jesus was subject to His Father and also even to Mary and Joseph. Scripture teaches that. Does it follow that He is lesser than them? No, obviously not. Subjection is not inferiority. Jesus also said that it is greater to serve. St. Paul tells women merely to “respect” their husbands. But what does he tell the husband? They have to love their wives as Christ loved the Church: a far greater service and burden (if we must compare).

Jesus came to redeem humanity from sin, so why would part of that not be restoring men and women to their equal relationship on earth?

It is part of it. I deny your premise: that a male priesthood is sexist.

That’s why we can say that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. Jesus is the remedy for sexism, or ought to be.

Yes He is. You grant that Jesus treated women well. Therefore, if the male priesthood is inherently sexist, then the Holy Spirit certainly would have brought it about through history that women could be priests, too. But it hasn’t happened, either in Catholicism or Orthodoxy (which also possesses apostolic succession). Where it has come about in Christianity is in denominations that are theologically liberal: that is: the same ones that have rejected one-by-one, many other beliefs, doctrines, and practices that were present from the beginning.

That is doctrinal innovation, and therefore to be rejected, according to the rule of faith in Catholicism, which has been in place from the beginning.

***

Do Altar Girls Alter Intentions of Would-Be Altar Boys? [5-19-14]

Altar Girls: Pro and Con [May 2014]

Woman-Hating Catholic Church?: Reply to an Atheist [10-1-15]

Are Deaconesses Inconceivable? No. [5-12-16]

Dialogue with a Traditionalist Regarding Deaconesses (vs. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski) [5-13-16]

Dialogue on Altar Girls and Altar Boys [3-16-18]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Richard Gillin (6-19-10). The Revd Lucy Winkett and The Very Revd Jeffrey John [Anglican]. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]

***

Church (Ecclesiology)

2019-10-09T11:57:03-04:00

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.

Dialogue with a Deconvert on Deconversion, Part II

Last updated on: October 9, 2019 at 11:57 am By Dave Armstrong

See Part I for background. This is a continuation of that discussion, after Joe Omundson, who runs the website, Recovering from Religion: Ex-Communications, made a second lengthy counter-reply in the combox. His words will be in blue.

*****

Thanks for your additional reply. I’d like especially to clarify a few things where either you misunderstood or I did not express my view clearly enough, and make some other responses. Perhaps that may set us on a course of even more fruitful dialogue and mutual understanding.

I don’t think fundamentalism is equivalent to Christianity, but I don’t think it isn’t Christianity either.

I never said it wasn’t Christianity. It’s highly flawed Christianity: so much so that it sets off so many thousands of people straight to atheism . . .

I still think it’s a valid choice to reject fundamentalism and the rest of Christianity / all religions at the same time.

I don’t see how. It’s as if you are equating the two, when you just said you didn’t. We may call fundamentalism FC and more mainstream orthodox Christianity OC. They both share the C but are different forms of the C, just as (not a perfect analogy, but . . .) water and carbon dioxide both share oxygen but are different. Thus, logically, to reject FC is not the same as rejecting OC.

Now, if you are merely saying that all can be rejected in one fell swoop, at one time, then to my mind you would have to have additional (solid) reasons to reject OC, where it differed from FC. If someone just says, “to hell with all religion,” then that is usually mostly an emotional rather than logical / intellectual decision.

In the case of fundamentalists, they are usually mainly rejecting what they know, and (by their own account; not my mere speculation) it’s usually misguided, false aspects of fundamentalism. Having replied to many of these deconversion stories (probably 75% from former fundamentalists), I have observed this pattern over and over.

I also don’t think anyone needs an “excuse” to dismiss Christianity. It’s not an imperative. Just like you don’t need an excuse to dismiss Islam or Buddhism.

In our relativist / postmodernist / subjective world, no. They don’t, anymore than they need an excuse to change preference from vanilla to chocolate ice cream. But in the world of reason and logic, they do need such reasons: or at least such sufficient and adequate reasons ought to exist somewhere (people being of widely varying levels of education and knowledge) in the world of academia and folks like me who provide reasons for why we believe what we believe, and why we reject other religious and philosophical viewpoints.

But you might be making assumptions about people’s thought processes.

Maybe. But as I see it, I’m simply responding to expressed opinions. That’s what socratics do, and I am one of those.

Just because someone presents the most significant personal reasons for leaving fundamentalist Christianity doesn’t mean they don’t also have nuanced reasons for rejecting liberal Christianity. It just wasn’t the focal point of their own experience.

Understood. As I said, I am responding (with these deconversions) to what is written, not what is not written (which is only common sense). There may be all the submitted reasons in the world for why they changed their view, but I can only respond to what I see. And in this case, and all others so far in such analyses, I have not seen sufficient reason to reject all of Christianity.

You guys are always demanding reasons from us. I’m simply doing the same thing back. And it’s universally disliked, believe me. You have expressed one of the milder reactions, but then again, we’re not dealing with your story, so you are one huge step removed from it.

Well, that’s convenient isn’t it? How did you conclude this is the “proper” view of biblical interpretation? . . . What gives you the power to decide which parts are literal and which ones aren’t? Do sections shift from literal to symbolic as science advances?

It’s like anything else: the consensus of those (scholars and devoted amateurs like myself) who study the Bible in great depth is that it (like, in fact, all literature) has different genres, which must be understood in order to be properly interpreted. It would be like scientists talking about the nature of scientific evidence of hypotheses.

Someone comes along and asks, “well, that’s convenient isn’t it? How did you conclude this is the “proper” view of scientific evidences and hypotheses? . . . What gives you the power to decide that?” And the answer is the same: this is the consensus of scientists.

Lots of other Christians have a wide spectrum of opinions on how to interpret these things. And they’re all convinced they have the “proper view, of course.”

Absolutely. Again, like any other field of knowledge, it takes study to develop a consistent and plausible hermeneutics and exegesis. As in all fields, there are people who go down wrong paths and who reject the consensus. The problem in Christianity is that we have millions of folks who say they still believe in it but who have rejected key parts of it (liberal theology). They are being intellectually dishonest in a similar way as young earth creationists or geocentrists are not really doing science, even though they are convinced they are.

. . . To me this very much comes across as starting with the conclusion and then finding an interpretation that fits it. Cherry picking. You can do the same with any holy book.

That’s how you would see it, yes. You are wrong. What you describe is called eisegesis (reading into Scripture what we want, from our prior intellectual commitments and opinions). That’s the very worst way to approach the Bible or any piece of literature.

We might have a miscommunication about the semantics of this. My definition of fundamentalism might not be the same as yours — but when I say I oppose it, what I mean is that I oppose people pushing the idea that there’s a literal hell, and a literal heaven,

That’s true of virtually all Christians at all times, and is simply Christianity, not fundamentalism. Jesus talked more about hell than about heaven.

and the only way to get there is through the correct form of religion,

Fundamentalists and Calvinists think that, but not the vast majority of Christians now and throughout history. St. Paul in Romans 2 makes it pretty clear that those who haven’t heard or understood the gospel can possibly be saved. To sum up: we’re judged by what we know and how we act upon it.

and you must evangelize your friends and neighbors and children to accept this idea, and sacrifice your life on earth for that eternal end.

Christians are called to share the good news of Jesus Christ and salvation (evangelism). Sadly, most don’t. And many who do, do so in an obnoxious and ineffective way.

I think that’s a virus on humanity that harms people deeply. I don’t care much if it’s called evangelicalism or fundamentalism.

I disagree as to the false parts of that, but with regard to what I have expressed, I couldn’t disagree more strongly than I do.

Generally speaking, we support people who are already on the path of leaving any kind of religion, because we believe such belief systems are illogical and can be damaging, so that’s the kind of content I post . . .

Exactly what I was saying: your site is opposed to religion, period, not just Christian fundamentalism. Thanks for making my point for me again. And that gets back to, again, why I would spend my time critiquing one of the articles on your site.

But I think when your content makes personal attacks about ex-believers’ faculty of reasoning

To critique another’s reasoning is not to make a personal attack. I could see how it might feel that way, but it is not, because a person is not the same as his or her beliefs. They are two different things. I’m disagreeing with you now, but I am not attacking you personally to the slightest degree.

it comes across as kind of desperate. Are you threatened by what we have to say?

No, not in the least bit. That’s how you see it. I see it as simply honest, passionate disagreement on the topic of whether Christianity is a good and true thing or a false and bad thing. You defend your positions; I defend mine. Apologetics is not “desperation”; it’s the thinking process applied to religion.

You guys so often make out that Christians are dummies and ignoramuses (check out just about any combox of atheist sites online; I’ve never found one that didn’t do this, and quite a bit at that: usually the leading theme by far), yet when you run across an apologist who is certainly seeking to be rational and reasonable in religious matters, you start making this sort of quack psychoanalysis (which — ironically — is actually ad hominem or personal attack). There is no call for that.

That’s interesting that you say that, because I’ve been told many times that any true Christian would experience God’s love in such a profound way that they could never dream of leaving him. At least, that’s how my story has been discredited — I must have never been a true believer, if I ended up leaving, because if I’d really believed I would have never changed my mind…

Exactly, because that’s the fundamentalist and Calvinist line, and it is false, because it’s unbiblical (as well as viciously logically circular), as I have argued many times. The Bible, in my opinion, and that of the vast majority of Christians now and all through history. teaches that someone can be a true believer and still fall from grace and salvation. If you want to see where it teaches that, I’ll be more than happy to show you.

So what do you think makes a person want to hang around atheists and agnostics rather than other Christians? What led them to seek these alternative perspectives?

There could be any number of reasons. How could I possibly answer such a question (i.e., broadly)? We would have to ask them to see why they wanted to do so. To take Don R’s case as an example, he told us what started the ball rolling: “I believed in a literal interpretation of the bible, and to hear that someone who was as fully devoted as I was could believe in evolution was really difficult.”

He was wrong in thinking that the Bible was always to be interpreted literally, and that no Christian could possibly believe in the Bible and evolution, too, so when he discovered someone did that, it rocked his world. It was the first domino to fall.

So sometimes, folks with that background will “ride” that shock emotion and move on to start rejecting Christianity altogether, because they were never taught proper biblical interpretation and in many cases, not taught true doctrine, either. That’s just one of hundreds of possible reasons. We decide who we will start listening to and who is gonna influence us the most.

We are what we eat. So we better get it right what we decide to eat, or else we should read both sides of big disputes and make up our mind in the most objective way possible.

Isn’t God captivating enough to hold a believer’s attention?

Absolutely. But the heart can’t rejoice in what the mind rejects as false. If we don’t know and study and live our faith, and don;t know why we believe it (apologetics), that same faith teaches that the world, the flesh, and the devil can come along and erode our faith and cause us to fall away. The Bible warns about it. Even the apostle Paul said that it could happen to him if he wasn’t vigilant.

I just think you could be more effective with a less reactionary approach. It feels like you’re threatened by what these stories are saying, . . .

Now you’re back to quack psychoanalysis again . . . you can do better than this. But if simple honest disagreement is being a “reactionary” then I am proud to be one, because all it is is thinking and using our noggin.

First you say: it can’t be expected to be scientifically accurate, as it was written by pre-science cultures. But then you say it is in fact scientifically accurate and so this proves its accuracy (implying that the anti-scientific parts should also be considered to detract from its accuracy). So which is it?

This misrepresents what I stated, which was this:

It’s not a scientific treatise. It came from a pre-scientific culture (which even the ancient Greeks still were) and speaks in phenomenological terms. Yet what it teaches is true, and it sometimes touches tangentially on scientific matters.

My point was not that it was scientifically inaccurate, but that it was not scientifically technical, and not a scientific treatise, since it came from a pre-scientific culture. If I say, “the sun rose at 6 AM” (as any meteorologist might also say), I am making an accurate statement (from a phenomenological, non-technical point of view). That’s exactly what the Bible does.

Then I gave the example of “the principles of hygiene and proper sewage and disease control” and challenged you to explain how the Bible cold get this right, where science didn’t have a clue till the 1800s. I was writing today in another article how the Bible doesn’t accept the existence of mythical animals, whereas even Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), the Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher, who wrote the 37-volume Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which became an editorial model for encyclopedias, believed in legendary creatures such as the manticore, basilisk, werewolf, catoblepas, and phoenix .

Likewise, Herodotus , Ovid , and Virgil all wrote seriously about werewolves. The Bible never does; nor does it accept any mythical animal as literally real.

As for that specific example, assuming it is true, why should it be surprising that some people discovered good hygiene standards before it was widespread? All kinds of different advancements are made by different cultures across history…

Oh, I agree. It doesn’t make sense only if one regards the Bible writers as ignorant iron age troglodytes (as a million atheists I have come across, do), while scientists are virtually infallible and the new gods. So given that background and baggage, I asked, “how could that be?”

In other words, how could this ancient people figure this out, whereas the “far superior” modern scientist did not till the 19th century. In any event, the Bible got that right, and it’s the perfect example of how it is scientifically accurate, while at the same time it expresses itself in pre-scientific modes of thought.

Or you could just observe that humans have the capacity for both of what we consider “good” and “bad”, regardless of what they believe, and leave out the mythological backstory that any religion uses as a metaphor.

The first clause is obvious and self-evident, but it is desirable to have a deeper understanding of why that is: why human beings are capable of such good and nobility, but also such wicked, heinous evil. I think original sin is a pretty plausible hypothesis. It’s certainly more plausible than the notion that all men are naturally good and only corrupted by their environments, or saying that all men are utterly wicked, with no good in them at all (Calvinist supralapsarianism).

If the truth is that Jesus dwells inside believers, that he washes them and breaks their bondage to sin (while the rest of the world are still slaves to sin), you’d generally expect see some decrease in “sinfulness”/strife/division/pride compared to the rest of the population, wouldn’t you?

Yes, if the Christian is truly following Him and doing what He commands them to do. I totally agree. But its a hard road, so most of us only show signs here and there of sanctity or holiness. What really reveals this are the saints.

Otherwise, what power does Jesus have? Believing in him has not seemed to reliably make people act better. I think if you explain the divisions in Christianity by saying that all humans are sinful, you’re admitting that being saved has little or no effect on a person.

There are signs that Christianity does indeed have a positive effect, as indicated even in secular sociological literature. For example, I have written about how committed Christian married couples (according to controlled sociological studies) are happier and have far less divorce, and even (surprise!) more sexual fulfillment.

There are other indications as well, that support traditional Christian family and sexual morality, such as studies showing that absence of a mother or father in the home is harmful, or that cohabitation is a strong predictor of increased chances for later divorce (if they ever marry). For example, a 2014 article in The Atlantic stated:

Since the 1970’s, study after study found that living together before marriage could undercut a couple’s future happiness and ultimately lead to divorce. On average, researchers concluded that couples who lived together before they tied the knot saw a 33 percent higher rate of divorce than those who waited to live together until after they were married.

I would also note that it is established that political conservatives (who strongly tend to be more religious) give more to charity than liberals do, and Christians give more than atheists.

OK, then you can probably understand why many people, who were severely traumatized and depressed within various kinds of religion, and who find a great deal of relief, joy, and purpose in non-theistic worldviews, might be passionate about that transition as well.

Certainly.

. . . your bad experience with “practical atheism/occultism” does nothing to discredit agnosticism or atheism as a whole. I’m sorry you spent 6 months in serious clinical depression. I’m glad you’re feeling better now. But being an agnostic atheist, for me and many others, has been nothing but a massive relief and a source of freedom and meaning.

I’m just saying that they could find a much more fulfilling and rewarding way: one of inner peace and joy and the deepest purpose and meaning. My life was transformed, too. And many millions of Christians can give this same testimony.

We’re not perfect; we still sin (as Christianity teaches us to fully expect), but our lives are tangibly different. You can point to a thousand lousy, hypocritical Christians out there. I’d probably agree on most of ’em. But there are many positive examples, too.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.

My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. I provide over 2500 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will start receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers. Thanks! See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago). May God abundantly bless you.

***

Photo credit: Saint Francis of Assisi Receiving the Stigmata, by Jan van Eyck (bet. 1430 and 1432) [Wikipedia / public domain]

***

Atheist deconversion stories

apostasy

Atheism

Seidensticker Folly #23: Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2

deconversions

ex-Christians

ExCommunications website

Faith and Reason

falling away from faith

Former Christians

freethinker

science & Christianity

theological education

2019-10-07T11:49:23-04:00

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.

Cordial Dialogue with a Deconvert on Deconversion

Last updated on: October 7, 2019 at 11:49 am By Dave Armstrong

Joe Omundson runs the website, Recovering from Religion: Ex-Communications. I found the article, “My Escape from the Belly of the Beast” (9-24-18) there, written by one Don R., and replied with my article, Typical Deconversion Story: False Dilemmas & Incoherence (3-28-19). Joe in turn offered comments on my article, underneath it. This is my response. His words will be in blue.

*****

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your eloquent and cordial reply. I really appreciate it.

I am the person who manages the blog where you pulled this story from. Just some thoughts for you:

Honestly, the impression I get from your critique is less that you disagree with Don, and more that you have deep disagreements with fundamentalism.

Yes, we all agree about fundamentalism (in its false aspects and particularly its notorious anti-intellectualism). Where I disagree is on making that essentially equivalent to Christianity per se, and then using it as a fallacious “excuse” to dismiss Christianity altogether and become an agnostic or atheist.

As an apologist, it is my duty and burden to note that this is an insufficient rationale and inadequate thinking. It proves nothing except that fundamentalism only has many flaws, and that the person who has rejected it, specifically, has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

You are right that nearly all of the deconversion stories featured on ExCommunications are from people who have a history in fundamentalism. I have definitely noticed that people who are from more liberal sects do not tend to carry the same kind of religious trauma, or feel such animosity toward it after leaving, or have a great desire to share their stories.

Interesting observation, and thanks for the confirmation of a thing I have long noted.

And, personally, my issue is with fundamentalism more so than religion as a whole. I don’t really mind it if people have their personal fictions that help them get through life,

Of course, we deny that it is a mere “fiction.” We would say that atheism provides that function. :-)

whether that’s Jesus, chakras, or Harry Potter. What I do mind is when young children are forced to believe it as absolute truth, when people want to impose their religious beliefs on the legal process, when non-believers are shunned and endangered.

I agree with you on all three points. No one should or can be forced to believe. Obviously, virtually all parents (of any stripe) raise young children in their preferred worldview, but when they are old enough to reason for themselves (Catholics regard this as “confirmation” age: about 12-14), it should be a voluntary thing.

As for law, it is inherently moral, and thus (I would argue) indirectly religious. We live in basically a secular country. What I believe in is religious freedom and toleration for all. Too often, Christian practice is prohibited or penalized in a way that I think is blatantly unconstitutional.

If you point out discrimination against atheists, I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is wrong, but go on to also point out many instances of discrimination against Christians as well.

There are a lot of little things I could reply to, but I don’t have all day, so I’ll focus on the biggest things that came to mind.

[me] Fundamentalism is a small minority and fringe portion of evangelical Protestantism, which is one portion of Protestant Christianity, which is itself a minority of all Christians.

I don’t think this is true at all. At least, it’s far from true in the USA (I have no idea where you’re from). A quick google search tells me that 24% of Americans believe that the bible is literally true, and that’s the lowest it’s been in the 40 year history of the poll. Belief in the literal truth of the Bible qualifies as fundamentalism to me.

I’m from metro Detroit, Michigan. Results of polls greatly depend on how they are worded, and how people perceive them (and I majored in sociology, so I know a little bit about this). For the average person, “a literal Bible” doesn’t refer to fundamentalism, but simply to biblical inspiration / belief that the Bible is true, and God’s word.

To indicate fundamentalism, one would have to probe about things like young earth creationism, views on the relationship between reason and faith, culture and faith, and “legalistic” aspects like dancing, drinking, gambling, etc. (among other things).

The proper view of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics and exegesis), of course, is that the Bible ought to be interpreted literally, not always, but rather, when it was intended to be so, and interpreted otherwise when it is determined (through study of the Bible, ancient near eastern culture, etc., that we are dealing with a non-literal / poetic / symbolic / parabolic passage (of which there are many, in many different literary genres).

Combined with the information (from the same year) that roughly 75% of Americans identify with a Christian faith of some sort, we see that about 1/3 of all Christians in the states are fundamentalists.

Even if one accepts this figure (I don’t), that’s still a minority, isn’t it?, and not representative of Christianity as a whole: which is precisely my point. Thanks for verifying it.

Since they are also the most vocal about their views, Christianity-related discussions are going to be centered on fundamentalism more often than not.

This I do agree with. Fundamentalists are often very vocal. But we must distinguish also between them and evangelicals (my old group). Billy Graham, for example, was an evangelical, not a fundamentalist, and in fact, the later group often despised him as a supposed theological liberal.

You’re making it sound like fundamentalism is some tiny, crazy, insignificant little cult, and people are unfairly associating that with “legitimate” Christianity. But here in the US (and especially the Bible Belt) it is quite a dominant form of the religion. And it hurts a lot of people. It’s worth fighting against.

Well, I stated exactly what I stated, which you cited: “small minority and fringe portion of evangelical Protestantism, which is one portion of Protestant Christianity, which is itself a minority of all Christians.” It is certainly unfair and inaccurate to equate it with Christianity as a whole, regardless of how prevalent or proportionate it actually is.

It’s only one form of Christianity and a sub-group of Protestantism (one of three major “branches” and by far the youngest of the three: having only begun in the 16th century rather than the first). Yes, it’s very prevalent in the South (believe me, I know, from traveling there and looking for a Mass to attend!). But the South is only one part of America, ain’t it?

So, I’m a little confused why you have a problem with stories like this one. Don is critiquing fundamentalism and so are you. You both don’t agree with it, and surely you can tell the kind of damage it does to people, so why not view it as a positive thing when stories like this are posted? I understand that you want people to remain open to less literal interpretations of the Bible and Christianity. But are you so worried about liberal Christianity being lumped in with it, that you’d rather not have people discredit fundamentalism at all?

I have no problem with critiquing the errors of fundamentalism, or any other theological errors that may be found. I did so myself, as an evangelical Protestant, and continue to do so. I correct errors of reactionary Catholicism, which is sort of our equivalent of fundamentalism (far “right” Catholicism). There are even a few Catholic geocentrists and young-earthers.

You are missing the point. We agree that some things are false, even from our diverse worldviews. I am interested in “debunking” these deconversion stories only insofar as they are seeking to bash and discredit Christianity altogether; functioning basically as apologias for atheism or agnosticism.

There is no question that they (at least in part) serve that purpose. They exist so as to encourage former Christians and to confirm them in their apostasy (make them feel less alone and culturally and socially isolated). That’s not just my Christian opinion. It is your clearly expressed viewpoint, as expressed on your blog “About” page: (presumably written by yourself):

RfR is an organization dedicated to helping people navigate the path out of religion. RfR is dedicated to helping people as they reconsider their faith and journey beyond religion.

If you are one of the millions of people who have determined that religion no longer has a place in your life, this may be the right spot for you. Many people love the social support they get from religion, but can’t deal with all the illogical ideas they are required to espouse. It can be difficult to leave a religion because family and culture put so much pressure on us to stay and pretend to believe.

If this is you, we want to help you find your way out.

I see nothing about “fundamentalism” here. What I see is an antipathy to “religion” (not even confined to Christianity in this statement). You want folks to get “beyond” it and its “illogical ideas”. You can’t have it both ways. The very name of your website is “Recovering from Religion” — not “Recovering from Fundamentalism”.

So I come along — the Christian apologist — turn the tables, and show that any given deconversion story (including one I found on your site) does not in fact provide a plausible rationale for rejecting Christianity. At best, the typical one (from the ubiquitous former fundamentalist) shows how fundamentalism is unworthy of belief. But that’s like saying that a rejection of the Detroit Lions is a rejection of the NFL or football, period.

Your blog has articles with titles like the following:

My Pastor Made Me an Atheist

Religion Holds the Mind Ransom to Irrational Beliefs

The Sky without God: Ditching the Baggage of Belief

The “agenda” is anti-Christian, not just anti-fundamentalist. So why are you now making out that it’s only or primarily the latter? This ain’t rocket science. And I’ve been around the block a few times.

You mention sometimes that the explanations given by Don (and other ex-Christians) don’t prove that Christianity is false or atheism is right. I think that’s to be expected, because it isn’t the main point of telling a deconversion story. It’s a personal experience. It’s just saying, “here’s what I went through and why I don’t believe anymore”; it isn’t saying “I can prove that I am 100% right and you should agree with me”.

I understand that, but (note very closely) it is posted in a social setting where the overall thrust and goal is to discredit Christianity. This is patently obvious. Such stories provide the backdrop and framework for those who are struggling or on the fence or doubting as Christians, to start thinking in a different way, because “we are what we eat.”

If a person hangs around atheists and agnostics and not (or less and less so) thoughtful, educated Christians, then he or she will tend to become agnostics or atheists. It’s human nature, as we are social creatures, and crave to belong to a group of like-minded individuals. But what needs to be critiqued are the underlying premises (which is where I come in, especially as a Socratic)

The deconversion story serves precisely the same “exhorting” or “confirming” function in atheist circles that the Christian testimony (we used to jokingly refer to them as “testiphonies”) does in Christian circles. We hear those (in either camp) and think, “hey, I’m not the only one who thinks and feels like that!”).

You want folks to desert Christianity (think they will be far better off), just as we want folks to leave what we regard as the “bondage” of atheism or drug or sex addiction or nihilism or whatever the case may be: things that are making them miserable and unfulfilled. You offer a “better way” precisely as we Christians offer that. Is this not patently obvious?

The primary audience of ExCommunications is not Christian apologists. The goal isn’t to provide some comprehensive logical thesis in order to persuade people like you to change your mind (there are already a lot of blogs and books and podcasts, etc., that do exactly this). The main audience of ExCommunications and Recovering from Religion is people who are going through deconversion themselves, who are looking for community, solidarity, and a sense that they’re not alone in the pain they feel. While you might read this story and find it unconvincing, a lot of people can relate to the experiences/feelings/thought processes involved here.

Exactly! I am answering as I read, so I almost precisely anticipated in my last paragraph, what you state here. This doesn’t overcome my overall point of view (or the reason I offered a critique) in the least: not one bit. The deconversion story remains one piece in the overall atheist agenda (especially in online sites like yours) to undermine and discredit Christianity as untrue and harmful.

Thus, it makes perfect sense for the defender of Christianity to point out what we believe are the inadequacies and glaring logical and factual shortcomings of any given such story. Why should this surprise you?

Finally, I just have one more thing I want to ask. This is more of a personal curiosity rather than a response to this story, and I hope you will not find it offensive,

Not at all . . . Good questions, and I appreciate you asking them, but unfortunately it is a “large and lumpy” / huge topic, along the lines of “why do you love your wife?” My 35th anniversary was yesterday and I am very happily married. Believe me, I could write tens of thousands of words explaining why I love her so much.

but as an ex-fundamentalist it’s something I have struggled to understand. I’m wondering: what is the point of believing in a Christianity that is not literally true?

We believe it is true, or the true state of affairs. That’s different from a belief that everything is “literally” true in the Bible, which applies to types of language or literary genres — as if there is no such thing as valid non-literal truth or expression.

If the Bible is a fallible document which is not scientifically accurate or reliably true;

We believe — based on many many reasons — that it is infallible and inspired (literally, “God-breathed”) revelation, and true in what it aims to teach. It’s not a scientific treatise. It came from a pre-scientific culture (which even the ancient Greeks still were) and speaks in phenomenological terms.

Yet what it teaches is true, and it sometimes touches tangentially on scientific matters. So, for example, in reply to an atheist who was bashing the Bible as “anti-science” I showed that the principles of hygiene and proper sewage and disease control was present in the Bible in a remarkable way: that wasn’t equaled in modern science till the 19th century:

Loftus Atheist Error #10: Prophet Jeremiah vs. Mosaic Law?

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:54 pm By Dave Armstrong

This is the last of my ten critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

I first ran across former Christian minister Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

Judge Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to “God” (Judg. 11:39). Was the God of the universe really pleased at that? (p. 266).

This is at least the second time that Loftus has brought this up in his book. Scripture repeatedly states that God disapproved of such acts as abominable, evil, and wicked. It couldn’t be more clear and definite than it is. But since Loftus can’t trouble himself to discover that, I’ve collected the passages in my paper on the topic: for folks who are actually willing to give the Bible and God a fair shake (rather than cherry-pick what merely appears to support his case, and ignoring passages that don’t.

The prophet Jeremiah did not like some of the scribes, so God told him [cites Jeremiah 8:7-9]:

Jeremiah 8:7b-9a (RSV) . . . my people know not the ordinance of the LORD. [8] “How can you say, `We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. [9] The wise men shall be put to shame, they shall be dismayed and taken; . . .

What did God just say to Jeremiah? He said lying scribes have falsely altered the law and that there are lies in it! Jeremiah even denies God instituted the priestly sacrificial system. God says through him [he cites Jeremiah 7:22-23, omitting the first part of 7:22, which I include]:

Jeremiah 7:22-23 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. [23] But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

. . . Jeremiah “denies categorically that a command to offer sacrifice was part of the divine law at all,” [he cited Burton Scott Easton] even though in the book of Leviticus, Moses supposedly gave detailed instruction about who were to offer sacrifices, where they were to do so, and how. (p. 300)

Concerning Jeremiah 8:7-9, Pulpit Commentary explains:

Jeremiah is evidently addressing the priests and the prophets, whom he so constantly described as among the chief causes of Judah’s ruin (comp. Ver. 10; Jeremiah 2:8, 26; Jeremiah 4:9; Jeremiah 5:31), and who, in Isaiah’s day, regarded it as an unwarrantable assumption on the part of that prophet to pretend to instruct them in their duty (Isaiah 28:9). The law of the Lord is with us. “With us;” i.e. in our hands and mouths. (comp. Psalm 1:16). The word torah, commonly rendered” Law,” is ambiguous, and a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse is inevitable. Some think these self-styled “wise” men reject Jeremiah’s counsels on the ground that they already have the divinely given Law in a written form (comp. Romans 2:17-20), and that the Divine revelation is complete. Others that torah here, as often elsewhere in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 42:4), simply means “instruction,” or “direction,” and describes the authoritative counsel given orally by the priests (Deuteronomy 17:11) and prophets to those who consulted them on points of ritual and practice respectively. The usage of Jeremiah himself favors the latter view (see Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 18:18; and especially Jeremiah 26:4, 5, where “to walk in my Torah” is parallel to “to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets.” The context equally points in this direction. The most natural interpretation, then, is this: The opponents of Jeremiah bade him keep his exhortations to himself, seeing that they themselves were wise and the divinely appointed teachers of the people. To this Jeremiah replies, not (as the Authorized Version renders) Lo, certainly in vain made he it, etc.; but, Yea, behold I for a lie hath it wrought – the lying pen of the scribes (so Authorized Version, margin).

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers concurs:

The meaning of the clause is clear. The sophistry of men was turning the truth of God into a lie, and emptying it of its noblest meaning. Already, as in other things, so here, in his protest against the teaching of the scribes, with their traditional and misleading casuistry, Jeremiah appears as foreshadowing the prophet of Nazareth (Matthew 5:20-48; Matthew 23:2-26).

The phrase “made it into a lie: is, I think, obviously, referring to a corruption or distortion of a teaching or practice which was itself good. Hence, later Jesus cites the same Jeremiah with regard to corruption of temple worship:

Luke 19:46 “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”

Jeremiah condemned this very thing elsewhere:

Jeremiah 2:8 The priests did not say, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the rulers transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Ba’al, and went after things that do not profit.

As to Jeremiah 7:22-23, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states:

The words seem at first hard to reconcile with the multiplied rules as to sacrifices both in Exodus and Leviticus. They are, however, rightly understood, strictly in harmony with the facts. They were not the end contemplated. The first promulgation of the Law, the basis of the covenant with Israel, contemplated a spiritual, ethical religion, of which the basis was found in the ten great Words, or commandments, of Exodus 20. . . . The book of Deuteronomy, representing the higher truth from which Moses started (Exodus 19:5), and upon which he at last fell back, bore its witness to the original purport of the Law (Deuteronomy 6:3; Deuteronomy 10:12). Its re-discovery under Josiah left, here as elsewhere, its impress on the mind of Jeremiah; but prophets, as in 1Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:11-13; Amos 5:21-27; Micah 6:6-8; Psalms 50, 51, had all along borne a like witness, even while recognising to the full the fact and the importance of a sacrificial ritual.

In other passages, Jeremiah is clearly fully supportive of the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, including the priestly function (i.e., those who ritually offered the sacrifices:

Jeremiah 17:26 And people shall come from the cities of Judah and the places round about Jerusalem, from the land of Benjamin, from the Shephe’lah, from the hill country, and from the Negeb, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, cereal offerings and frankincense, and bringing thank offerings to the house of the LORD.

Jeremiah 33:18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever. . . . [21] then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. [22] As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”

Thus, our task is to interpret and understand Jeremiah 7:22-23 (which appears prima facie at odds) in harmony with those. It’s the biblical hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear verses by more clear related passages.”

And this is pretty easy to do, simply by reading the progression of events whereby God delivered the law to Moses, and he delivered it in turn to the Hebrews:

Exodus 19:1-8 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. [2] And when they set out from Reph’idim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mountain. [3] And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: [4] You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. [5] Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, [6] and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” [7] So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. [8] And all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Note a few things about this. First of all, Jeremiah was citing by paraphrase (which was perfectly acceptable in ancient Hebrew culture), part of this passage:

Exodus 19:3, 5-6 . . . and the LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: . . . [5] Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, [6] and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. . . .”

Jeremiah 7:23 But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

The second thing to note is the timing. This was before the law was delivered; even before the Ten Commandments were received. Therefore, it was before the time that God instructed the Hebrews through Moses, of the sacrificial system and laws. Hence, Jeremiah (far from denying anything in and of this whole process) accurately describes this particular moment in salvation history: “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices” (7:22).

The command described in Exodus and reiterated by Jeremiah was chronologically prior to the sacrificial commands (part of the overall Law). God gave Moses the Ten Commandments two days later (see Ex 19:10-12 ff.). The Ten Commandments themselves (Ex 20:3-17) did not contain anything about sacrifices. But God introduced it at the same time he gave Moses the Commandments:

Exodus 20:24 An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.

Again, this was two days after the simpler and broad ethical commandment that Jeremiah cites from Exodus in Jeremiah 7:23. It’s all explained by consulting the text in Exodus which Jeremiah cited. Once one does that , the supposed “problem” vanishes. Meanwhile, as Moses was on Mt. Sinai communicating with God, the people below decided to make an idolatrous golden calf (Ex 32:1-8). Moses’ “anger grew hot”, and he “threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain” (Ex 32:19). Thus, the people still hadn’t heard even the Ten Commandments, let alone the sacrificial instructions. But they had heard the “pre-sacrificial” command that Jeremiah referred to (Ex 19:7-8, above).

Later, the text informs us that Moses made two new tablets for the Ten Commandments and went up on Mt Sinai again (Ex 34:1-4), where he communed with God for forty days and nights (34:28), and then communicated with the people, the Law that he had received from God (which included the sacrifices: Ex 34:32; 35:1). So where’s the beef?

Once again, context (mostly, simply reading the relevant passages involved) demolishes the “higher critical” anti-scriptural bloviations of the former Christian atheists, who seem constitutionally unable to comprehend and practice simple cross-referencing and consideration of textual context. It’s embarrassing to have to point this out 7,167 times. But such is one of the repetitive tasks of the apologist, in correcting folks who “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings” (2 Tim 4:3).

I’m honored and privileged to have the opportunity to defend God’s inspired revelation, the Bible, over against those who seek to savage it without cause or reason.

***

Photo credit: Jeremiah on the ruins of Jerusalem (1844), by Horace Vernet (1789-1863) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Jews & Judaism & Old Testament

Bible and Tradition

atheist-Christian dialogue

anti-Christian polemics

former Christian atheists

John Loftus

John W. Loftus

Why I Became an Atheist

2026-06-05T23:54:56-04:00

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.

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals?

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:54 pm By Dave Armstrong

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

Loftus notes that the King James Version “used the word unicorn to refer to a beast in the Bible” (p. 263). Perhaps realizing how weak this argument is, he qualified: “at the very minimum, the King James translators were themselves believers in mythical beasts” (p. 263).

It’s irrelevant what some translators in 1611 thought. That error would be on them, not the Bible, if in fact, there is no linguistic basis for the translation. The latter is in fact the case. Bert Thompson, in his article for Apologetics Press, “Unicorns, Satyrs, and the Bible” observed:

[T]he Bible never “panders to pagan mythology” by incorrectly referring to non-existent, mythological animals as if they were real, living creatures. It is true that the word “unicorn” appears in the King James Version (nine times: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). . . . The editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica [wrote]:

Certain poetical passages of the biblical Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re’em. This word was translated “unicorn” or “rhinoceros” in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer “wild ox” (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em (1997, 12:129).

In volume one of his two-volume set, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, the late infidel, Isaac Asimov (who was serving as the president of the American Humanist Association when he died in 1992), dealt with the topic of the unicorn as it is found in the King James Version when he wrote:

The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.

The Revised Standard Version translates re’em as “wild ox.” The verse in Numbers is translated as “they have as it were the horns of the wild ox,” while the one in Job is translated “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?” The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job as “Will the buffalo deign to serve you?” . . .

When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about 250 B.C., the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the Near East and the Greeks, who had no direct experience with it, had no word for it. They used a translation of “one-horn” instead and it became monokeros. In Latin and in English it became the Latin word for “one-horn”; that is, “unicorn.”

The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of implying that the wild ox literally had one horn. There is one Biblical quotation, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of Deuteronomy [33:17—BT], when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe, he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns….” . . .

Dr. Asimov was correct on all counts. The word re’em does refer to the wild ox, and is translated as such in almost all later versions of the Bible. The translators of the Septuagint rendered re’em by the Greek monokeros (one horn) on the basis of the relief representations of the “wild ox” in strict profile that they found in Babylonian and Egyptian art (cf. Pfeiffer, et al., 1975, p. 83). The charge that the Bible “panders to pagan mythology” cannot be sustained, once all the relevant facts are known.

Loftus pokes fun of the supposed literal biblical belief in “Satyrs — creatures that were half man and half goat or horse (Isaiah 13:31)” (p. 263). The same article above disposes of this charge:

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa‘ir occurs some fifty-two times. It is related to the term se‘ar (hair), and generally means “a hairy one.” It is used, for example, to speak of the male goat that was employed as the Israelites’ solemn, collective sin offering on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

In two cases, however, the King James Version renders sa‘ir as “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14). But the specific context of both passages makes it quite clear that the term is being used to refer to the wild goats that frequently inhabited the ruins of both ancient Babylon and Edom. On two different occasions in the KJV, the word is translated “demon” (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15), where it denotes a pagan god in goat form (cf. the New International Version). In regard to 2 Chronicles 11:15, respected Old Testament scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:

Far from being mythological “satyrs,” as claimed by “liberal” criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (1969, p. 400).

It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology. “Satyr” is merely a translation error, not a case of “mistaken identity” wherein a mythological creature was thought by the inspired writers to be a living, breathing animal.

Loftus brings up “Leviathan” (p. 262) and “Behemoth” (p. 263) and taunts on the next page: “how can God defeat mythical beasts that do not exist?” According to New Bible Dictionary, Leviathan in Psalms 104:26 is “generally thought to be the whale.” In Job 41:1-34, “most scholars” think it is a crocodile. In other instances, the use is clearly symbolic. Smith’s Bible Dictionary essentially concurs:

In the Hebrew Bible the word livyathan , which is, with the foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is found only in the following passages: ( Job 3:8 ; 41:1 ; Psalms 74:14 ; 104:26 ; Isaiah 27:1 ) In the margin of ( Job 3:8 ) and text of ( Job 41:1 ) the crocodile is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. ( Psalms 74:14 ) also clearly points to this same saurian. The context of ( Psalms 104:26 ) seems to show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe, which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in ( Isaiah 27:1 ) As the term leviathan is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the “leviathan the piercing serpent,” or “leviathan the crooked serpent,” may denote some species of the great rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.

New Bible Dictionary on “Behemoth” states that the word occurs nine times in the Old Testament, “and in all but one of these occurrences ‘beasts’, ‘animals’, or ‘cattle’ is apparently the intended meaning.” In Job 40:15, “the hippopotamus . . . seems to fit the description best.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Animals in the Bible”) agrees:

. . . generally translated by “great beasts”; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in Job 40:10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.

No necessary interpretation of mythical animals here . . . Loftus notes that the Bible references “dragons” (p. 263). Smith’s Bible Dictionary states concerning this:

The translators of the Authorized Version, apparently following the Vulgate, have rendered by the same word “dragon” the two Hebrew words tan and tannin , which appear to be quite distinct in meaning.

The former is used, always in the plural, in ( Job 30:29 ; Psalms 44:19 ; Isaiah 34:13 ; 43:20 ; Jeremiah 9:11 ) It is always applied to some creatures inhabiting the desert, and we should conclude from this that it refers rather to some wild beast than to a serpent. The syriac renders it by a word which, according to Pococke, means a “jackal.”
The word tannin seems to refer to any great monster, whether of the land or the sea, being indeed more usually applied to some kind of serpent or reptile, but not exclusively restricted to that sense. ( Exodus 7:9 Exodus 7:10 Exodus 7:12 ; 32:33 ; Psalms 91:13 )

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Animals in the Bible”) has an excellent treatment of “dragon”:

It stands indeed for several Hebrew names:

(1) thán (Job 30:29; Isaiah 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jeremiah 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Micah 1:8; Malachi 1:3), unquestionably meaning a denizen of desolate places, and generally identified with the jackal;

(2) tánnîm, in a few passages with the sense of serpent [Deuteronomy 32:33; Psalm 90:13; Daniel 14:22-27), in others most likely signifying the crocodile [Psalm 73:13; Isaiah 51:9; Ezekiel 29:3], or even a sea-monster (Ezekiel 32:2), such as a whale, porpoise, or dugong, as rightly translated Lamentations 4:3, and as probably intended Psalm 148:7;

(3) líweyãthãn (leviathan), meaning both the crocodile [Psalm 73:14] and sea-monster [Psalm 103:26];

(4) çiyyim (Psalm 73:14; Jeremiah 1:39), which possibly means the hyena.

Other places, such as Esther 10:7; 11:6; Ecclesiasticus 25:23, can be neither traced back to a Hebrew original, nor identified with sufficient probability. . . . Of the fabulous dragon fancied by the ancients, represented as a monstrous winged serpent, with a crested head and enormous claws, and regarded as very powerful and ferocious, no mention whatever is to be found in the Bible. The word dragon, consequently, should really be blotted out of our Bibles, except perhaps Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6, where the draco fimbriatus is possibly spoken of.

The word itself doesn’t have to necessarily refer to a mythical creature, and scientists at the time of the King James Version in 1611 referred to large serpents as “dragons.” Wikipedia in its article on dragons provides the etymology:

The word dragon entered the English language in the early 13th century from Old French dragon, which in turn comes from Latin: draconem (nominative draco) meaning “huge serpent, dragon”, from Ancient Greek δράκων, drákōn (genitive δράκοντος, drákontos) “serpent, giant seafish”. The Greek and Latin term referred to any great serpent, not necessarily mythological.

Loftus brings up (p. 263) another mythical creature, the cockatrice. The King James Version uses it at Isaiah 11:8 and 14:29, and Jeremiah 8:17, but this may be considered eccentric usage, not followed by modern translations, which usually translate the Hebrew, Tsepha , or Tsiphoni, as cobra or asp (Is 11:8), and viper / poisonous snake / adder (Is 14:29). Catholic apologist Trent Horn adds:

While Isaiah and Jeremiah would have been unaware of the “cockatrice,” they would have known what a tsepha‘ was. This is the original Hebrew word used in passages like Isaiah 11:8 and it simply means “snake” or “viper.” Today, most modern translations render passages like Isaiah 11:8 in this way, . . .

Again, we need not posit any mythological animals here, either.

Lastly, Loftus mentions “Fiery serpents (Deuteronomy 8:15), and Flying serpents (Isaiah 30:6)” (p. 263). The latter is also found in Isaiah 14:29, and the former at Numbers 21:6-8. Wikipedia has an excellent article, “Fiery flying serpent” that lists all these passages and provides an altogether adequate and plausible explanation (see further source information there):

Ronald Millett and John Pratt identify the fiery serpent with the Israeli saw-scale viper or carpet viper (Echis coloratus) based on ten clues from the written sources: the serpents inhabit the Arava Valley, prefer rocky terrain, are deadly poisonous, extremely dangerous, especially painful “fiery” bite, reddish “fiery” color, lightning fast strike, leaping/”flying” strike, and death by internal bleeding. A Roman account dated 22 AD about the deserts of Arabia indicates the presence of the saw-scale viper, reporting that “there are snakes also of a dark red color, a span in length, which spring up as high as a man’s waist, and whose bite is incurable.” Other candidates include desert horned viper (and close relatives) and the desert black snake or black desert cobra.

Wikipedia, “Serpents in the Bible” / section: “Fiery serpents” provides more relevant information:

“Fiery serpent” (Hebrew: שָׂרָף, Modern: saraph, Tiberian: sä·räf’, “fiery”, “fiery serpent”, “seraph”, “seraphim”) occurs in the Torah to describe a species of vicious snakes whose poison burns upon contact. According to Wilhelm Gesenius, saraph corresponds to the Sanskrit Sarpa (Jawl aqra), serpent; sarpin, reptile (from the root srip, serpere). These “burning serpents” infested the great and terrible place of the desert wilderness (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15). The Hebrew word for “poisonous” literally means “fiery”, “flaming” or “burning”, as the burning sensation of a snake bite on human skin, a metaphor for the fiery anger of God (Numbers 11:1)

“In the ancient world mythical beings populated the earth. The ancients believed in . . . [he provides a huge list of mythical animals]“ (p. 263). Yes, they did. For example, Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79) was a Roman author, a naturalist and natural philosopher. He wrote the 37-volume Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which became an editorial model for encyclopedias. Book 8, devoted to land animals, contained information about legendary creatures such as the Manticore, Basilisk, and Werewolf. He opined about the second:

It is produced in the province of Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle. It destroys all shrubs, not only by its contact, but those even that it has breathed upon; it burns up all the grass, too, and breaks the stones, so tremendous is its noxious influence.

Pliny was the first to describe a mythical animal called the catoblepas “as a mid-sized creature, sluggish, with a heavy head and a face always turned to the ground. He thought its gaze, like that of the basilisk, was lethal, . . .” Herodotus, Ovid, and Virgil all wrote seriously about werewolves. Pliny “describes the [phoenix] as having a crest of feathers on its head” and Tacitus thought its color “made it stand out from all other birds.”

Loftus concludes this surreal section with the misguided proclamation: “What we find in the Bible is just more of the same“ (p. 263; italics his). Well, no, we do not. The ancient Hebrews (being a more sophisticated and advanced culture than say, the Greeks or Romans, who believed in all these mythical beasts), did not believe in mythical animals, as has just been comprehensively demonstrated.

Game, set, match.

I sincerely thank John Loftus for the opportunity to again defend the Bible against ludicrous charges. In 38 years of apologetics, I had never written about [alleged mythical] animals in the Bible. Now I have, thanks to his accusation. And so I’m very thankful to have demonstrated that yet another of the innumerable atheist bashings of the Bible is groundless.

***

Photo credit: [Max Pixel / public domain]

***

Bible and Tradition

Philosophy & Science

atheist-Christian dialogue

anti-Christian polemics

former Christian atheists

John Loftus

John W. Loftus

Why I Became an Atheist

2026-06-05T23:54:56-04:00

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.

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:54 pm By Dave Armstrong

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

The first thing we notice is that the Hebrew God is pictured with a body, just like the gods of their polytheistic neighbors. The gods of surrounding cultures had human and physical characteristics. There is no reason to suppose the Hebrews thought differently about their God fro what we read in the early parts of the Old testament. What we have in the Bible is an evolving understanding of the nature of God, so we find later statements to the contrary. In the New Testament, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). (pp. 259-260)

As to the “evolving God in the Bible” myth, see my papers:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism?

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT?

Did the Jews ever believe that God had a body? According to Encyclopedia Judaica (“Anthropomorphism”), no:

[I]t is accepted as a major axiom of Judaism, from the biblical period onward, that no material representation of the Deity is possible or permissible. . . .

The evolutionary approach to the study of religion, which mainly developed in the 19th century, suggested a line of development beginning with anthropomorphic concepts and leading up to a more purified spiritual faith. It argued, among other things, that corporeal representations of the Deity were more commonly found in the older portions of the Bible than in its later books. This view does not distinguish between the different possible explanations for anthropomorphic terms. It especially fails to account for the phenomenon common in the history of all cultures, that sometimes a later period can be more primitive than an earlier one. In fact, both personifications of the Deity as well as attempts to avoid them are found side by side in all parts of the Bible. . . .

More important from a theological perspective are the anthropopathisms, or psychical personifications of the Deity. Scripture attributes to God love and hate, joy and delight, regret and sadness, pity and compassion, disgust, anger, revenge, and other feelings. Even if one explains these terms as being nothing but picturesque expressions, intended to awaken within man a sense of the real presence of God and His works, nonetheless they remain personifications. . . .

Ultimately, every religious expression is caught in the dilemma between, on the one hand, the theological desire to emphasize the absolute and transcendental nature of the Divine, thereby relinquishing its vitality and immediate reality and relevance, and on the other hand, the religious need to conceive of the Deity and man’s contact with Him in some vital and meaningful way. Jewish tradition has usually shown preference for the second tendency, and there is a marked readiness to speak of God in a very concrete and vital manner and not to recoil from the dangers involved in the use of apparent anthropomorphisms. . . .

There is no evidence of any physical representation of God in Jewish history (in contradistinction to the worship of Canaanite and other foreign gods by Israelites). Even the golden calves of Jeroboam represented, according to the view of most scholars, only a footstool for the invisible God. In archaeological excavations no images of the God of Israel have been unearthed. . . .

Although Jews have speculated on the anthropomorphic nature of God, visible representation of the Deity was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic law.

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:40 am By Dave Armstrong

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 6 is entitled, “The Lessons of Galileo, Science, and Religion” (pp. 127-145).

The amount of error in the usual atheist analysis of “science and Christianity” is so vast, and the misrepresentations and often deliberate, glaring historical omissions so innumerable, that I could literally write for a week about them. But I have neither the time nor the energy, so I will have to make a relatively limited reply. For a much different view: a thinking Christian approach to science, see my extensive web page on science and philosophy, and my book, Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? (available for only $3.99 as an e-book).

Neil DeGrasse Tyson . . . [said] “I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. . . . Whenever people have used religious documents to make detailed predictions about the physical world they have been famously wrong.” (p. 132)

Atheist Bob Seidensticker, in one of his countless trashings of Christianity, taunted:

10. Germs? What germs?

The Bible isn’t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?

Five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

Seidensticker continued:

Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn’t know it, neither does religion.

[R]eligious beliefs are always the ones that have been forced to integrate with science, and not the other way around, so why not just admit science sets the boundaries for what we believe? (p. 134)

I just showed numerous examples regarding germ theory, disease, and medicine, that already put the lie to this broad claim. Another example that readily comes to mind would be Big Bang cosmology. The consensus among scientists before that came around was the steady state theory of cosmology (an eternal universe). Even Einstein accepted that. Then a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Fr. Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), who was also a mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain, developed the Big Bang Theory. The Wikipedia article on him states:

He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law, or the Hubble–Lemaître law, and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what later became known as the “Big Bang theory” of the origin of the universe, initially calling it the “hypothesis of the primeval atom“. . . .

At this time [1931], Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître’s theory, refused to accept that the universe was expanding; Lemaître recalled his commenting “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable“ (“Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious”). . . .

After Hubble’s discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître’s theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.

That is all scientific work, so how does it tie into the Bible (which — we agree — is not and was not intended to be a “science book”)? Well, the Bible taught ex nihilo creation:

Genesis 1:1 (RSV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Thus, in this instance, science had to adjust to a long-held tenet of Christianity, rather than vice versa, and what John Loftus claimed above (falling into the trap of asserting a universal negative again) is a falsehood. The agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) observed about this:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (God and the Astronomers, 1978)

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. (The Enchanted Loom, 1981)

As Richard Carrier says, “Theologians have been wrong every time so far. Why keep betting on them?” I just don’t see why we should. (p. 135).

Really? I’ve already provided several contrary examples. Loftus and Carrier need to get up to speed and to stop saying dumb things. Here’s another example that runs counter to their bigoted proclamations. Aristotle thought that time extended to an infinite past and into an infinite future. But Christian theologian St. Augustine (354-430), according to the Stanford University web page, “Spacetime Before Einstein”:

. . . put a theological twist on Lucretius’ argument for the relational nature of time in his Confessions, emphasizing that “God created the world with time, not in time”. Time came into existence along with matter, in other words — a viewpoint that interestingly foreshadows the one held by big-bang cosmologists today.

Eric Rosenfield, in his article, “An Analysis of the Concept of Time in the Confessions, Book 11 by Augustine of Hippo” elaborates:

In 1917, Albert Einstein completed work on the General Theory of Relativity, one of the rules of which states that time is fundamentally bound to matter and gravity, and that without matter there would be no time. Oddly, this concept was presaged almost 1,300 years before that when Bishop Augustine of Hippo (later St. Augustine) put forth the idea that when God created the Heavens and the Earth, he created time itself as well. Before Augustine, no one that we know of had tried to consider “time” as being something changeable, something that could start and stop; after all, we always perceive time as moving forward, and contemplating temporality as being finite or malleable seems unnatural, and the implications headache-rousing. Plato and Aristotle both regarded time as being infinite. Yet it was Augustine’s application of the methods of the principles of Grecian philosophy and reason to the Christian concept of God that forced him to arrive at his conclusions. . . .

[W]hat’s really strange about Augustine’s interpretation of the eternal nature of the Beginning is that, when taken entirely apart from the Bible, it resonates not only with Relativity (Augustine saying that for the Word to happen in time there must have been something that experiences time being roughly analogous to Einstein saying that matter and time are linked, and without one you would not have the other) but also with modern Big Bang Theory. Briefly, according to Big Bang Theory, because matter and time are so inextricably bound, when all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point it formed what’s called a “quantum singularity” in which, the math shows, the curvature of time and space became infinite. This means the Big Bang singularity exists at all times at once, in all places at once much like Augustine’s God – the singularity that created the universe is all around us, all the time, forever.

Isaac Newton was still getting it wrong some 1300 years later, according to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“Time”):

In about 1700, Isaac Newton claimed future time is infinite and that, although God created the material world some finite time ago, there was an infinite period of past time before that.

But Loftus cites Richard Carrier’s whoppers again (one of many dumb things Carrier has uttered, that he chose to include in his book):

“Christianity was bad for science, it put a stop to scientific progress for a thousand years, and even after that it made science’s recovery difficult, painful, and slow.” (p. 141)

Right. He must live in an alternate universe. I have documented “33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD”. As one example among many, both Augustine and Aquinas opposed astrology. On the other hand, many great early scientists (also Christians) were obsessed with astrology, including Galileo, Kepler, and Tycho Brahe, while Isaac Newton (an Arian) was fascinated with alchemy.

For examples of “scientific Christians” long before modern science was born, see Hermann of Reichenau (1013–1054) and Adelard of Bath (c. 1080-c. 1152). When modern science did get off the ground, of course it was Christianity that was overwhelmingly in the forefront of that. Christians or theists founded 115 scientific fields. There were at least 244 priest-scientists. And here are 152 lay Catholic scientists. 35 lunar craters were named to honor Jesuit scientists.

The so-called “Enlightenment” (the supposedly “reasonable” people), by contrast, murdered Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, and several other prominent French scientists and philosophers (namely, Philippe-Frédéric de Dietrich, Nicolas de Condorcet, Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron, Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, and Félix Vicq d’Azyr). The murderous spree against scientists was later revived by the Soviet and Chinese atheist Communists.

Galileo, on the other hand (the only example of a “scientific martyr” that we ever seem to hear about) lived his life under house arrest in luxurious palaces of his supporters. Galileo and other scientists of his general time, got many things wrong, too (just as some in the Church had, in condemning Galileo’s premature overconfidence).

The Catholic Church produced modern science, including heliocentrism (formulated by the Catholic Copernicus). One (sub-infallible) Catholic tribunal at one point of our history, got science wrong (while a pious Catholic who was wrongly persecuted: Galileo, got some major things right, but also other things wrong, and another Catholic, St. Robert Bellarmine, had the more modern, accurate understanding of scientific method).

As for heliocentrism, it need not be pointed out that Nicolaus Copernicus was the key figure who changed that, and he was a Catholic cleric, and his work was enthusiastically supported by the pope of the time and the Church (though later with Galileo there were some silly things said). Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia (“Heliocentrism”) reveals that Catholics were forerunners of heliocentrism:

European scholarship in the later medieval period actively received astronomical models developed in the Islamic world and by the 13th century was well aware of the problems of the Ptolemaic model. In the 14th century, bishop Nicole Oresme [c. 1320-1382] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa [1401-1464] in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that “Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.” . . .

The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus [1473-1543] is summarized in Georg von Peuerbach‘s Theoricae Novae Planetaru (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus [1436-1476] ). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus. . . .

Science wasn’t content to accept the notion that epilepsy was demon possession or that sicknesses were sent by God to punish people. (p. 142)

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob Seidensticker often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper: “According to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.”). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . . [St. Paul: “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments”: 1 Timothy 5:23]

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach [St. Paul: “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments”: 1 Timothy 5:23], eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Rest assured that science is not infallible, either, and has taught atrocious things (even in the 20th century) like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man as authentic hominid fossils (one was a hoax and the other was an ancient pig’s tooth), eugenics, and phrenology.

Albert Einstein (a sort of pantheist or panentheist) cared very little for the materialist / atheist scientific mindset:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. (To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Cited in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort . . . (To student Phyllis Right, who asked if scientists pray; January 24, 1936)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. (to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941)

Then there are the fanatical atheists . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres. (August 7, 1941)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (c. 1941)

***

Photo credit: Fr. Georges Lemaître: father of Big Bang cosmology, around the mid 1930s [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Philosophy & Science

atheist-Christian dialogue

anti-Christian polemics