Atheism

So this week the process is a bit different. I am starting the argument and Daniel is going to respond to it. The topic today is about atheism. I am going to ask some questions and say a few more things that I want Daniel to address in his rebuttal. In next week's post these questions will begin to make more sense after we hear Daniel's responses to some of them.

1. Would you agree with me that atheists claim that it is possible for God to exist?
2. Would you also agree that atheism accepts people that say it's impossible that God exists?
3. Would you agree that some parts of the Bible are true?
4. Do you believe in objective moral values?
Before Daniel answers, I am going to define what objective moral values are. These are moral values that exist independent of a group or an individual's opinion, just as physical laws exist regardless of how we would prefer them to work (some things are good other things are evil).
Atheism is inherently evil. There is no foundation of morality (what is right and wrong) in atheism. The best thing atheism can offer anyone is death, a life without no objective purpose because we are all accidents. Why do atheists talk to other religious people about their beliefs? They want to "help" them out right? That's what Daniel wants to do~show us that we're wrong and we've been doing the wrong thing all of our lives. However, the universe is going to die right? Which means humanity will die. So in the atheist world view, everyone dies and everything that atheists are doing to "help" humanity (or in this case us) is in vain. Let me give an example. Someone is building a house, which he's building to help humanity and everyone else, but you know that the house is going to collapse on everyone and kill everyone, why would you build that house?
Now, let us define atheism. Daniel may be able to help me with this one. Atheism is the disbelief in an existence of a God or gods.
As there are people that leave Christianity, there are people that leave atheism. The reason for this is because people come off angry at God and don't give arguments against His existence and rather come off as "disagreeing with the way God does things." Another main reason is that there is no proof and evidence that would show atheism is true, accurate, or correct.
5. What proof or evidence is there that shows that atheism is correct or accurate? 

Women - Rebuttal

Hey everyone. Sorry for being gone for one week, was taking a small break, but now we're back so do not worry! I liked how Daniel structured his arguments because they were easy to follow, so I am going to do the same. As Daniel said himself, some points were strong, others were not. I will focus on the points which ruffled my feathers. Also, some of the points will be skipped not because they held no value, but because they were answered by other explanations about other points.
P.S. Underlined is my assertion from my previous post, italicized is Daniel's rebuttal, and the normal text is my rebuttal to his rebuttal. Hopefully that made sense :|
1) "He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel" 
I need hyperlinks because if I copy and paste every bit of Scripture I use, then my posts would easily exceed 2000 words. I still provide the evidence; just in a much neater format that takes one extra click to access. Also, reading the source from which I gather my conclusion isn't "making an argument" for me; it's understanding how I came to my conclusion.
I disagree with almost everything. Ok I understand that you don't want it to be very long. However, I'm going to return to my example about a prosecutor and the jury. If the prosecutor doesn't have all of his evidence, and tells the jury they have to go get it for him, it's a bit silly. So yes, by clicking the hyperlinks we are creating your argument for you, which is extremely convenient.
2) "Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context." 
Yes and no. His words are quite direct in what they mean, but I put very little attention towards the "husbands love your wives" parts, and more towards the ones that put women down. With historical context, this status of women is completely justifiable. But as a status imparted upon women by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity? Cultural context should have no bearing whatsoever on an eternal, righteous, and holy commandment. Therefore, these commandments given through Paul by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity are eternal, righteous, and holy (modest, no adornment, blah blah blah) 
Ok guys, buckle your seatbelts for a most elaborate explanation of context and you will see why it immensely important.
Paul writes, “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
There are some things to be noted here...
First, the context of this passage is a confusing, and rowdy Christian gathering. The Church of Corinth were known to have crazy meetings, talking over one another. The context shows this. Let's look at verses 34 and 35. Paul writes,
“Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23).
Paul wrote this, because the Corinthians must have had such crazy gatherings that it would have made Jehovah's witnesses look less in comparison. Later, Paul writes,
“What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26).
Imagine showing up to a gathering, and someone blatantly began to yell. Paul was taking on this topic in this chapter. Paul goes on to write,
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28).
Here, men are told to “keep silent.” Is this because they are inferior? Of course not. It is because they are being distracting and "unedifying". Next, Paul writes,
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.” (1 Cor. 14:29-30).
 Here, Paul explains that people need to say things in an orderly manner. Was this because of their gender? Obviously not. Instead, he gave this command, because they were being completely chaotic and disregarding of one another. Finally, Paul writes,
“For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:31-33).
Summarized:
A. The gatherings of the Corinthians were confusing, distracting, and chatoic but “God is not a God of confusion.” Therefore, Paul was giving instructions to have more calm, coherent meetings.

B. Earlier in the letter, Paul wrote that women were prophesying in this church. Paul writes, “Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head…” (1 Cor. 11:5). Clearly, women were allowed to speak; otherwise, Paul would never have written this.

C. I don't think the OT says anything about women keeping quiet. It's weird that Paul wrote, “Just as the Law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34). I think he is quoting the Law in a general sense—not a specific sense. He may also be referring to the common way of ecstatic worship.

3) "Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands." 
Yes, he did. That's great that Paul teaches mutual love and respect, but my main problem is that God gives women a submissive and subservient role, and then justifies it with arguments that Eve was made after Adam, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. It heavily implies "Women are naturally inferior and/or easily deceived, so make sure a man is watching over her or she might say something stupid in church, or teach something wrong, or stray from my righteous commandments."
The Bible teaches husbands they should lead their wives in marriage. Most people are completely cynical toward leadership, because leadership usually comes with a negative connotation.  However, when we read the text, we need to figure out what the words meant to them not us.

A. Leadership does not equate inequality. The husband is no more superior to his wife, than the Father is superior to Christ (v.3). Later in this passage, Paul writes, “In the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” (1 Cor. 11:11). Elsewhere, Paul explains, “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:1).

B. Leadership does not mean that women have to obey all men. It was made clear that women should obey their husbands. Paul writes, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22).

C. Leadership does not equate patriarchy, as a matter of fact it retains a great deal of responsibility. Paul writes that husbands should love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Jesus loved the church enough to sacrifice his life for her. This is the example against we should compare leadership in a serving matter in marriages. Under this definition, servant leadership is not authoritarian/totalitarian—but sacrificial. In fact, servant love is the complete reverse of patriarchy.

D. Jesus gives a well-rounded definition of leadership: “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:42-45). Here, Jesus defines what leadership means: humility, compassion, and sacrificial love.

E. Leadership is within limits. Paul writes, “Christ is the head of the man.” In the biblical view of marriage, the wife and the husband submit to God. The husband cannot command  his wife to do anything that not within Scripture. In Ephesians, we see how marriage should be: by being “subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph. 5:21).

Summarized: People in our culture think that leadership means totalitarian control, but under the biblical definition, leadership means sacrificial love and service. Based on this view, the husband is responsible to love, serve, and be responsible for leading the marriage. Through all of this we see that marriage is not a way of being a total dictator over our spouse, but a responsibility.
As Daniel hoped, I hope that I answered his counter-arguments to my counter-arguments about his argument well. There is however one more thing he brings up.

4) Alright, so I hope I answered all of your counterarguments sufficiently. And read Isaiah 3:16-24 again, because this example of God punishing women who resemble at least 80% of American women today should be extremely frightening. Not only does it validate what Paul taught about a modest women, no jewelry, etc. God's actions here thoroughly define it as a sin. I have heard one argument about how God cared about their motive, which was to be promiscuous, because jewelry and walking proudly was very promiscuous in that culture. One tidbit of information I found to counter that notion is when God killed a man for reaching out to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. This guy sees God's Holy Covenant unsteady as the oxen stumble, touches it with the intention of saving it from breaking, and is freaking fire-blasted by God. The man's intentions were good. Did God care? Not in the slightest. And so it will be for the women in Isaiah 3:16-24; their intentions don't matter because they are blatantly sinning by what they wear and how they walk. God's actions tell us this is sinful, Paul's teachings tell us this is sinful, yet no Christian that I know of listens... 
Well this is a fun passage haha. So in the Isaiah passage the women are regarded as "haughty" and "flirting with eyes" and "strutting along with swaying hips." Yes God did care about their motive and their motive was not pure. Daniel was correct about promiscuity. However his analysis of the passage in 2 Samuel 6:6-8 is wrong. The man's intentions were not good. "6 But when they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah reached out his hand and steadied the Ark of God. 7 Then the Lord’s anger was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him dead because of this. So Uzzah died right there beside the Ark of God."Other translations in verse 7 ends with: "...God struck him dead because of his irreverence." Irreverence is the opposite of reverence which means respect towards things that are generally taken seriously. The Israelites knew that only Levites (priests) could only touch the ark, yet Uzzah disregarded that fact or in this case disrespected something so serious and God punishes him. God cared that his rules were broken and we know that God does not take this lightly at all in the OT. God punished the women for their motives and He punished Uzzah for his irreverence. Only shows that God is the real deal.
Thank you for bearing with me through all of these explanations. I have been receiving complaints about my use of "ad hominem" (I never used any ad hominem) and that I don't "refute" Daniel's arguments. Well ladies and gentlemen, I attempted my best to not give any excuse for anyone to accuse me of "ad hominem" and the rest of the refuting it is, up there ^^. I better not receive any complaints over how long my posts are...
P.S. Next week I will be leading the debate. I will make an assertion and Daniel will have a rebuttal for it. Basically him and I are swapping roles for next week. The topic will be atheism! Stay tuned.

Women... Again

Daniel's Assertion
Here we go again guys. Daniel is coming back to women. Don't understand why I thought we touched on this already, but I guess. Anyway Daniel starts off asking his readers to forgive him if he does not analyze in depth... Well we can't forgive you for that. It is your job to analyze in depth. Imagine a prosecutor telling a jury that he doesn't have enough time to present all of the evidence in detail, so he'll do a sloppy job presenting everything. The defense would win handily. Also, if you don't have enough space just use less verses, you have another chance for a rebuttal. Then he states something quite atrocious if I would say so myself; telling men to treat them as they would treat themselves DOES change everything. I do not comprehend why you think this way. For the record, I won't be responding to any images, hyperlinks, or memes. I am only reading the Scripture he puts in his blog. I only read the Scripture he puts in his blog and I recommend you do the same. Let me explain why, if Daniel wants to have a discussion, he needs to present an argument. By having us look at these hyperlinks we are creating his argument for him. If he wants to discuss verses, he should respect our intelligence and just post the whole verse. He continues talking and brings up the God's commandments. Yes these are His commandments Daniel, but what happens yet again is that Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his own narrative. Paul's words are from God, Daniel's twisted interpretation is not. He keeps going on to disparage, distort, and rip verses out of context. So there is nothing new here. This has been happening pretty much every week. What the Scripture says is very basic. It tells husbands to love their wives. Wives provide love and respect to husbands. Now sure, Paul doesn't use politically correct language (to bad Daniel wasn't around to give him advice), but that's a message from the Scripture. And it's advice from marriage counselors. Men and women are different beings and have different needs. Daniel then suddenly becomes this rabid feminazi. These type of people are hardly taken seriously, it's going to be quite hard to take Daniel seriously... I'm confused as to why it is shocking that women are the physically weaker sex. Is this completely new news? I guess we'd have to ask the feminazis as well, but yes women are generally physically weaker than men. And so what? By urging husbands to love and respect and not abuse their wives, Peter is now sexist? This analysis just baffles me. I guess saying "be a man" is sexist too now. Sounds like more things from the feminazi agenda. Criticizing women is also sexist. Anything bad said about women is sexist. Once, again feminazi. I think according to modern feminazis, it's sexist to have a penis now. Can't have one of those anymore. I apologize if any of this is offending, but this "analysis" is completely absurd and mirrors that of a feminazi. It's a load of baloney that once again no one is going to buy.

Old Testament - Rebuttal

Daniel's Rebuttal
I really have to sincerely apologize to everyone. The quality of the blogs have been dropping. It just gets worse and worse every single week. If you’re just joining us recently, I’ll catch you up on what’s going on.

Daniel is out on a mission: to disparage Christians and Christianity. His agenda is to make a caricature of what Jesus stood for and what Christians believe and he’s willing to pretty much go to any lengths in order to fulfill that agenda. It’s interesting, however, that he really doesn't like being called out on this. He whines complains and when we regurgitate his own words right back at him. Strange isn't it? Let me give you a nice example. He brings up how I use the fallacy known as appeal to emotion. Now if you really do read the blogs you will notice that at the end, he brings up the problem of evil. He accuses me of using a fallacy that he then uses himself. "...the idea of a character that sits idly by, throwing earthquake after earthquake at innocent people, allowing innocent people to be raped, and killing those who haven't died from the first two horrors by giving them AIDS, cancer, and malaria...the idea of that character having the ability to stop all these atrocities yet choose not to is insulting to their families and loved ones." Since we're talking about the fallacies that Daniel loves to point out and then use some himself, I'll even give some more fallacies that he uses. Argument from Fallacy Most Common Fallacy

Daniel employs pretty much every trick under the sun. He can’t argue based on true Scripture alone, so he twists it and takes it out of context (it gets so bad sometimes, that he takes verses from two different books of the Bible at one point) and then declares that it’s self-evident that these verses prove his point. Really the only thing that’s self-evident is that Daniel will misuse and misinterpret to the point of absurdity to further push his narrative and agenda that Christians are brainless morons. 

Daniel says that he wants this blog to be as logical and rational as possible yet he completely flips around his own role. He’s the one with the burden of evidence and all we need to do is point out “one simple error”, not vice versa. In a courtroom, the defense does not have to provide anything, nor does it need to make the argument for the prosecution. If the prosecution holds up a knife and says “this knife proves that the defendant is guilty!” and then sits down, all the defense needs to do is to stand up and say “No.” The jury will go with the defense.

And that’s what is happening here. Daniel is failing and he’s seeking to blame everything and anything. He says that by pointing out his goals and mission to equate Christians with Nazis, we essentially make an appeal to emotion and set a trap… Which… I suppose is true (I don’t know what he means by trap), but so what? This isn’t a fallacy. No one is saying that Daniel is wrong BECAUSE he’s a ridiculing/insulting jerk (THIS is ad hominem). All we’re saying is that Daniel is wrong (because of incomplete evidence) AND he’s a ridiculing/insulting jerk (this IS NOT ad hominem). And what’s up with trying to make us feel sorry for you Daniel? No one made you the “inherent enemy.” You put yourself in that position. Get over yourself. You really do yourself no favors by insulting and ridiculing Christians.

The last part of Daniel’s sorry attempts is truly laughable. He again attacks God for not doing things his way (again seems to fail to understand that God made a covenant with Israel within the context of that period in history.) He brings in a completely different topic (evil in the world) which is of course, a major mistake when making a rebuttal and he also seems to confuse Christianity with Islam (500 years of global conquest and forced evangelism? Sounds more like Mr. Muhammad than Jesus.) But Daniel gets seriously hysterical in the end. He constantly repeats over and over and over again that he has the superior argument (and even feels necessary to point out what he feels are zingers? I mean really?) Calm yourself Daniel. You should allow your argument to speak for itself If someone really needs to repeat over and over and over again that they have the superior argument, that's a sign that they don't really have a superior argument...

Old Testament

Daniel's Assertion
Well ladies and gentlemen, we’ve got it. We’ve got a confession from Daniel about what his goal is with these blogs. He admits he’s here to push his agenda by any means necessary. He concedes that the only way he can form his argument is by going through the Bible and deliberately picking out only the verses that fit into the narrative he’s trying to weave, which is that Christianity is crazy and God is equivalent to Hitler. Don’t believe me? His exact words: “It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick!” (And no Daniel, this concept isn’t subjective. It’s fairly easy to see which one of us is looking at Scripture as a whole and which one of us is pushing his own twisted version of it.)
While professing to be a defender of progressivism, Daniel seems to forget a very important part of our culture, a concept known as “innocent until proven guilty.” To him, God is already guilty, and it’s up to us to prove Him innocent. Well no Daniel, this is not how this works. It’s up to YOU to prove your assertions and claims. The burden of evidence lies on YOU, not on us. I mean the way our blogs are set up give this away completely. You are the PRO side to your (general) argument that God is Hitler and Christians are stupid, ignorant buffoons. We are the CON side. If we were in a court, you would be the prosecution and we would be the defense. You provide a claim and we provide the rebuttal. This is how this works.
But Daniel doesn’t want to play by the rules. Why not? Because he can’t provide enough evidence that God is similar in nature to those evil, atheist dictators that slaughtered people by the millions (did I mention that these people were atheists?) Daniel throws up a cadre of Scriptures, twists them inside out, claims they all prove what he’s saying, and then has the gall to accuse us of not rebutting his arguments??? What did he expect? That he provides a couple hyperlinks to Biblegateway here and there and we’re expected to write on for pages and pages dissecting every single verse? We’re not idiots Daniel! You generally label groups of Scripture as proving your point, without any sort of specific evidence and detailed analysis, and we respond in kind, with general statements as to what you’re engaging in (distortion and mockery.) If you want to convince us all that we secretly worship Hitler, you’re going to have to do a lot better than to cite a verse and simply declare that it proves women are property (which is a concept that we’ve already shown to be false in previous blog posts.)
As to why God doesn’t provide his own culture to humans? Because He transcends culture. Christianity isn’t limited to one single way of life. Millions of different people around the world are Christians. No, not all of them are Americans and have an American way of looking at the world, but each of them worships God uniquely and within their culture. But to be honest, I think all of us are beginning to get confused a bit. Daniel seems to be getting angry that a being that he believes doesn’t exist, isn’t doing things his way. God doesn’t say the things Daniel wants Him to say, He doesn’t act the way Daniel wants Him to act, and He doesn’t do what Daniel wants Him to do. Daniel is basically throwing a tantrum and yelling that “If God was real, He would do things MY WAY!” It’s like claiming your math teacher doesn’t exist because she gave you word problems instead of multiplication tables. It’s absurd (and a little funny.)
In conclusion, we see Daniel more and more frustrated. He doesn’t seem to be able to convince anyone to agree with his radical interpretations and insulting premises. He blames everything under the sun for this: ignorance, stupidity, a closed mind, etc. Maybe it’s something else Daniel. Perhaps Christians aren’t all that stupid and God isn’t actually an evil dictator. Just some food for thought.

The Topic of Women - Rebuttal

Daniel's Rebuttal
Well it seems like Daniel has got a little bit upset. He's failing at his mission of caricaturing Christianity and demagoguing, so he's blaming his failure on "willful ignorance" and "confirmation bias." Well, to put it simply Daniel: no. Our readers aren't ignorant. You're just doing a crappy job.
Daniel continually pleas for his audience to have an open mind (something he himself lacks) and "to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations." Well I've got news for Daniel! We do! We're not stupid! And it's very clear to everyone which one of has well grounded claims and which one of us desperately clings to illogical ones.
I'm very pleased that we are having this discussion in the written form, because it's very easy for everyone to go back and look at what was said in previous blogs. I'd recommend Daniel do this because right off the bat, he seems to forget what he himself has said. Yes Daniel we all know that you're in favor of women's rights (though these last couple of blog posts did get us thinking about that), but we'd just like you to know that we are too. All of us think women are equal to men and we'd like you to stop assuming that we don't, because when you argue as if we don't think this way, you're creating a strawman (I can also link things, and not to mention, being a hypocrite based on your strange obsession with posting links about fallacies.) Now you say that you don't think God hates women. We sincerely apologize. We clearly misunderstood you when you said that "[women are] also barely even seen as people in the Lord’s eyes." Be that as it may, we're extraordinarily confused by your short term memory loss concerning the story of Samson. In your rebuttal, you said that you've never claimed that it was sexist propaganda, yet this is a direct quote from your original assertion: "The propaganda-like portrayal of women in the story of Samson isn’t directly ordered by God, but we can see how Jews saw women (thanks to God’s earlier decrees)." So please, go figure out what it is you're trying to say, memorize it, make every effort imaginable to make sure it stays in your brain, and then lecture everyone else on willful ignorance.
Daniel's quotes from the Old Testament are relatively easy to dissect. Every single one of them is torn out of context, obviously, but you don't need a theology degree to realize that Deuteronomy was set in ancient times, with an extraordinarily different culture than one we have today. I'd need a separate blog to go through every single verse, (there's plenty of resources available online that explain certain passages of the Mosaic law for those that are interested) but I'll focus on one, the passage concerning the rape of a virgin. In ancient times, virginity was a very important part of society and culture. Men and women were expected to be virgins at the time of marriage. If virginity was lost, they'd usually be shunned and unable to marry ever again. This law was a method of protection against this. It forced the man to marry and take care of the girl whom he dishonored and take responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Now Daniel's other misquotations of Scripture are even easier to deal with. For example, he points to Apostle Paul being sexist when he said that woman was created after man. Ok Daniel. I believe what we have here is a non-sequitur (yay for more links!) Paul was stating fact. Man was created first and woman second, just like I wrote this blog second, after my first one. This doesn't mean my second blog is inferior to my first one and the fact that woman was created after man doesn't mean she's his property. And just to be extra sure people like Daniel didn't try to mischaracterize his words, Paul threw this in just to be sure everyone understood: " 11 Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman; 12 For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author]," -1 Cor. 11:11-12. By the way Daniel, the only way the New Testament can say that "women are subservient and under the authority of men" is if you cherry pick certain verses and ignore a plethora of others (which is exactly what you do.) And it's painfully obvious that when Paul discusses head coverings for women and men, he does so within a cultural aspect. And the last tidbit at the end you referred to? It's actually not an end, but the beginning of new train of thought. "16 Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally. 17 But in what I instruct [you] next I do not commend [you], because when you meet together, it is not for the better but for the worse." 1 Cor. 11:16-17 (It pays to read Scripture in context.)
If you want a good example of willful ignorance, look no further than Daniel's next couple paragraphs. "Just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings." Ummm… Actually it does Daniel. So you know when I pointed out examples of women doing the same things as men, being capable of the same things as men, and even playing equal roles as men in terms of importance (if not more important), it does logically follow that they're not inferior to, not the property of, and not dirtier than men are. (That last one really bugs me. I mean whoever thinks that women are more dirty, smelly, and filthy than men really needs to take a trip down to the boys locker room. You'll have a Road to Damascus moment, trust me.) And what's up with that attack on donkeys? Don't make fun of donkeys. Everybody loves donkeys! And spoons too. Poor spoons. Seems like nothing can evade the wrath of Daniel.
Daniel's claims and arguments are steadily growing more and more ridiculous. I think we'll see this trend continue. Daniel is out on a mission: to portray Christians as stupid herds of cattle unaware of their own teachings. We're not going to let him. We'll be right here, disproving, and disassembling his arguments every week. Thanks for reading! Hope you enjoy my blog.

The Topic of Women

Daniel's Assertion
To be honest, I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony. I don't know where to start.

Daniel has delightfully cherry picked passages from all over Scripture, ripped them out of context, and combined all this with his own deceitful interpretation in order to weave a narrative that the Bible is sexist and misogynist and that God hates women. I don't think any of us are surprised. We're all aware of Daniel's agenda to demagogue and mischaracterize Christianity.

Now I spent a good deal of time wondering how to go about dealing with Daniel's ridiculous interpretations and his intellectually dishonest analysis. I suppose I could go through each verse that he twisted and flipped inside out and point out how absurd it is that he projected his own opinions onto all of us and then pretended to prove that our beliefs are horribly sexist. I could point out how he contradicts his own argument, how he makes a caricature of the Law of Moses, how he completely disregards the concept of  "setting", and how silly he looks when he claims that the story of Samson is really a propaganda story for spreading sexism. But that would be tiring, frustrating, and most importantly, would lend credibility to the storyline he's trying to progress. So I'm not going to do this. Instead, I'll go through and make my own list of Scriptures that clearly show that men and women are equal in the eyes of God.

This is incredibly easy. We can start with Genesis 1:27 "27 So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them." So right off the bat, it's established that both males and females were created in the image and likeness of God. Sounds pretty darn equal, but then again, maybe the Creation story is secret propaganda for misogyny and God's just trying to lure us into His book to spring sexism on us later. So let's look at some specific examples of women in the Bible.

We have women who were warriors and judges and even led the armies of Israel into battle (Deborah, Jael, and many others.) We've got a large number of female prophets (Miriam, Hulda, Anna.) We've got examples of strong women who played a big role in the lives of their families and sons (Sarah, Rebecca, Hannah.) We even have two books of the Bible named after women: Ruth and Esther. Daniel's really having problems with his "property of men and not human beings" narrative now, but there's more!

These women were the first missionaries
when the told others that Jesus has risen. 

We have the story of Mary, mother of Jesus. We have the stories of the female followers of Christ, who became the first missionaries when they spoke of His resurrection. We have Jesus Himself coming into conflict with the sexist Pharisees and standing up for the women that they targeted (which by the way was mentioned in my first rebuttal to Daniel's assertion on the law.) And should we point out that the Church is also a female? Misogyny? Sexism? Sub standard human beings? Daniel's claims are not adding up here.

Apostle Paul puts it directly, clearly, and without hesitation: "26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. 27 For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ. 28 There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Daniel is wrong. These are not our views, they’re not the views of Jesus, and they're most certainly not the views of God. These views should be lumped into the views of a different organization with Daniel. I've provided a link for him below:
Westboro Baptist Church

Jesus and the Law - Rebuttal

Daniel's rebuttal
So after a blistering attack on Christianity full of mockery, condescension, and elitism, Daniel got upset. He didn’t expect someone else to strongly fire back at his claims that Christians are ignorant hypocrites who don’t even know the teachings of their own God, so he decided to label my rebuttal “ad hominem.” Apparently it’s not ad hominem if atheists do it. Although I did let him know, that I will bite back. However, if Daniel can’t handle the heat of the debate then he really should just go home and his puny attempt at a rebuttal shows exactly that: he can’t handle true debate. Instead what we received from Daniel was a series of incoherent, incomprehensible sentences carelessly and thoughtlessly thrown together in a vain hope that someone else will try to make sense of them. Talk about my "ad hominem" and "red herrings" his little "and/or" when he keeps talking in circles, (If you read his very first blog about "circular reasoning" he accuses Christians of talking and reasoning in circles. Interestingly enough, this is what he's doing as well.), asking questions as if he never received answers to them, and posting links that contradict his own argument. I must confess, I did try to figure out what he is saying.
Now, I would like to refer Daniel back to my original article because it seems like he didn't read it thoroughly. For example, Daniel continues to say that Jesus said the Law is here to stay and must be followed. Do I really need to repeat every point I made regarding that in my previous blog? Jesus was very clear about His views and attitudes pertaining to the Law, but Daniel says he doesn't care about this… Which just confuses me as to how he thinks he can get inside the mind of Jesus without actually analyzing the actions that Jesus took. I mean it really isn't all that “tricky” and difficult. It’s rather straight forward. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the Law. But if you're still a bit confused, I'll elaborate once more. Daniel asks if "until everything is accomplished” and “until heaven and earth disappear” is synonymous, or if they are contradictory... Well let me make this as clear as possible: yes it is synonymous. What Jesus means is that even if the world changed and everything was completely different, but the Law was still not accomplished, then the Law would stay. However, Jesus DID fulfill the Law. Anyone still confused?  My analogy regarding test taking explained it very well, but if you ask me what sort of analogy Daniel tried to make regarding test taking, I really couldn't tell you (in fact, I’m beginning to question what type of school(s) Daniel has been attending throughout his life.) Now of course just because the Law’s purpose was fulfilled, does not mean Jesus gave the go ahead for people to go out and murder and steal. This is exactly what the Apostles were referring to in their clarifications that they made regarding the Law to their Gentile brothers. But they were very clear that the more specific and symbolic details of the Law (such as circumcision and sacrifice) were now obsolete and unneeded.
But Daniel continues to insist that this was just a clever marketing strategy by the Apostles to get more of those silly Gentiles to join their cult. Or a way for modern Christians to not do certain aspects of the Law that they dislike. He still hasn't decided which theory he likes better, but he seems to believe that he made a radical discovery: Christians aren’t perfect. Wow. Eureka. Mind blowing information. Christians fall and make mistakes just like any other person in their own standards that they set for themselves. You’re the new Christopher Columbus of religion, Daniel.  But in spite of this amazing concept that Daniel just found for himself, he completely ignores everything I said regarding both of this theories. Judaism is already easier than paganism because pagan gods had the same amount of rules that the God of the Jews had, multiplied by ten (oh and no pagan religion ever allowed everybody to just go around and kill and steal what they wanted to.) They also had other interesting things, like human sacrifices, sometimes of newborn babies. But Daniel believes that violence makes for good advertisement. He claims that being violently and viciously ripped apart by wild animals was an attractive part of Christianity! Wow, talk about a great Superbowl ad.
Now Jesus did take these things very seriously. He explained in detail to His followers the tough trials and tribulations they would encounter for believing in Him and He gave hope and assurance that a better place will be waiting for them at the end of their path. Contrast this with Daniel’s approach. Daniel lacks the very thing he asks from his audience: an open mind. He has set an agenda to discredit Christianity and make Christians out to be crazy and ignorant. However, he makes a poor effort at this. He fails to read through his own sources (his link regarding Jesus’s actions with the adulteress disproves his own argument), latches on to silly differences in vocabulary (I didn’t know there was such an enormous difference between “ignore” and “find reason to ignore”), and employs an interpretation of Scripture more insane than that of the Westboro Baptist church (which he promises that we’ll get more of when he discusses women in the Bible.) He closes out his article with a ridiculous comment about how he wrote first and I responded. Truth is we agreed beforehand that my blog would be a response to his. However, he knows he’s failing at advancing his agenda, so he makes sorry and petty excuses for himself in his conclusion. It’s not working Daniel and we’re not buying it. He who is without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus and the Law

Daniel's Assertion

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. - Carl Sagan

As you'll soon be able to tell, this blog will be an unapologetic rebuttal to Daniel's blog attacking Christianity. Now Daniel has asked all of you to keep an open mind. I'd like to ask you to make sure your brain is still in its place throughout the process.

I also felt it necessary to warn you. Throughout Daniel's blog, we are going to receive the most fundamentalist and literal interpretation of the Bible that we've ever encountered. This is not unique to Daniel, but is really a common trait among atheists. They seem to read Scripture in such an extreme manner that it makes the Westboro Baptist Church look like liberal skeptics in comparison. But that's a topic for another blog. For this one, Daniel has decided to look at a passage from one of the most powerful sermons ever given by Christ: the Sermon on the Mount. Let's dive into our analysis and discussion.

Daniel used the NIV version in his blog. I prefer the Amplified Bible.

17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished. 19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Daniel is correct in his assessment of what Jesus is referring to. He is referring to the Old Testament. And Jesus does say that He did not come to repeal the Law, but notice that (in spite of Daniel's numerous attempts to claim otherwise) nowhere does He say that His followers are obligated to follow the Law as mandated by the Pharisees and the Scribes, but in fact, His followers need to do something differently than those 2 groups (their righteousness needs to be above them.) It obviously follows that the followers of Christ need to depend on something other than the Law for their righteousness. But what could possibly supercede the Law in this regard? Apostle Paul elaborates in this regard in Galatians 2:16.

16 Yet we know that a man is justified or reckoned righteous and in right standing with God not by works of the Law, but [only] through faith and[absolute] reliance on and adherence to and trust in Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). [Therefore] even we [ourselves] have believed on Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law [for we cannot be justified by any observance of the ritual of the Law given by Moses], because by keeping legal rituals and by works no human being can ever be justified (declared righteous and put in right standing with God).

Paul goes on to say in Gal. 3:10-13:

10 And all who depend on the Law [who are seeking to be justified by obedience to the Law of rituals] are under a curse and doomed to disappointment and destruction, for it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed (accursed, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment) be everyone who does not continue to abide (live and remain) by all the precepts and commands written in the Book of the Law and to practice them. 11 Now it is evident that no person is justified (declared righteous and brought into right standing with God) through the Law, for the Scripture says, The man in right standing with God [the just, the righteous] shall live by and out of faith and he who through and by faith is declared righteous and in right standing with God shall live. 12 But the Law does not rest on faith [does not require faith, has nothing to do with faith], for it itself says, He who does them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them [not by faith]. 13 Christ purchased our freedom [redeeming us] from the curse (doom) of the Law [and its condemnation] by [Himself] becoming a curse for us, for it is written [in the Scriptures], Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (is crucified);

This is what Jesus means when He says that He fulfilled the Law. He completed its purpose. He achieved it's goal. It is now no longer needed. When we complete tests or projects that are assigned to us, it would be silly to say that we have abolished that particular assignment from the face of the earth. It would be equally ridiculous to claim that because we haven't abolished the test, we need to keep retaking it till the end of time (though maybe some of the more special of us might require such methods in order to pass high school, and I'm looking at you Daniel). The similar concept can be applied to the Law. Because it has been fulfilled by Christ, Christians are no longer obligated to follow it.

Well why have the Law to begin with? Paul discusses this in Gal. 3:19-21:

19 What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added [later on, after the promise, to disclose and expose to men their guilt] because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made. And it [the Law] was arranged and ordained and appointed through the instrumentality of angels [and was given] by the hand (in the person) of a go-between [Moses, an intermediary person between God and man]. 20 Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both]. 21 Is the Law then contrary and opposed to the promises of God? Of course not! For if a Law had been given which could confer [spiritual] life, then righteousness and right standing with God would certainly have come by Law.

He elaborates in Hebrews 10:1-9:

For since the Law has merely a rude outline (foreshadowing) of the good things to come—instead of fully expressing those things—it can never by offering the same sacrifices continually year after year make perfect those who approach [its altars]. 2 For if it were otherwise, would [these sacrifices] not have stopped being offered? Since the worshipers had once for all been cleansed, they would no longer have any guilt or consciousness of sin. 3 But [as it is] these sacrifices annually bring a fresh remembrance of sins [to be atoned for], 4 Because the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to take sins away. 5 Hence, when He [Christ] entered into the world, He said, Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but instead You have made ready a body for Me [to offer]; 6 In burnt offerings and sin offerings You have taken no delight. 7 Then I said, Behold, here I am, coming to do Your will, O God—[to fulfill] what is written of Me in the volume of the Book. 8 When He said just before, You have neither desired, nor have You taken delight in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings—all of which are offered according to the Law— 9 He then went on to say, Behold, [here] I am, coming to do Your will. Thus He does away with and annuls the first (former) order [as a means of expiating sin] so that He might inaugurate and establish the second (latter) order.

Really can't say it any better than the Apostle Paul. However, what about some of the other claims made by Daniel, especially regarding the attitude of modern Christians towards ancient Mosaic Law? Well Daniel strongly implies that believers willfully chose to ignore the words of Christ concerning the Law because of a desire to attract Gentiles to their faith by making it "easier." I'd have to inform Daniel, that Judaism was already easier than the polytheistic paganism of the Gentiles (appeasing one God vs. appeasing hundreds), that Gentiles had no trouble flocking to Christianity, and that getting burned alive and eaten in arenas by wild animals doesn't really make stellar advertising for an "easy" religion. Early Christians had many concerns. Putting on a good marketing campaign was not one of them. Daniel second argument is that Christians ignored the words of Christ because they found Mosaic law incompatible with modern society. What Daniel doesn't say is when Christians started to do this. He mentions the early church, but the early church didn't develop in a modern society. And the early church "changed the rules" to bring in more Gentiles, which means that the early church was already "changing the rules" before modern society came along. So which one is it? Either early Christians changed the rules to be more marketable to Gentiles or contemporary Christians changed the rules to fit in with modern society. It's either one or the other and Daniel has already conceded that early Christians were rejecting Mosaic law, which really begs the question of whether Christianity did have to catch up to society or was it the other way around? But I have to correct Daniel. The early church wasn't the first to give up on Mosaic Law. The first person to change the rules was a lowly carpenter from Nazareth who was brought a woman caught in adultery. Mosaic law demanded that she be stoned to death. This carpenter however, demanded that the person without sin cast the first stone at her. Her accusers ended up leaving until it was just that carpenter and her. He turned to her and told her that he does not pass judgment on her and then, in direct violation of the law, he let her go. Daniel might recognize this man. It was His words that He was quoting at the beginning of His blog. That carpenter's entire ministry was based on grace, forgiveness, and love to whomever was willing to accept it and He ended up giving His own life in order to fundamentally change the rules forever.

Daniel's Rebuttal