Friday, February 25, 2011

Why the "Experience Argument" Does Not Work

 The "religious experience" argument is one of the favorites used by Christians, but as this conversation reveals, this same argument can be used by followers of other faiths as well--which then invalidates the claim that the Christian god is the only god.

Christian--The Bible is full of historical facts, and historical records also documented the existence of Jesus. Many people vouch they have supernatural visions of Jesus. Look up Anne Catherine Emmerich (September 8, 1774 – February 9, 1824). She revealed that Jesus was Essene & that the Essenes lived in a series of caves, long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll.

Atheist--Actually, no, most scholars do not consider the bible "historical fact." Read "The Bible Unearthed." Many people vouch for supernatural visions of Krishna too, that does not make him a god either. The Essenes monks spent a great deal of time in the library of Alexandria, where the knowledge of all the great religions was stored, and created the "angel messiah" based on Buddha, the attributes of which, could then have been attributed to a man named Jesus--that does not make him a god.

Christian--Are there any documented evidence of people with visions of Krishna that also provided relevant & accurate historical details that have been proven correct? Surely Emmerich's experience is something much more. Have you heard of her?
Secondly, all religions have areas of similarity & you cant use that as a basis of your claim. The NT is integral to the very Jewish OT, which rules out the possibilities of it being invented by Catholics.

Atheist--Why yes, there are people who have had "documented" visions of Krishna. This man for instance, Sri H. W. L. Poonja, who claimed, while still a boy, to have visions of Krishna, which continued throughout his life. This is typical of almost ALL religions that worship a deity. Emmerich is not special in that regard. Really, the NT contradicts the Tanakh in so many instances, Christians would have been better off not attaching it to their "holy book" at all.

Christian--Poonja's experiences sound like the kind people experience when they are in a trance or trance-like state. Emmerich's experience is much different.
Also I am not arguing that people cannot have visions of one kind or another, some with mental problems being the case, etc. The point I am making is whether these people reveal something astounding thats proven to be true that they could not possibly know, thus proving its supernatural.

Atheist--The same thing you say about the religious experiences of believers of other faiths, can be said about yours, and the case you present."Stigmata" for example (as in the case of Emmerich) is argued to be a case of "pious fraud" and/or mental illness. Go to Researchers have offered so-called "empirical" evidence of reincarnation, which is a key component of Hinduism. See research by I. Stevenson-Reincarnation and Biology, and his other many works on the subject.

Christian--I don't disagree with you, but this all took place in the early 1800's & while she (Emmerich) was under observation & her wounds were also examined. They were proper wounds that healed & also come back. Also, how do you address her information about Jesus & the Essenes?

Atheist--The argument by experience has many difficulties. If we accept the experience argument,we would have to accept it for all the other faiths as well. This produces an absurdity for the Christians, who claim their god is the one and only true god, as if we accept the experience argument, then it would appear that there are many gods. This would prove the bible and the Christian claims as being false.Thus, a dilemma. The experience argument would "prove" too much to swallow for christians.

Christian--I did not say all other visions cant be supernatural. I accept some of the experience by people of other faiths could also be supernatural though most aren't (from the detailed ones I looked into). However, I believe that Jesus is the true God for many reasons, which is impossible to summarize here.

Atheist--The experiences of other faiths are as "supernatural" as Christian experiences. And if they experience their gods, then the Christian claim that their god is the only god is false. I suggest you download "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by TW Doane. This text was used at Harvard Seminary, and shows how Christianity was plagiarized from older myths and religions. Hindus believe their gods are the true gods as well, and they also have many reasons for doing so.

Christian--Fair point, but the bible explains that Satan misleads others & would appear to themto lead them away from the truth. You see in bible, though written by different authors, everything explained & all conceivable anomalies answered.

Atheist--This begs the question, as first you must show that your religion is true, as opposed to the other religions. You admit the experience argument works for the other religions and have not provided any arguments that shows your religion is true and theirs is false. There are many religions that claim to have "deceivers" among their gods, and therefore, it could be argued that your religion, including Satan, is from one these "tricksters." Again, no proof and no evidence.

Christian--Fair point. The theology is water-tight in Christianity but not in other religions, but like I say before, I cant show it to you here. Just a quick example. Pagan gods are accepted as myths with no historical evidence of it being anything but myths. Jesus claims divinity but many religions worship 'Gods' whom did not claim to be divine eg Buddha. Islam promises a carnal heaven where a man can have many wives/slaves = many children=more grandchildren & so on to eternity. Too ridiculous!

Atheist--The theology of Christianity actually has LESS historical and archeological evidence than most of the other religions. An example would be the Greek and Hindu gods--that is if you want to count the mention of battles, temples caves, archeological evidence. etc. Christianity is a religion of faith because it lacks evidence--this was pointed out by Kierkegaard. Note, you say Jesus "claims" divinity--no evidence, key word being "claims". All the Hindu gods are considered divine.

Christian--Totally disagree with you. Evidence of worship such as temples, etc is not evidence of there being a God. The hindu gods probably stemmed from Mahabharata which documented historical events of man elevated to divine levels. Again Hindu theology is ridiculous & equally carnal in nature.

Atheist--Ahhh--EXACTLY!! Now we know why the Jews made up their gods and goddesses, including Yahweh. So again, what evidence do you present for Christianity? The fact that Jesus CLAIMED divinity?? BTW--I am the divine queen of Canada.

The fact that Jesus claims divinity while Buddha did not, only illustrates that Buddha was far more trustworthy and straightforward in his philosophy. In what I consider true Buddhism, there is no worship of any god, as Buddha saw that this was of no value to enlightenment and salvation of humankind. I agree with Nietzsche in what he stated in the "Antichrist"--" Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared."

Christian--I told you there are many reasons. I cant go through all here. The books are written by different individuals over centuries & yet are an integral whole & water-tight. What is the chance (%) of that? NT explains all the OT to such clarity that had it been made up, it would be virtually impossible.
There’re some truly astounding facts such as bible said all nations & tongues came from one family. Now what an amazing & true revelation as proven by science that all races from same common ancestor!

Atheist--The bible is not considered evidence for anything, as it is a book full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Many of the holy books of the other religions have just as many, if not more "amazing and true" revelations that are far more consistent with science. In fact, Buddha's views have been proven to be epistemologically, psychologically, and scientifically sound. All the major religions have "amazing true" revelations proven by science.--Christianity is not special in that regard.

Friday, February 18, 2011

My First Youtube video!!

Evidence for god? Where??

Atheist--What makes you, as a Christian, think that your version of god is any more valid than the versions of other various gods and goddesses in other religions, such as Mithras, Krishna and Dionysus for example?

Christian--The simple answer is that if Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus were real historical figures, you would have a case. Alas, they were not. Jesus, however, is a real person. 

There are plenty of extra-biblical references to Jesus in the works of noted historians such as Tacitus Josephus, and others, let alone the account of the NT itself. None of the others have any historical support, and thus all of them are mere mythological figures.

Atheist--First of all, it is well known that Jesus is but a "copy" of the earlier aforementioned gods. This is even noted in books used in seminary such as "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by TW Doane (you can download it for free at

Secondly, there is no historical proof or evidence of Jesus having "god-like" attributes. If you count the bible, then we get to count all the other holy books and references, and reported experiences of followers of the aforementioned gods.

Thirdly, Josephus was a known forger, and Tacitus and Pliny wrote a few sentences which are not considered "proof" of anything, especially since the Romans, who were in charge of the area at the time have NO RECORDS at all of Jesus ever existing.

Many great writers wrote about Dionysus, Attis, and all the other gods.

Buddha WAS a historical figure. He was written about in MANY countries, from India to Japan. Buddha has far more historicity than Jesus. Buddha is also said to have the "god like" attributes in question. Therefore, Buddha is god...following your logic of course.

They are no more "mythological" than Jesus is. Everyone claims their god is unique and offers no are no different.

And the list goes on.....

"From the Sumerian King List, we do know there was an historical Gilgamesh"

The Epic of Gilgamesh is also where the story of Noah was plagiarized.....and much more.

Gilgamesh too is said to have "god like" attributes.

Here is another link:

So Gilgamesh too is "god"...according to your logic.

Jesus MAY have been an actual person, whereas there is documentation that Buddha WAS an actual person. The account of Jesus is hearsay, which does not count as evidence. It was written much later that the supposed events took place.

I have already given you evidence to show the historicity of Krishna and Gilgamesh, which is as much a proof as the fact that people in the bible make claims, which is no more valid than any other religion that makes similar claims.

Christianity is NOT fact it is the least special of all of them as it contains nothing unique or original.

Where do you think the reports of Buddha and Krishna and all the rest came from, if not from "eye witnesses"??
And that was the end of that.  Mere assertion on the part of Christians does not prove the existence of their deity.  Various other religions in fact have much more "evidence" than they do.  But they keep trying.....

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Another Criticism of Dr. William Lane Craig

I just couldn't resist another poke at Dr. Craig today.  I think he just might become my muse, as he too is a philosopher--his philosophies are just somewhat different than my own.  He  attempts to use logic effectively in some of his arguments, but unfortunately for him, he fails miserably.  I am going to critique one of his favorite arguments for the existence of "objective morality that comes from god".  This is also an excerpt from a book which I am currently writing:

"Christians say and believe there are absolute laws which come from their god, when, according to their own dogma, there are no laws at all. Jesus, they also say, supposedly died to absolve them from following the 613 laws that Yahweh set out for them, which is a clear contradiction to having "absolute laws." (Remember, Yahweh did not separate his laws and commandments into categories--this was done by men-- and the ten commandments are included in all of his laws.) It is blatantly obvious therefore, that if Yahweh existed, he gave humanity absolute moral rules to follow which Christians say they follow, but in reality, they only pay lip service to a few of them. This shows us that for Christians too, their moral rules are relative, and Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial."  According to Paul, everything is permissible when one believes there are no longer any laws to follow--it just might not be good for you.

This, however, does not stop the apologists such as Dr. Williams Lane Craig from arguing against this fact, which he attempts to do in his book, "A Debate Between A Christian and an Atheist." In his book, Dr. Craig argues that morality and ethical behavior is impossible for humans to achieve without a god, and absolute morals could not exist without Yahweh. He presents the following argument to show why he believes this to be true:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists. (p. 19)

He assumes that objective morals are conditional to a god existing, but I will show that objective morals are not dependent upon the existence of any god, let alone the Christian god. Craig's argument is a valid argument, but unsound, as without a god, we are quite capable in positing "objective moral values" through various Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is one of many Normative Ethical Theories, or NET'S, which are devices for producing specific moral judgements. The NET of Utilitarianism posits that:

"If any action increases the overall good, then it is a right action.

For instance, consider the following Direct Moral Rules (DMR's) posited by the Christian god, such as:
1. Do not lie.
2. Do not harm others.

In the examples below, these two DMR's come into conflict with each other:
In the case of lying for example, if I were in a situation where I was told that a roomful of people would be killed if my name was Susan, I would break the DMR which states "Do not lie" and lie about my name in order to save peoples' lives. To lie to the person who is about to kill the people if I say my name is Susan would be wrong, but to prevent harm coming to the others, lying would be considered to be right. According to Utilitarianism, when two DMR's come into conflict we apply the principle of utility directly to the situation at hand, and come up with what is most likely the correct judgment, which in this case would be it is right to lie in order to save many people from harm."

(All material protected by copyright) 

This is the video I commented on, on Youtube.  Logic is as frightening to Christians as a crucifix is to Dracula...and I was banned from that channel.  Lol.  The argument however, survives.  See below.

A Response and Argument Against Dr. William Lane Craig's Argument that the Christian god is Morally Perfect and Worthy of the Attitude of Worship

Recently I was on Youtube, listening to one of Dr. Craig's Videos, which prompted me to construct this logical argument against what was said.  He said that a morally perfect god is one worthy of worship, and the ancient gods of the Greeks and other peoples were morally flawed, and therefore not worthy of worship.  

He is very wrong about the Christian god, as the Christian god Yahweh has almost identical attributes to the gods of the Greeks and Romans. 

"...for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land"  Deuteronomy 6:15

Being angry and jealous and threatening to destroy people is not virtuous.

P1 If Yahweh (the christian God) is worthy of the attitude of worship, then Yahweh would meet the conditions of the greatest conceivable being. (Craig set those conditions, and being morally perfect is one of those conditions.)
P2 If Yahweh is the greatest conceivable being, then Yahweh would have to be morally perfect.
P3 If Yahweh is morally perfect, then he would be perfectly virtuous.
P4 If Yahweh is perfectly virtuous, then he would have no vices.
P5 Yahweh has vices. (angry, jealous, vengeful, narcissistic, murderous, sadistic)
P6 Yahweh does not not have vices. (By the rule of double negation)
P7 Yahweh is not perfectly virtuous.
P8 Yahweh is not morally perfect.
P9 Yahweh is not the greatest conceivable being.
C. Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship.

So Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship, for the same reason, as Craig points out, that all the other little 'g' gods are not worthy of worship.

Christians such as Dr. Craig need to construct better arguments than merely asserting the Christian god is "the greatest conceivable being" as there is too much "evidence" in the bible which shows that the Christian god Yahweh is nothing short of a narcissisitic, sadistic, masochistic, angry, jealous, vengeful god.--and NOT worthy of worship. 

I got a resonse to my argument from the guy who owned the channel, and then he immediately blocked me. He said:

"P5 just begged the question, genius. Honestly, throw the Dan Barker stuff in the trash."

Here is the reply I would have posted, if he had let me, but since he didn't, my husband posted it instead:

P5 does not beg the question-It is supported by biblical passages such as the one below:

"..for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land." Deuteronomy 6:15

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”Hosea 13:16 (MURDER OF UNBORN)

After this, my husband was blocked.  These types of Christians obviously are unwilling to argue for their beliefs, but maintain them by blocking out anything that contradicts them.  It matters not, it is easy to create new accounts and keep posting, which is what I did below:

According to Craig, for any being to be worthy for the attitude of worship they must meet the criteria of the greatest conceivable being, and one of those conditions is being morally perfect.  According to the bible,Yahweh was angry and jealous, which are vices, and if vices do not count against Yahweh, then they do not count against any other being. Therefore, Zeus, or any other of the Gods would be worthy of the attitude of worship too. Yahweh must meet the same conditions, and he does not.  Therefore, Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship.

You cannot waive the conditions for Yahweh that Craig set out for being worthy of the attitude of worship, ie. for being a god.  Otherwise, you are begging the question for Yahweh being a God in the first place.  Yahweh must meet the same standards that Craig set out for being worthy of the attitude of worship. So either Craig is wrong, or the bible is wrong about Yahweh being jealous and angry and therefore having vices.  Just because you prefer Yahweh does not count. 

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Nature or Nurture?--how to prove Yahweh is a monster

Atheist--Why do you believe Jesus is your savior?

Christian--I have faith it's fact. My life may not be perfect, but my God is perfect. I don't fear death. I don't have to work to get to heaven, it was a free gift that i took some years ago.  Because of Jesus' free gift, if I were to die today I would be in heaven.  As John 3:16 tells us: 
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,f that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
 There isn’t much any of us can do about sin. We certainly don’t have the ability in ourselves to overcome this powerful law of human nature, therefore we turn to god. " 

Atheist--Hmmm.....I do not agree with you.  Let me show you why as I break this down for you logically:

P1. If god created us, as Christians claim, then god gave us "human nature."
P2. If god gave us human nature, then god is to blame for the problem of evil.
C. Therefore, god is to blame for the evil in the world.
So, in reality if you are a believer, you should be blaming god, not worshiping him.

Christian--If you are going to make an argument against Christianity, at least read Genesis 1-2 first. That'll answer why man is inherently evil. The serpent tempted Adam and Eve. God created them perfect. they chose to sin. because of their sin man is now inherently evil. but there is the hope of John 3:16, as  Jesus came to save us from our sins, and all we have to do is accept this free gift of salvation and we have the hope of knowing for certain..

Atheist--As I am a professor of philosophy and religion, I have read the bible more times than almost any christian I know. What you are saying is Jesus died to save you from your "human nature" that he (in the form of Yahweh) gave to you himself. lolol--I hope you see how ridiculous that sounds.
Interestingly enough, I was a Christian for most of my life until I went to university and studied all of the religions. I even asked once Bishop why he did not tell his flock the whole truth, (As in all of the explanations learned clergy know, and I know as well. I was asked to become a member of that club too, but I refused as I could not ethically do so as an atheist, although many do.)--he told me "The poor peasants don't need to know too much."--He was wrong. 
I  base my conclusion not on just study, but on logic, reason, the hypothetical-deductive method, and the dialectical process. Faith is only a virtue if it is faith in the right thing. For instance, the Germans had faith in Hitler, and the Jews had faith in Yahweh--neither one worked out well for them.
As Montgomery Gentry said "GTO's don't run on faith."

Christian-What you said about God being the reason for our human nature and therefore our sin is completely false. Got did not create sin, he created the OPTION to sin. He gave us free will so that we may CHOOSE to love Him. You see, being loved by someone who is forced to love you is not real love. Someone choosing to love you above all things is true love. This is the purpose of free will. God didn't cause our sin. We did. Which is why He sent His only beloved son to save us from sin.

Atheist--Christians say god created them. Therefore, he also created their "human nature" which they also tell me allows them to sin--unless of course Satan created that for you. Remember what it says in Proverbs 16:33, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." EVERY means ALL--you decide nothing. Paul also said "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Romans 11:32--so god sets you up to fail--he BINDS you to disobey!!
And why would an all loving god even give you the "option" to sin? Why didn't he create earth like he did heaven, with free will and NO evil?? If he was all powerful, he could have easily have done so. But no, according to Christians, he gives you the OPTION to sin!--how sinister of him!!  We could have instead been given the OPTION of only choosing from a variety of GOOD decisions, like heaven, but the sadistic god thought otherwise.

Christian--If we had no choice but to love God, would we REALLY love God? If God was the only option, we would only love him because there is nothing else to love. God wants us to choose to love him instead of worldly things. 

Atheist--According to the bible, god IS the one that determines whether or not you believe, or love him, as he determines EVERYTHING. And as the passage says, he BINDS you to disobey. You have no choice in the matter. The passages that suggest that you have free will are contradictory to the ones I mentioned that show that you do not--which illustrates the inconsistency of the text, and how poorly the bible was written.
Also, see Romans 9:19-23 which explain how god, as the "potter" determines what shape and form the clay (you) will take. This is one of the passages which instigated the Reformation, and Calvinism.

Christian--We waste our time arguing about the way scripture is written, focus on what the scripture says. God loves this World. Period. HE SENT HIS ONLY SON. WHOEVER BELIEVES IN THE SON WILL NOT DIE BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. Focus on the glory of our Lord than your own opinion. 

Atheist-- I focus on the SCRIPTURE because that is what you base your beliefs on, and you also claim it is inerrant--and it is NOT. It is NOT my opinion, it is what is written in your holy book that I focus on. So your god, who created you with "human nature" has to start over because he screwed up the first time, and sends a flood, knowing before hand it wouldn't work so he would send his son to die too--when the all powerful god did not have to have anyone die at all to give us salvation.

Christian--Your problem is you have no understanding of My God. He doesn't operate the way YOU want him to operate. Focus on this: "I AM WHO I AM"

It is not I AM WHO YOU WANT ME TO BE. He will do things His own way. Even I don't understand somethings and I will admit to that. But you know what? HE taught me to lean not on my own understanding. So when I try to focus on God through my human body I wont get anywhere. It takes His own Spirit for you to understand Him.
 You don't even realize the grace He is showing you right now. The Gospel has been proclaimed you have the chance to repent and turn to God. But since you choose to follow your your own mind, God will give you off to your own mind. Many people rejected Jesus when He was here on Earth. Did that stop him? No, He continued to do what the Father sent Him to do.

Atheist--So your god, who supposedly gave you this "human nature", and BINDS you to disobedience, is kind enough to allow you to worship him and ask him for forgiveness from that which he is responsible for!!--that is, your disobedience which he has BOUND you to!--that truly is bizarre.
Not only that, you are saying that I cannot understand your god through the scriptures that he inspired!! If we cannot understand him, and he is beyond time and space and our reason--then what makes you think you have any idea what, if anything he thinks and wants from you? He could want you to be a murderer for all you know, as you cannot understand god......nobody can.

Christian--And by saying that you prove God to be right. He has given you over to what you want. You say you know more than God? ok. You say logic is better? ok. You say finding answers is greater? ok. All I am telling you is that The Lord's name will be glorified. If you choose to believe, so let it be, If you choose not to believe...well........

Atheist-- No--I prove that your god is impotent--as he vowed to destroy the wisdom of the wise (1 Cor 1:19)--which the church tried its hardest to do, but we are still here. Christians destroyed the library of Alexandria and banned free thought for hundreds of years, until the enlightenment. Million of the "wise" were killed by Christians....but yet we remain. Your god has proven himself to be impotent--in more ways than one.
One more thing you should realize is that you do not even get to choose whether or not you believe or do not believe in god. He did that for you. In Ephesians 2:8-9 God gives you grace--but it is NOT OF YOURSELVES--it is a gift. This means you don't even decide if you believe or not, which also means he decides who is damned--which again, makes him a monster of epic proportions.

Christian--I'm sorry sir but do you not have anything better to do than to insult and put down the ideals and values of those who have a different view than you?

Atheist--Nothing that I have said is insulting. I am using scripture to show how absurd Christian beliefs are. That is all. Absurdity does not deserve to be worshiped and glorified.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Why the organization "Fixed Point" is not very convincing..

 I'm diverting a bit with this post, but I want to comment on a commercial I saw this weekend during the Superbowl.

The Christian organization called "Fixed Point" is a fundamentalist Christian organization which spreads the word so to speak via the internet, publicized debates, and now commercials during Superbowl. They have organized debates with such notable atheists as Christopher Hitchens, and just recently, broadcast a commercial during Sunday's Superbowl based on the passages from John 3:16, at  the end of which, they suggest you to "look up" I did. This is what they say on their website:

"Well, it’s clear there really isn’t much any of us can do....we certainly don’t have the ability in ourselves to overcome this powerful law of human nature. "

Which got me to thinking, so I constructed a logical argument based on the claims they made on their website:

P1. If god created us, as Christians claim, then god gave us "human nature."

P2. If god gave us human nature, then god is to blame for the problem of evil.
C. Therefore, god is to blame for the evil in the world.
Almost all such claims made by Christians are done to make the gullible more susceptible to their dogma, but with a little logic and some reflective thought, they are all easily refuted.  In this example, we see by their own admission the christian god, if he existed, is to blame for the problem of evil. He is to blame for humans disobedient due to their "human nature" that he himself created. After setting the scenario up, he then chooses who he gives grace to because he also determines who believes and who does not believe, as he determines EVERYTHING, according to the bible, and most Christians.

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33)

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Romans 11:32.

If the bible and the christian conception of Yahweh is correct, then he is to blame for the problems who he then sets his son to be the sacrificial lamb for.....which makes him a sadistic monster of epic proportions. Torturing his own son for something he did in the first place is not beautiful--it is monstrous. It would be terrible for a human father to do, but for an all knowing all powerful "father" to set that up---it is absolutely ridiculous!!

Sunday, February 6, 2011

"Dr." Eric von Anderseck--the self professed "chief" apostle is a fake, phony, and a fraud.

Recently on Yahoo Answers, one of my questions in the R&S section was answered by someone claiming to be "Dr." Eric von Anderseck.  Now, anyone can claim anything on the internet, so I decided to do some research on the man and found out that yes, his name is Eric von Anderseck, but NO he is NOT A REAL SCHOLAR, as he gave himself that designation through his "self accredited" school that he promotes through the internet.  I visited his website, where he promotes his own brand of theology, and claims to be the "Chief Apostle." I also read his ummm..."dissertation" and wondered why an accredited school was not listed on his paper.  I found out why after reading his bio on the site, as he is "self accredited,"  which allows him to promote his own brand of theology through his website, and his "self-published" books. 

Yesterday I could access his "about" page on the site, but today for some reason, it's not there.  Hmmm.....perhaps he is trying to "reinvent" himself again?
Here is the site:

At least he admits he is NOT recognized by the US Department of Education.  That is about the only "honest" information you can find on his site, which you can find  in his "catalog." 

My research also resulted in a one-sided email exchange with "Dr." von Anderseck, where I asked him where I asked him where he got his credentials, and challenged him to answer another question I asked based on his answer to my previous question.  Not only did I not receive a reply, he also failed to answer the question.  Have they no shame???  

Evangelists, and clergy in general keep showing us how corrupt, and immoral they truly are, from scandals involving prostitutes and homosexuality, to con men taking money from the gullible in order to finance their mansions and private jets.  When will people see just how corrupt religious institutions are??

Thursday, February 3, 2011

How mistranslations somehow become the "word of god" ie the "Textus Receptus"

This was a highly entertaining  email conversation I had with a street evangelist, based on a question I asked on Yahoo Answers concerning the paraphrasing of Mark 1:2-3.   He goes on to claim the Textus Receptus is a reliable source. I had to laugh.....  Here is the question, and the exchange that followed.  Enjoy.

Why do academic Christians who KNOW that Mark 1:2-3 is a "paraphrase" from three different passages in the OT, namely Isaiah 40:3, Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20, explain that it is NOT a quote from Isaiah prophesying the return of Jesus, but a misquote? Why don't learned christians explain that it is only a paraphrase taken from various prophets making reference to various other subject matter, and not to Jesus?

This leads to distortion and misrepresentation. In this case, paraphrase is just another explanation and excuse for a misquote, and to misrepresent the truth.

Exodus 23:20:-- "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared"

Malachi 3:1-- "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty" (NIV).

Isaiah 40:3--A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God (NIV).

Results in:

"It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ Mark 1:2-3

Christian--The first problem you are having is that you are using a version of the Bible that is unreliable in it's translation. The second problem you are having is that you are trying to act like you know something that you do not.

Mark 1:2-3 does quote from Isaiah and Malachi, and the quotes are accurate. There is no "lie" or "misleading" involved.

Atheist--Your explanation may have worked for you in the past, when you are dealing with people that do not KNOW the material, but your feeble attempt at Humpty Dumpty semantics will not work on someone like myself who has studied at university/seminary, and TEACHES it at university level for a living.

If you know it, why not explain it to the people, and let them make a RATIONAL decision based on the FACTS, as opposed to being a dishonest so-called scholar. You should be ashamed.......

Christian--Wow, you seem to think pretty highly of yourself, and, without knowing anything about me, assume I do not know what I'm talking about. If you knew the Textus Receptus, you would know that "prophet" is there. Here is the actual writing in the Textus Receptus...

ως γεγραπται εν τοις προφηταις ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου

" προφηταις " is the Greek word, " prof-ay'-tace " which means "foreteller" or "Prophet".

As you can see, it is in the original.

The KJV reads, (Mark 1:2) "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

As you can see, the word "Isaiah" is not even the original Greek, or the English translation.

So, as I said before, You are using a perverted copy, or simply do not know what you are talking about.

Atheist--Lolol--yes, I think very highly of myself. I am one that your god said he would "destroy"--as in "destroy the wisdom of the wise."

Let me demonstrate. Unlike you, I research everything, and do not take anything on "faith". You mentioned the "Textus Receptus" as being, I quote, "As you can see, it is in the original."--lolol--thanks for that, I haven't laughed so hard in a while.

The Textus Receptus is a "translation" by Erasmus of another "translation of the Vulgate......NOT an original. This is the difference between a scholar---me---and an ignorant wanna be scholar--you.

The original Greek--and scholars such as myself have checked the ORIGINAL Greek, just as we check the ORIGINAL Hebrew--says ISAIAH.

I suggest you go to school, but if already have, you need to go back. I suspect, based on your "skills" that you are a member of a christian cult that has no valid academic foundation. Basically, you are just given a "pastoral document" and Sunday school "in house" education--that is totally biased towards your own particular dogma--as opposed to a TRUE academic study. For instance, such as the education that catholic priests, or Methodists or Lutherans are given.

As a further note, if you rely on the Textus Receptus, then I believe you are a true sheeple, and will follow anything you are told blindly.....................

Christian--Well, thanks for your imput. The Scriptures say that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Since you have rejected the very God that created you, it is understandable that you have no least in regards to spiritual matters.

This being said, there is not much use speaking with you regarding such matters.

And just for the record, God destroying the wisdom of the wise is a future event when He returns again. So, glory in you worldly wisdom while you can. It won't last much longer.

Atheist--You have no should be honest and courageous enough to admit that to yourself.

Christian--I have been a street Evangelist for twenty-two years now. During that twenty-two years I have studied Greek and Hebrew and have done extensive study into manuscript evidence. Over the years I have learned a lot. As a result, I will share two things with you.

(1) I am convinced beyond any doubt that the KJV is the inspired Word of God for the English Speaking people, and the manuscripts used to translate it into English are inspired of God.

(2) There is no sense wasting my time with someone like you. You think you have it all figured out, and without the Holy Spirit to teach and guide you, I would be waisting my time.

Have a good day, basking in your humanistic wisdom.

Atheist--You say "KJV is the inspired Word of God for the English Speaking people,"--but the evidence states otherwise....unless of course the christian god is stupid.

Your "perfect" god would not have "rushed" Erasmus into creating a book that was full of errors and mistranslations of the actual meanings of what it was translated from...........that is not something a "perfect" god would do. A perfect god would not "inspire" Erasmus to "polish" the language ie "change" it, because as he said, ""It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."--no, a "perfect" god would not inspire someone to change the text......but that is what happened.

Christian--I'm not avoiding anything. I just don't waist my time with people who are only out to argue. You are so stuck on yourself, and have rejected the only source of spiritual truth (God), and as such, it would be a waist (his spelling, not mine) of my time to try and teach you anything.

Have you ever heard the saying, "it is better to keep you mouth closed and let people think you are a fool, then to open it and prove them right"?

In your case, it's to late.
I will not be responding, nor reading any further emails from you. It is obvious that you only want to show how "smart" you are, and to argue. There is nothing I can say that will help you, and there is nothing you have to say that I haven't heard, studied, and dismissed at some point in the past. So I bid you a good day,

Atheist--No need to reply when you do not have one......I understand completely. Good day to you as well.

(This is more fun and entertaining when I do it with a theologian in front of my students.......but this email exchange was entertaining as well.)