



One of my favorite foils in the Christian blog world is JW Wartick, (one of many apologists who have blocked me) so I thought I would take one of the favorite posts on his blog, and have a little fun with it. I find it interesting that Christianity is constantly on the defensive, because if it was a logical, with consistently held belief, it would be easier to defend against skeptics without using Humpty Dumpty semantics and/or ad hoc measures. However, since this is not the case, Christians such as Wartick and others of his ilk are constantly trying to defend their inconsistent and illogical beliefs, so Wartick came up with his, " The Case for Christianity in 15 Minutes (or Less) . Well, we'll see about that....lol.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

4) If there are objective moral values, then God exists

5) There are objective moral values

6) Therefore, God exists.



“Objective moral values” here means that moral values are true regardless of what anyone thinks. For example, “murder is wrong” would be wrong even if every single human being thought murder was the way to achieve greatest happiness and encouraged it as an extracurricular activity for teenagers. But the only way to hold that objective moral values exist is to grant God’s existence, because objective laws require an objective lawgiver.

"Some forms of Buddhism say: There is no God; Christianity argues: There is a God; Hinduism states: there are many gods, etc. and the Law of Noncontradiction shows us that therefore, these religions cannot all be true. "

"Show me manuscript evidence that states that Brahman transcends the world and is not the world itself, etc, etc."

"The cosmological argument (of the Leibnizian variety) could only support a necessarily existent deity. Anyone who does any kind of research about gods of the past would know many would not be ontologically necessary (they could be killed, for example)





"The other gods I mentioned (Dionysus, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna) died and were resurrected. According to the bible and Christianity, Jesus DIED on the cross. Either he was dead or he was NOT dead. If Jesus could be killed, then according to what you wrote, he could not be a god. If he could not be killed, and he did not die on the cross, then his pretend "death" would have been meaningless."



My last comments, which he did not post, are below:





"I gather that you know that I set your argument out correctly and showed how ridiculous your claims are, which is why you did not post my last response, which I have repeated below. You want your readers to think that you are correct, instead of just "manning up" and admitting your mistake. Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic. If you want to redeem yourself, post this, and answer to it. Your best answer would be to admit that you made a mistake. At any rate, I will be writing a post related to our conversation (yes, I take pictures of everything--even the things I write that you do not post out of fear--and for no other reason!) I am making reference to your claim about the cosmological argument and your claim that if someone dies, they cannot be god.





The other gods I mentioned (Dionysus, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna) died and were resurrected. According to the Bible and Christianity, Jesus DIED on the cross. Either he was dead or he was NOT dead. If Jesus could be killed, then according to what you wrote, he could not be a god. If he could not be killed, and he did not die on the cross, then his pretend "death" would have been meaningless. If you do not think that Jesus' death meant his nonexistence, what makes you think the death of Krishna, Dionysus and Quetzalcoatl means their nonexistence?--oh yes, that's right, your religious prejudice. "

-----------









If Jesus were a mere man and not a god, it would also explain various passages in the Bible which make little sense if his parents and family were aware of his divinity. For example, if his parents were aware of his divinity, then they would not have questioned him as to his whereabouts when they found him in the temple after he had gone missing for three days during their Passover trip to Jerusalem when he was twelve years old. If they had known he was divine when they found him in the temple, they would not have questioned him as to why he was there, and they would have understood fully what he was talking about--he was the "son of god" after all. But they had no idea what he was talking about, as the passages below illustrate: We can further illustrate that Jesus is not God via the Bible itself. Christians claim that Jesus made "divine" claims when he said that, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). However, the Bible also states the man and woman "become one" in marriage.(Mark 10:8) Therefore, the best explanation for the statement that 'I and the father are one' is that it is allegorical, and similar to man and woman becoming one in marriage, or that I and my grandmother are one, in that we share the same philosophy in the "loose and popular sense of same, and not in the "strict' sense of same in that we are one and the same being. It is a better explanation because the "strict" sense of same is how Christians view God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as being "one"--which is entirely illogical. I illustrated this in this post If Jesus were a mere man and not a god, it would also explain various passages in the Bible which make little sense if his parents and family were aware of his divinity. For example, if his parents were aware of his divinity, then they would not have questioned him as to his whereabouts when they found him in the temple after he had gone missing for three days during their Passover trip to Jerusalem when he was twelve years old. If they had known he was divine when they found him in the temple, they would not have questioned him as to why he was there, and they would have understood fully what he was talking about--he was the "son of god" after all. But they had no idea what he was talking about, as the passages below illustrate:

“Why were you searching for me?” he (Jesus) asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house? But they did not understand what he was saying to them. " Luke 2:49-50

_________________

Cathy Cooper







