Christian Incoherence

At least 5 times we were accused yesterday of making incoherent statements regarding the origins of morality. Incoherent? They keep using that word. I don’t think it means what they think it means.

You want incoherent? Try delving into the world of a blood cult. Explain religious genocide, rape, plagues, slavery, war, animal sacrifice and burnt offerings, causing that sweet smell that dissipates into the nostrils of the loving but jealous warlord in the sky, and call it scripture. Then ultimately worshipping a cross symbolizing human sacrifice. They essentially are paying homage to an old book while chanting in unison that conjures up images of the Temple of Doom. Christian incoherence begins by deifying atrocity, and then trying to justify it and make it look pretty. Incoherent? Celebrate a man that sent his wife and son into the desert to die, then goes back to his other son to sacrifice him to an invisible god and then mutilating his penis. If you want to here incoherence, listen to religion try to explain how this was all good…Very Good. And perfectly infallible.

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

133 thoughts on “Christian Incoherence”

      1. Quite telling that he’s absolutely trapped with the Why Yhwh question. Of course, his answer, which will never come, would be a MIRROR of my answer, which is why he refuses to answer. He accuses others of the transgressions he is committing, and hopes no one notices.

        Liked by 1 person

            1. That is telling. Also, in Poland the social pressure is tremendous to be Catholic. I have some polish friends that joined the Mormons, and their family and country no longer considers them polish either. Figure that keeps a few on the attendance rolls.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. If I was young and had a good career, I’d move to Europe. The US is starting to look like the Mideast…drowning in religious fanaticism. And political corruption must rival Russia.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Apologies for butting in here, John, but what’s the rebuttal (if any) to his Aquinas “Essence-Existence Distinction” argument?

              I can’t make heads or tails of that word salad, but it looks like a long-winded attempt to smuggle in a faulty premise that leads to “god did it”.

              Liked by 2 people

            4. It’s pure invention. The first premise is simply defining something into existence. It fails right there.

              I suspect Mel doesn’t even get the fact that he is presenting presuppositions, which is why he throws a wobbly when we call him on them. He actually takes these things to be actual. I experienced this yesterday when he nearly had an aneurysm when I pointed out the contingency of the universe is a religious presupposition which i simply don’t accept. Perhaps it’s the case that he’s simply never thought about teh universe being non-contingent?

              Liked by 3 people

            5. That’s kind of what I thought. My take was that it tries to prove objects have characteristics that exist independent of those objects and therefore those characteristics originate from a non-physical source; therefore god. But like I said, it’s so convoluted it’s hard to decipher.

              Liked by 2 people

            6. Faith doesn’t require you to decipher anything. It’s the easy road. It takes nothing to acquire or maintain, and easy answers satisfy that need to know, even though it’s a wrong answer. It’s a binkey, nothing more.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. That’s the amusing part. Admission is free and requires nothing more onerous more than assent. Even children can come to Christ. But for some strange reason, leaving requires a degree in philosophy before you’re granted your exit visa.

              “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.” ~Eagles, Hotel California

              Liked by 2 people

            8. Yes. I noticed he uses the “so you think you’re smarter than an ancient philosopher” line a lot. I would just call his bluff and say, “Hell yeah. That guy’s knowledge was so limited it predated the invention of soap.”

              Liked by 2 people

            9. It screams from every post — especially the ones dealing with morality. As to knowledge, it’s hard to say. On his blog he appears knowledgeable and well-informed. His sermons, however, seem incoherent and unfocused, and ramble on. I also get the impression that he is talking down to the audience; perhaps because he realizes that his apologetic tactics would sail right past them. It can’t be stage fright, because he’s been doing this for four decades.

              Liked by 1 person

        1. He was nice enough to give them a bottle of water though. β€œAnd Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer–sheba.”
          ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭21:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Not for me. It was just a matter of looking at facts and literally nothing in it is as you’re told. Weird. Why is so much concocted about this? When I realized I’d been duped since birth, I walked away. I know enough to know that defending bullshit is a dead end intellectually. I don’t pretend. If I don’t know that’s fine, but I won’t ever make something up to make myself look right.

              Liked by 3 people

            2. I never looked outside of it. Once I did look, it took me three weeks and I made my decision based on all my own observations. Nothing was really as it was portrayed.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I suppose. But if religion were a plane, we would never fly. The flaws are equal to trying to build a plane with submarine plans. Nothing works like it is said to.

              Liked by 2 people

  1. Somehow their idea of “I’m right and you are wrong” now equals “you are making incoherent statements.” I guess the truth doesn’t register with some people. The truth seems foolish to Christians…wait a minute. Isn’t that what we’re told in the Bible about those who are perishing? Isn’t that supposed to be us? Hmmm…. I hope we don’t scratch their floors when we turn the tables on them.

    Liked by 3 people

          1. Well, I guess it’s really only been the last 25 years. I was raised Christian, but without saying the magic words (sinner’s prayer) it wasn’t official until then. Those silly Christians. I thought I was in from the beginning, but without saying Simon Says, it didn’t count. πŸ™‚

            Liked by 3 people

  2. Wow…I must be weird. I have absolutely no desire to see what these other people have to say because I know how they are. Blind belief, fear to question any belief, talking nonsense and in circles and never answering a question straight up, arrogance and condescension.
    Now if they would discuss actual religious history, then maybe.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I have found that most Christians care more about keeping their beliefs at all costs than to really know the truth. They may say they are open to being proven wrong, but when you do, they deny the evidence anyway. I asked a Christian on here what a verse meant when they accused me of getting it wrong. Did they explain the “true” meaning? Nope. They just kept repeating themselves and saying I misinterpreted it. Never once explaining why I was wrong. Stubbornness and ignorance is a deadly combination. I never knew Christians were like that when I was one. Now it’s all too obvious.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Mel is quick on the insults, and getting quicker. He started off being somewhat reasonable, even though he’s doing nothing but pretending to think about things honestly. Since Branyan showed up, he’s disintergrated rapidly.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. He got upset at a little joke I made at brain yawn. Then he lets him squawk and call out blowhard whenever he feels like it. Almost makes me feel it’s staged to distract from the truth. And I think you should drop the caps on brain yawn. Somehow doesn’t seem like a proper noun. πŸ™‚ It’s more of an adjective.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. I loved that part a couple days ago where he told you it’s getting late and that maybe you should just go to bed. Lol. He was worn down pretty hard and out of excuses. I’m still chuckling ove that.

          Liked by 3 people

  4. Guys … you have to admit one thing. He’s pretty inventive. I mean, think about it. No matter what anyone says in contradiction, he’s able to come back with some kind of gobbledygook that essentially means nothing but undoubtedly impresses any member of his congregation that might be reading along. When you think about it, that’s pretty much an innate talent among all preachers.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I really think they probably give Mel the advantage in these dialogs. His faithfulness through adversity and fact is high fiveable and the delusion is so strong they can’t see past the craziness. In Christianity the abuse is recieved like a badge of honor for Jesus sake, and faith, whether real or pretended makes you a star. A member. One of the gang. Mel relishes his debating more and more. He’s high on it. He hasn’t won a single concept, but he thinks he has. He’s getting congratulated by his team for losing a 0-10 season.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Jim your comment has me rethinking my original assessment of Mel. I guess I was naive but I thought it was an exchange of ideas between adults. You seem to be saying it really is ideology at any cost and the more argued against and you deny the reason against your position, the more status you gain. That changes the game from discussion to more a nefarious situation. One that makes me even more convinced it is a set up to prove their points to themselves only. Hugs

        Liked by 4 people

        1. Amen brother!! They are NOT exchanging ideas to learn. They are convincing themselves they are right, and hoping to bring you to the fold. Nothing validated as well as suckering another into believing. Let me know when your baptism is, I want to come. Lol.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. Thanks Jim, I guess that makes me stupid. I really engaged Mel like we were exchanging ideas, worldviews. I have this really weird idea that if you show someone reason they will see the point. Not change their entire view of the universe but see reason. Sort of one foot in front of the other deal. I learn a lot from other people. Daily. I have to try to reason my way through a bad education and personal bias. So I just figure others are also doing so. Guess I am the one taken advantage of. Oh well. Best wishes. Hugs

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Scottie, don’t be too hard on yourself about your fair approach. That is how you’ll learn well and the most… is by being “neutral,” hearing all info and perspectives, comparing/contrasting, then if all has been accurately provided… make your own conclusion, or TBD. πŸ™‚

              Don’t change a thing Sir! ❀

              Liked by 6 people

            2. No! Not stupid at all. I reckon most of the non-believers who initially engaged him ( after he visited Nan’s spot, I think?) felt he seemed fairly reasonable.
              But as we are all witnessing, the more he is confronted with evidence his attempts at refutation has seen his posts become very ”off the wall”, shying well away from confronting actual evidence.
              And of course, as he is now metaphorically in bed with The Comedian his rhetoric is even more over-blown, narcissistic, and asinine.

              Liked by 5 people

          2. As long as I’ve been visiting his blog to bounce opposing alternative viewpoints over there, Mel has NEVER shown any interest in discussing or debating his position on a controversial subject — only to be heard/read and affirmed. An echo chamber really, that’s all. All a visitor has to do is read most of his comment-replies to challengers and it is clear: his blog is merely to spread his own ideology. πŸŽͺ🀑

            Liked by 5 people

          3. […] and hoping to bring you to the fold.

            Well, if that is their intent they might want to rethink … uh, everything?

            I occasionally dip my toe into those blogs, be it because the subject interests me, or because I’m trying to learn from the interaction how some of the believers I work with might think, how they might reason. Ever hoping that one day I’ll find a formula for getting along with those guys, at least to the point of having a more smooth working relationship (my natural irreverence and snark are not working 99% of the time, that axiom I’ve already established. Does religion require humorectomies?)

            But even a mild mannered agnostic needs to wear non-flammable suits over there. One lady jumped down my throat as evil Atheist for .. I don’t even remember what. A relatively harmless but honest request to clarify this or that. Backpedaled when I explained I’m no evil Atheist, only the slightly evil lower case agnostic. She switched to condescending thereafter (not that atheists aren’t capable of that one, too).

            Then a fine hullabaloo over at IB’s, who on that occasion was actually very nice and open to discussion. Not so the gang. Good grief, if I ever needed another reason to run far and fast from organized religion and Abrahamic deities… (when IB needs to defend the agnostic interloper against her buddies, you know the midden has hit the windmill).

            Liked by 3 people

      1. I was feeling embarrassed for him, but his blinders are pretty tight. I have heard him say one time to you “fair enough” and jumped right to another split end. I do have the feeling he knows he’s wrong, but has thrown his hat in the ring no matter how ridiculous it gets.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. Nice. Or “you still haven’t answered a previous question” that you answered a hundred times very clearly. I think this past week he’s wanted to prove the morality issues as a way of back door proving there is a god, and he can’t do either.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. As I mentioned to Ark earlier, the argument from morality actually disproves their god. Mel proposes the existence of a perfectly moral god, yet by his own articulation of reality humans are, in a manner of speaking, drip-fed upgrades in our grasp of moral truths KNOWN to his particular god. That is immoral. It is immoral because his god (a supposedly good creature) passively observes man as he behaves (unwittingly) immorally. For example, believing it correct to sacrifice animals in cruel and barbaric and disgusting ways. A moral creature could not permit this, thus proving no such moral arbiter exists.

              Simply put, it is immoral to deliberately withhold information as to what is right and what is wrong.

              Liked by 4 people

            1. He would say: Yhwh. But that’s not what i’m asking him. I’m adking him WHY does Yhwh exist?

              Seems his all-important WHY question is not so important when turned around on him

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Well, ask him again. Maybe phrase the question as straightforward as possible to allow him to offer a straightforward answer.
              If he cannot answer the question without resulting to some esoteric philosophical rhetoric then he has no answer ….
              Thus making ”I don’t know” the perfect, most honest reply.

              Liked by 2 people

    1. I am. It is rather obvious when you read a perfectly clear statement and they cannot comprehend it. I understand their point of view as an ex Christian. Faith is blind. Worse than love, as you have to overlook the obvious to remain a believer.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Hmmmm… I’m not sure. I often see defective reasoning being used, and when those models are in place they compromise judgement in general. Take for example a person who believes in a (specific) god with no evidence, it’s easy for them then to go on and believe in other things with no evidence (Satan, ghosts, that vaccinations cause autism.)
        The mind is like a computer in that it functions within the parameters and formulas it knows- so if that’s a simple good/evil binary or slightly more complex good/neutral/evil ternary, that has serious implications for general functioning.

        Liked by 7 people

  5. If the man (Pastor) cannot adequately answer/defend HOW his “God” communicates with him — General Revelation & Special Revelation, which is the core of his viewpoint/worldview — I find little reason to read much of what he has to say.

    However, as Nan, Danica, and many other non-Christians have pointed out we DO have an obligation to point out to random visitors/guests at his blog to READ coherent alternative, opposing arguments and viewpoints. But I find that difficult when valid contentions get BURIED in all the playground heckling and returned “incoherence.” I can’t always justify my time and efforts over there. (huge long sigh) πŸ˜–

    Liked by 5 people

  6. Agreed Jim. Plus I have lost a lot of respect for Mel. I understand his saying he believes because he has faith. It is another thing to deny simple reason when it is explained. He doesn’t have to change his belief, but he does have to acknowledge reason. That is my view. Hugs

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Scottie, as Nan pointed out correctly several days ago on her blog or someone else’s, Mel has digressed to a childish behavior ALMOST as immature as BrainYawn’s. That right there is a prime example of Peer-assimilation/pressure. Very disappointing. I too had a decent level of respect for Mel in the beginning, but the quality of his blog and posts have nose-dived. :/

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Could it be a sign he is really questioning and needs to re-enforce his beliefs using Brainyawn’s over the top confidence in his own convictions? As Brainyawn can not stand to be questioned and thinks he is so smart he is beyond questions, maybe Mel is leaning on that to avoid admitting he has doubts? Hugs

        Liked by 3 people

        1. He can’t help but question. Apologetics stems from doubt, and any time he gets in a corner he changed topic and cherry picks. He really has a lot of doubt. That’s why The over the top stuff.

          Liked by 3 people

      1. I lost the respect for him the day he joined in with Brainyawn to call us cowards to deny I had answered him the day before when I had spent the day doing so. He out right agreed with Brainyawn that I had lied, and then agreed I had refused to answer. Both I proved wrong by taking copies of my comments and replies right from Mel’s own blog . However Mel never apologise nor admitted he was wrong. I rarely even go to his blog now and don’t feel it worth my while to comment there. Hugs

        Liked by 4 people

      1. I had thought so. I read the link and the article before that, and left a comment on the subjectivism post. If it goes like my other comments, I’ll most likely get ignored again.

        However, with regards to the moral realism issue, I think you’d gain more traction with discussing the capacity of people to make moral agreements. Subjectivism might not be great for holding all the world to a single philosophical standard, but it doesn’t prevent people from making necessary agreements on conduct, harm, and duties of care. These agreements let societies with different values function without needing to have teams of philosophers meet and agree on moral conduct for everyone.

        Likewise, a problem with his articulation of realism is that it doesn’t function as an articulation of philosophical objectivism. Notice in his quotes, there are words “sometimes” and “where true.” This is shorthand for not having to go the extra distance to demonstrate a moral value is universally true under all circumstances. I should note that it’s important because his basis for dismissing subjectivism depends on it.

        To put this in an even more succinct footing, a big question for his position is: what stops people from agreeing on moral conduct without having to agree on moral values? Unless it’s impossible to do so, the distinction between subjective and objective morality is purely academic.

        Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s