Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Feminine wiles

John W. Loftus said:

Thank you. This let's the reader know the perspective of the reviewer. Now you should probably also explain why others have reviewed my book differently. The question is whether or not you've read the same book they have.

By Dr. James Sennett, “Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe.

By David Van Allen, "This book is an absolute 'must have' for anyone who has left the Christian faith or is having serious intellectual doubts about the Christian religion.”

Matthew J. Green, “This book is one of the best introductory texts on the philosophical problems with Christianity I have read."

Richard Carrier, “The logic of it is insurmountable, in my opinion, even by a so-called reformed or 'holy spirit' epistemologist."

Yes, it does indeed sound as if they read a different book than I did. And that’s because, as I explained at the outset, I chose not to comment on the biographical sections of his book.

Clearly these reviewers are commenting on a different part of his book, a part which I myself did not review.

And I know exactly what they’re referring to. You see, Loftus raises one atheological objection which is so devastating that it left me speechless and shaken to the very core of my fragile faith.

But now that Loftus has exposed me for the biased reviewer than I am, I have no alternative but to fess up and come clean.

The technical name for this objection is the argumentum ad femme fatalum.

As Loftus puts it:

"I was having problems with my own relationship with my wife at the time, and Linda made herself available. I succumbed and had an affair with her."

"There’s so much more I’d like to say about this, but few people would believe me. I believe she was a con artist, and she conned me. As a former stripper she had it in for preachers, and she took out her wrath on me…Why did God test me by allowing her to come into my life when she did? All of this devastated me” (22-23).

As you can see, this example raises the problem of evil to the very pitch of inscrutability. If God is both benevolent and omnipotent, how could he allow this painted woman to force herself on his helpless servant?

How could such a God ever allow a scarlet woman like Linda to take advantage of an unwilling victim like Loftus?

Even without Bill Curry attempting to quantify this objection in terms prior probabilities, the level of scholarly sophistication and insurmountable logic is utterly crushing.

Only a blind fideist could continue to believe in a God who permits defenseless men to be exploited by the untoward advances of a wanton, man-eating seductress.

13 comments:

  1. Good one, Steve! You really got Loftus on the run now! He's sure to run for the hills after reading your scathing reaction pieces!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, you have just proved that you are not just a biased reviewer of my book. You are a dishonest one too. You never quoted what I said about this, did you? You only quoted what you wanted to quote, and that's dishonest. People who have read my book know differently.

    Tell me this, does your faith require that you be dishonest with those who object to your faith? If that's the case, then you are is a desperation mode.

    Three other things here: 1) You cannot confess your own shortcomings because if you did then it would undercut your own claim to have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Tell us this Steve, in the interest of full disclosure, do you look at pornography on the net...do you lie...do you yell at or hit your wife..do you tithe...do you pray like you think you should...do you pay your taxes....have you ever been divorced...are you secretly gay....do you hate someone...do you desire another woman.... 2) I am free from the guilt trip that Christians throw on other people. 3) Such a review as yours does not undercut my case. It's an ad hominem of the worst sort.

    Nice going! Wow! That says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's an email I received from a guy who deconverted due to John's above post:

    "So John, I just wanted to thank you. I've been feeling guilty about all the little girls in my neighborhood I've molested, and that nice old couple I raped and killed (oh, and I ate their liver and kidneys as well), and I just feel so depressed when I go to church and put on my "Christian face" while those hypocrites - who probably claim 9 dependants on their W2 when they only have two(!) - preach that those things I do are "wrong" and "wicked."

    I hated my guilt and I never knew what to do with it ... until now, that is. Your claim that,

    "I am free from the guilt trip that Christians throw on other people."

    set me free, like Bob Marley's "Songs of Freedom."

    I assume as a rational, non-hypocrite like yourself, you'll also not "pull a guilt trip" on me, and I thank you for that.

    John, you're the best thing that's ever happened to me. Thanks for freeing me from the overbearing bondage of that evil sky-daddy God that the Christians worship.

    Sleep well tonight, my friend, knowing that the next little 4 yr old I rape I'll be thinking of what you said and I'll have my first guilt-free night of sleep in years.

    as always,

    Bert Runberklerstein"

    ReplyDelete
  4. ouch!

    It's like someone scripted all of this. It's just too perfect how Loftus makes himself look so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The question, my dear John, is not whether one has ever done these things, but whether one relished these things at the time. This side of Heaven, we shall all have shortcomings.

    "All have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God", laddie, and you and I are, I suspect, no exception.

    I do not look at porography on the internet myself, although I have been tempted to do so.

    I do not yell at or hit my wife. She packs quite a punch herself and has a worryingly large vocabulary of swear-words.

    The question as to whether tithing is a duty commanded of New Covenant Believers is an open one. But I give a fair amount.

    I could pray better. We all could, this side of heaven.

    I pay my taxes. Most people do.

    I have never been divorced.

    I'm not secretly gay.

    I hate more people than I should, but I ask for grace that I may not hate.

    And when I look at my wife, any desire of that sort melts away...

    Oddly, laddie, while you claim to be free of a 'guilt trip', you seem awafully defensive about wrong behaviour.

    My standing before God is based not on anything I have done, but a transaction accomplished at Calvary outisde the walls of Jerusalem.

    But what would you say if the Green Man came calling?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't look at pornography on the net either. In fact, the one time I clicked a link to a naughty site, I spend half an hour not looking while clearing the ghastly images from the screen.

    Frankly, that sort of thing sickens me.

    Now, Betty Grable in a bathing-suit...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, and it's nice to see you've been taking more sleep, Ted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the chattering cheetah10/11/2006 8:10 AM

    Steve,

    A new low.

    Sir Richard Acros,

    Double denial is a sure sign of guilt ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is context going to save John Loftus from being an adulterer?

    "do you look at pornography on the net...do you lie...do you yell at or hit your wife..do you tithe...do you pray like you think you should...do you pay your taxes....have you ever been divorced...are you secretly gay....do you hate someone...do you desire another woman.... "

    Christ came to save His people from the penalty and the power of our sins John. So, when it comes to our remaining sins we *repent* of them and go to Christ for *forgiveness* and *grace*. We don't indulge our evil passions or desires. That's what the unregenerate pagan does, just take a look at this lost world. The more I read your stuff the more clear it is that you were a wolf in sheep's clothing that never knew Christ. Thankfully God didn't allow you to hide among His sheep, your sin found you out. John Loftus--man of the seared conscience...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Loftus said:
    ---
    You cannot confess your own shortcomings because if you did then it would undercut your own claim to have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus.
    ---

    Only if you believe in sinless perfection, something that a very small minority of Christian sects actually think is true.

    By the way, John, if I gave you list of all the things I did that were bad it would be quite lengthy.

    But oh wait...that's only if the Christian idea of bad is right.

    Once again, you pull the evil card without demonstrating how you can have it in your deck in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cheetah, old man,

    I denied nothing twice. I did deny looking at porography on the internet as well as pornography. For those of you not in the know, prorography is the depiction of the prologues of novels without the permission of the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and if you want a sure sign of guilt, may I suggest being found dead in your house with the Green Man's caling-card by your lifeless body?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Laughing Hyena10/11/2006 3:00 PM

    SRA,

    I find it interesting that in your first denial, you "have been tempted to do so", but in the second denial, you find it sickening, "Frankly, that sort of thing sickens me."

    Hmmmm...

    ;)

    ReplyDelete