Review of Handbook of Christian Apologetics
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli Monarch, East Sussex, 1994.
I bought this book and it is the best summary available of Christian
apologetics.
It is better that Jesus be a liar than that there is an eternal Hell for sinners
to go and than that we have his dreadful ones of his rules to keep. The
reasonable person will not want Christianity inflicted on them or to feel
pressured by the apologetics of the believers. The decent person will not want
Christianity to be true!
The book is a demonstration of how poor Christian apologetics is. Above all it
shows how Christian thinkers and clergy intentionally mislead their flocks.
There are websites that aim to prove that the leaders of the Mormons and
Jehovah’s Witnesses are acting insincerely and if they are why should the
orthodox Christian leaders be any different? The book ignores decisive
refutations of Christianity. And the authors must know about them.
The book simply refuses to deal with or mention any point of view it cannot
handle. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as in hard evidence
at least. The Christians oppose that piece of commonsense. But surely the Church
can’t oppose the fact that if extraordinary claims are made, it is no good to
look at some of the angles but not all? To pick out a few objections to the
resurrection of Jesus and try to refute them as the Christians do is just plain
manipulative. It is deceitful because if somebody was found guilty of murder
when the jury refused to look at all the possibilities we would consider that
jury unjust and deceitful. The doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus certainly
calls on us to be selective with evidence. God according to the New Testament
commands us to believe in it.
The weakest argument against the resurrection, that Jesus swooned on the cross
and was buried alive and got out of the tomb is selected for criticism by the
authors. Those who use this theory assume the New Testament is inaccurate. The
Christians assume the New Testament is accurate and they try to refute the
argument based on that guess. We don't even need a swoon. Jesus
playing dead to get off the cross sooner - the gospels say his time on the cross
was unusually short - is what is more in vogue now.
If there are errors in the Bible it is nonsense to point to Jesus meeting with
his disciples very soon after the resurrection as proving he didn’t survive the
cross and was not buried alive for he would not have got well enough that fast.
The evidence for the resurrection is weakened considerably for there might have
been an error.
The missing body of Jesus is central to Christian apologetics. The tomb was open
when the women came. What about the idea that the stone at the tomb of
Jesus rolled back accidentally or due to earth tremors and the women stole the
body? The New Testament information gives no eyewitness testimony that the stone
didn't just fall away.
The claim of the book in chapter 9 that the Bible – and theirs is the Catholic
Bible which is more contradictory than the Protestant - is without error is
simply a lie.
The vast majority of scholars see errors in the Bible and the Handbook authors
would agree for being Catholics they accept the books of Jonah, Tobit, Additions
to Daniel and Judith as scripture. These books contain many errors – which is
why Protestants don’t recognise them as part of the Bible. The Handbook authors
might say these books didn’t err for they were only religious novels but the
books give no such hint. In fact the handbook sees the stories of Adam and Eve
and Jonah as so absurd that it says they are probably literary fictions (page
212). So if a book errs or is ridiculous it’s a novel! What a cop-out!
The book boasts that Jesus’ sanity and his wisdom show he was God for he claimed
to be God. Jesus’ love your neighbour as yourself is nonsense. What is so bad
about always helping our neighbour though we do not love them or value them as
ourselves or our family? We don’t need the commandment to belittle what we do
and add on pressure and maybe discourage us. The book of course refuses to deal
with the problem that the command is impossible to keep.
The commandment implies that there is less love of neighbour in praying to get a
bicycle than there is in praying for somebody else to get it. The Bible says we
always fall short and even the Catholic saints went to their deaths bemoaning
their failures. If these things were highlighted more the appeal of religion
would diminish.
The handbook says that God is infinite and a spirit. He is his own power, he is
wisdom and he is mercy – literally but he is still a personal God. Infinite
means that there is no power but God. But then we are told God made all things
out of nothing – not even his power. He just used his power to make all things
and this creation is not God but separate from him and just depends on him to
stay in existence. As the Greeks noted centuries ago, this is absurd. It
contradicts the infinity of God. It is no answer to say that it happened
therefore though our minds tell us it’s impossible it is possible. If it makes
no sense how can we say we know what happened? If it could happen then anything
could be impossible. Maybe your dog went back in time and made all things.
To say God made all things by his power is really to say he just ordered things
to exist and they came into being. Nothing comes from nothing. God’s power can’t
make things from nothing for there is nothing to work on. The power can’t work
on what cannot be changed or what is not there. The only hope is to say all
things appeared at God’s command but that implies that God didn’t cause anything
to exist. To command something but to do nothing to make it happen is implying
that some other power is doing the making. If you use your power to pour a jug
that there is no water in your power won't be working for there is no water in
the jug. The doctrine of creation defends only one idea: magic. It really denies
God.
If there is a force making things out of nothing then it follows that the same
force may be skewing scientific experiments. It may for example be tricking the
microscopes. Science cannot consider anything as proven if something could be
tampering. Creation is against science.
The handbook says we must love the sinner and hate the sin but interestingly
says we cannot do it (page 127). But then it gets weird and says Jesus takes the
sin to himself and separates it from the sinner enabling us to do so (page 128).
This is nonsense. A sin is not a thing. Strictly speaking it is not something
that a person does. It’s more to do with what the person has become than an act.
The act just expresses what the person has become. Love the sinner and hate the
sin means love the person but hate the sinner. This shows how contradictory it
is. It is hatred disguised as love - which is the most dangerous and sneakiest
form of hatred.
The insinuation is that every religion but Christianity
which has this Jesus taking our sins idea is not only false but harmful and
hates evil people.
No truly good person holds that it is the crime that matters not what the crime
says about the person. Indeed it would be evil to condemn an action and risk
upsetting the acting person if it is only the action that matters. Those who
believe in love the sinner and hate the sin are worse than those who admit that
to hate the sin is to hate the sinner. They do justice great harm and make a
laughing stock of morality. While they claim to love the sinner they show
intolerance to the person who judges the sinner and who demands justice! What
hypocrites they are!
Hating the sin means you have to fear the sin and be angry with it. But to claim
that you fear the sin but not the sinner and are angry with the sin not the
sinner is so ridiculous that one should question your sanity. It shows the power
of religious manipulation and conditioning. When the conditioning is that strong
and that dangerous, religion should be opposed as full of harmful potential. All
it is good for is repressing hatred but that is going to make the person explode
one day. Many holy people show their true colours in time of war.
If we cannot love the sinner and hate the sin there can be no God for there is
no force that cares about right and wrong. You can love and hate a person at the
same time and some people want to kill their lovers out of hatred though they
also love them. Suppose we hate our enemies. We love these enemies in the sense
that it is because we value them that they are able to upset us. Hate was
condemned by Christ but he sneaked it back in again with his love sinner and
hate sin hypocrisy.
A God who treats sin as if the sinner had nothing to do with it is refusing to
admit the dignity of the sinner as a responsible agent. That is what we are
trying to do if we try to love the sinner and hate the sin.
And a God who hates sin as if it were a thing and as if there was nothing
personal about it might as well torment himself over a block of ice. His hate
shows self-hatred for it ruins his happiness. Self-hatred makes you a threat to
other people. And we are asked to be like him for he is so perfect!
Punishing sin but not persons is really not punishing at all. It's not
retribution. It's anti-justice. If you separate the sin from the person and make
the person suffer for the sin that is intended to be revenge not justice. Those
who hate the sinner could be better people than you.
The impossibility of loving the sinner while hating their sin proves that the
God of Christianity cannot exist. The utter failure of love the sinner and hate
the sin shows that belief in God is harmful and peppered with malice.
More honest Christians reject its hypocrisy. They teach, "Sometimes it is said
that God hates sin (impersonal) but loves the sinner (personal), but this
attempt to mitigate the wrath of God is not really faithful to the biblical
witness. Wrongdoing in the Bible is never disassociated from the wrongdoers, who
are fully responsible for their actions. Retribution cannot be shifted to an
impersonal level without it ceasing to be what it is. We cannot imagine a judge
excusing a murderer who says he is sorry and offers to clean up the mess, as if
the crime were all that mattered. However sincere his repentance might be, the
murderer would still be held responsible for his sin, just as we are held
responsible for our sins before God" (page 222, The Doctrine of God, Gerald
Bray, IVP, Illinois, 1993).
Traditional Christianity is not good news. It lies that it puts truth above all,
and Jesus called himself the Truth. Yet it is marked by more concern for dogma
than truth. And more concern for dogma than people. For example, do you really
believe that if the Catholic Church saw that its contraception ban was bad for
people that it would change it? Bigotry and arrogance are underneath it all.
Catholic religion classes are hugely more interested in teaching stories about
Jesus and how the priest makes bread and wine into his body than in developing
the child as a good person. The Catholic Mass shows hardly any concern for
educating the people in good behaviour - its rites and magic and irrelevant
bible readings.
Christianity is not faith in Jesus at all. It is faith in what prophets and
Churches say about him. Or those who do the interpreting to be more precise!
The book says we all have original sin and original sin implies we are
spiritually insane which is why we can choose Hell forever and not happiness
with God (page 303). So we are expected to believe that this spiritual insanity
is cured in baptism but what if it isn’t? Then it follows that the Church is
probably leading us astray. Also even if it is cured, the Church says the
insanity is still there in some form and we can still go to Hell forever. If we
are made insane by original sin, then how do we know that baptism really cures
us? Perhaps our thinking it works is down to our insanity as well?
You need absolute proof before you can accuse anybody of being insane enough or
bad enough to go to Hell. Otherwise you are just insulting that person. Jesus
commanded we love our neighbour as ourselves and then made sure we would not be
able to keep it with his doctrine of Hell, to name one, getting in the way. It
is hardly love to believe that it is better for all the political systems of the
world to disappear than for the Church to disappear for it is God’s true Church.
That is fanaticism.
The book contradicts the Bible where Jesus says that the evil people will go to
the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. So God prepared the
fire. Obviously the devil and the angels wouldn’t do it. The book then
deceitfully claims that God does not make Hell but that beings that turn against
him do that (page 302).
Page 31 says that Martin Luther and St Paul and the Catholic Church believe in
salvation by faith alone if you take faith to mean a believing response to God
in which you give him your love not mere belief. For Luther this response gave
once for all salvation even if you fell many times into sin in the future you
were still saved. Catholicism agrees but differs in that it believes in mortal
sin which breaks the connection with God. Sins like heresy, idolatry and wilful
sexual desire outside marriage are held to be mortal sins. The main point is
ignored - Luther said you can be saved despite being an unrepentant sinner and
Catholicism says different.
Page 65 (surprisingly) says there is no proof for the truthfulness of the
Christian religion from miracles. The evidence for God and his indicator of what
the true religion is comes from the factors surrounding the miracle, its
context. So it is not the miracle itself. It’s the context. So if a statue of
Abraham Lincoln starts bleeding supernaturally it is evidence for nothing. If a
statue of Mary starts bleeding supernaturally it is a miracle showing that Mary
should be honoured as the mother of God. Is this not rather arbitrary and unfair
and irrational? It is like saying that if the sun eclipses in the twentieth
century it is a sign from God and if it eclipses in the twenty-first it is not a
sign from anybody. If miracles are so useless, reporting them or teaching they
have happened is superstition not godliness. Anybody that doesn’t want to
provide justification for deceitfulness would say nothing. The authors of the
book would cruelly support the pope for preferring a rapist to rape without a
condom and the other terrible doctrines of their Roman Catholic Church with
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that God speaks through him or his Jesus. If miracles
don't provide that evidence then nothing does.
Page 109 says a man walking through a wall is a miracle not a contradiction. It
is trying to refute those who think that if the dead stay dead then saying Jesus
rose contradicts that. It says a man both walking through the wall and not
doing it in the same sense at the same time would be a contradiction. The reason
we have to be intolerant of contradictions is that they distort the way we
approach reality. If a person both did and didn't commit a crime we wouldn't
know what to do. A man can't walk through a wall. If it is claimed that he has,
then God temporarily destroys the part of the wall that he passes through so he
really passes through a temporary hole in the wall and not through the wall. A
wall has to be solid to be a wall. If God changes that it is no longer a wall
and you cannot say a man passed through it. But what if a real contradiction has
happened? What if the man really did go through the wall? Christians are really
rationalising contradictions or possible contradictions. That is no better than
saying miracles are contradictions. We would never work out that non-existent
fire cannot burn if we were subjected to frequent contradictions whether they
are real contradictions or miracles.
Miracles seem to be pure entertainment and conjuring tricks and it is
undignified to attribute them to God!
Against the idea that a miracle is so unlikely that no evidence might be good
enough to verify one the book argues that we don't know what is likely (page
112). What else could it say? Miracle believers say that those who say miracles
are all based on error or are deceptions and never really happened are making
unfair assumptions. But these believers think it is okay for them to make
assumptions - namely that miracles do happen! It is not about knowing but
about what probability says.
The believers are just being hypocritical. If we start to believe we don't know
what is likely, we will have to start believing John who killed his mother when
he says that a demon in his guise did it. The best assumption is to disbelieve
in miracles. That is not being biased but wise. Miracles would imply that we
should have evil beliefs and be hypocrites. The resurrection of Jesus would
prove that he was not a person to be respected as an exemplar and teacher if it
really happened. It would show he was a showman. Let's worship David Copperfield
then!
A miracle will not happen just to serve a good purpose such as healing or
comforting a person. God can do that without a miracle. If he chooses a miracle
with which to help then he is clearly making the miracle double as evidence or
proof of his presence and power. Even Christians are expected to disparage and
ignore claims of useless random miracles. They bring ridicule on the faith for a
start.
Suppose a miracle that serves a purpose is unlikely. Surely one that does not is
far more unlikely. And one that is unconcerned about being evidence or proof is
off the scale unlikely. Believers do not want to believe in purposeless miracles
or in ones that do not care about evidencing the love of God. They assume that
such miracles are unlikely.
Jesus and the pope and the Christian Church command people to believe in the
miracle of the Jesus resurrection. If you take a miracle to be a violation of
nature then it didn't happen. God would not set up natural laws and then fight
them as if he were incompetent. If a miracle is not a violation of nature then
the problem is, how do you know that the resurrection was not a violation? You
are only guessing. If I can guess that it was a violation and therefore didn't
happen and you can guess that it was not and may have happened or did happen
then any faith commanding and making it a duty to believe in the miracle of the
resurrection of Jesus is simply being bigoted and opposing the truth that nobody
has the right to tell anybody what to guess.
And The Handbook of Christian Apologetics is simply a pile of cosmetics intended
to make it look like Christianity is worth believing in. That’s all it is.