The Bigotry Discussion (Part 2)

[Editor's note: Last week's article left off with Professor Negy's final e-mail of October 23, 2012. Since he sounded as though he might be finished, I wrote a lengthier reply to make certain I had answered every point he had brought up so that he could not accuse me of dodging anything—even though he continually ignored questions and suggestions that I had sent him.]

GS: At last, you show a spark of humor—perhaps a residue from your days as a Baptist. Since WSID is one foot tall, 8 inches wide, and 5 and 1/2 inches thick, containing 3,200 pages, I assume you were making a joke about it being a pocket dictionary. If not, you must have Goliath-size pockets in your clothing. (I trust a Biblical reference did not insult you too severely.) At any rate, I showed you were inaccurate with your own dictionary, but it seems to have slipped your mind.

Your percentage of people who never change is an estimate. But if 10% of the world's population does change the religion of their birth, that would be 700,000,000 people. Don't you think such a vast number ruins your thesis?

You are the one who brought up India; I merely raised D'Souza as an exception to your claims. Some people raised in India have not grown up to be Muslims or Hindus. Nothing else of what I have written rests upon him. (I wrote an article about the debate, if you are interested; it is under Sept. 27, 2009). Calling someone an intellectual lightweight might have more credibility coming from someone who is not an atheist and erroneously calls all Christians bigots.

If D'Souza is an adulterer, is that a problem for you? Does that violate some standard? If so, what standard? Surely you are not suggesting that he is violating the Scriptures, that useless mythology, as you refer to it. So what standard would that violate, professor?

You never answered a simple true – false question, which I made further discussion contingent upon, and then you accuse me of dodging things? You own the dodge. Then when I showed that by your own definition your own personal one did not hold up, you ignored it. Really, now, if you cannot agree to a basic definition of a word supplied by impartial dictionaries, of what use will words a little more ambiguous be?

You think your questions are poignant? Where is the evidence for Jesus being a real person? Well, besides the references of Josephus and His name mentioned in various letters, there is the historical fact people became followers of His by the tens and hundreds of thousands. However, a truly bigoted person ignores the evidence.

Jesus is an illiterate peasant? You mean the Jesus who never existed? If He did not exist, how do you know He was illiterate? I'm sure that as a Baptist, you were taught that He is the Word. Illiterate, indeed!

The miracles that He did caused people to believe His outrageous claims. No one, then or now, would believe that a man was the light of the world, the judge of all mankind, the Eternal One, or that He would be brought back to life without proof of an absolutely incontrovertible nature. He and the apostles provided that proof. Of course, you probably would not have accepted it, since you are a modern-day Sadducee.

I don't know any unethical missionaries—just a few college professors whose main goal is to destroy and vilify the truth.

I am more than happy to leave you alone, since you are beyond logic anyway. You will not answer a simple true – false question and cannot even write a valid syllogism to prove your case. You only like to rant—not discuss or have a valid exchange of ideas.

I don't need an invitation to a scholarly venue to prove anything to myself. Dr. Thomas B. Warren, who debated Antony G.N. Flew and Wallace I. Matson was a sufficient scholar to have exposed the case for atheism as false.

1. A soul is the inward part of man that is eternal and for which man will have to give an account (Matt. 16:26). It is often used interchangeably with the spirit—that which animates man and departs from him at death (James 2:26). People who live in jungles do not have nearly as much trouble understanding the concept as some college professors. Of what advantage is it to think you will live forever if you do not? Self-deception is worthless.

2. Heaven is a spiritual place for souls who want to live there—not a physical one.

3. Hell is a spiritual place for disobedient spirits who do not love God, neither are thankful. The two kingdoms are mutually exclusive in eternity.

4. An angel is usually a spirit-being who serves as a messenger of God. A devil is an angel who once determined to rebel against God. Satan is the leader of all such.

The Sadducees were primarily materialists. They did not believe in things they could not know through the physical senses. The fallacy is that there are many intangible things that we cannot physically see but which we know exist. Emotion is one of these. We see it expressed, but we do not actually see it. We don't even see some physical things, such as electricity, but it is there. I'm told that odor is added to gas because otherwise you could not smell it. It is invisible, but it can kill you.

The question is not, whether or not you can see it, but does it exist? Can you explain, for example, how 300 prophecies concerning Jesus were recorded from 400 to 1,500 years in advance by "middle eastern, misogynistic nomads" with complete accuracy? No one is that good of a guesser or that lucky. Inspiration explains it.

What the Book says is true because it has been confirmed by miracles, which real people saw and believed—not one or two but thousands upon thousands.

Einstein was a great man, but great men can be wrong about spiritual concepts. Just look at you. By the way, if God created the heavens and the earth (and He did), do you not think He could turn water into wine or speak from a burning bush that is not consumed? Some of the quibbles you provide are laughable.

That Jesus arose from the dead is not a doctrine cut from whole cloth. It was prophesied. It may have been awhile since you read Peter's sermon on Pentecost in Acts 2. The resurrection was prophesied; and the apostles all saw Him risen from the dead—on several occasions—though some did not want to believe it at first. People on Pentecost believed because of fulfilled prophecy, because of the miracles they saw, and because of the eyewitness testimony of reliable witnesses.

Now what evidence do you have to offer of your non-beliefs?

FINAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS

One might wonder why there was so much emphasis on the definition of what a bigot is, and the reason is simply this: Anytime you allow someone to define his own terms, you have already lost the battle. Negy must invent his own definition in order to make his case. Consider his statements. Anyone who says that "Christianity is the most valid religion" portrays "precisely what religious bigotry is." This is not the most valid definition of religious bigotry. It is his own. He further assumes that Christians (who say Christianity is the most valid religion) "never question their prejudices and bigotry." When I provided him a genuine definition, to which anyone could answer true or false, he refused to do it. Why? The answer is that he would have to admit that his own definition was faulty.

In our exchange he said that bigotry is "prejudice against another person due to his creed, or group membership." Christians love all mankind and are not prejudiced against anyone. However, to say that Christianity is the only valid religion is based on truth and not bias. I provided the evidence for this position in the October 21st article. All he could do was call it silly. He never took issue with a single point that was established. When he finally supplied a legitimate definition for bigotry, I heartily agreed with it, but it matched the one I had given—not his own homespun one. He failed to comment on it, hurled another insult, and quit the discussion.

Some in the church are no different when they try to redefine the word adultery to mean a divorce decree or a marriage ceremony. Everyone knows what the word means and the way it is used throughout the Bible. Such men cannot be allowed to invent their own definitions. If we allow someone to begin with a false definition, the remainder of the discussion is irrelevant. They have already won the debate. In Negy's case, his whole attack is based on his own inaccurate musings; the record must be set straight.

Why the Bitterness?

One cannot help but wonder what drives someone to be so antagonizing and insulting—perhaps even abusive in his speech against students and anyone who thinks differently than he does. Consider some of his comments:

The views you expressed in your letter are quite silly and you fit the bill for being a religious bigot.

You and your followers are bigots.

You have NO evidence for ANY of those things occurring.

I indeed was brainwashed by my uneducated, southern Baptist parents.

Please do not send any unethical missionary to my class; I'll kick them out. The audacity to go to poor people, and exploit their poverty by offering them food or blankets in exchange for them to bow down to the mythological Christian God.

First of all, Negy's negativity motivates him to resort to name-calling. The use of the word bigot is only the beginning. He cannot act civilly toward those who have a different view than his—especially Christian students. Second, his words are filled with unproven assumptions about those who disagree with him. They don't think for themselves; they are brainwashed parrots. Yet, to be honest, he does not himself show any evidence of thought. It is as though he has memorized a few pagan chants, which he just keeps repeating.

Third, he showed no respect for his parents (Eph. 6:1-3). No one asked him about them; he just voluntarily denounced them. He did not say they had changed any; so apparently, they may yet be "uneducated." Fourth, since Negy had invited me to come speak to his class, I assumed he would welcome anyone who could present an opposing view, but he threatened to kick him out. Would he resort to physical violence or call campus security? With that kind of bullying, it's a wonder that even his students show up for class—let alone invited guests.

Why is he so hostile toward missionaries? It usually is not the goal of these courageous souls to exchange food and blankets for worship. Generally, showing up with supplies usually occurs only in the face of some catastrophe. Normal mission work is spent studying the Bible with people. But if he were right and missionaries only took food and blankets, what is wrong with that? Actually, brethren do distribute medicine and try to help physically when they can, but resources are often limited. Since Negy does not believe in any afterlife, then he ought to be grateful that we are helping to extend physical life, which (according to him) is all that anyone ever gets. Why aren't atheists in various parts of the world helping to save people and prolong their lives? Don't they care?

Standards

When it came to the challenges of providing a moral standard, Negy was silent. In my original article I listed at the conclusion of it several values and standards. The atheistic professor did not offer one comment concerning that subject, and then he accuses D'Souza of being an intellectual lightweight? What evidence did Negy offer of his own intellectual prowess? Certainly, he possesses the ability to discuss profound matters; is it that his case is so weak that he refuses to enter a legitimate discussion on these matters?

The problem is that in a purely materialistic universe we not only do not have a spiritual future, we do not have a moral present. Values cannot come from rocks, dirt, and vegetation. Is Negy shocked that someone might commit adultery? He did not answer, but on what basis is it wrong? What he leveled against D'Souza was an ad hominem attack. D'Souza was born in India but is not a Hindu; thus he is an exception to Negy's thesis that almost everyone grows up in the religion of his culture. Muslims are not given much choice, but the remainder of us have options. Therefore, to try to minimize the example of D'Souza, he attacks him personally (he may actually be blameworthy), but it is still irrelevant to the fact of his being an exception.

Does Negy stand with Christians and the Bible in condemning adultery? He really needs to answer that question and provide the basis for his scorn of the practice. Does he reject it on practical grounds, or was he brainwashed by his uneducated Southern Baptist parents? He ought to answer how atheists determine what is moral and what is not.

The Nature of Evidence

Another legitimate question for atheists is: "What do you accept as evidence or proof?" He wanted evidence for the soul, angels, God, and other spiritual concepts. Can we only accept what we see with our eyes or experience with our other senses? If so, then we cannot have a justice system, nor can we believe anything historical—because we were not there. How do we know Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated? How do we know that Columbus came to America in 1492? We consider the evidence and the testimony of the witnesses who made these things known.

How do we know that God, the angels, and the soul exist? We consider the evidence provided in the Word of God and the proof that the Bible is the Word of God. This is a valid way to determine truth. Of course, anyone could write a Bible, but no book was ever put together the way the Scriptures were—over such a long period of time, incorporating miracles that convinced the people of those times and containing numerous prophecies which were fulfilled. We do not have to literally see God to know that He is there because other forms of evidence are compelling. Negy's arguments thus far against God are neither compelling nor substantial. In fact, they fall very short of adequate.