Art Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf


Thursday, May 9, 2019

Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf Free eBook Download: Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf. Posts about free pdf written by davidgmcafee. ANGELES— David G. McAfee, author of Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings. Posts about disproving Christianity pdf written by davidgmcafee. Versus Worship” from “Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings.”.

Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, Indonesian
Published (Last):07.01.2016
ePub File Size:20.44 MB
PDF File Size:19.72 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: CARMELO

Book Review of Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings by David McAfee - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. "Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings" by David G. McAfee to the Scribd page where the Pdf was stored but never got around to. purpose in writing this book is not to defend God, or even to argue for the New Atheists, my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically . Christianity and the Bible, Richard Dawkins refers to the Books of Matthew, . other. One might assume that this would disqualify the man as an atheist.

Most inerrantists would tell you that inerrancy does not apply to our modern Bibles but only to the original autographs. This means that we should not expect that our modern translations should be without error. Does this mean that they are not trustworthy? We do not have space here to develop the argument, but the work of textual criticism has, to a large extent, purified our textual evidence for the originals to a near Warfields The Inspiration and 8 For those interested in this I recommend several books.

For comparative examples we can look at Homers Iliad with manuscripts with the earliest coming yrs after the original, Sophocles with manuscripts with the earliest at years after the original, Aristotle with 49 manuscripts with the earliest at years after the original, or other giants like Plato with 7 manuscripts with the Authority of the Bible if any reading of such a dense work can be cursory would suffice to show that a McAfees notion of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible is quite lacking in breadth, width and scope.

To disprove one brand of a thing, does not by extension disprove all brands of that thing. Next, we find that the definition of Christianity found on p. In defining terms, this word should surely be near the top of the list for further refinement for even among Christians what is meant by literal that it is Gods unimpeded revelation concerning himself to man is not synonymous with what we call inerrant that Gods word is true and accurate in all that it affirms. Furthermore, Christians almost never mean what antitheists or skeptics often try and force literal to mean that the Bible is woodenly literal, not just in affirmation of truth, but in grammar and style and should be read as we would read a technical manual.

To presume that the Bible be read like a 21st century technical manual is beyond absurd.

Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf ...

While McAfee has not explicitly stated that this will be his hermeneutic, his apparent lack of any hermeneutical understanding and my hindsight from finishing the book affirms that this will indeed hold true in his treatment of Biblical passages.

Another troubling fact that will haunt the book rears its head on p. His reasons for this are quite bizarre. In the paragraph he states that Though it is not the earliest coming in at years after the original. We can wonder, for example, if McAfee is familiar with Christian hermeneutical thought in general and how it has developed to address the issues raised in this book such as the use of genre, symbolism including anthropomorphisms, hyperbole, metaphor, analogy, etc.

Granted one should not expect a non-Christian to believe in the Bible or agree with the truth of the outcome of such readings of Scripture, but if one chooses to engage in an attempt to disprove Christianity it is inexcusable to do so without familiarizing oneself with its most robust theological and hermeneutical concepts. Even upon reading this list those terms might be as unfamiliar to you as they are to McAfee, but you likely are not posing a scholar writing a book to disprove what you clearly do not know the first thing about.

Surely McAfee did not think that he could traipse into two millennia of Christiandom and tear it down with a simple wave of his wrist? Although the book itself is a testament to the reality that he just might think that he can. Christianity has been a bulwark well fortified with some of historys greatest minds, not out of blind devotion, but precisely because of the spiritual and intellectual fulfillment that it brought to them.

Such over simplification as found in McAfees work will hardly be more than a nuisance. Wright, who is utterly committed to the reliability of the Biblical texts and yet calls inerrancy that damnable American doctrine.

This does not mean that Wright believes the Bible errs, but that he finds the formulation of such a doctrine as inerrancy troubling.

Book Review of Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings by David McAfee

He is right that it is not the earliest which should not bother us since in the case of English translations, earlier actually becomes less helpful and that it is not the most recent. This is one of the problems it is not recent. It does not enjoy the vast amount of textual discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls or textual development like the results of textual criticism that more current translations have, and it suffers from a lack of linguistic continuity with our current English language.

In either case, anyone attempting to write a book disproving Christianity has no excuse for either. McAfee then goes on to assert that if the Bible is the word of God and thus contains the infallible words of God, then it is obvious that any imperfections can essentially disprove the book and, therefore, the religion, p. I feel compelled to point out that this is anything but obvious. This is for several reasons.

Firstly, McAfee seems to think that inspiration is a mechanistic project whereby God spoke the Bible by dictation to the authors that it is wholly divine and not human at all. What makes comments like this so poignant is that skeptics like McAfee continually try to get Christians to see the Bible as a human document, but here seem to completely miss that creeds concerning the doctrine of inspiration often include clauses about the use of human language, themes, styles and personalities.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities. This is an important feature of the Bible to recognize during interpretation because often the text is expressing the emotional state of the author. This is especially true when we encounter Psalms or songs of lament. An excellent example of this is found in Asaphs words of Psalm 12 Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease, they increase in riches.

Do we think that that we must read this English translation so literally such that we are committed to think that it means that God is somehow or in some way affirming that evil people really are always at ease and wealthy and that it is in vain that believers in God try to keep their hearts clean of sin and their hands free from violence?

In passages like this we can easily see that what God is affirming is the realness or, possibly a better way to state it, the validity of having certain emotions as part of the human condition. Yet in one sense we also clearly know that while the emotion is a very real response, it is, in the view of the Bible, not true.

In fact, Asaph goes on to say as much when he enters the Temple and sees the final end of those whose hands never rest from violence. The wicked are not always at ease or always wealthy and it is not in vain to keep our hearts pure and our hands free from violence.

And yet 12 Although in a footnote on this he will say that this is also due to the lack of copyright protection on the KJV. While this may seem a promising reason, it is wholly invalid for while there are trademark protections on various modern versions, this never and I do mean never forbids someone from citing that version within their own writing. He makes this footnote worse by stating that the KJV has success within the Christian canon it is quite strange to say that a translation of the Christian canon is itself within the canon.

This could also be illustrated by the KJVs inclusion of such passages as John , as well as a handful of others that we now know are not found in the earliest best attested sources discovered after its publication. I wonder what McAfees black and white literalism of the Bible would do with passages such as this one. Finally, he ends the preface with another very strained summary of what literal must mean.

He states, we must first prove that The Bible is meant to be taken as the literal word of a flawless Lord, p. The problem is that none of these passages tell us that the Bible is meant to be taken as literal a word McAfee has yet to even define for us let alone give us any insights into how we are supposed to read the Bible, let alone how we should take the variety of different styles and genres of literature that comprise the Bible, or how the original authors would have intended us to interpret their writings in the first place.

Surely at the forefront of any interpretation of any text is what the original author would have intended their primary audience to understand the meaning of their text to be. This is classically known as authorial intent. Before we can ever come to a conclusion on whether or not a specific text is factually, historically, morally or even existentially true, we must first understand the answer to the question, what does this text mean? Unless we are hopeless postmodernists, then surely the original meaning of the author should take center stage on determining what the text means15 and then evaluate if that meaning is more or less true or false.

This concern is that many Americans assume that Christianity is a heritage and not a belief, like being Jewish culturally but not in religious devotion. Thus we find people saying that they are Christian because they were raised in church regardless of whether they believe in the orthodox creeds or anything distinctively Christian or not, let alone believing all manner of new age, pantheistic or what has been called therapeutic moralistic deism So one wonders at the onset of this chapter how a problem with one specific cultural expression of Christianity which is criticized by even Christians themselves can even hope to serve as a refutation of Historic or Orthodox Christianity as a whole.

Nevertheless, while McAfee and I agree that there is a problem, we disagree on what kind of problem.

For McAfee, the problem is not that people are being disingenuous in their beliefs about the Christian religion, but rather that this is a problem of Christianity that is, that Christianity organically breeds this kind genetic belief.

He writes, religion can be something similar to genetic inheritance, p. But what he seems to assume is that this kind of cultural Christianity is what the Christian religion is when in fact it is simply a cultural heritage or tradition of a religious heritage and quite distinct from the religious beliefs and practices themselves. So even if we accept McAfees critique of this religious inheritance then we would still be left wondering, So what?

That has very little to do with whether or not religious beliefs in general or Christianity in particular are true or false. It is hard then to see how this critique could serve any function in an genuine attempt to disprove Christianity at large. However, McAfee will try to use this concept later in the chapter to argue that 15 It is for this reason that I think so many interpretations of the prophetic literature in the Bible by some modern preachers are terribly skewed. I have a hard time seeing how an ancient Jew when talking about locusts could have Black Hawk helicopters in mind.

The problem is also that if that was the meaning of the text it would have been hopelessly unclear to the earlier reader to whom the text was intended to address. This view sees God as basically a cosmic butler.

God created the universe and is there to help us and wants us to be good but only intervenes when we need him to solve a problem to make us happy. Besides that God is aloof but welcomes all good people into heaven.

Here one must wonder what his argument would then be for raising children in any worldview he does not say. We can legitimately address how we raise our children to be critical thinkers but if we believe that our worldview is correct why should we teach them in order to cause them to disbelieve in it? From my personal knowledge of McAfee I can confidently say that he is a philosophical naturalist and while he may teach his children to be critical thinkers will he actually teach them all that the theistic, deistic, pantheistic, polytheistic or even distinctly existentialist or nihilist worldviews are equally viable options when compared to his naturalistic worldview and that he will intentionally not educate them within a naturalistic framework?

One can only wonder. Yet my skepticism will not allow me to think that he will be as approving of his children reading Lewis and Lennox as he would Dawkins and Dennett. McAfee alludes though probably unintentionally to the distinction Christians have always made between sheep and goats on p.

Here I found myself wondering if he knows that this is actually one of the major argument Christians use in explaining the crimes of the church done in the name of God that is that those who commit such atrocities are most likely not Christians since they so clearly betray their own rejection of the fundamental ethics of living as a citizen in the kingdom of God and do not therefore represent Christianity at all.

Will he then allow it as a valid response, or at least part of a response, from Christians later on concerning the crimes of Christians? We will see. He then coins the term genetics of religion, a somewhat problematic term I think. While this term might be somewhat descriptive of the way any belief is passed from parents to children, he will actually use this as a basis for the fallacy by the same name the genetic fallacy.

It is his contention in this chapter that because many people grow up to be Christians due only to their parents faith and with little to no real understanding about the nature, content or reliability of their faith, that this it is more rational in rejection Christianity as a religion. For him, this is an argument against Christianity. He points to Christians who unreflectively grow up in a Christian home on p. It is so general that this argument18 actually becomes vacuous.

What does he think about 17 One needs only to think of Jesus comment in the Sermon on the Mount in which he spoke of false believers by saying, You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thorn bushes?

Matthew , ESV. Literally dozens of passages could be presented that address this theme. However skeptics will often point to this as just another means by which Christians just judge each other, a kind of Only my interpretation is true retort.

The problem with that overly assumptive view besides that it seems to presume that no group can be right and yet implies that all views besides theirs are in fact wrong is that the condition that divides the groups in these passages is never doctrinal, it is always ethical. When Jesus continues his sermon and tells many that come to him, pleading that they did many religious activities like preaching, driving out demons and other miraculous works, what does Jesus tell them?

Does he tell them that they do not have their theological Is dotted or eschatological Ts crossed? Religious activities are not the necessary condition for someone being identifiable as a Christian. It is the following of the ethical teaching of Jesus to love the poor, the orphans, the widows, care for the down cast, feed the hungry, and clothe the homeless.

To not judge, lest they be judged. To be quick to forgive, slow to anger, and live a life marked by love. It is precisely this ethical behavior that is the determining factor for separating sheep from goats. Doctrine is surely a identity marker, but it is a persons ethics that show if they are, to the core, a follower of Jesus. Its more of an assertion, or a hunch even.

This is one of the many of times that McAfee says that he has found this in his research. I found many of these claims between his two covers and yet one will be sorely disappointed if they hope McAfee will ever cite the sources of his research or that there would even be a bibliography at the back that would give a general list of his sources so one could even begin to fact check him.

My skeptical meter goes through the ceiling with slights of hand like that. I also think my skepticism may lead to downright cynicism when I speculate what that list might even look like. I would be surprised if it was not entirely biased and almost completely composed of other evangelical atheists with equally shallow and watery caricatures of Christianity, religion in general, as well as a handful of the worst examples of so called Christianity that one could find to shield oneself from accusations of completely hollow strawmen objections.

Yet one wonders, are false or hasty generalizations somehow better?

Would this not, by his own standard, prove Christianity to be true since he seems to think conversion from a worldview is a sign of open mindedness? Or does he only presuppose this to be true when one comes to disbelieve in religion a case of flat out question begging if there ever was one?

However, beyond this, the genetic fallacy is to evaluate the truth of a belief by pointing to how or why a person came to believe it. The reason this is a fallacy should be clear. The truth or falsity of a belief is determined regardless of how one comes to hold the belief.

A person in the middle ages might have come to believe fervently that the earth was a sphere orbiting a flaming ball of gas through hallucination, a dream or through innocently believing the testimony of a person who says that they were able to flap their wings and fly to the moon and see for themselves that it was so.

Now, does this mean that the content of the belief that the earth is a sphere that circles a flaming ball of gas is false and disreputable simply because of how the person came to hold that belief? Not at all. This is the problem with the genetic fallacy. It plays on our ability to see irrationality in the means by which someone came to hold a belief and then tries to smuggle that disbelief into the discourse on the truth value of the belief. It is a kind of bait and switch.

It tries to distract you with your disregard for how this poor person came to believe in something, while it slips the content of that belief in through the side door. Thus even if all the Christians in the world are guilty of this kind of cultural Christianity, it would have no bearing on our evaluation of the truth or falsity of Christianity.

He then goes on to say that inheriting religion is as likely as inheriting hair or eye color p. From contradictions between lived and portrayed religions to factual errors within the texts themselves, no stone is left unturned in this fully updated and expanded refutation of Christianity. Get A Copy. Paperback , Second Edition , pages. More Details Other Editions 2.

Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings , please sign up.

Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews.

Showing Rating details. Sort order. Disproving Christianity: This average book makes use of logic and biblical scripture to make clear that Christianity can be dismissed as a theory or an idea due to a plethora of contradictions. This brief page book includes the following eight chapters: Cultural Christianity, 2. Brief Introduction to Christianity in America, 3. Morality vs Disproving Christianity: Morality vs. Worship, 4. Mainstream Theories of Disproval, 5. Contradictions in Scripture and in Practice, 6.

Minor Contradictions, 7. Atrocities and Absurdities Committed or Condoned by the Lord, and 8. A brief, accessible book. The fascinating topic of religion. A focus on biblical contradictions. Does a good job of defining terms. A look at morality. Historical factoids of interest. How Christianity in America impedes social progress.

A look at mainstream Christian theories that McAfee debunks. Good stuff I wish he had elaborated some more. According to this logic, God is credited for helping some people possibly millions who suffer from diseases, but has never healed a single amputee or anyone suffering from a life-threatening but physically visible issue. The meat of this book revolves around biblical contradictions that demonstrate its fallibility and hence the disproval of Christianity. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

An interesting look at polytheism. A section on minor biblical contradictions was provided. The endorsement of slavery is in my opinion the nail on the proverbial coffin.

The Skeptics Testament Podcast Episode 24 (episode 1:24) 35min35sec.

Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: Misogyny rears its ugly head. The conclusions resonate. Well cited book. The truth is this book is very basic. It lacks depth.

Lacks panache. A brief history of how the Bible was put together was warranted. Though making an initial claim that science will be part of the equation to make refutations very little is referenced here.

Age of earth comes to mind. Lack of supplementary materials. Low production value. No formal bibliography. In summary, this is an average book at best.

There are many more compelling atheist books covering this topic. The book is accessible and easy to get through and covers popular biblical discrepancies. I agree with the conclusions brought forth in this brief book but was disappointed with its lack of depth. Further recommendations: Nov 03, Jim Whitefield rated it it was amazing. I read this second edition for David, prepublication, and can highly recommend it. McAfee shows time and again, inconsistencies and discrepancies as well as many contradictions that are attributed to the Christian God I read this second edition for David, prepublication, and can highly recommend it.

McAfee shows time and again, inconsistencies and discrepancies as well as many contradictions that are attributed to the Christian God; a character who is supposedly all knowing and essentially perfect — and infallible. The resulting conclusion that one is obliged to reach at the end of a journey through this succinct look at the many problems, is that either the Christian God is a complete liar at worst, entirely contradictory at best, or most likely that He is not actually real at all.

Sep 03, Seth rated it it was ok. Basic stuff.

Bad arguments. Aug 12, Johannes Solano rated it liked it. I read this back in Aug 24, Mohamad Safadieh rated it it was amazing. I definitely heard about the flaws and contradicting verses. Those however, are being talked about in the Islamic community too. They point out flaws in The Bible to prove that it has been corrupted by mankind.

I can easily use the same logic on the Quran. Back to your book, the arguments in it can be used by me when debating with Christians. It's very well written, the vocabulary is clear, and the book is straight to poin As a Middle Eastern ex-Muslim, I wasn't quite familiar with Christianity.

It's very well written, the vocabulary is clear, and the book is straight to point! I would recommend every Christian and Atheist to read this.

Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings

Definitely a 5-stars! I'll definitely buy a copy if I find one here. Bad bad bad. There is absolutely no reason for ten percent of the book to be in italics. If you're an atheist who has looked into this in the least, you're familiar with these arguments, and probably in much more detail. If you're a Christian reading this book, you won't be convinced in the slightest. So I'm not really sure what the target market is for this book Jul 19, Nicole Soileau rated it it was amazing.

I was raised as a Catholic because my mother was.

I was still a teenager when I started to question pieces of the religion and could get no answers. This book took my skepticism to another level when I started to realize while listening the amount that the Catholic church left out. Believer or not, this is something you should pick up and ponder.

If you are a Christian: To read this book. You're book is not fallible and let David show you why. If you are from another religion: Your religious texts should not be that difficult to disprove. Read this book to learn techniques in disproving a religion. Jul 11, Lolo rated it liked it Shelves: An awesome and short book. The ideas challenged are very well thought. The author makes a lot of good arguments.He writes, religion can be something similar to genetic inheritance, p.

Literally dozens of passages could be presented that address this theme. Most Christians that I personally know don't observe that kind of Christianity and would be appalled at some of the ideals espoused in the NT and conveniently left out of Sunday sermons.

What is missing in this discussion besides that the logical extension of this commonly taken is nothing but an extreme invasion of privacy and parental rights something on par with an Orwellian or a Huxleyan Brave New World 19 is The Stillborn God. But what cannot be denied is that Jesus himself was a student of the Old Testament, firmly believed in it, and warned that it was not to be ignored or discarded.

As noted above, we can sense the real moral indignation oozing from this question but this is a point in favor of God since, as we have seen above, morality is only possible as a derivative of the immutable holy and righteous nature of God.

To be quick to forgive, slow to anger, and live a life marked by love.