Pages: 1 2 3

Photo credit: biblevector (Creative Commons)

After enduring another half-dozen propaganda pieces in the following months, I was compelled to take another heartfelt shot at the scathing critic of all things Biblical.

Advertisement-content continues below

Do you know what would make for interesting journalism, David? You should expose the religious/political propaganda of your own side.

Expose liberation theology, radical homosexuality, the true violent fundamentals of Islam, all of the atrocities perpetuated in the secular, communist and heathen communities throughout the ages and the current day.

How about shedding some light on the moral and social decay indicative of our selfish, Godless, broken family producing modern culture.

Look at Bill Maher, as repulsive as he can be, he stood up and said Obama’s tax policies are hurting the country and California is dead as a result of liberal economics.

Now he’s come out and exposed Islam as distinct from even the most radical elements of Christianity – if it was Dennis Prager who said that nobody would flinch but Maher actually had the guts to speak unbiased truth – could David Sessions have it in him to do such a thing? I think you do David! Let’s open dialogue and be prepared to see the ugly elements of BOTH sides!

My final exchange with Mr. Sessions was actually fairly cordial and respectful. Whenever I engage in an ideological debate, I try my best, when a less heated moment presents itself, to charitably and respectfully plant some seeds of truth. However, I admittedly have much growing to do in this area. Here’s the exchange that evolved based on his article about Christian De-Conversion.

David Sessions – I think the saying “everybody believes what they want” is a way of letting weaker beliefs off the hook; I’m not prepared to surrender to absolute relativism and say there’s no ground solid ground to believe anything in particular. I mostly talked about natural science in this post, but there are also things social sciences have discovered, such as the basic reasons why religions arise, the conditions that make religious belief more or less likely, the psychological and social needs they serve, etc. We know that most religious claims are made about things that cannot be documented or verified. Philosophically, we know there is no valid claim a religion can make that its “revelation” should have more credibility than another religion, which significantly weakens the case for literal belief in any religion’s specific content. (For a much better articulation of all this, see this excellent essay by Columbia philosopher Philip Kitcher.) So I would say that skepticism about the literal content of religious beliefs is more consistent with the information we have than literal belief in them.

AC – I’d like to isolate your quote – I believe the existence, descriptions and teachings of Jesus trump everything you said.

So my questions would be – do you believe in the existence of Jesus? Have you checked out strong unbiased sources on the historical validity of Jesus? Have you explored legit sources on the integrity & validity of Scriptures & many of the counter-cultural yet historically verifiable info presented? Have you considered any archeological finds that coincides with Biblical presentation of events?

Pages: 1 2 3

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Don't Miss Out. Subscribe By Email Or Facebook