As a bonus, we have a few comments on Jacobsen's reply to Paul Copan's That's Just Your Interpretation. I do not own this book, so my comments will be limited (IOW, I will not be able to check back on what Copan says vs. what Jacobsen reports), and I will skip material that is beyond my scope (and Jacobsen to his credit does the same).

Chapter 1: It's All Relative -- as a whole, Jacobsen agrees with Copan in this chapter, but has a complaint: "...a big question that Copan seems to never address is, how do you determine what is reality? How do I determine for certain whether I am typing on my computer or not?" The likely reason Copan never answered this question is because it can't be answered. You DON'T know whether you are living in the Matrix or the Truman Show; but when it gets down to it, so what? Do you live your life with this in mind? Those that do, tend to be prescribed medication, which is as much as admission that we don't consider this a real possibility. Copan apparently (from what Jacobsen says) is 100% convinced that we are not enduring such a setup. Jacobsen says he thinks such truth and reality "can be determined within a reasonable doubt." How that might translate into a percentage is something I'd like to know.

Chapter 2: That's Just Your Interpretation -- Jacobsen wonders what it is that Copan is talking about "interpreting". Not having the book I cannot say, but the Bible is a likely target, and aware of this, Jacobsen agrees that seeking out reasons for interpretations is a valid approach and even recommends consulting experts in issues of what a law means. My only comment then is that this seems rather at odds with Jacobsen's "who's to say what true Christianity is" approach in this essay.

Chapter 3: That's Just Your Reality -- Jacobsen says, "...I suspect Copan is reading too much into people that claim things like, 'you create your own reality.' Perhaps, if I'm wrong, and people who make such claims do mean more than that, then perhaps I agree with Copan." I'll introduce Jacobsen to nutcases of that order at his convenience.

Chapter 4: Reality is Shaped by Forced Beyond Our Control -- Jacobsen says, "...I believe that it is simply a fact that some things are a mix of subjective and objective and that they are not always separable." One example he gives:

Are Ford's better than Chevy's? Most of us would say that is a subjective call. For one person, a Ford may be better, but for another, a Chevy may be better. But a Ford fan might get out statistics on reliability and horsepower and maintenance and try to make a claim that Ford's are objectively better than Chevy's. But, it is not likely that in every objective category, Ford's are always better or Chevy's. Perhaps one brand has better reliability statistics, while the other has better safety statistics. So, which is better? It is subjective isn't it?

It isn't, actually, because what's happening here is a matter of variables that theoretically COULD be determined, but that few or none would have the time, ability, or care to discern -- hence, it does become subjective. The simple fact is that not every Ford or Chevy is the same -- too many factors (assembly line worker alertness; parts quality; user behavior) etc. come into play when a car is made and sold. The Mustang that breaks down in 2 years because some idiot runs it over old lake beds may survive 10 years with the little old lady who uses it just to go to church. Since no one is going to be able to install all these variables into an equation, all we are left with is indeed subjective judgment -- not because objective judgment is not actually possible, but because it is practically out of our reach.

Chapter 5: Everything is One with the Divine; Chapter 6: Why Not Believe in Reincarnation -- Here Jacobsen passes in that he more or less agrees with Copan. Copan's Chapter 7 is outside our scope.

Chapter 8: If God Knows What We're Going to do, We Don't Have Free Will -- my take on this is here and I would answer Jacobsen's example of Hitler by way of what was discussed in Chapter 1. On the point of prayer, see here; it is not the "gumball machine" Jacobsen's comments intimate. It is said:

Copan goes on to argue that God knows not only everything that happens in this world and universe, but also everything that would happen in all possible worlds and universes. And therefore God chose to manifest the world in which the maximum number of people are saved and the minimum number are lost. My first question is, where the heck in the Bible does it say this? This seems to be completely "made up stuff"--made up to try to gloss over glaring deficiencies of ordinary Christian theology.

My first reply is that Jacobsen simply does not want to accept this as a plausible hypothesis and so merely replies with outrage. The Bible does not need to say such things (as this, or later, "transworld depravity") -- and by such intemperate means would Jacobsen accept my dismissal of the philosophical works and hypotheses of those he agrees with? Is Jacobsen going to play the role of a "fundamentalist atheist" and restrict ALL truth to the pages of the Bible? If it is a deficiency, show why -- perhaps Jacobsen unwittingly realizes that this is something he cannot defend against save by the graces of a time machine or being omniscient himself! Merely saying, "Mr. Copan, are you really saying that God is incapable of making a better world than this one?" is doing nothing to prove that such a better world could exist. It is merely emotion and outrage. "A world ten times bigger, with ten times the population, should in theory generate more people saved, right?" And ten times as many lost, and ten times as many Paul Jacobsens thinking it unfair. Let's keep in mind that percentages, not just raw numbers, ought to come into such an equation (as I show in the first linked article). And is it a matter of omnipotence? No -- all the power you could use cannot change a free will decision. I honestly do believe that this is the best possible world -- the trick of saying, "Yeah, well what about THIS bad thing then?" was a trick Voltaire used, and it's no more logical or effective now than it was in his time. It involves, as always, second-guessing omniscience. (For more on this again, see here.)

Jacobsen goes on to write of two "goals of God" he perceives found in Christian apologetics, and then discusses extensively how he finds these two goals mutually incompatible. I will not address these, since I have seen neither explicitly stated by any apologist and in fact see both goals as described by Jacobsen to be either incomplete or not agreeable, and in any event he relies much on what "seems" to be in the texts he uses, where I find no such thing "seemed" at all. I will simply refer again to my position in the first linked article in this section.

Chapter 9: If God Predestines Some to be Saved, What Choice Do I Really Have? -- I also refer the reader to the same links above for this one, and note otherwise only this comment:

But Copan's admission that good arguments in favor of Calvinism can be made begs the question, why is the Bible so difficult to understand what it means that not even God's own followers can come to a consensus on what it means?

It needs repeating -- the Bible is only "difficult" to understand if one does not do homework -- so likewise would any document be "difficult" to understand; if you think not, pick up Tacitus' Annals and tell me EVERYTHING that goes on in the background! Calvinists I have found (and the Reformers as well) are among those who often seriously decontextualzed the text, unwittingly.

Chapter 10: The Coexistence of God and Evil Is a Logical Contradiction -- Jacobsen disparagingly speaks of Copan giving "the usual Christian argument that God wanted to give people free will, and an unfortunate result is that some people will use their free will to do evil." Somehow Jacobsen thinks that there is some issue of whether God can indeed defeat all evil in the long term. That's not in the Bible, after all. Other matters of moral issues go beyond our scope, but I will add that if Copan says a world "with free will but no evil might be logically possible, but still not feasible for God to do," I disagree with it.

Chapter 11: Why Would a Good God Send People to Hell? -- much of this is the same as what is covered in Chapter 1. We would remind Jacobsen that calling something "asinine" and leaving it at that is not an argument but a mere emotional reaction. I would not see a need for Copan's comparison to marriage for those who claim "that God is unfair for making us make a choice between heaven and hell while we don't fully understand the ramifications of such choice." A sufficient understanding of the ramifications is far from beyond the reach of any person with the ability to think; they either understand, or do what they can to avoid learning so that they can understand, which in itself constitutes a choice against. One does not need to "see heaven or hell"; one only needs to know who God is and what He stands for in general.

Copan deals with the question, "why didn't God just make everybody the way they will be in heaven--without sin." None of the 3 answers Copan offers match my own, which is that the combination of the environment of heaven (which would include the rez body) AND our experiences as free agents one earth will combine to make sin a non-practice in heaven. The first part does match Copan's third option. I have little else to say as Jacobsen then returns to his "two goals of God" which he derived by "seems" from the literature and spots them against Copan's 3 answers, none of which match mine completely.

Chapter 12: Religion is Nothing More Than the Human Wish for a Father Figure -- this sort of objection begs an enormous question and ought to die a painful death. Jacobsen does not defend this view but does ask some questions:

They claim that God (perhaps) designed us with a need for God. Therefore, the skeptic can be--in a way--correct, people do need the security of God. The general problem I have with this type of theology is that if God did design us with such a need, then His being so elusive seems cruel. It's like God is holding a bag of candy just out of reach of a child's hands. If He really wants us to want a relationship with Him, then His elusiveness doesn't seem to make sense.

My reply for the 75647th time on this site is that God is NOT elusive in the least for those willing to do a minimal amount of thinking and homework. Next.

Also, if God made us with a desire to have a relationship with Him, why are there so many religions? Copan briefly mentions this, but says he answers the question in his other book, True for You, but Not for Me. I have not yet read his other book, but I must confess skepticism that he could have answered this question adequately.

Well, that's fair. I'm just as sure he has, so where does that leave us? The answer in two words: human creativity. In a supplement: trying to justify your own way of doing things. Take a look at the social formation of new religions and see if it does not pan out that way.

Chapter 13: How Can God be Three and One?; Chapter 14: Isn't the Idea of God Becoming a Man Incoherent? -- Jacobsen defers comment.

Chapter 15: If Jesus Is God, How Could He Really Be Tempted? -- this one made Jacobsen laugh for some reason. Maybe it should. I happen to disagree with what many think was the reason for Jesus' temptation. See here.

Chapter 16, 17: The Genesis Creation Account Contradicts Science -- these babies are beyond my own scope, so I'll skip them.

Chapter 18: How Could a Loving God Command Genocide -- this is a lot like what we covered in Chapter 4, so here again, limited comments and answers to questions posed that are not repeats of what is found there, which amounts to one point:

...what did God do to help the Canaanites to become a better society? The Bible seems to show God actively working to help the Israelites, but seems to show God just ignoring everybody else until He is sufficiently pissed off at them that He decides to wipe them out. If this isn't an accurate portrayal, why didn't God tell us all the great things He did to try to help the Canaanites?

This is another one of those "seems" that isn't what it "seems". Very little of the "active help" God gave the Israelites involved what could be called moral or cultural improvements; the giving of the Law might have been called such, except that the Law (as other Skeptics often point out) is not a whole lot different in principle than law codes known and available to the Canaanites. The fact is that when it came to free will decisions, Israel got no more help than Canaan, and at any rate, didn't do a whole lot better in the end.

Chapter 19: Doesn't the Bible Condone Slavery? -- Copan's chapter is apparently somewhat like Miller's article here. Jacobsen offers no comment on the main portion, saying his "only question...is, where was God when the practice of slavery was growing? Why didn't He do something to stop it then?" The answer is the same as the sort we give in Chapter 1 for any sort of evil men do.

Chapter 20: The Gospels Contradict Each Other -- After what I must regard as a nitpick against Copan for presuming to speak for all Christians (it is more likely Copan is speaking in general terms when he says "Christians believe..."), Jacobsen offers these comments we would reply to:

...if the Gospels are simply works written by men, and therefore might not be completely accurate, why is it so terrible of a skeptic to doubt that some of the events, like being raised from the dead, aren't true? The Bible depicts that people who were even there, like Doubting Thomas, having doubts that Jesus really raised from the dead. But yet there is something "wrong" with me for thinking, "hey, these works were written by men, maybe they aren't completely accurate?"

If Jacobsen wants to use the "Doubting Thomas" example, he might want to note that 1) Jesus delivered a mild rebuke to Thomas; 2) Thomas' doubts were completely unwarranted, as he had not only been a witness to the ministry of Jesus and his miracles, but also was among a group of 10 other men whom he had gotten to know intimately and whose testimony he should have trusted. As for "what is so terrible..." On the surface this reaction is emotional and non-specific; I will put it this way: The "terrible" consequences come only to those who reject Jesus as Savior. There are no "terrible" consequences for doubting, i.e., the raising of Jairus' daughter, but it you reject the latter it would be rather dissonant to accept the former. As a guest writer on this site has said, Skeptics who want to refute Christianity need to start with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not with accessory miracles and events.

Beyond this Jacobsen offers a mild endorsement of the theories of Earl Doherty; not for the Christ-myth, but for the Gospels composed as allegories. Jacobsen thinks this fits in with what Copan has to say; not having read Copan, I must decline direct comment, but will note these points generally:

1. The idea of the Gospels AS allegory is based on little more than Doherty's presuppositions. By genre they nestle in the realm of ancient biography (see here).
2. Jacobsen writes, "...Copan notes that each of the Gospel writers had different audiences. And therefore, they may have taken some liberties with the exact wordings of Jesus in order to best address Jesus' ideas to their audience. Well, were they writing a history or a story? People writing histories shouldn't take liberties should they?" They shouldn't? It depends on what "liberties" we are talking about. A liberty taken to make a historical account more intelligible is hardly to be objected to. For example, if Jesus used colloquial expressions that were familiar to Jews in Palestine, is it an objectionable liberty to paraphrase his words into something a Gentile in Spain would grasp? Jacobsen should perhaps consider that this was the era before ample writing supplies; before extensive footnotes could be appended to a work explaining things, and when information was mostly transmitted orally and any extraneous explanations had to be added to burdened memories. His objection that "we can't take liberties with history" (of any sort) is anachronistic and comes of one who lives in a society with leisure and resources to spare.
3. It is also said, "The Gospels are told without a perspective. There is no indication of what witnesses saw what. Nor who was interviewed in the process of piecing together the events that were being reported." This is another misplaced expectation. Ancient historians seldom or never give such indications; some did whenever there was a conflict in sources, but as a whole, one will never find in Josephus, Tacitus, etc. comments like, "I interviewed X to find out Y" or "Vespasian was near Titus and heard him say..." (They of course had little room to spare to do so, as noted above.) Thus this "lack of perspective" is not a reason to deny the Gospels the genre of historical reportage.
4. It is also said, "...some of the events, such as what Jesus prayed when he was alone, should have had no witnesses at all." On that particular see here.
5. In close, Jacobsen replies to some who have pointed out to him that he has imposed anachronistic standards on the Gospels, "So, the people of the time didn't have the same formal standards to history as we do today--but, I still have to believe the Gospels are in fact historically accurate in the major points such as Jesus being raised from the dead or I'm some bad guy deserving to go to hell?" I think it telling that rather than answer the matter, Jacobsen resorts again to this emotional response. That is not an answer to the point that he must come to the Gospels (and all ancient documents) on their terms rather than modern ones. Nor is mere emotional outrage an answer to the point that one must believe on Jesus Christ to be saved.

Chapter 21: Old Testament "Prophecies" are Taken out of Context in the New Testament -- Copan's chapter here is apparently something like what Glenn Miller offers here. Once again, Jacobsen declines detailed comment and resorts to emotion: "Oh, that explains it. But it is still factual and if I don't believe it I'm a bad guy?" He alludes to Doherty's idea that the Gospels are midrash; as noted above, this is wrong, and for more, see related comments here (the same theory is held by Spong, relying on Goulder).