TEMPLATE ERROR: Invalid data reference post.canonicalUrl: No dictionary named: 'post' in: ['blog', 'skin', 'view']

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Monster God or Monster Man Debate - YouTube

This debate was between Michael Brown and Brian Zahn regarding Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Dr Brown totally won this!

Monster God or Monster Man Debate - YouTube

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, October 4, 2014

▶ Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD - YouTube


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Monday, September 22, 2014

Answering Muslims: The Qur'an, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Arminianism in a Nutshell


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Ever Feel Like There Is a Target on Your Back?

Over the past month with all the young and unarmed black people being killed and/or injured by the police has really made an impact on me. I got to admit that black people have always had to fear police and had to be concerned with such things. The reason why it seems so prevalent now is because it's being brought to light because of witnesses and video. I mean I'm old enough to remember Rodney King's beating a little more than 20 years ago.

The following videos are just part of a long and terrible legacy. I wasn't around when Emmett Till was murdered but my mother still tears up when his name comes up

Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955 [yes, it's been 59 years]

And now just in the past few years.

And here is a video that really sums up what is going on!

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Antichrist Memes:Definition of Sin

To deny that sin exists is the same as denying that lying, cheating, murder, stealing, and all the other horrible things that people do to one another do not happen either. The only reason you would not need a cure is if you like evil.

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Antichrist Memes: Salvation


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Atheist Memes: Forgiveness of Sin

Uh no. My sins were forgiven and atoned for once and for all when Jesus died on the cross. What about your sins?

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Antichrist Meme: Morality

So....I do not like murder. Does that mean I should not support laws against people who think its okay in their given circumstances? I mean if they think they have more right to live than another person, who am I to tell them they don't have the right to do what they want? Do you really wanna live like that? I don't and the presuppositions in this mean undercuts the whole message of the Matrix Trilogy.

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Full Debate with Bob Enyart on His Peculiar Version of Open Theism | Alpha and Omega Ministries


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: The Power of Oral Tradition in Oral Cultures


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Answering Muslims: What Is the Gospel?


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Open Theism Summarized in a Single Image

 open-theism.jpg (JPEG Image, 960 × 624 pixels)

 I think the main problem is that Open Theism does not seem to take advantage of a key scripture.

11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:11-12

If that passage is true then those three points given in the above graphic cannot be true. If God works all things after His own will then it's not about what we do that determines what happens. 

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Is Open Theism Heresy or Biblical? What is Foreknowledge? Can God Change the Future? Jesse Morrell | Biblical Truth Resources

I don't agree with Open Theism much at all. Here is an article that tries to defend it and in light of the previous post about the Bob Enyart debate with Jame White, I think  that this article linked below does a fairly good job of summarizing Open Theism.

Is Open Theism Heresy or Biblical? What is Foreknowledge? Can God Change the Future? Jesse Morrell | Biblical Truth Resources

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Open Theism: Is the Future Settled? Debate

A couple of weeks ago, James White had a debate with Bob Enyart. The Debate was on the topic of Open Theism. The point of contention was about the nature of God and the conclusions that Open Theism brings to those who consistently follow it. I have not yet been able to find the whole debate on video but the audio has been put on YouTube.

Anyone who listens to this debate has to honestly conclude that James White won this and that the Bible does not support Enyart. However, Enyart has added to the "discussion" on is own radio program, Bob Enyart Live, and has tried to spin the debate his way. Fortunately James White has posted a few rebuttals that I think are worth looking at:
The Tremendous Dishonesty of Bob Enyart
And true to his word, James White posted a few videos providing more information and his point-of-view:

Of course this has been in the works for a while. Both men have been talking Open Theism for years. Here is a clip of Enyart giving a seminar on Open Theism.

Here is a video of James White giving comments before the debate.

If you are interested in hearing Bob Enyart's programs, you can hear them at the following links!

James White vs Bob Enyart on Open Theism on BEL
James White vs. Bob Enyart: The Rebuttals
James White vs. Bob Enyart: Cross Examination

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Monday, July 14, 2014

Good-friday-infographic.jpg (JPEG Image, 1500 × 2439 pixels) - Scaled (24%)


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, July 11, 2014

Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core - environment - 12 June 2014 - New Scientist

I was on tumblr and I found an article about a large underground reservoir of water, miles below the earth's crust.

Here is a quote from the article

A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has
been discovered deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help
explain where Earth’s seas came from.

The water is hidden inside a blue rock that lies 700 kilometres
underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface
and its core.

Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck planets,
but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the ocean oozed
out of Earth’s interior layer.


The source linked here is the same link below:

Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core - environment - 12 June 2014 - New Scientist

Made me think about that this might answer the question about where is the rest of the water that covered the earth during Noah's flood. 

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Biola University Lectures

Biola University posts lectures on YouTube. I think people should really check them out!


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Answering Muslims: An In-Depth Refutation of Muhammad in the Bible


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video Interview: J. Warner Wallace Talking About the Need for Christian Case Making


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Bible and Cosmology

I was on Tumblr and I found a post containing the following image and commentary.

BS…whichever way you slice it: From the bible…you can either learn literal, divinely inspired, misinformation… or allegorical divinely inspired, misinformation…or primitive human’s limited knowledge misinformation…

 Needless to say, this is wrong. Let's look at the Bible verses cited.Here is the main problem with this viewpoint: it ignores the purpose of the passages being critiqued. If the goal is to make a scientific declaration that is not true, then indeed there is a problem. If the point is to make a point that is true, then there is no more reason to complain about the passage than it is to complain when someone says its "raininf cats and dogs:". If someone said it was" raining cats and dogs" would you decry him/her a liar? No. You would understand that he/she was merely saying that it was raining really hard. Let's look at that the passages and see if they are actually giving misinformation or just being misunderstood.

The Earth is flat
See, the Lord is going to lay waste the earth
    and devastate it;
he will ruin its face
    and scatter its inhabitants— - Isaiah 24:1

No where does the passage say tyhat the earth is flat. There is no reason to read that into the text. Who would argue that a face isn't spherical or that you can't run all over a sphere? I wouldn't.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. - Matthew 4:8

Would the earth need to be flat in order for the devil to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. Do you think Jesus saw China? Japan? Mexico? All these and other places would have had kingdoms at the same time. It's debatable. I've always thought that this was a supernatural thing but it does not need to be. "World" here could be just what could be seen from the mountain on which Jesus was standing at that moment. In any case this does not mean front loading the thought that the earth is flat.
The Earth does not move
  Tremble before him, all the earth!
    The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. - 1 Chronicles 16:30

The Earth rests on pillars
He raises the poor from the dust
    and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
    and has them inherit a throne of honor.

“For the foundations of the earth are the Lord’s;
    on them he has set the world. - 1 Samuel 2:8

There is no reason to think Isaiah is talking about the physical earth.  I've always thought that the context was the rules and laws that creation and men must follow.  Things like gravity. Things like entropy.  Things like doing evil things bring evil things to you. There is no reason to think the Bible is putting froth the thought of a flat earth resting on pillars. If you think that is what Isaiah was saying then you missed the whole point.

The Sun goes around the earth
He raises the poor from the dust
    and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
    and has them inherit a throne of honor.
“For the foundations of the earth are the Lord’s;
    on them he has set the world. - Joshua 10:13

 The passage is discussing the event from the point of view of people on the earth - not from an objective point in space relative to the earth and the sun. If the earth had stopped rotating on it's axis for almost a day, it would have looked like the sun stopped moving in the sky. It's a miracle. And the affect could have been only localized to the battlefield and nowhere else. However God did it, it would have been easy for God given that He made everything!

Stars are lights set in a dome over the earth.
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, - Genesis 1:16-17

Here is the question what does "vault of the sky mean". I've always looked at this a figurative language.  Poetic description. People who want to argue that this is worng information so they argue that the whole Bible (or just the parts they don't like) should be ignore. They have not a leg on which to stand.  

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

7 Shocking Bible Verses You Probably Won't Hear In Church

The is a link to an article from Buzzfeed that attempts to take seven Biblical verses and assert that Christians are ashamed of them. The assumption seems to be that after 2000 years, no one has ever thought seriously about these verses and what they mean until now! 

 7 Shocking Bible Verses You Probably Won't Hear In Church

I think the article shows what happens when reading comprehension fails.  To be fair, one cannot simply read the Bible and understand everything that is being communicated without looking at history at the time and an attitude of fairly allowing the text to speak. As a contrast checkout Dr James White's response to this article.


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Ultrafacts.tumblr.com has some Interesting Facts!


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Good & Evil


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

This Comic Captures the Trouble with Making a Wonder Woman Movie


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, April 18, 2014

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini posted an article on his blog on a papyrus fragment the seems to refer to Jesus' wife. Check this out.

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, April 5, 2014

▶ Science of Innovation: Bionic Limbs - YouTube

I am so glad UC Berkeley is doing continuing research and development in the field of cybernetics and bionics. When I was a student there, it was not called bionics on campus, but things have actually changed since the 1990's. It was called mechatronics or robotics. It is all those things and combines bioengineering, electrical & mechanical engineering, computer science, and physics, and several other disciplines. I'd like to get back into this stuff.

▶ Science of Innovation: Bionic Limbs - YouTube

Return to front page

View blog reactions

▶ 50 Reasons Muhammad Was NOT a Prophet in Under Five Minutes - YouTube


Return to front page

View blog reactions

Friday, April 4, 2014

Five books of S. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, against heresies : Irenaeus, Saint, Bp. of Lyons, d. ca. 202 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


Return to front page

View blog reactions

The Movie Noah was Based on Gnosticism, not Genesis | ALAN KURSCHNER

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this is an insightful article about the movie Noah. It is interesting to see that the observation that the movie has gnostic tendencies.

The Movie Noah was Based on Gnosticism, not Genesis | ALAN KURSCHNER

Return to front page

View blog reactions

Saturday, March 22, 2014

FacePlant of the Day - Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you. - YouTube

I've had an epiphany. I have discovered a different way to respond to videos that I get from YouTube, like the one that is the subject to this post. From now on posts like these may be done this way in the future. YouTube has the feature of captioning videos for you and there are browser add-ins for Chrome and FireFox that will allow you to download or copy/paste the captions creating a transcript - complete with time stamps. It occurred to me that I don't just have to provide a video but I can directly interact with the transcript. Unfortunately, the transcript is not perfect. I've made some corrections to it where I could, but it's still serviceable.

This post is about video posted by nonstamp collector in attempt to counter Christian apologetic arguments that attack the lack grounding of objective morality in atheistic worldviews. His attempt is a cringe-worthy faceplant. Interacting with the transcript is almost watching it in slow motion. The video is provided below and in the following transcript my comments will be in red font.

I'd like to address a Christian argument that I've heard many times
it's a certain way of framing the moral argument for God and is particularly
interesting to me in that unbeknownst to the person using it
actually refute itself in a unique way yep
I'll show you what I mean now in order to accurately present and discuss from
talking about here I'm gonna quote verbatim from a Christian podcast
without telling you long quoting because I think that it'll be familiar enough
that you recognize is something that many people said so
choosing just one person to pin this on is what I want to do but for the sake of
accuracy I will quote directly
now forget to speak at the start of nature this he was on the radio at the

Interesting enough, the video author sets up a decent introduction and very clearly lays out what his goal is: refute a popular Christian argument against atheism. Let's see how his argument holds up. 

what do you think about that example the concentration camps have Nazi Germany
does our moral revulsion at those concentration camps
is that because there's an objectively real fact about the matter

the treating   people that way is wrong say Hitler had won the war

and we now live in a society where because of that and the propaganda

ever believe that anti-semitism was good and gassing jews was fine
with that mean then that that was simply the morality that we accept

is morality simply at the end of the day

what society thinks about a matter or would still be wrong

even though nobody thought it was wrong would actually still be wrong because we

can be wrong about moral facts

and if that's the case does that suggest that there is a moral dimension that is

in part a natural world

that somehow transcended could this be the evidence

for God now to the speaker's credit

I have even used this argument and I think of it as a sound argument because it points out that without an objective moral standard there is no logic we can use to conclude that Hitler was wrong. Without that standard, it's just our opinion versus his and the argument forces you to think about if there is a circumstance where Hitler could have been right if the majority of humanity agreed with him. 

its word is a series of questions but since we've all heard this word

less rhetorically and more as a series of facts and conclusions

I'm gonna take the liberty of interpreting the quote as an argument

for the Christian God is the answer

okay it was on the Christian podcast so that's where I'm coming from

because I say I've heard exactly this kind have what if hitler had one

as a very strongly argued case for what amounts to Christian theism for many


I would agree that the God of the Bible is the only resolution of this argument. 

so the Hitler things very interesting ask you to imagine how society

excusing or agreeing with the holocaust I'd imagine anyone doing it

in our real world today obviously the pretty much an extremist and certainly

an outcast

what kinda crazy awful dystopian world with this be if we all thought that way

well let's investigate the hypothetical scenario

This will be amusing. 

in little more detail the first thing the picture is that in that world

we wouldn't condemn hitler for having done what he did that's a basic part the

analogy I know but it's worth stating again as a starting point

this is a world in which anyone who condemned or criticize him during the

Holocaust would be the social outcast a lunatic fringe or extremist

Hitler would be admired by many in the same way as america might reveal Lincoln

or the British might remember churchill even prominent and respected people

would look back and admired Hitler for having carried out the Holocaust

try to imagine hearing Hitler being praised as a hero the 20th century by

someone that you admire

The thing is that  even if the world was that backward that off, Hitler was still wrong and so would be all of us if we agreed with him.

now I'd say that not everyone would be an enthusiastic fan if hitler

the extent the killing might still be off-putting to some but the illustration

does ask is to imagine that even the lilly livered bleeding-heart lefty

liberals that the world would at the very least

have an acceptance of the holocaust having been carried out it would have

their supporters having been the right thing to do at the time

even if they wouldn't want such a thing to ever happen again remember

the review of Hitler any more critical than that would put people over the line

is being considered an extremist

at odds with the prevailing moral sense this imagine society

every bit as much as the opposite is true in the real world so everyone would

think that the holocaust had been rights

and at very least necessary and justified that would be the nature the

propaganda that the speaker mentioned

which would most likely be based around an argument that the Jews had deserved a


I think the video author understands the consequences of  such a world and does not like it as much as any Christian.

the fax packing that I might be a bit tenuous but the narrative would be

something along the lines of how back in the early 20th century

things have gotten so bad or about to take such a serious turn for the worse

the drastic violent action against Jews had become appropriate

and murdering the mall had become at the very least unnecessary course of action

and that hitler had done the right thing in following through on

now I understand appointed the speakers making because to me this does feel like

a less moral world

Definitely not the kind of world I would want. If people thought that Hitler was on the right track they might want to follow his example. I'm sure me, and a lot of people I care about would be on that undesirable list. 

whatever meaning you get to that word it just seems wrong a whole society

celebrating or even excusing the Holocaust simply because hillard one

does seem to violate something very basic uneven primal

and as a speaker suggested does that indicate that they are incontrovertible

moral facts

in condemning the Holocaust as we do in the real world we drawing on an

objective morality that is never subject to human opinion

or is a moral version to the holocaust something that we came up with ourselves

and perhaps partially because Hitler did in fact lose

but it seems deeper than something that we discover invent doesn't it

so where does a morality have its foundation outside of humanity

maybe in a god well

I've said before in previous videos I'm happy to go there

i'm open to being convinced but as yet I'm not conclusively convinced

and despite the thought has gone into these questions across the centuries and

recently as much as I'd like an answer on resigned to sitting in the I don't

know camp on the issue of objective morality

So, the author of the video agrees that objective morality has to have grounding outside of humanity, but he is unwilling to call that ground God but does he have better alternate explanation for how we know Hitler was wrong?

but this illustration and the questions that it raises for certain things that I

do know

this dystopian world that we're looking at is a hypothetical

as remarkable and discomforting as it is doesn't look strangely familiar

do we not actually live in such a world now a world of people looking back into

history in making excuses for massive genocides

justifying the murders by arguing that they were necessary

and rather than condemning the people who carried them out instead looking

back to them with admiration

and reflecting that the people who were wiped out had actually deserved it

we should be very familiar these are exactly the kinds a response to the

Christian apologists key when confronted with the barbaric Old Testament

Alternate answer?  Nope. Instead, NonStampCollector tries to argue that Christians pretend that the Conquest of Canaan told to us in the Old Testament can be equated with what Hitler did. He asks why Christians don't condemn them but condemn the Holocaust.


carried out on their gods orders and with its help

and in his name all yes I'll tell you genocide and mass murder a bad

absolutely objectively immoral that's how come we know that the Holocaust was


it's just it in say the case of the armies of the is our lights going

through the promised land killing every single man woman and child in a possibly

code is a invaded city after city

genocide was actually Morally justified and necessary

the people who were killed did actually deserve it souls okay to totally destroy


it was the right thing to do with the time the military leaders who carried

out those invasions were actually heroic

people to be remembered in admired not condemned so much so that you can even

read to kids bedtime stories and sing them little songs about the heroism of

these particular genocidal mass murderers

there's nothing immoral and what they did see these genocides have to be

viewed in the correct context to be properly understood Marley

and if you see a problem with any aspect of them the net can only mean the you're

looking at them

out of context I do you heard all this before haven't you

faithful believes excuse the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of deaths

carried out by violent extremist Israeli military leaders as having been uniquely

justified and necessary

the right thing to do at the time perfectly Morally permissible

This would be a viable counter argument if the destruction of the Canaanites, Ammonites, and the others was not genocide. It was judgement for the evil done by their cultures. Things like child sacrifice. Idol Worship. And things that we would not want in our culture any more than Nazis. Recall that God said that their time was not up and gave them more than 400 years before the Israelites came and replaced them in their land. It was revealed to Abraham that this would happen in Genesis 15:12-21.It was morally permissible because Israel was acting as an agent of God. It was not genocide. Hitler was not acting as an agent of God. Recall that God also blessed Israel. Anyone who tries to destroys Israel works against God.

but on a second in the hypothetical hitler analogy out we asked to imagine a

society that excuses millions of deaths as having been justified and necessary

and to ponder what a messed up idea of morality would take for society to do


the hypothetical hitler analogy mentions the power propaganda and asked where the

military victory in propaganda could be all that would be necessary to twist

people's thinking

towards having them agree the genocide was moral

quelled apparently the answer to that question is yes yes they are

just ask a billion or so Christians now tell you what they've had drilled into

them repeatedly

that invading city after city and utterly destroying everything in them

that breathes

it was the right thing to do and was completely justified

The problem is that the cringe-worthy thought that the conquest of  Canaan is the same as the Holocaust

I'll go along with its explanation it look with horror and disdain at a

hypothetical society that

without a firm foundation for its morality could have its morality swayed

by mere propaganda towards
yeah excusing genocide Christianity

Maybe the video author should look up "genocide" and explain how he's getting that viewpoint.

you are and always have been that group that's been brainwashed by propaganda

into excusing barbaric acts of war and violence

you don't see it do you you ask us to imagine a culture that excuses and

justifies appalling injustice cruelty and violence

without realizing that you are describing yourselves

you paid a startling picture a population that's had its morality

hijacked by the victory

and propaganda the sadistic mass murderer well you are a population that

has had its morality hijacked

Nope. Where is the "injustice"?  Where is the "sadist"? He offers no example. No proof.  Nothing at all in the war Israel waged in Canaan mirrors the Holocaust nor the war the Nazis brought to the world.

by the Victorian propaganda have a long list a sadistic mass murderers

men who simply the hitler's have their own day just for the different ideology

in less effective weaponry

Okay, he's just trying to appeal to emotion now. In the next section he tries to take the argument and replace some words to make it about Israel conquering Canaan instead of the Nazis and the Holocaust.

right allow me to replace just a few words the example to demonstrate

where'd you dare Christianity fits into this

safety is our lights had won the promise land wars

and we now lived in a society where because of that and the propaganda

everyone believed the destroying all the season came in had been good

and that utterly destroying everything that breeds had been fine

with that mean then that that was simply the morality that we accept

is morality simply the end of the day what society thinks about a matter

all with the invasion and conquering the promise land still be wrong

even know nobody thought it was wrong

does mr. revulsion at those blood baths

is that because there's an objectively real fact about the matter

the treating people that way is wrong

Here the transcript has some mistakes but again he equates the war that Israel fought with genocide and that can't be substantiated. 

eitan calling bullshit on this having Christian apologist imply that not

basing morality firmly in season as they do

could lead to a terrible moral degeneration into an unrecognizable

world of moral chaos

in which even genocide could be excuse and tolerated cheese apologists

The Bible does not condone genocide on any level. Why can isn't there any proof of that given? 

imagine that I'm also calling bullshit

even more emphatically on something that I guarantee is going through the minds

of none too few believers who listen to this right now

and the very thing that will no doubt dominate the discussion in the comments

Straw Man. Christians are not accepting his definition of  Canaan's conquest as an example of genocide, and he argues against that. 

even though not on the head right here

it what happens whenever a nonbeliever implies that the murderous violence and

brutality the Old Testament

are quote immoral the Theiss will demand that we name the standard by which we're

judging the morality the Bible

the implication is that as non theists we can't because we apparently don't

have one because we disbelieving the only possible thing that could qualify

as one

therefore our morality must be this flimsy subjective cultural negotiable

thing that shift all over the place at the whim society

so we lose and we have to stop making any kind ethical or moral judgment on

the content to Scripture

because our moral judgments have a poor foundation or no foundation

Exactly! What rebuttal does he offer to say to show that this conclusion is an error?

well look if you argue that way let me tell you this very clearly

once and for all whatever bases a non-believer has for calling out the

actual the Old Testament genocidal war lord is appalling barbaric any moral

its automatically a better and more reliable standard than the one that

you're using to justify them

because yours is entirely circular

you're using the Bible and the morality inherent in the Bible

to judge the morality of the Bible

Just because you think that God has ordered genocide or barbaric actions, does not mean God did.  It shows that you don't understand the Bible.As human being you cannot judge the morality of the Bible because it's not just the story of people and what they did, but even more primary of God and why things happened the way that they have.

using the god that order genocide as the standard by which you judge the morality

of genocide

is exactly like someone in that hypothetical example justifying his

actions by saying that they are okay on hitler's moral standard

would you accept that logic of course he wouldn't

the whole point illustration was to point out how bad a basis for morality

that kinda thing he's

and its all you've got the Bible is the only thing that you could really turn to

justify the genocide so isn't it

Hitler cannot help you there. Think about it. By definition equating God as as standard for anything must be greater than Hitler. Equating God and Hitler is extremely silly. 

you know why because the Bible present a morality that justifies genocide


not much else in civilized society does anymore does it

You mean like no justification for abortions?  No...wait....

look bring up hitler's attempted genocide or those us down on our pol pot

does not play out in the favor by Christian view of objective morality

against an atheistic or secular one

At this point in the video I was wondering if and when he would ever get around to explaining where his view for objective moral value come from in his secular worldview.

you guys worship a God that you claim order to encourage kings and military


to do things that hitler and those guys in a way simply perfected

Still waiting for an explanation for how the Bible condones and commands genocide. 

Moses David getting and Joshua you all gave it a pretty good shot when you


and perhaps you ought to admit to yourself that if they were recorded in

Scripture is having killed as many people as Hitler managed to

you wouldn't all the sudden decide that they were evil mass murderers

you did my them no less than you do now and you praise God for the mighty power

he displayed in destroying his enemies so thoroughly

War is not murder. In all his ranting there is not a single explanation for how he is justified to equate Moses, Joshua, or David to Hitler. I'm not buying it. 

before you start lecturing the secular world about where we need to look to

establish a basis for morality

why don't you come up with one that is in fundamentally hypocritical and


the illustration draws upon this innate sense of morality that we all seem to

have and get us to think about where it comes from

So, let's be clear. He has no explanation for where human morality comes from or what objective standard on which it rests only that we do do have an objective standard. Further he does not believe that Christians have a right point this out because God orders genocide in the Bible although he cannot demonstrate that it was genocide. I'm convinced....not at all. 

if you're a Christian believer let me encourage you in all sincerity

to just admit to yourself that your commitment to this book

puts you at odds with your own inherent Center morality

in this video with many look to genocide because that's what the quote brought up

but just have a quick look at some of the other disgusting inhumanity that

fills the pages of this book that you've been taught to consider a wholly

give credit to that since you have that tells you that no matter the context

hurling rocks an adulteress young woman until she dies as a result ovett

is nothing less an obscene barbaric cruelty

then think about how you actually feel about burning people to death

where does that deep in a conviction come from the tells you that that kinda

thing is wrong

was it placed there by God the same God

explicitly ordered that people do these things to each other

are you seriously gonna argue that even if the rally is grounded in a god

Several problems. Adultery was a capital crime in Ancient Israel. Just because you think that it should not be, does not mean that it is an immoral punishment. Also not just one person was supposed to be executed but both people.  Further, I can think of no place in the Old Testament where a method of execution included burning people to death. I think he should stop confusing wrong things churches did in later centuries with what the Bible actually told us to do.

this God the judeo-christian God is clearly bullshit

one simply doesn't need to have a well-defined alternative explanation

other bases a morality

to know that this one is an absolute failure one simply needs to be honest

with themselves

This part really amazes me. He just admitted that he can't counter the argument but throws up his hands and says that he doesn't need explain why Hitler was wrong to conclude that he was. In other words he wusses out.  Where is his honesty?  He has presented nothing of value. He can't explain this. So instead he tries to tug on heart strings about "genocide" being commanded in the Bible but fails to demonstrate that there was any genocide.

I'll conclude by once again suggesting that we leave this insane fundamentally

confuse book

outta the 21st century discussion a morality and ethics

it's part of the problem not the solution because as we can see

if there's a world view that leads people to excuse and condone

appallingly cruel behavior it's not atheism

its theism

Yeah, it's not the Bible that is confused. The Bible does have an explanation for  where our objective moral standard comes from. The video's author isn't all bad. At least he recognizes that objective moral standards do exist. He isn't willing to argue that Hitler would have been right if the majority of people agreed with him.  So that's something. But unfortunately he isn't honest enough to admit that he has no alternative explanation other than God to explain why those moral standards exist. He seems perfectly happy to steal the Christian moral standard and pretend it didn't come from God. Good luck with that. I will be praying the NonStampCollector because God is more than able to help him up from this faceplant.

Christian Apologetics: Hitler can't help you. - YouTube

Return to front page

View blog reactions