Friday, August 31, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?

I've often thought that maybe John Loftus believes that he has the right to hear from God on his own terms. I didn't want to think that he was that deluded but given the following post, this hope has been dashed to pieces because this is what he attempts to assert and defend. Does this make sense? No. It's an utter failure in logic and makes presuppositions that can't withstand rational thinking.

How dare I demand that God gives me what I need to believe? How dare I tell him how he should reveal himself to me? How dare I question the reasonableness of revealing himself in the pre-scientific past such that I must accept what ancient people claimed to have seen in a remote part of the world, or be condemned to hell if I don't? How dare I disbelieve because of the so-called mysteries of an eternal three-in-one God, who became incarnate, and who died for my sins, even though none of these doctrines make any rational sense at all.

It's always funny to me when Loftus makes such accusations against Christianity. He's making Paul's points for him.  

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

God knows that to the untouched mind and heart, it is not possible to believe it. But not because the message is illogical or unreasonable. 

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

The problem isn't with God. The problem is us. No one can boast. No one was born saved.  

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. - John 3:19-21

Well I do dare to demand better of God, if he exists. That's the point. How am I to know he exists when his lack of divine forethought led to massive slaughter among Christians themselves over the stupidest of doctrinal trifles that if he had foreseen them and had even average communication skills he could have averted? Or, he could have told us more important things than what to do with our penises and vaginas, by giving us the knowledge to make vaccines and anesthesia for surgeries?

The Bible is clear. There is no passage you can honestly use for killing another person in the context of today because of doctrinal differences. Again the problem is explained throughout scripture  (John 2:19-21 is only one example). Unfortunately, John Loftus has that problem and so does everyone who is not born-again. And God tells us what to do with our penises and vaginas because we are too stupid to know what to do otherwise. Obviously we don't know if we can't see why it would be important to God for us to know. I am amazed at the hubris to suggest that the science and technologies (i.e. vaccines, anesthesia, and ect.) did not come as a direct blessing from God! And don't forget that so-called "pre-scientific" people had anesthesia and did perform surgeries. They just weren't dumb enough to take credit for themselves.

Why do I demand better things? It's simple:

If God created me as a reasonable human being, then I can doubt the reasonableness of a God who fails to give me what I need to believe as a reasonable human being.

Loftus forgets that God created Adam and Eve as reasonable human beings. Because of Sin we are not reasonable. It takes God to make us reasonable. God has given us what we need to believe. 

If God created me as human being who seeks sufficient evidence to believe, then I can demand that he gives me the sufficient evidence I need to believe.

Loftus has admitted on several occasions that people have failed faculties and can't see and understand anything perfectly. We have several blind spots. Given that, why would anyone of us pretend we know what "sufficent evidence" is and what it isn't. The more about science we unlock and discover, the more we (at least the honest people) realize that we know very little. More questions are asked and we end up knowing less than what we knew before we learned the fact we just discovered. That is why science and obtaining more knowledge is so beautiful. Wisdom would lead to humility as knowledge increases.

Connect the dots.

And they make the picture God has said that they make. Without God you don't know what the dots are.

Of course, maybe he doesn't want reasonable people? Who knew? ;-) But then, why am I who I am? Still, if that's the case then he could snap his omnipotent fingers and take away my critical thinking skills so I would believe as others do. I did at one time. Then I grew a brain, just as ex-Mormons, ex-Muslims, ex-Orthodox Jews, ex-Scientologists and others did. ;-)

I don't know John Loftus personally, but I don't think his blog posts lead me to conclude that he is reasonable. Realizing the limitations of your intellect and yet trusting in that intellect to determine the reasonableness of a being so much ahead and so far above of you doesn't seem very rational to me. The best you have is to seek God with all of your being and trust that God will reveal God's self to you on God's own terms in God's own way. The Bible is one of these ways. John Loftus is an apostate. And like all apostates who leave God, it's not that he lost his mind or gained his brain or gained critical thinking skills - he never had it to begin with because he was never born again.  He never knew God.  I only hope that grants him and others mercy and gives Loftus the greatest of all gifts - salvation through Jesus Christ. 

Debunking Christianity: Why I Am Justified in Telling God What To Do?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

FacePalm of the Day - The Meaninglessness of Sin | The Hammer That Speaks

John Loftus posted a link to the following article. The article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible says sin is. People might argue that showing how the article twists and distorts the Bible is using circular reasoning but it is not. Showing how the Bible contradicts the claims being made against it based on what it says is not assuming the Bible is true before proving it true. If you want to show the Bible is not true, then you have to show that you at least understand what the Bible says.

Sin, and the forgiveness from it, is one of the main tenets of the Christian faith–but what exactly does “sin” mean to a Christian? Sin is said to be a transgression of God’s law, but if that is the case, then it cannot be said that Jesus saved believers from the “law.” If Jesus saved believers from the laws, then there can no longer be “sin,” as there are no laws to break. Sin then becomes a paradox, and cannot be easily defined.

No. Jesus did not save us from the Law. Jesus saved us from God's wrath. He saved us from the consequences and penalty we deserve because we have transgressed God's Law. Sin is not a paradox because Law is not Sin just because the authors of this article have wrongly conflated the two.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 

Furthermore, if Jesus paid for all the “sins” of mankind, then believers would no longer have to “pay” for their sins, as Jesus already did that on the cross, absolving believers from having to take responsibility for their actions.  As long as a believer has “faith” in Jesus and repents, they believe they will still gain entrance into paradise, without having to pay for their own mistakes.  In other words, “sin” is meaningless, as there are no consequences for believers even if they do commit any so-called “sins.”

Wrong! There were consequences for my sins and the sins of everyone who trusts in Christ. Jesus suffered and died in our place. The price for our salvation was paid by Jesus' voluntary death on the cross in the place of those He chose to save. 

 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”- John 6:43-51

This is an area where I think the King James version really shines in putting forth the idea the Bible is really saying. Jesus is our propitiation. 

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. - 1 John 4:10

However, even if we consider that sin is defined as an act of lawlessness as it states in 1John 3:4–whose laws do Christians follow?


Is it considered a sin to break man’s law, or God’s laws? If it is considered a sin to break God’s laws, then the laws were not eliminated and they still stand, as Jesus himself stated in the fulfillment passages of Matt 5:17-20. Paul would be wrong to have claimed that believers were no longer under the law–but that is exactly what he did. Paul forgoes the law in favor of “grace” and preached that once a believer offered themselves to Jesus they were “set free” from sin, and they become slaves to righteousness. i.e., they would be “slaves” to doing what is right—while at the same time being taught that they are “born sinners” and cannot help but to not do what is not right, as it is not possible for them to be perfect.–a double bind. In fact, it’s a double, double bind, as the Bible does claim that it is possible to be perfect!  (In our previous post, we explained what “double binds” are, and how they lead to confused thinking, and/or psychosis, and also what “perfect” really means.)

"Perfect" does not mean "sinless" in the context of what Jesus said. There is no contradiction. We are born sinners and that is why we need a savior. The Bible is totally correct that we are slaves to sin until we are freed through Jesus Christ. If you were not a slave to transgressing God's law, they why do you continually break them? And you do continue to break them. Someone who denies scripture or the existence of God categorically break the first and second of the "Ten Commandments". When Paul claimed that we are no longer under the Law he was arguing that you could not follow the Law to be justified before God not that the Law does not have a place.

In Romans, Paul wrote:
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Romans 6:14-18
If it is considered a sin to break man’s laws, then God’s laws are redundant, and there is no such thing as “sin,” as a sin is defined as immoral act which is considered to be a transgression against divine (God’s) law.

Nope. Paul is not saying the God's laws are redundant. It's not just an immoral act. Breaking man's law is not necessarily a sin because some of man's laws are in direct contradiction with God's Law. For example, abortion is legal in the United States but there in no way anyone could argue that abortion would be legal under the Old Testament Law.
“Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Romans 4:14.
Paul implied that once one believes in Jesus Christ, they are under “grace” and not the law, while at the same time promoting the idea that all of humanity is burdened with the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. According to Paul, salvation from sin came through through the blood of Christ, as he states in both Romans and 1Corinthians:
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”  Romans 5:2
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”. 1Cor 5:22
Salvation does indeed come to us through Christ but not because the Law has been thrown away, but because Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law. 

Through Paul, Christians have been taught that they are “tainted” by Adam and Eve’s  “original sin” and they sin due to their innate “human nature.” If this was the case however, God would still be responsible for their actions as he created them with this “innate human nature” as, “…every decision is from the Lord.”( Prov:16:33). Logically, if  “every decision is from the Lord” as the Bible states, then Yahweh decides everything, including which babies suffer and die from hunger, and which women get raped and murdered, and he also decides who the murderers are–humans have no free will. Even if Christians claim that Satan brings evil thoughts to their minds–this too negates their free will and makes Satan more powerful than God.

Does God  really decide such things? Yes. But no one does evil against their will. The reason you haven't killed anyone or raped anyone (if you haven't) isn't because you are so wonderful or moral. It's because God had restrained your evil. When Adam and Eve were created they were sinless and perfect. They only became sinners when they made the decision to disobey God. I would argue that the only people who can claim to have a human nature as God intended it would be pre-fall Adam and Eve and Jesus himself.

However, let us look at one of the main Christian responses against my argument, if not the only one. Some Christians claim that the fall of man was included in God’s plan for the very purpose of demonstrating and manifesting his “love” via the “ultimate sacrifice” of Jesus.  They claim that in order to demonstrate the very greatest part of his nature of love, God/Jesus would have to die for us, and this could not be done if there was no one for him to die for, and no reason for Jesus.  Christians claim this is why there is sin, as there could be no reason for God/Jesus to die if there were no need for an atonement.  However, if causing such suffering in the world in order for his love to be recognized, and to show his “love” is the best God can do, then he is not all-powerful, or, he is not all knowing because if he was all powerful, then he could have found a better way to show his “love” as opposed to having “sin” in the world, and he would know how to do it. 

There is something missing from the above logic. How do you know that there was a better way that would also meet all the other design constraints  that God has in mind. For example, if everything has not gone the way it had, would you even exist? I'd wager not.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. - Acts 17:24-28

This included the suffering and pain you and everyone experiences.

According to this claim, then he would not be all powerful, or he would not be all knowing.

Wrong as I already pointed out.

 But perhaps he is all powerful and all knowing, which would lead us to another alternative–that is, the Christian god is selfish, and is a masochist and a sadist.

Nope. What we really get is the following:

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:19-24
Nevertheless, let us assume that the Christian claim above is true, and the argument is valid and sound, and that the conclusion is true.  That is,  it is necessary to have sin in the world in order for the love of God to be recognized as without sin, there would be no suffering, and we could not “see” the goodness of god.  How absurd that is!!  In fact, a good father who loves his children would rather go unrecognized rather than have his children suffer so that he could be recognized by them for loving them.  It would be selfish on the father’s part to make his children suffer merely so that he could be recognized.  This argument is also similar to a wife being beaten by her husband so that he can then show his “love” to her afterwards.  It is ridiculous and absurd.  If the Christian god were truly a loving god, then he would rather go unrecognized rather than cause suffering to his children.  Instead, the Christian god would rather be “known” by causing his children pain and suffering–making him sadistic.

Wrong. God doesn't just want us to know Him to soothe his own ego. He is so perfect that just because he is he deserves the adulation and glory. All the analogies with the abusive parent or husband  just don't cut it. It isn't about God needing us. It is about knowing Him because we need Him. What child does not want to know who his/her father is? To know His ways and character  so that they can know themselves. 

It is disturbing that Christians believe there really isn’t much any of them can do about their so-called “sinful nature” because they believe they don’t have the ability in themselves to overcome this so-called powerful law of what they believe to be their human nature–which is why they rely so heavily on the blood of Jesus Christ to save them from their sins. This means then, that they continue to “sin” believing they cannot help themselves. (Again, this means they believe they have no “free will” to stop themselves.)

 Hold up. No one can live up to God's standards without God's help. Go ahead and try. Read the Law codes in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy and see if you can follow them for an hour without violating them in thought or deed. Go ahead and try. Dare you. The problem is that our human nature is broken yet we are still accountable. Once we are saved we are free of the consequences of those constraints but that does not mean you get to sin all you want. You can choose to obey God and have it be a choice of your own will. That's freedom. Here is a start but you really should read all of Romans.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has master - Romans 6:1-9

 If Christians believe that their “human nature” is responsible for their evil deeds (and not their own free will) then instead of worshiping Yahweh, Christians should be blaming him, as according to the Bible, it was Yahweh who gave them their “human nature” in the first place–which, as they say, is prone to sin and most importantly, according to the Bible, “…EVERY decision is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:33) 

No the Bible does not tell us that our evil is due to our human nature. It is because of our enslaved will. God did not give us a broken human nature. We inherited from Adam. We should worship God because he chose to redeem us and not leave us broken. If you end up staying broken that is on you. 

The logic indicating Yahweh is responsible for the problem of evil is in the form of Modus Ponens, and is as follows:
P1. If God created us as Christians claim, then God gave us “human nature.”
P2. If human nature allows us to sin, then God is to blame for the problem of evil.
C. Therefore, God is to blame for the problem of evil.
So, we see by their own admission that the christian god, if he existed, is to blame for the problem of evil. He is also to blame for humans being disobedient due to their “human nature” that he himself created.

 God did not give Adam a nature such that he disobeyed God. Premise 1 is flawed because Adam began sinless and perfect. We are not. You can't back trace sin to Genesis 1.  Premise 2 is flawed because it flows from Premise 1. Complete fail. 

 Furthermore, after setting humans up to fail by giving them human nature, he then chooses at his whim whom he gives grace to. How cliquey and sadistic of him to “pick and choose” who suffers for eternity, and who is “saved.”:
“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—” Ephesians 2:8
Add Romans 9 to that list. 

Our “human nature” aside, without the belief of the fall of Adam and Eve, there would be no such thing as original sin, and no need for redemption at all.

If one is to be honest either you have to agree that we are all flawed and do evil things (human nature in other words)  or that some of us are better or more moral than others,  Who's  arrogant again?

 In other words, there would be no need for the religion known as Christianity if the story of Adam and Eve was not taken literally, as there would be nothing to be redeemed from.  Therefore, if what Christians say is true, their god creates the suffering and the “sin” so that he can be “recognized”–making him a sadistic god, or, there was no “fall of man” or “original sin” and we as humans can decide for ourselves to do what is right.

And just how do we agree on what is right and what is wrong? Because we don't agree and we know we do things all the time that hurt ourselves and others - as a species - obviously we need some kind of redemption. I don't just need God to fix you. I need God to fix me.

It is after all, just a matter of choice.  We can choose to do right, or we can choose to do wrong, but it makes it so much easier for Christians to do what is wrong when they have a “fall guy” named Jesus to take the punishment for their bad choices upon his shoulders, thereby absolving believers of any responsibility for their actions.  How convenient–and how treacherous.   Ultimately, we must all take responsibility for our own actions, or see the demise of civilization, and/or humanity itself.

When a Christian does wrong it should not be easy at all. If you find it easy to do wrong or think that you can just think of Jesus as a fall-guy or your get-out-of-hell-free card, you not only don't understand what scripture says but I don't think you are a Christian. Neither would Apostle Paul.

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” - Galatians 2:15-21
The Meaninglessness of Sin | The Hammer That Speaks

Monday, August 27, 2012

CMW: How Would the Gospels Look Different if They Were True?

On Jason Rennie's podcast "Christian Meets World", he spent the past 5 weeks airing interviews with some scholars on what they think about the validity of the Gospels. He interviewed three Christians and asked them why they think the Gospels are true and interviews two unbelievers and asked them how would the Gospels look different if they were true.

Episode 1: Dr Ben Witherington
Episode 2: John Loftus
Episode 3: JP Holding
Episode 4: Robert Price
Episode 5: Dr Gary Habermas

How would the Gospels Look Different if? 50-54

Saturday, August 25, 2012

No Compromise, Ever: Episode 1

James White participated in a discussion about the recent "Elephant  Room" conference in which TD Jakes was interviewed and responded on his views on the Trinity. One of the things that this discussion underscores is the need for us to stand on Biblical principles even if its unpopular. Another thing is that the church cannot measure success by how many members a church has. God works through and in small and large churches. We cannot really say that TD Jakes is following God because he has no many people following him!

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.

No Compromise, Ever: Episode 1 - DC Vs Marvel At the Box Office

Monday, August 20, 2012

Giant Infographic Covers Over 70 Years Of Batman History

Giant Infographic Covers Over 70 Years Of Batman History

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

It is so amazing that an atheist could post a video as an argument against Christian theology while admitting that it is not a logical argument. It is full of false presuppositions and a thoroughly misunderstanding of what the Bible truly teaches about sin and redemption.

If Christianity is true, then reaching the correct belief (about Jesus) is necessary to avoid damnation. Here is a brief video highlighting one of the more unpleasant implications of Christian theology. Admittedly it is not a logical argument, however since most believers tend to believe for emotional reasons, bringing up issues like this can be very effective at "putting cracks in the shell" of faith.

Here is the main problem: the assumption that some people deserve to go to heaven and others deserve to go to hell. People think that just because they haven't raped or murdered someone or broke into someone's own house and stole their property illegally that they are better than other people who have done things that they would not do themselves. They think that if there is a God their standard  of morality is good enough to warrant their right to be in heaven. It's not. God's standard is not just is Holy. Not one of us measures up! This is why we we can only be in heaven through Christ. You might not be a serial killer....but we are all serial sinners. I agree with all the scriptures in the video. We are only saved through Christ. However I can't look at anyone's life and gauge with absolute certainty whether or not they have given their life in Christ or if they ever will become born-again.  I don't know what the 15 year-old girl's relationship with Christ was. If she didn't have one, she didn't make it. Same with  her killer. I deserve hell just as much as he does.  If God saves him, why should I be angry with God? He takes sinners and makes them better - transforms them from evil doers to good doers. 

One of the comments on the post really cracked me up!

harry mccall
Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer both accepted Christ before they were executed. At the resurrection, they’ll have a warm reception from the victims and their families who will rejoice in their salvation. (Yes, even mass murder John Wayne Gacy will be there too.)

So did the thief on the cross. If God chose to save them what is the problem? I think it's a bigger problem for you if they end up in heaven with you in hell - all because they humbled themselves and accepted Jesus but you rejected Jesus. That's a really stupid reason to miss heaven just because you don't like who might be there. 

Debunking Christianity: Who goes to heaven? Who goes to hell?

Thursday, August 16, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - A Really Bad Pro-Homosexual Argument! that Twists the Bible.

On Tuesday, Dr James White responded to an argument that's becoming quite popular in which people try to suggest that Jesus condoned homosexuality because he healed the young gay lover of a Roman Centurion. They base this farce on Matthew 8 and Luke 7. They want to argue that the one Jesus healed was not the Centurion servant but the centurion's gay lover. They go as far as saying that the Greek word  "pais" does not mean "servant" but "lover". Such an argument can't hold together, and  Dr White truly shows how this "reasoning" is really a fail.

Here is a link to the original article by Jay Michaelson: Link

Today on the Dividing Line: A Bunch of Really Bad Arguments on Very Different Topics
Enhanced by Zemanta

We're NASA and We Know It (Mars Curiosity) - YouTube

When I EDL, time for seven minutes of flamin' hell
Rover's touchin' down
everybody passin' peanuts around, yeah
We're at mission control, getting full use outta ev-er-y Sol (wa!)
Just 25 feet left to go
It's Curiosity, look out below (yo)

Crane lower that rover (ah)
Crane lower that rover (ah)
Crane lower that rover (ah)

N-N-N-Now bug out!

Crane lower that rover
Crane lower that rove
Crane lower that rover

Now bug out!

Kickin' it at my con(sole), this is what I see (okay)
Data streaming back from curiosity
I got stars on my 'hawk
and I ain't afraid to show it (show it, show it, show it)
We're NASA and we know it

We're NASA and we know it

When I look for ice, gotta calibrate, gotta be precise
And when I raise the mast, panoramic views are unsurpassed (wha?)
This is how I rove, baking red rocks in my nuclear stove
We headed to the peak, with my laser eye
No one to bury me when it's time to die (ow!)

Crane lower that rover
Crane lower that rover
Crane lower that rover

Now bug out!

Crane lower that rover
Crane lower that rover
Crane lower that rover

Now bug out!

Shoutout to Carl the Sage (and) Neil Degrasse T (B.A.!)
Shoutout to JPL and the Rocker-Bogie
We're better than SpaceX
And we ain't afraid to show it (show it, show it, show it)
We're NASA and we know it
We're NASA and we know it

We're NASA and We Know It (Mars Curiosity) - YouTube
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

People Who Think Like Scientists

I would argue that this word cloud does not only describe the thinking of a good scientist but any responisble person who is interested in interacting with the world on true and honest terms. It can and should be employed in all human interactions and in pursuit of knowledge in any and all fields. I find it amazing how quickly people's emotions immediately causes them to violate these guidelines while accusing others of breaking them.

People Who Think Like Scientists

Sunday, August 12, 2012

UPdate: A Reply to "So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful"

I saw the following graphic on Facebook and I think that it not only explains the standard arguments against homosexual lifestyle on Biblical grounds. The following link is a great essay to explain why the Bible should not be ignored. Take a look at the link.

A Reply to "So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful"


Dr  James White has weighed in on the graphic on his Dividing Line webcast August 16, 2012.

Covered a bunch of stuff, starting off examining this really bad pro-homosexual argument, discussed a little about the LGBT terrorist in Washington, D.C., and then discussed the appearance of non-Trinitarian singing group PC&D at a local church (Scottsdale Bible Church) and the very odd response from the "Worship and Creative Arts Pastor" of the church. Then we moved back to examining Paul Williams' comments and, quite honestly, abuse of the biblical text, in the recent debate in London. Here's the program

A Wide Ranging Dividing Line Today

Geek Zodiac - What's Your Sign!!

New Fan-Made Star Trek Web Series

Saturday, August 11, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Paul Tells Us in His Last Letter (Romans) That God Has Alzheimer’s Disease

Just when I think that Harry McCall can't make a more dumber argument, he ups and surprises me. In this article he tries to make are ally dumb argument he cannot even begin to substantiate.

Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans that "Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding for us" (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν = Present Indicative or to keep doing intercession for us) in Heaven. (Romans 8:34, NIV

31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died —more than that, who was raised to life —is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
    we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j]
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:31-39

It's interesting how McCall feels the need to rip verse 34 out of its context.  Notice how Paul is talking about believers on earth now being interceded by Jesus. McCall is going to try to make it seem that Paul is talking about judgement day and not the here and now.

Yet, even with all this pleading by Jesus, Romans 14:12 tells us that each person is going to have to step up and “will give account to God” (δώσει τῷ Θεῷ = Future Indicative Active) or we must tell God exactly what sins we did.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
    every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]
12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. - Romans 14:10-13
Nowhere does the text say we will be telling God exactly what sins we did. Besides we don't even know all the sins we have done. Giving "an account of ourselves" before God does not mean confessing our sins. God already knows what they are.

If we take the Bible seriously; we have an image of "Jesus being presently at the right hand of God interceding for us" in Heaven with the following scenario on how this action is playing out. 

Intercession does not mean God needs to be reminded about his mercy and kindness. 

So according to St. Paul, as each Christians commits a sin (based on both the Jewish Torah as well as the New Testament) we have this scene in Heaven: 

God: "Sinner, you stand condemned!"
Jesus: "You must forgive him father for I died and shed my blood for him!" 
God: "Oh, yeah, I remember now. O.K. But what about that other sinning Christian right there?”
Jesus: "Forgive her father. I died and shed my blood for her too!" 
God: "Oh, yeah, I remember now. O.K." 

God: “But what about that person right over there?”
And again, God try’s to condemn a sinner and yet again, Jesus intercedes for them by pleading his blood as shed on the cross. 

Jesus, now after 2,000 years and for the googolplex time: "Forgive him father. I died for him / her!" 
And God for the googolplex time: "Oh yeah! Now I remember . . . O.K: Forgiven!" 

Ironically, it’s little wonder neither God nor Jesus has time to answer prayers since both are in an eternal Catch-22 Situation; one of eternal condemning and interceding. 

Shows how much McCall does not understand anything bout the Father's relationship to Jesus. Jesus' sacrifice wasn't for those like him who reject Jesus but only for those who put their trust in Jesus. If Jesus did not die for you and raised for your justification (see Romans 8) you will be judged according to your own righteousness. Jesus did not die for everyone.  Jesus died for those who were given him by the Father. 

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” - John 6:35-51
Finally, here’s how salvation sounds in Heaven (at least to the angles). 
God: "Baugh, Baugh, Baugh; Condemed!"
Jesus: "Baugh, Baugh, Baugh." 
God: "Baugh, Baugh, Baugh: O.K. Forgiven!" 

I think that the angels are definitely more understanding of salvation than McCall is. 

{As for as Romans14: 12 is concerned (with God being as forgetful as he is), I plan to lie and march myself right on into Heaven!}

Harry McCall

McCall attempts to debunk what the Bible says about Salvation but fails to accurately understand what it says about salvation. A God who knows the number of hairs on your head surely knows how many sins you have committed.

Jesus said:

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.[a] 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.  - Matthew 10:29-31

Given that there are sins of ignorance that we are all guilty of we don't even know all the sins we have done - but God does.

The heart is deceitful above all things
    and beyond cure.
    Who can understand it?
10 “I the Lord search the heart
    and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
    according to what their deeds deserve.”- Jeremiah 17:9-10

Debunking Christianity: Paul Tells Us in His Last Letter (Romans) That God Has Alzheimer’s Disease
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Many Looks of Spiderman Over the Past 50 Years [INFOGRAPHIC]

Spider-Man debuted August 10, 1962! It's been 50 years!


The Many Looks of Spiderman Over the Past 50 Years [INFOGRAPHIC]
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 10, 2012

How Big is Infinity? [Video]

How Big is Infinity? [Video]

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Solomon's Decision Was the Dumbest Judicial Ruling in History

I've got to wonder if John Loftus' crusade to debunk Christianity is motivated by emotional fear than by clear-thinking reason. It does not take much to see that given that he posts really shoddy logic like the following.

We all know the story told in I Kings 3. Solomon was given wisdom by God more than anyone else. To show us how wise he was Solomon issued a ruling involving two prostitutes who both claimed a particular baby was theirs. To settle the matter Solomon ordered that the child be cut in two, with each woman receiving half of him. This is supposed to be considered wise. I demurr. I think it was the dumbest judicial ruling in history, well, at least one of them. Here's why.

So let's look at what the Bible says that happened. Loftus makes it look like Solomon decides to cut the baby in half because he can't decide whose the baby's mother is. IF this was true, then maybe Loftus has a point. But before pulling the string revealing just how whacked Loftus' reasoning really is, let's see how he tried to develop his "point.

Just imagine Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgment in our day in a courtroom situation in a divorce child custody case.

How is a child custody case in a courtroom in anyway like the scenario in the Bible? In cases involving custody of children, the court knows the relationship of the people who are vying for custody to the child in question. And today with DNA, birth certificates, and all the documentation around today, it's almost impossible to not to be able to tell a child's parentage. In this case, Solomon was looking for the identity of the baby's mother given that two women claimed to be the baby's mother.

Go ahead. Imagine it. It was anything but wise. We would be morally repulsed if any judge issued such a judgment, for it was always possible that both women in Solomon's story might agree to have the child killed.

Given that people abort children without shame or conscious then maybe today both mothers could have an "as-long-as-she-doesn't-have-him "attitude, but I doubt it. I would think that a woman who goes through pregnancy and birth would so cavalierly give up her child. I mean there is that pesky little quality we call love. Even after 3000 years, I wouldn't count motherly love out. Solomon was wise enough not to ignore mothely love as a motivation for human action even if Loftus misses it.

Even the real mother might have wanted the child killed rather than have it raised by such a lying conniving pretender/thief. 

Why? Why would not a mother love her child so much that she would rather see him live than die.

If this had happened then the child would have been killed since that’s what Solomon said, and he could not back out of it, could he? Any civilized judge issuing such a judgment would be thrown out of the country it’s so utterly repulsive. It’s actually the dumbest ruling that was ever made.

I think the dumbest thing is that Loftus doesn't see that Solomon was wise enough to see that the real mother would love her son so much that she'd rather live without him than die. Don't forget that love is about sacrifice.

Unlike John Loftus, some atheists are honest. While I disagree with the conclusion the commenter draws on the Bible, he at least correctly states what the Bible does say..

I think you cut the story short, and missed the point. Before I explain, I'm an atheist, and I agree the bible is bullshit. But his ruling wasn't as "dumb" as you make it sound
The verse after he announces the baby will be cut in half is:
"Then spoke the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her heart yearned upon her son, and she said: 'Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it.' But the other said: 'It shall be neither mine nor thine; divide it. 27 Then the king answered and said: 'Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof."
He knew that he would be able to determine who the real mother was by the reaction they gave to his order. He never truly intended to cut the child in half.

Solomon was wise enough to know that in the situation he orchestrated he would not have to kill the baby because her knew the baby's mother would rather give him up than for him to die. It's nice to see that a person can be honest with the Bible although they don't believe it.  As of posting this, I have not seen any response from Loftus. I hope that he's own up and just apologize for his blunder. Not sure if he's wise enough to see that.

Debunking Christianity: Solomon's Decision Was the Dumbest Judicial Ruling in History
Enhanced by Zemanta