A lot of negative comments have been made about Wolverine as being "shallow" when it comes to philosophy and character development. While I agree that there was little character development, I disagree that it had nothing to say about the human condition. As a character, Wolverine is always walking that razor edge between his humanity and beastial - bezerker nature. He constantly is making choices as to whether or not he is going to be rational or give in to his rage. I think that this was explored in the movie.
The movie also explored the idea of "choice". Wolverine chose to undergo the antimantium process because he wanted the added powerto kill Victor Creed whom he believed killed his lover, Silverfox. After Stryker tried to wipe Wolverine's memories and then later tried to kill him, Wolverine told the nice old man who helped him after the he escaped from Weapon X that he had no choice but to seek revenge. The old man called him on that...that we always have choices. I find that when we, as people, say "I have no choice." what we mean is that "I have no other choice that I would rather make". I mean Wolverine could have chosen to walk away and not look for Stryker or Victor, but he didn't. Okay, had he done that there would not have been a movie, but again, he could have done it.
So that gets me to thinking. "Do we, as people, have free will?" I've been studying what the Bible says about Free Will. I have come to the conclusion that it depends on how you define what "Free Will" is and is not. Many folks define "libertarian free will" as the ability to make decisions without being led, coerced, or contrained. This definition is not the way the Bible talks about how people function. The Bible says that God does everything according to his will....not ours. Nothing happens without God knowing about it. I want to write more on this subject. I'll be giving more in another post coming soon.
I just heard Chris Arnzen interviewing James White regarding Mormonism. It's great. He has been studying Mormonism for a while now and he has debated several Mormon apologists in the past few years. If you know nothing about Mormonism this is a great program to listen to.
This is a great interview. I enjoyed it greatly. Wallace can summarize and explain textual variants in the Bible very cleanly. Everything he says confirms my own research and what I have heard other scholars who are not Bart Ehrman say. I think that if you have questions as to where or not the Bible you have in your hands contain the same information as the original manuscripts the following interview will be a great place to begin your research.
Mariano has again published another insightful and awesome post. I never heard of Greydon Square (on the right, top) before I read this post. He does strike me as needing to be answered. People need to know that not all of Hip Hop is godless. God has provided excellent counterparts so that his Gospel can be brought to people in the Hip Hop Culture. One of these "rams in the bush" is the duo known as Hazakim (pictured on the right, bottom). I've posted about them before. This link will show all the times the have shown up on this blog. You can hear some of their music and read what they are about on their MySpace Site.
I just heard Chris Arnzen interviewing James White regarding Islam. It's great. He has been studying Islam for a while now and he has debated several Muslim apologists in the past few years. If you know nothing about Islam or the Koran this is a great program to listen to. They had a power outage so the recording is not complete.
I've listened to the "debate" but it wasn't a real scholarly debate. It was a webcast where Carr was a guest given an atheistic view of Easter. The man giving the Christian viewpoint was interesting. I think he did good a job defending the faith. All the people who called into the program were Christians also but instead of really interacting with Carr's points (which he summarized in his comments on my blog) they invited him to seek God for himself. I don't disagree. The thing that bothered me is the fact that each of his ideas and challenges can be answered and debunked. If these five points are Carr's reasons for denying the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Make no mistake, Christianity believe that Jesus' resurrection was physical, tangible, and historical! It really happened. Carr's argument is that it didn't and he tries to use the Bible to prove it. Let's take his assertions in turn and see if it holds up.
We don't have ANY examples of somebody being raised from the dead.
Jesus...nuff said, but I'll dig deeper. Jesus resurrection is different than all the other times someone died in the Bible and came back to life. They all died later. Jesus never died again. Second, He said He was going to be betrayed, crucified, and resurrected...then He did it. On top of that the Old Testament says the same thing was going to happen to the Messiah and it happened to Jesus.
Actually, I'm sure you could find an example of 10,000 people who all are certain they saw a touchdown that was all in their head....
I'm assuming that Carr's trying to appeal to the theory that the Apostles and the first Christians only thought they saw Jesus as as some kind of shared vision. I can't believe that he even tried it. This has more than been shot down by the likes of William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas. So I will use the same reasoning they use. There is no documented case where two or more people have the very same vision at the same time. You can't share a hallucination. This is a proven psychological fact!!!
Not one person in history has ever named himself as having seen a flesh-and-bone resurrected Jesus.
Peter Did.
"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. - Acts 3:14-16
"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." - Act 10:39-43
Paul says flat out that Jesus became a spirit
I don't think so. There is no way because Paul never wrote it.
And the early Christian converts he was writing to were scoffing at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.
Carr is right there were some early church members (not Christians) who did not entirely believe in the resurrection of the dead. Just like today. This is one of the reasons Paul had to write 1st Corinthians to se them strait. This wasn't the only thing they needed to be schooled on. Look at what Paul actually wrote:
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. - 1 Corinthians 15: 20-34
Catholicism is not a cult, but there are a few doctrinal and theological ideas that are held in Roman Catholicism that I must reject. There are many different ideas and beliefs in Catholicism because not all of the church follows the Pope and there are many Catholics that are saved as the Bible says and are in better or worse shape than Protestant believers. There is a vocal group of Catholic apologists who lay claim to the idea that all Christians should be Roman Catholic - to not just follow the Bible but all of the traditions of their church. Dr. James White has pointed out that an some Catholics have compiled a list of arguments Roman Catholics should not use when talking to Protestants. Here is what He wrote:
Benjamin Douglass and others have put together a list of common Roman Catholic arguments that, well, shouldn't be common at all. Now, posting something like this, given that it would decimate the arsenal of the most popular Roman Catholic apologists on the web and on radio today, can't make Mr. Douglass and his associates the most popular Roman Catholics around, but you have to give them a lot of credit for honestly recognizing these issues (issues I have been raising for many years). So kudos to Mr. Douglass and his associates! And a word of advice to Mr. Douglass: put on your asbestos booties and gloves before opening the resultant e-mails from the likes of Dave Armstrong and all the others who are so dependent upon these very arguments.
Here is the documentary companion piece to Lee Strobel's book The Case For A Creator and it's great. It really makes me wanna read the book. Some interesting points is that evidence most of all of earth's lifeforms appearing quickly not slowly called the "cambrian explosion of life".
I watched the show last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. The truth is I thought that Shaka would win before I saw the show. I quickly changed my mind when I saw the sword that Wallace used to wield called the "claymore" - an 4.5 ft, steel sword! They did a test with the replica where they proved that he could have decapitated 3 people with one swing of the thing. I really wanted to believe Shaka could have won, but after that... Here is a video from the show:
Yesterday on his webcast, Dr. James White offered further analysis of William Lane Craig's attempt to harmonize libertarian free will of people with the sovereignty of God in matters of salvation. I can't harmonize them. You can seem to hold one or the other, but not both. You can hold on to complete human libertarian free will and reject scripture or you can embrace that God is in complete control and does whatever He desires to do and when HE decides to do it and follow scripture. The webcast is very helpful and should start a great deal of discussion. Here is the link.
I have found another gem on the Apologetic 315 blog. It's a lecture by Norman Geisler about the current forms Atheism that have cropped up. Please follow the link below for an audio and a video. I enjoyed the lecture. If you know little about other religions, this lecture will help you think about what you believe and why. Why are you following the religion you are following? This lecture will help you think about this.
When I woke up this morning and I was reminded from a news report that the California Supreme Court would be ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 to day. The ruling came down about 10 AM, PST. I just read the results at the Huffington Post and SF Gate. Basically, the Court is going to let the Proposition stand as is. I was surprised. Considering that this was the same court that legalized Marriage between people of the same gender, I was surprised that they would go on and uphold the proposition that went against its earlier ruling because the majority of us Californians voted for it. I'm not going to get into the reason why I supported Prop 8 last year here because I argued in favor of it else where on this blog. What I do want to point out that this snuck up on me. I did not hear anyone talk about this event today or bring it up. I knew it was coming. I even heard that opponents of Proposition 8 are discussing whether to get their thoughts on the ballot either for the next general election in 2010 or the next Presidential election in 2012. Here is a quote from the final ruling made by the California Supreme Court today.
"Proposition 8 does not by any means "repeal" or "strip" gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationship."
So to summarize, Proposition 8 stands, but the Same-Sex Marriages that have already taken place in California wiull still stand.
Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Greg Boyd debate on who Jesus is. I admit that Price was very articulate, but wrong. Price argued that Christianity worships a legendary Christ. Boyd argued for the Christian teachings of Jesus. Price tried to argue that the Jesus of Christianity is a product of legend. He tried to argue that there have been cases where people have become exalted and deified and augmented by legend while the person is still alive or within 20 to 30 years of their deaths. He used the example of a Jewish Messiah in 1660s, Sabatai Savi, who centuries ago was thought by many to be the messiah, but had eventually converted to Islam. He also used the example of Charles Mansion. Both men even had miracles ascribed to them. Price's idea is that Jesus' miracles are legendary. The problem is that unlike Jesus...no one thinks of these other guys as messianic. We can show and prove that they are not deity. After 2000 years, Jesus' claims and those that his followers made about him still stand. I wish Boyd had spent some time refuting Boyd on this point. But Boyd still did a great job. The debate is below.
TurretinFan has done an excellent job refuting a person who has no idea what theologians do or what Calvinism is. He is referring to the video that I mentioned in an earlier post: Reasoning with William Lane Craig
Truthbomb Apologetics has a great post that summarizes and bookmarks a great deal of apologetic information. This is a great place to start for any religious questions.
All Christians are people and we fail sometimes. This is why we have to put our complete trust in Jesus...He never fails. As you have probably heard that Father Alberto Cutie has been caught breaking his vows. Here is the link to an article.
Also those racy pictures of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, have turned up more dirt which enemies of anyone who confesses to be a Christian have been trying to use to destroy her. Four semi-nude pictures she posed for have come to light. It had been stated that she was 17 at the time, but now it's being reported that she had taken them last January after breast augmentation. Some people because of this think she should loose her crown because she broke the rules. Fine. But that does not mean that she is not a christian or that church people should condemn her. Here is the link to an article.
We need to hold up these people in prayer and not judge them. It could have been anyone else caught up in mistakes and poor decisions that we have made. We must never forget two very important facts: I am the worse sinner than I know. You are the worse sinner that you know.
I found another debate Anthony Flew (right) was in before he became a theist. He debated Dr. Gary Habermas (left) in 2003 at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. This was more of a discussion that a debate. It looked like as if Anthony Flew was given a chance to ask his own questions about Jesus' Resurrection and have them answered by Habermas. It's very informative.
Gary Habermas pointed out that the Resurrection is a more probable explanation of Jesus' post-crucifixion appearances than multiole groups of people sharing a vision of seeing Jesus because we don't have any examples of multiple people sharing the same vision.
I had the opportunity to listen to James White's webcast from Thursday, May 21, 2009. It was extremely interesting. I think James White summed up the contents of the webcast on his blog. I've pasted it below because I want to make sure readers read it.
We did a Radio Free Geneva today, starting with a few minutes reviewing an example of really bad argumentation (from Monica Dunnington) and then moving on to the serious stuff, that being the comments of William Lane Craig on the topic of man's freedom, Romans 9, Roman Catholicism, etc. Important documentation that "theology matters." Here's the program. Now here is another gem from the wacky world of those suffering from Calvin Derangement Syndrome. A new book from a Southern Baptist deacon from Florida titled Calvin the Psychopath. Anyone want to take a wild guess as to how fair, and accurate, this scholarly work might be? If you are wondering, here are some whopper quotes from the author's website:
The written history of John Calvin dramatically reveals that he was a premeditated murderer, a heretic, a blasphemer, and a liar. He forced his beliefs by fear, punishment, terrorism, and had his own inquisition. He beheaded children and justified it with an extensive discussion of the Fifth Commandment. (Honor thy father and thy mother.) Calvins temper was described as the wild beast of his wrath. In my opinion Calvinism is a cult. Like all cults it has picked those things they want to believe and eliminated the others. By this they have created their own religion with the usual half-truths. They have reinterpreted the Scriptures in an unorthodox way, and used them in an orthodox way. It is a sinful spiritualizing exegesis.
Calvinists are increasingly coming out in the open. The president of one of our seminaries, who is a Calvinist, has been quoted in Time magazine recently and if true it is absolutely a lie. The seminary president as quoted said, The moment someone begins to define Gods (being or actions) Biblically, that person is drawn to conclusions that are traditionally classified as Calvinist. This statement is Biblically Illiterate! He says when one seeks God they find Calvinism! At the very least this is sacrilegious or gross irreverence. To me this is a dissent from Biblical dogma and is therefore heresy. We need to speak up and out against this man. He is dangerous to the minds of our young people.
Well, there you go! We all stand refuted once again! Truly, Calvin Derangement Syndrome is a sad thing to observe, it truly is. We will continue with Radio Free Geneva next week!
I have found the presentation by Monica Dennington that White referenced. It's on YouTube just like he said.
The truth is that I think Dr. White's commentary on Dennington's words were way more charitable than they deserve. He laughed...but I think it was to keep from crying. I'm not even sure how to respond because her ideas are so...I almost want to say stupid but that's not right. "Ignorant" is better. As Dr. White points out she could not have obviously studied church history or listened to other viewpoints on what scripture says but instead holds on to her own traditions.
As far as Dr. White's comments on Dr William Lane Craig's presentation I found myself disappointed with Craig's presentation. He seems way more concerned to me about human dignity and free will than just admitting that God is sovereignly in control of all of reality. The truth is that if God did not supercede human will, no one would ever be saved. I really would like to hear more of Craig's presentation but I think I could find the first part. I think Jame White is correct he should debate William Lane Craig.
I have found a series of videos on YouTube that have some of the largest named atheist in a round table discussion. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens sit around and talk about Atheism and talking to Christians. Here is the video playlist:
I'm amazed by that they really seem to think that those who believe the Bible are deluded and arrogant. They would tell us that if there really is a divine, ultimate intelligence that we can't possibly know what that entity thinks or desires. They reject the Bible because they don't accept it as true. To talk to people with this mindset I can see how showing that the Bible could not come from men is a good tactic. The Bible is authoritative because it comes from God. From there then we have a platform on which to talk. It's alo an important point that they must use the Christian Worldview to argue against us. The very name they chose to refer themselves come from the Bible. I know some people think that it's just irony but let's take it up a notch. Which of the four horsemen does each man represent? This is my guess (just for fun - I mean if they want to be the four horsemen of the Apocalypse - "the unveiling" - this is what they are claiming for themselves; absolutely no offense is intended):
War - Christopher Hitchens because he is kind of belicose and angry against God. He doesn't want to be beholden to anyone but himself.
Pestilence - Richard Dawkins because he is a biologist and we can conncet it to studying germs and diseases.
Famine - Sam Harris because I think he represents "spiritual" famine. He searched the world and several religious experiences and came up with nothing.
Death - Daniel Dennet because if you equate religious experience with natural phenomenon there is no way you can get life out of your worldview. By its very nature, being regenerated and being tranformed fdrom being hostile to the things of God to a believer requires an act of God - outside of natural expectations and processes.
If you disagree with the parallels I've drawn feel free to suggest others in the comments.
I was shocked to find the following post from my brother-in-Christ Mariano on the same topic I had planned to post on for tomorrow. We didn't set this up. His is a thoughtful series of articles on the so-called "New Atheists". I highly recommend his series. Feel free to check out my post on these same guys tomorrow.
Christopher Hitchens, I've listened to several of your debates with Christian Theists. They have been quite....educational. I have to admit that I completely disagree with you but you are too intelligent to be just written off as a moron. I regret that many of your points against the Bible are important questions and never seem to be addressed in your debates. Most of your opponents offer good philosophical arguments but never address your points concerning the character of God and the reliability of the Bible. I hope that you will one day debate more people like Douglas Wilson (who did an awesome job debating you). I would suggest James White, Gary Habermas, or Ben Witherington. Along with Wilson, they can really challenge your views and give reasons why your conclusions are wrong.
You often issue the challenge of demonstrating a single moral act proscribed in religion that you can't come up with on your own. I'll take that bet. There are many examples but I will give you two:
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. - Romans 12:3
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. - Luke 6:35
I've been a Christian my whole life. I gave my life to Jesus as a child and while I agree that these verses are true and correct I have a problem with them. There is no way I would not have thought this up. It's completely opposite to my human nature and what I want to do. From what you have said, it's opposite from yours as well. You don't agree with this morality taught in the Bible teaches, without the power of God no one, espiecally me, could hope to live up to these verses. I'm still working on it.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a small post on SM Lockridge's message "That's My King". That post had a link to transcript and had videos where people took his message and set it to music and images. Powerful stuff. But no way near powerful as just hearing the message in its entirety. It's been 33 years and it still beckons everyone to bow the knew to our Lord and Master, Jesus. Lockridge asks two profound questions that each of us must answer about who Jesus is:
1. Do you know HIM? 2. Is HE your king?
In just under 7 minutes, Lockridge manages to share gospel, invite anyone listening to make Jesus their king and explains why we should make him Lord over us. Here is the original post I did and here is the message in full audio mp3 format.
I'm sure many have heard of the Zeitgeist movie. It seeks to make an argument that because of all the corruption in politics in society in efforts to control the world including religion in general and Christianity in particular. It attempts to prove this by discrediting the Bible and Historic Christianity. It accuses Christianity and Bible of plagarizing other ancient traditions and personages. Also they equivocate everything about Jesus with ancient astrology. All lies. Here is the video
Here is the movie:
You can see a lot of problem with this film
1. You can't equate the "sun" with "son"
2. Jesus was not born on December 25
3. I have never seen the winter solstice fall on Dec 25
4. I have never seen the summer solstice fall on Easter
5. Joseph of the Old Testament had 11 brothers not 12
This movie has a lot of problems. A lot of conclusions are made that are not true. If you go and do some research yourself anyone can show that some of the facts in the films are lies. Listen to a real historian's viewpoint.
The truth is that if a person wants to reject Christ and ignore the Word of God...fine. That is their right. I think that it's completely stupid, but be that as it may. However, I have to draw the line at the truth. People don't lie to make themselves feel justified! The truth is if these film makers can get things so messed up concerning Jesus and Christianity, then that casts doubts on the assertions made and "facts" presented about the September 11, 2001 attacks and other terrorist actions.
Update: I did miss commenting on the fact that Forbs mistakenly said Horus did things that Osirus did. Mary Jo Sharp's comments on her blog clarify the mistake,. Read her post for more information
In another great post from Truthbomb Apologetics, Michael Licona's career as a scholar is summarized in one place, including his credentials, publications, and some free audio to listen to. This is truly a great resource because Mr. Licona has done some some very interesting and important work.
Here is a video of the event of Mt Saint Helens' eruption from May 18, 1980 - 29 year ago. I actually remember when this happened - I was 5 years old and ash was actually falling in Oakland, California.
The Apologetics 315 blog has recently posted a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Singer. Their topic was Can There Be Morality Without God. Singer, who is an atheist, argued that we can have morality with God. D'Souza argues that there is a God and we need God to understand Morality. Singer's approach is to just change morality to match the secular worldview. For example. Singer has proposed that a baby should not be considered to have human rights until it has lived about about 24 days to make sure its viable. I find that repugnant. Singer however attacked the Bible and I wish that D'Souza had defended the Bible in his arguments. I did like D'Souza's arguments.
Here is a great podcast I found on the internet talking about the "science" of Eugenics. Applying Dawinian Evolution to human population is extremely evil. What right does any one of us have the right to decide who has the right to reproduce? This is worth hearing because it brings up questions of morality and who knows what is best for humanity. Remember Hitler used eugenics to "improve" the "German" race. Some real people died and civil rights violated in this country because of Eugenics. Listen to this. I would not say that Charles Darwin and other evolutionary biologists are responsible for Nazism and Eugenics but they did take those ideas of "natural selection" to its logical conclusion. I would love to know that if those who think that some people are worth more than others, are they willing to concede that there are people worth more than they? I'd be willing to bet that they don't.
I just heard that this last weekend, President Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame this year and received an honorary Doctorate. Recall that Notre Dame is a Roman Catholic university and opposes Obama's abortion policies, so he did have some protests and negative hecklers, however he is not one to stop talking with those who disagree with him. That is one of the things I admire about him even though I do disagree with his abortion policies. However, the President is right: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions are antithetical to each other. Here are excerpts from that speech and the news article.
I just found this interview of Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately, people listen to this guy so we need to know what this guy is telling people so we'll know how to refute him.
Todd Friel did a great job. He basically approached Hitchens from a direction that I think most people think that he should be dealt with; namely people wonder could anyone really believe that anyone like Hitchens could truly exist. I mean we wonder has he really considered if he's wrong or not? Friel asked him pointed questions about how would he respond if the Bible was right and he wrong various ways. Hitchens did not bring out anything new. I didn't hear anything that I have not previously heard. Hitchens was only there to promote the farce he wrote God Is Not Great. He did not seem to take Friel seriously nor answer his questions. Hitchen's point was that even if God does exist he refuses to recognize God's right to rule over him and all humanity. Hitchen totally missed Friel's point when he read Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Hitchens is blinded that the passage describe him and people like him to a tee. I really think Hitchens response is rather telling. I kinda wish Friel had read further - verses 21- 23
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
But I guess he decided that it would be overkill and just add insult. Still, I sure would have liked to know how Hitchens would have responded.
I have recently heard a song that is a great answer to people like Hitchens.
I can't believe the rhetoric and the scrutiny being brought against Carrie Prejean who lost the chance to be Miss America because she refused to compromise her belief that same-sex marriage is wrong.
Here is a video where they make fun of Prejean talking about the moment that she realized that she was being tempted to choose to go for being Miss America and turn her back on what she knew God wanted her to say. Every Christian can relate to how she felt and yet these people are laughing at Christians.
Prejean defends her answer and why she answered the way she did.
Mariano has posted a great article refuting an article from EvilBible.com that attempts to find places in the Bible where Jesus lied. Mariano points out just how stupid the idea is!
Here is a great post from Apologetics 315 that we can use to learn about how to field questions about the new movie based on Dan Brown's novel Angel's and Demons.
I have recently heard about a couple of videos that Benny Hinn is telling his students in his school of ministry to share with family and friends. They are interesting but at the same time they will draw criticism because people will think that it paints Islam as an evil empire bent on world congress.
This particular video presents information that I was already aware of. Christianity is not just a religion its ingrained in Western Culture. This means that Islamic nations are going to be in conflict. There is no other way around it. The video presents the coming challenges from the fact that Islamic immigrants are over-running the Christian populations of the west as a war but I prefer to see it as an opportunity for evangelism. Muhammad (us) will not or cannot go to the mountain (Muslims) so God is bringing the mountain to Muhammad - to butcher an aphormism.
I'm tempted to say that subtitled video is an overstatement, however there really are people in this world who think this way. Historically, Muslims are inclusive and tolerant when they are the minority. But when they are the powerful majority they take over and force their viewpoints on other people. Historical fact. It's what people do, but not what God tells us in the Bible to do. However it is what the Koran tells them to do. We have a grace period in America...I think Europe may be too far down the rabbit hole to come back. In America, we can still reason with the Muslims among us and dialogue. We can still talk. I think most Western Muslims do not see themselves as needing to destroy us. There is that powerful minority that define themselves by hating us and Christianity. I thank God that we can still witness and talk to the reasonable Muslims.
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from BibleToday.com and it read as follows:
Dear Bible Student,
We are pleased to send you a copy (attached to this email) of the slide presentation entitled "A Ransom for All" that answers the questions: Why did Jesus die for us? and How does the death of Jesus save us? We hope you enjoy it and that you will share it with others.
May our Lord continue to bless your studies.
Your friends at BibleToday.com
Okay, I was impressed at first. I mean a powerpoint presenting the gospel? What could go wrong I thought? I should have known that there was something wrong because of the title: "A Ransom for All". I have used my AuthorStream account to post the power point below. Take a look.
I had huge problems with this. i mean the first half of the presentation is great. It explains how messed us we are without Jesus. It used scripture very effectively to drive the gospel home. then it goes Carlton Pierson of us and turns into a failed apologetic for rejecting the reality of hell. My mouth was hanging open because it's a pretty presentation. I'm left wondering that they obviously sent this to people who read the Bible and it doesn't take much study to know the Bible teaches that some people are going to go to heaven and some are going to hell. This could turn into a Calvinist/Arminian or discussion of free will but let's save that for a different time and let's look at some of the assertions the presentation makes:
1. Did Jesus die merely to save a comparatively few Christians? And then answers no, citing 1 John 2:2 which says:
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
This verse does not say that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all, but not that everyone is saved
2. Jesus dies for all we were still in our sins. Then John 3:16, Romans 5:8, and 1 Peter 3:18 are cited.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." - John 3:16
Notice that only those believes in the son don't perish but get everlasting life.
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5: 1-10
Look! Romans 5:8 was taken out of context. All people are ungodly until they are justified by the blood of Jesus.
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, - 1 Peter 3:18
Again, the passage is taken out of context. Peter is not talking about unbelievers and believers...he is only talking to believers.
3. The Presentation asserts that Romans 5 verses 12 and 18 show that Jesus sacrifice justifies all men, just as Adam's disobedience damned us all but I think that the verses are taken out of context, I mean why was verse 19 not included. It says:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
I'm getting at that the passage does not teach that ever human being was made righteous just those who believe.
4. There are two resurrections: the just and unjust. The presentation really breaks here...I can't tell if it's saying that the unjust are going to "mercifully judged and punished according to their past guilt" or that they experience the second death described in Revelations 2:11. The author of the presentation did not make it clear. Fortunately, Jesus did make it clear. He said that he is the only way to God.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
By definition a true Christian is a person who puts their trust and faith in Jesus for the justification from our sins. Bottom line. No other religion teaches this. This means that as unsavory as it sounds, everyone who does not believe will not be going to have eternal life with Jesus and there is no passdage in the bible that can be used to describe the "second" death as non-existence or oblivion. This how Jesus described it:
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. -Matthew 13:42and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. - Matthew 13:50"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. - Luke 13:28
A common belief among Evangelical Christians is that the Jews have to rebuild their temple in order for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. But a closer examination of the Scriptures suggests that perhaps this is not necessarily the case.
The prophecies in question are: 1.) The Antichrist or his False Prophet setting up the Antichrist's image in the temple; 2.) The Abomination of Desolation taking place; and 3.) The Antichrist setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God.
As to the first prophecy, it is a myth. The Bible simply does not say that the image of the Beast is set up in the temple, or indeed in any other specific location. (Rev. 13:15). (Nor does the Bible say that there were three wise men, for that matter. It simply says that there were wise men with three gifts. See, Matt 2:1-16.)
As to the Abomination of Desolation, the only thing needed for that prophecy to be fulfilled is the existence of the Holy of Holies. (Matt. 24: 15-22; Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). But the Holy of Holies can exist as it did prior to the construction of the first temple: in the Tabernacle. Many Orthodox Jews today believe that only Messiah can rebuild the temple. Perhaps they are right after all. And many Christians who follow Bible prophecy have noted that the progression of events in the Middle East right now seems out of sync with the idea of rebuilding the temple, which could take many years to finish. Also, rebuilding the temple could be violently explosive in the Middle East right now, whereas erecting a temporary structure, the Tabernacle, would not be nearly so. And erecting the Tabernacle on the site of the ancient temples could be a convenient compromise among Orthodox Jews who wish to rebuild the temple and those who insist that they do not do so. The third prophecy---found in II Thess. 2:4, concerning the "son of perdition" setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God---seems to be the major obstacle to a Tabernacle theory of end-times prophecy. Yet looks, especially first looks, can be deceiving.
The New Testament uses two Greek words for "temple": hieron, which refers to the temple grounds and building, and naos, which refers to the sanctuary. Hieron is used 71 times in the New Testament. Naos is used 44 times therein. II Thess. 2:4 uses the word naos. (All uses of the word "temple" in Revelation use the word naos.)
The uses of these two words illustrates their different meanings. For instance, when the Word says that Satan brought Jesus up to the roof of the temple, it uses hieron. (Luke 4:9). Likewise, when it says Jesus taught in the temple (Luke 20:1), or states that He was on Solomon's porch (John 10:23), it uses hieron. The same holds true when it says Peter and John went to the temple to pray. (Acts 3:1). But when it quotes Jesus as saying that upon the religious rulers who opposed Him would come the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, "... whom ye slew between the temple and the altar," it uses the word naos for "temple", denoting the sanctuary itself. (Matt. 23:35). Indeed, it would not make sense to use hieron, the word for the temple building, in that context, for the altar itself was actually inside the temple building.
Likewise, when Jesus told his opponents that if they destroyed "this temple" he would raise it back up in three days (John 2:19), the word naos is used. The same applies to the references to the veil in the temple being torn when Jesus died. (Matt.27:51, Mark 15:38, and Luke 23:45). Similarly, when Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the word naos is used. (I Cor. 3:16-17; II Cor. 6:16). The same is true when he tells the Ephesians that we are being built as a holy temple unto the Lord. (Eph. 2:21). Thus, the word naos can refer to things either physical or spiritual in nature; but it always refers, in any case, to some form of sanctuary, and is not the word used to specify the temple building and grounds generally. The word hieron is reserved for that.
Particularly noteworthy in this context is the wording of the travails mentioned in Daniel in and around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. There the prophet speaks of desecration and resanctification taking place in the "sanctuary", using two Hebrew words for sanctuary (miqdash and qodesh), but not one of the Hebrew words for "temple"---bavith or heykal. (Dan. 8:11, 8:13-14, 9:17, 9:26, and 11:31). Significantly, Daniel himself uses a Chaldean version of heykal when relating the story of how Belshazzar took the golden and silver vessels from Solomon's temple to drink from at his feast for his pagan gods. (Dan. 5: 2-3). So it is not as if Daniel would not have used a specific word for the temple building itself when the time came to do so.
Given the usage of hieron and naos in the Scripture, then, we must recognize that the statement in II Thess. 2:4 need not mean the temple building. The word naos consistently refers to the sanctuary itself---the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies---either in a physical or a spiritual context. The writings in Daniel likewise resonate with this meaning of the word naos. And the sanctuary, we must remember, can be present in the Tabernacle every bit as much as in the temple building.
This article is good and all. There is only one scripture I would like to raise to the author to see if they can explain why Jesus said that there will be an "abomination that causes desolation" in the Holy of Holies. If this has not happened yet, then how will it unless the temple is rebuilt? Matthew 24:15-17 says:
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house."
We did a Radio Free Geneva today, starting with a few minutes reviewing an example of really bad argumentation (from Monica Dunnington) and then moving on to the serious stuff, that being the comments of William Lane Craig on the topic of man's freedom, Romans 9, Roman Catholicism, etc. Important documentation that "theology matters." 
Now here is another gem from the wacky world of those suffering from Calvin Derangement Syndrome. A new book from a Southern Baptist deacon from Florida titled Calvin the Psychopath. Anyone want to take a wild guess as to how fair, and accurate, this scholarly work might be? If you are wondering, here are some whopper quotes from the 
