World War II - German Sniper Training Film

Cover of Sniper Training

How did the Nazis train their snipers? With a propoganda laden training film of course!




World War II - German Sniper Training Film

Charlie Rose - Bill Maher / Christopher Hitchens

Image via Wikipedia

I found this episode of Charlie Rose's program where in a single episode he interviewed both Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens. Maher's segment dealt with politics, culture, and comedy - especially the war in Iraq. Hitchen's segment dealt with the war in Iraq and Atheism. The interviews were done while Bush was still President. Nothing new or exciting in the interview, just more of what we have come to expect from these guys.




Charlie Rose - Bill Maher / Christopher Hitchens

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Barack Obama signs Student Loan reform bill, and Negroes are happy

Image via Wikipedia

Barack Obama has signed into law reforms and measures intended to help poor people afford college and help those of us trying to pay back student loans! Not everyone is happy about it. They complain more example oif the government trying to take over. The problem is this was a major problem. What else could have or should have been done? I don't know what is going to happen when the government passes a law i don't like or disagree with, but i'm sure it will happen soon.

In both speech and substance, Tuesday's event offered a preview, casting the healthcare law as part of a bigger Democratic plan to help American families against monied interests who have profited in their time of economic distress. Just as Democrats fought the insurance companies to reform health care, the president said, they put an end to the role of banks in the college loan process.

"We can't afford to waste billions on giveaways to the banks" when American competitiveness depends on the fortunes of its students, Obama said.

The White House estimates that the changes in the lending program will general $68 billion in savings over the next 10 years, money that can be used to help expand the Pell Grant program.

The new law will also put a cap on college graduates' annual loan payments, so that they only have to pay back 10% of their income.

Here is a humorous take.



Obama signs student loan reforms into law
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Barack Obama signs Student Loan reform bill, and Negroes are happy

Iron Sharpens Iron: Derek Thomas: Union With Christ: In Eternity Past, Historical Reality & Eternity to Come

I found this particular episode timely, considering that it's almost Easter. This reminded me that the reformed position offers a lot to help to understand what happens to a person when God saves them. this was a great interview.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Derek Thomas: Union With Christ: In Eternity Past, Historical Reality & Eternity to Come

Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

There was a documentary that aired Tuesday, March 30th that chronicled a year-long project analyzing the image on the Shroud of Turin and using computer animation to make a 3D image of the man. Many people believe the shroud is what Jesus was buried in and the image is Jesus.  I liked the program. It covered the history of the Shroud and the science behind the project.







Here is a trailer for the program

The Real Face of Jesus on HISTORY 3/30
Uploaded by HistoryChannel. - Classic TV and last night's shows, online.


Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Image via Wikipedia

What if the logic that Richard Dawkins uses in his book The God Delusion were applied to himself. This is a great parody video! What if Richard Dawkins does not exist?




YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Prophet Muhammed (saw) and Blackness

Here is an interesting post about African Americans and Islam. I will just offer the information contained and just comment no question God used Islam and black Muslims to bless this world.





The Prophet and Blackness

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Prophet Muhammed (saw) and Blackness

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

I watched the following exchange on HBO. I intended to make mention of it but John W. Loftus beat me to it - posting it on his own blog. It's basically Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens gloating that the sexual misconduct of priests in the Roman Catholic Church was more wide-spread than was previously thought. I'm not surprise. This became inevitable as soon as celibacy for priests and nuns was made policy. I wouldn't be surprise if there was something similar in convents. I agree with these guys that it's horrible. Terrible. And the pope and all clergy should be held accountable for allowing it in those cases that they could have done something.

However, isn't it interesting that atheists who are crying foul and using this as a platform for attacking all Christians are making flawed assumptions. They say that this scandal is made possible because of how churches view sex as evil and teach unpractical and silly teachings. They contend that there is nothing wrong with extra-marital sex as long as all involved parties are okay with it. They claim homosexuality is good and that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body.

I've got to point out that no where in scripture does it state that giving up marriage is going to get you closer to God. It actually countermands the command to be fruitful and multiply. Also the failure of a few men and women to do the right thing does not mean the right things is wrong and no one is accountable.

Further, Maher and Hitchens' position strikes me as hypocritical just because they prefer to be with consenting adults, yet they would deny others the "right" to be happy if they prefer children. What makes one preference abominable and the other righteous? I agree children are not to be sexual partners but so is anyone who is not your spouse who must be a member of the opposite sex (the definition of marriage). I can appeal to an objective moral standard that does not change - the same standard Jesus used in Matthew 19. By what standard is Maher and Hitchens using to validate their ethics? If it's relative then what gives them the right to criticize the Roman Catholic Church?

With the way things are going there will come a day when pedophilia and bestiality will be condones and defended like homosexuality is today. I'll bet they'll even use Hitchen's new catch phrase: "No Child's Behind Left."




Postscript: I posted a comment on Loftus' post pointing out that Hitchens seemed drunk to me. He even had a bottle of something with him when he went on camera (see at 22 secs). He is right about the Pope. I'm not Catholic and have no interest of defending the Papacy. The thing is that gets me is that it shows a problem if you go on TV drunk. I think its disrespectful to the audience to come in public and not be at your best.

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens on Real Time: The Pope is a Criminal

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

John Loftus posted his "thoughts" about man's accountability for our sex lives.  It's an old line of discussion but I think he makes some interesting errors and has biases that he seems oblivious to. It's instructive to think through his arguments and see if they make sense. His original words are in black, and mine are bolded..

You know you like it. Sometimes all you can think of is having sex. Come on. You know this is true. Sometimes it dominates your thinking. You cannot wait to have it. You fantasize about it. You must have it. It is probably the best natural high we experience.

John is right that is how many of us think of sex. Notice he ssys "You must have it." I have never heard of a single case of a person dying because they don't get to have sex as he points out in the next paragraph.



So why is an orgasm such a powerful motivator? It's not like we need it. We just want it. The power of the orgasm is so strong it motivates some married people into infidelity; some men to rape women; some Catholic priests to direct these urges toward molesting children; and it drives the prostitution and the pornography industries, including child pornography.

From what I understand of Dr. Loftus' worldview he agrees that adultery, rape, and molesting children are all bad and destructive behaviors. He may even agree with me that there are negative consequences for these things. Our society does reject these behaviors but embraces fornication, pornography, and homosexuality...on the grounds that they fulfill people's needs without hurting anyone.  However each of these are also examples of selfishness. Gratifying the desires of your own heart while ignoring God's law and how you are hurting others.

The orgasm just does not look like something that a divine being would create. It is way too powerful of a motivator. The three masters of suspicion, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud all argued respectively that the three motivators in life are Power, Money, and Sex.

The Bible calls these the lust of the eyes, the lust of the heart, and the pride of life. Notice neither power, nor money, or sex are evil in and of themselves. Sex is gift from God designed for a married man and woman to become "one flesh" on an exclusive level that binds them to one another for as long as the both live. It's not just for procreation. 

So why did God make our sex drive so strong? Why didn't he make the the orgasm less pleasurable? The pleasure of the orgasm is just too strong as it is. We all know this. With an evolutionary hypothesis this is what we'd expect to find, for our sex drive is good for the survival of our species. But under a theistic hypothesis it makes no sense.

Just because a tool can be misused does not make the tool evil.  Orgasams in the proper context have no negative consequences. We have problems when we seek to use orgasms  to fill needs that sex was not designed and for and in ways our bodies were not designed for. (An anus is an exit not an entrance.)

If the pleasure of the orgasm was reduced there would be fewer sex crimes, and less infidelity. Or, the orgasm could've been created so as not to be pleasurable at all. God could've made the sex drive to be something of an instinct where we only want to do it when we want children, and then also created our desire to have children periodically. If this is what God had done instead, then with divine commands to populate the world, heterosexual people would only have sex for the purpose of bearing children in fulfillment of his commands, and that's it.

God did not intend sex to be for procreation only...Read Song of Songs. If people would only have sex with their spouse and love them as they should that would eliminate sex crimes,.

Moreover, the urge for sex seems to be too strong for most of us to overcome it. So why would God create us with this powerful urge and then prohibit it except under one set of conditions, a monogamous lifelong heterosexual married life?

Simple...under such condition you don't have children orphaned by one or both parents because of selfishness. Both spouses have their needs met. It is an urge too powerful. That is why we need 
God to help us. If he doesn't, you have no hope to even attempt to live up to that standard.

To masturbate certainly involves lust, does it not? But Jesus is found to prohibit lusting. What about sex before marriage? What's wrong with that?

When two people have sex they are not just joining their bodies but their spirits too. If you don't know what I mean, then you haven't had a real orgasm. When you have sex without the commitment of a marriage you leave yourself vulnerable emotionally, spiritually, physically  (ask John Bobbit) . If a person is marrying you they are saying that they will stick it out with you no matter what. If they are just having sex with you they can get up and leave at any time.

Most people in today's society, even Christians, have sex before marriage.

True, some Christians are disobedient. You let God worry about that.

What about people who will never be married?

God has provision for them. So they won't have children or have sex. What's wrong with that? Some people,I'd wager most people cannot handle that. For those of  us who cannot, I can attest to the fact that God will give you the spouse you need. Some people should never get married. If you are unwilling to do make compromise, concessions, and sacrifices then you don't need to get married or have children....sex then is too heavy a burden for those who don't want the responsibility and the accountability.  

³Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
 ⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
 ⁷"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
 ⁸Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
 ¹⁰The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
 ¹¹Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹²For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19:3-12

What about people who will spend the rest of their lives in prison? [I taught college classes for a women's correctional facility and many of them said that lesbian sex was the best sex they ever had! What's the aternative for them?]

Again if they trust and obey God, they will be all right.  There is forgiveness and restoration in some shape or form .Leave that to God.

What about the few years between marriages for people who are divorced?

Considering that God hates divorce...and marriage is supposed to be monogamous  until either the man or woman dies...I think divorce is off the table if the two people are committed to God.  However given that there are reasons for divorce, we know that people are not mandated to stay single if a reconciliation is not possible.

¹⁵But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. - 1 Corinthians 7:15

 And what best explains the fact that there are many homosexuals in our world? Why would God create this strong urge for them and also condemn such an activity? This too makes no sense on a theistic hypothesis.

Sin - best explains the fact that there is homosexuality. Macro evolution does not. When people go against the standard and direction God has for us all then they are practicing sin. God does not create liars. God does not create thieves. People however are liars and thieves. God does not create people in such a way that we are supposed to be sinners. Just like you can repent and be made whole from any sin so you can be saved from homosexuality.We are saved from sin and death because of Jesus. You don't have to be bound or controlled  by anything decreed a sin. You can be free if you embrace Jesus.

Hell, I'll even bet all this talk about sex will cause some readers to do a search right now for a sex site, even Christians. Say it isn't so. Christian, you search for sex sites. Yet you feel guilty about it. The problem is that any prohibitions that make you feel guilty about this do not come from God.

John Loftus has a point. God is in the process of  freeing us, if you are a Christian. Some things don't just fall off right away...it's a process. 

 ⁶Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:  - Philippians 1:6

You can read John Loftus' original post below!

Debunking Christianity: God, Sex, and the Orgasm

 Mike Felker has posted his own response and I agree with him that this post was "Probably the Worst Atheist Argument I have ever heard".

Evolution News & Views: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great answer about why Intelligent Design (ID) is really science. ID is testable and ID is falsifiable. It is a great answer posted by Casey Luskin.

Evolution News & Views: A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Intelligent design isn't stupid (guardian.co.uk)
• Do You Teach Your Kids About Darwin? (GeekDad Wayback Machine) (wired.com)
• FIRST THINGS CALLS THE "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" MOVEMENT: A miserable failure. "The ID claim is that c... (pajamasmedia.com)
• 25 reviews of Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (rateitall.com)

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Titles of God in the Hebrew Bible

Dr. Mariottini on his blog explains  titles and names given to God in the Old Testament. These are great,  Some of them I've never considered before seeing his post with much thought. I'm used to names like Jehovah Jireh and a few other popular ones but it makes since that there would be many more.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Titles of God in the Hebrew Bible

YouTube - Ezekiel 18 and God's Pleasure in Repentance and Judgment

Here is a lecture from James White about how Ezekiel 18 strengthens arguments for God's absolute sovereignty. This is really a great example of how the text shows God's character. It's a really good statement and exegesis.




YouTube - Ezekiel 18 and God's Pleasure in Repentance and Judgment

Armor up Two - Lessons from "Iron Man 2"

When I see this clip of the upcoming Iron Man 2, I can't help but think of the following scripture:

¹⁰Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. ¹¹Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. ¹²For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. ¹⁴Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, ¹⁵and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. ¹⁶In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. ¹⁸And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
 ¹⁹Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, ²⁰for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should. - Ephesians 6:10-20

Watch Suit Case armor in SciFi & Fantasy  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Okay maybe there is no shield or sword but there are repulsors in the clip! Interesting enough Tony seems to put his armor on in the same order as given in the scripture.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Understanding the Four Legal Schools in Islam

I want to make mention of a blog I've been reading and quoting from lately. It explores Apologetics of Christianity and Islam from a Muslim point of view. Here is a post on the four legal schools of Islam.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Understanding the Four Legal Schools in Islam

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A former Pentecostal preacher talks about why his spiritual path led him to Islam

I have seen an amazing interview with a man who used to be a Pentecostal preacher who has left Christianity for Islam. The main point that seemed to drive him from Christianity was realizing that some Christians say one thing and do another constantly. He also said that he realized that there were people all over the world who believed that their religion was just as valid as Christianity. The truth is he seemed to be saying to me that he left Christianity because Islam was a better fit for him. He said that the differences between Islam and Christianity - the Bible and the Qur'an - didn't matter to him. I've got serious problems. They both can't both be right. Jesus is either the only way to God or He isn't. Which is it. By choosing Islam, the ex preacher has said that Jesus isn't. Proselyting is a big part of Islam and Christianity. If Islam is the truth, why would he not want everyone to be Muslim?

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A former Pentecostal preacher talks about why his spiritual path led him to Islam

Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation

Image via Wikipedia

A few months ago, I was discussing Ephesians 1 in an blog debate. Ephesians 1 was one of the texts Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown discussed in their interaction last Thursday. They spent some time on verse 11 and I was amazed on how each exegeted the text. Dr White gave some examples on how various translations render the text and what the text means. It's a real interesting post. God is a genius.

Ephesians 1:11 and Bible Translation

Confident Christianity: Atheist Sam Harris On Morality

Image via Wikipedia

The Confident Christianity blog has posted a video of Sam Harris talking about morality and religion. It's amazing that Harris tries to say that it's wrong to say to be sure about stuff you can't possibly know and then does it himself. He is right that Islam and Christianity can't be reconciled but like the comments on the post. He said that there are people who are wrong about human fulfillment? How does he know that? Who died and made him the authority? He borrows from Christian ethics and morality for many of his definitions for what is right and what is wrongs (except the ones he wants to reject) and then argues that we don't need Christianity or God or any religion. Really lame.



Confident Christianity: Atheist Sam Harris On Morality

Thanks to Michael Brown

Dr. James White has posted some thoughts on his blog regarding his interactions with Dr. Michael Brown. I enjoyed the exchange as well as this post. Dr White wrote the following:

I know this exchange is a bit uncomfortable for zealous folks on both sides of this issue. I'm glad it is. We need the discomfort. I may make it even worse by asking if Michael would join me to discuss some of the key prophetic texts relating to the person of Jesus, and maybe I could reprise my time on his show to discuss some topics like the reliability of the text of the New Testament, or key texts in the Qur'an Christians should know. In any case, I look forward to next Thursday, when you will hear--over and over again, "But Michael, you really, really need to allow the whole of Scripture to speak here, and to realize that since God has not chosen to reveal the identity of the elect, which even you must admit, given your view of foreknowledge, God possesses, then we must accept the distinction between the prescriptive will of God, found in His law, and the decretive will of God, which envisions the existence of evil, and all the corollaries that flow therefrom." Maybe I won't use those exact words, but you will hear that theme over and over again. But, what you won't hear, Lord willing, will be any caricaturing of the positions by either side, and hopefully, in so doing, we will encourage others who engage the topic to strive for a high standard in the effort.

In my opinion, he is exactly right. Accepting or rejecting neither of the 5 points of Calvinism is going to save you for Heaven nor damn you to hell. Not that the matters they disagree with aren't important. They are. But not important enough to break fellowship over with brothers and sisters who also believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved but differ in how God executed that salvation. Some people accuse James White as being uncharitable and just plain mean when it comes to people he disagrees with. This simply is not true. It's not true of Dr. Brown either. I am really looking forward to next Thursday!

Thanks to Michael Brown

Responding to Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Marcus: More on Trauma in Sovereignty à la James Swan

Image via Wikipedia

For some reasons and I guess I should research why, sometimes people have problems commenting on Blogger blogs. my brother-in-Christ Brennon tried to respond to a responding post I made to one of his blogs and couldn't get his comment accepted by Blogger. I don't know why. But he was kind enough to post his response on his own blog. I'm responding in kind. My response to his response is in bold. I have been following Dr. James White's interaction with Dr. Michael Brown on some of these very issues.  I have great admiration and respect for both men and I really liked how they were able to disagree and not be disagreeable! I want to thank Brennon for his interaction. In all the time that I have corresponded with him his salvation, integrity, and kindness have never been absent nor in question.

I have been trying to comment on a response to my response to James Swan of Alpha and Omega Ministries (found here) from Marcus. The post I am responding to is found here. His contentions are in italics.

I think you're missing one of the main premises in my argument, and that is that God creating free agents whom He knows would sin does not somehow cause Him to share in their responsibility for those sins. That seemed to be one of Swan's main points, but I see no reason to impute responsibility of the acts of individual agents to God. The only thing we could say if we were to complain is that God was negligent somehow in creating free creatures even though He knew they would sin. But that, as I say, is just the problem of evil.

I think Swan's argument was that the Arminian position does not really answer why God is not responsible for evil. 

Now, to defend my arguments:

The problem is that it does not answer the issues raised in Scripture that we see that God does not just ordain events but also decrees them.

Here is the problem with this argument. You are assuming determinism in this premise itself. What we are trying to determine is whether God is the one decreeing all human actions in the argument between theistic determinism and libertarianism. So to say that the reason I am wrong is because God decrees these sins is begging the question.

Decreeing events and decreeing sins are no the same thing. We see that God can and has stopped people from sinning. This means that he could stop all people from sinning. Why doesn't he? 

 ¹ Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, ² and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, "She is my sister." Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
 ³ But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
 ⁴ Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? ⁵ Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."
 ⁶ Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. ⁷ Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die." - Genesis 20:1-6

God tells Abimelech that he did not touch Sarah not because he didn't want to but God stopped him from doing it. Yet Abimeleh was also told that if he did not choose to give Sarah back he was going to die. Therefore sometimes we see that God dictates terms. Sometimes God makes us do right and sometimes God allows us to make the decision and live with the consequences. How do we know in what circumstances God will do which or other? That's up to God.

In Genesis 50 we find Joseph, whose brothers sold him into the evil of slavery, who lied to their father breaking his heart, claiming Joseph was dead. In front of his brothers, years later Joseph states, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." The two statements in Hebrew are in direct parallel. Joseph's brothers meant evil by their actions, but God intended the same actions for good.

According to the Genesis 50 passage, there is no reason to think that God actively caused Joseph's brothers to sin. That seems to implicate God in that He took part in their sin. No, He simply used their sin to accomplish a far greater good, which actually supports my first argument against the POE.

I distinctly said that God did not force His brothers to do evil. But Swan's argument does come up. How do you reconcile that God could have stopped Joseph's brothers from  selling Joseph into slavery. But God didn't. What God did was use them to save the whole world from famine - the greater good. God could have done all of this a different way, but He did it this way. Why? I don't know. Think for a second of how many choices had to be made for Joseph's life and Genesis to unfold as it did? It's innumerable. I'm willing to bet that God did a lot more in all of their lives too, not just Joseph's life. Each and every life unfolded the way God purposed before hand.  And everyone - to a point - did what they wanted to do....as far as they knew. Same thing for us.

This same principle can be found in Isaiah 10: 5-12, where God uses Assyria as an instrument of judgment on the rebellious people of Israel, and then holds Assyria responsible for her sinful attitude and desires against Israel.

Same for Isaiah 10. God uses the sins that these individual agents contrived through their own powers of deliberation, through their own wills, for His purposes. He did not purpose or decree or make necessary the sins or actions of individuals, but in foreknowing the sin worked them out for His eternal purposes.

 Brennon, is that really what the passage say? 

 ⁵ "Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger,
       in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
 ⁶ I send him against a godless nation,
       I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
       to seize loot and snatch plunder,
       and to trample them down like mud in the streets.
 ⁷ But this is not what he intends,
       this is not what he has in mind;
       his purpose is to destroy,
       to put an end to many nations.
 ⁸ 'Are not my commanders all kings?' he says.
 ⁹ 'Has not Calno fared like Carchemish?
       Is not Hamath like Arpad,
       and Samaria like Damascus?
 ¹⁰ As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
       kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria-
 ¹¹ shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
       as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?' "
 ¹² When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.

God distinctly says that Assyria is doing what God wants and they don't know it and God is going to punish Assyrians for their sins - judging them for their sinful hearts and attitudes. Is this fair? No, but it Just. Justice does not equal fairness.


The most important example of compatibilism though is Acts 4:27-28. Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews all sinfully join forces to crucify Jesus. Yet God's predestined the entire event for his holy purpose.

Same with the Acts 4 passage. God knew that when placed in the situation they were that Pilate and the Pharisees would choose to crucify Jesus. He allowed them to freely act knowing how they would act. He did not cause them to act.

If God had not put Pilate and the Jewish leaders in those situation, could they have chosen to crucify Jesus? No. Sounds like  God was in control. Look at verse 28.

²⁸They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

I would argue that its impossible for an unregenerate human being to relate with God. Unregenerate sinner are spiritually dead, remember? Completely unable to obey or even respond to God. All we can do on our own is rebel

The issue isn't whether man in his natural state can do anything to relate to God. Both you and I recognize the need for God's grace because man is totally unable and unwilling to come to Him without His drawing. The issue is whether we can choose to reject this drawing. If we can't, then the entire relationship aspect is called into question. Is a relationship where one side causes the other side to not be able to choose not to be in the relationship a genuine one?

It's not an equal relationship. We both agree that you can do nothing of your own to initiate it. If we can't initiate it, why should we think we can reject it? Apostasy is explained in 1st John 2:19

¹⁹They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

 I understand this to mean that if you are an apostate you were never really in relationship in the first place...not that you changed your mind.  I can find no scripture that leads me to the conclusion that God gives you just enough grace so you can choose to accept or reject Christ.

It's interesting to me how people are quick to give us the freedom to reject a relationship with God, yet no thought seems to be given that God could choose who to be in relationship with of God's own free will.

I certainly recognize that it is entirely God's prerogative whom He chooses to show mercy to; whom He chooses to be in a relationship with. I simply believe the scriptures teach that God has purposed to extend His love to all human beings and to allow them to freely come to Him or reject Him.

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you recognize that God can choose who to have a relationship with and who not to have a relationship with and then argue that God must extend at least enough grace to everyone to give them the option to chose to come to Him or reject Him at the same time? How does that work?

I think reality may be explained by the the point that God can arbitrarily do whatever God wants at any time.

This contention baffles me, Marcus. If you are correct, then God is the author of sin and He irrationally blames us for the sin He has made necessary. It would contradict the scriptures which indicate that God only does what is good! If this is the case, then how do we differentiate between the works of the devil and the works of God? Indeed, the works of the devil actually are the works of God, since God is the one who decrees and makes necessary the works of the devil, if theistic determinism is true.

Let me give an example. I agree that everything God does is good, but it depends on your point of view about what is good.  Was it good for Pharaoh when God ran over him to free Israel while working through Moses? What about the Amorites and the Amalekites? Not good for them the way we think it was good but it was justice. When bad things happen to us it's justice because we deserve to go to hell.  When good happens that is mercy because we don't deserve it. I would further contend that none of know what "good" is because none of us good. In relationship with God we are learning what "good" is.  The sin in the garden is being used by God for larger purposes with the purpose of glorifying God at it's center. American slavery was an evil thing. But without it, I  and my relations and most of the people I am close to, perhaps every single American, would not exist in the form we do now and if we did, how do I know I would have ever heard the Gospel, believe, and be saved. I don't. This is the way God has decided to do it and it was set up long before any of us was here.

⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— ⁶to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. - Ephesians 1:4-10

My assertion was "He has the right to create free agents, allow them to sin, and hold them responsible for those sins." I don't think He has the right to create people and cause them to sin and then hold them responsible for that sin. That would be totally irrational; a logical contradiction. But God is not irrational and cannot do logically contradictory things.


George Bryson and James White faced off on this question years ago, and Brennon I think you are explaining your position much better than Bryson did!  I want to be clear I'm not saying that God causes us to sin. I am saying that we have no other choice but to sin unless God chooses to save us. I agree God is no irrational or illogical but I don't think we are qualified to define what irrational or illogical really is because until God reveal his will and the plan to us we have no idea - our view point is tainted always. Let's look at Joseph again Why was he able to forgive his brothers and accept the events of his life. He could not catch a break. At times he must have felt like everything he touched was disintegrating in his hand. What did he take away from  his life? At times it sucked, but it was all for good in the end. 


For anyone reading this you can find Brennon's post before this one you can find it at the link below.


Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Marcus: More on Trauma in Sovereignty à la James Swan

There was a comment that I felt also needed to be responded to I thought

One of the basic problems with determinists is that they confuse power with morality. Does God have the sovereign right to arbitrarily do whatever He wants? Yes, He has that power. But if He were to do so, He would stop being good by His own standards. It also goes against Scripture which states that God never changes (and Scriptures emphasis when it says this is God's character).

 God's character shows us that God does have the right to do whatever he wants. Everything belongs to him...without exception. Why would God doing whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants invalidate God's goodness? I have to reject that God's character would change because everything God does is good....even if I disagree....especially if I disagree because like Paul there is no good in me....or any of us!

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED ? DISCUSSION WITH EVANGELIST DAN CORNER.

This was an interesting article that was posted discussing the doctrine of eternal security.My comments are in red.

It seems that an issue that always comes up when Arminian and Calvinist have their theological clash is on the problem and question of evil.

Agreed!

I personally find Dan Corner to be a very sincere gentleman and when I listen to him I don't detect deceit and treachery when he speaks. I believe the man to be a true and faithful Christian and I also found it striking that when the host ask him questions he gives the response 'I believe WHAT JESUS SAYS' and than he quotes the scriptures. He also will say 'I believe what the Bible says' and than he quotes the relevant passages.

This is very different than people today who drag in allot of exegesis, and philosophy and you hardly ever hear them quote the Bible. To my understanding Dan Corner is a former Roman Catholic. I am not sure of his church affiliation. 

I agree that Dan Corner seems like a nice guy. However I believe in eternal security and I don't believe what he says I believe. Neither does anyone I know who accepts eternal security. More on this later. I would like to know who the blog author has been conversing with about eternal security who does not think its important that their view be scripture based. Also I wonder if the author knows anything about what "exegesis" is. "Dragging"  in exegesis means looking at scripting and drawing out your understanding from the text. Eisogesis is reading into the text something that is not there.  I think eisogesis is more important than philosophy.

For example was Lucifer 'saved'? Did Lucifer loose his salvation? Where did Lucifer get the inclination to rebel from? Did God create an imperfect program? If the program or creation had within its design and capacity to rebel why be so harsh upon it? After all anyone who is a computer programmer knows that a program only does what it's programmed to do.

The Bible says that "iniquity was found in" Lucifer (Ezekiel 28:15). The Bible does not say where the rebellion in Lucifer came from. What I think is more important where is the rebellion, iniquity and sin came from within our own hearts!? We know that this is what makes us unable to come to God on our own. Even Islam is about bridging that gap between us and God. At least we all admit that there is a gap. We disagree on how to overcome that Gap. This is why I prefer Calvinism over Arminianism: Calvinism has an answer. The suffering and crap we see in the program is not a bug....it's a feature...in a larger plan. I've written software myself where I purposely allow it to fail at certain spots so that I can force other parts of the program to do things as I see fit. Why? Because I want to. Is it it Efficient? Not your call. It's my program! Same thing with God except on a much larger scale.

Christians talk about God's 'justice' needing satisfaction. So did it satisfy God to create beings destined for hell? If so than why is sin such a big deal? If not than who programmed the creation to have the ability to sin? Why would God allow a creation to have an ability that he hates soo much?

It's a big deal because sin really is that bad. Thumbing your nose at the one who made you and outright rebellion deserves infinite and final punishment. And again neither you nor I know the complete picture in order to figure out if God could have done things differently in order to make sure all the "t's" God wants crossed are crossed. We can't know. God does. That is where trusting God is so important.

For the Calvinist if God already had a special elect group of people who were saved in Christ before the foundation of the world than why the need to incarnate and die for this saved group since they are already 'in Christ' (see: regeneration before faith). This seems a bit redudant.

It seems redundant because the author does not understand if Jesus had not incarnated and died the elect would not be saved,.

Christians need to answer these questions. The Manichean view of good verses evil seems appealing but people will ultimatley ask where the will to do evil or rebel came from.

The Manichean view of good verses evil is wrong. It gives evil too much credit and God not enough control. The truth is that evil can do nothing unless God allows it. 

You can see further my blog entry:

Fall of Man, Doctrine of Original Sin and Islam

Okay let me see about answering Corner's video statements now.

I think Dan Corner is really concerned with making sure that we know that God requires repentance and a holy life. Eternal Security does not mean that you get live any kind of way because you are going to heaven.When I use the term I mean that if you are born again, you will repent and continue to follow Jesus no matter what. What will happen is if you flub up and if you turn your back on God you will be restored - like David and Peter. However if you are never restored then you were never saved or elect in the first place.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED ? DISCUSSION WITH EVANGELIST DAN CORNER.

YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Image via CrunchBase

I could not resist. This funny! The video even puts the mash up into context. Hilarious!



YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown

Resurrection Debate: Gary Habermas & Mike Licona vs Robert Price

Here is a great discussion for Easter. The Infidel Guy & Robert M Price vs  Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. It was fun seeing Price being challenged. Habermas does a marvelous job showing how many Price makes some horrible assumptions that makes it hard for him to understand what Christians are saying. Price is definitely on the fringe. Even most skeptical scholars accepts the Paul really wrote some of the stuff that we attribute to him and Price says Paul wrote none of them. Another thing that got me was he said that in Greek "Phileo" and "Agape" from John 21 are synonyms!!! I admit that I don't read Greek, but I have never heard anyone not make a difference between what those words really mean. It was really interesting.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt1.mp3


http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt2.mp3

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/Infidel_Radio_01-17-07_pt3.mp3