JovanMackenzy.com - The Official Jovan Mackenzy Website
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Fitstbump of the Day #7 - JovanMackenzy.com - The Official Jovan Mackenzy Website
JovanMackenzy.com - The Official Jovan Mackenzy Website
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
Fistbump of the Day #6 - Joseph Smith as the second Muhammad – “Joseph Smith or the sword!” | True Freethinker
Mariano Grinbank has posted an article I thoroughly enjoyed. In it he talks about a recent controversy: Did Joseph Smith actually compare himself to Muhammad and advocate Mormons use violence to spread their beliefs. Criticizing Mormonism can lead people to just accept such things whether they are true or not - I mean Joseph Smith was a heretic anyway, it figures! But this isn't honest. Did he say it or not? In this post, Mariano discusses this and examines the evidences. I think it's important to not purposely misrepresent anyone to advance your own understanding or viewpoint. Mariano always does a great job with posts like theses (as well as all of his work). More than a fistbump - here is a fistpound.
Joseph Smith as the second Muhammad – “Joseph Smith or the sword!” | True Freethinker
Friday, October 29, 2010
FacePalm of the Day #24 - What Christians don’t believe about sin and why it matters : The Uncredible Hallq
First FacePalm
If you read atheist polemics against Christianity, Christian ideas about sin come up relatively infrequently. I know I’ve been tempted to dismiss what Christians say about sin as a superficial rationalization for the one really vile doctrine of Christianity, the doctrine that God damns people for unbelief. Recently, though, I’ve realized just how wrong this approach is.People are not damned to hell because they fail to believe the Gospel. People go to hell because that is our default destination without Jesus. You don't go hell because of what Adam failed to do (obey God). You go to hell because you have failed to obey God. From jump no one is righteous enough to stand in God's presence. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. - Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.- Romans 6:23Based on the things we say, do, and think that we should not do and the things we fail to say, do, and think that we should are the things that earn us death - eternal separation from God. It's not unbelief that damns you...you are damned already. It's belief in Jesus that saves you. Chris Hallquist misunderstands what the Bible teaches about sin and salvation.
Second FacePalm
In other words, think bad thoughts and your as bad as a murder and an adulterer. This suggests that, in general, all sins are created equal. This is what I think no Christian really believes.This is exactly what I meant. Hallquist does get this part right. The Bible indeed does not put one sin as worse or not as bad as another. I think he is right that by-and-large many people don't believe this. However, we should.
I have no doubt that countless Christians have read that passage and told themselves they believed it. Liberals like it because it helps back up the “judge lest ye be judged” idea. Conservatives like it because it supports the belief that we are all miserable sinners. Indeed, it’s a staple of many Evangelists’ sales pitches: “Have you ever thought a bad thought? OK then, you deserve Hell as much as Hitler and need Jesus(tm) to save you from it.”I find it interesting how Hallquist admits that sin (as the Bible defines it) is ubiquitous. Here is the part he's missing: as your relationship with Christ grows, you grow. You stop practicing sin. It no longer controls you fully, although you will fall sometimes, you get to get up and keep moving. In addition, as a believer you are under constant attack - at war with your own sinful desires. Without Christ you are enslaved to those desires and have no hope of being free. Your only options are what sins you will do but never free not to sin. Therefore Jesus was not saying that you sin with a stray thought. The problem comes if you "ride" that thought - start planning how to fulfill that desire. I have an example. In scripture when homosexuality is prohibited or discussed it is never mentioned by itself. It is wrong for us to single out homosexuals as being any worse than any other sins that homosexuals practice. Fornication is wrong whether it is with someone of the opposite sex or same sex. Lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Telling God "at least I wasn't a homosexual" while habitually and purposely cheating on your taxes isn't going to get you to heaven. You'll be in hell with the homosexual. Here is an example:
In spite of the number of Christians who claim to love this idea, it’s not hard to find signs they don’t really believe it. A pastor who admits to having an affair risks his job, but who would want to fire a pastor for pulling a Jimmy Carter and admitting to having lust in his heart? Similarly, while the Bible tells Christians to repent and sin no more, they quickly learn that they’re never going to stop doing everything the Bible calls “sin,” which can be real theological headache. A common solution seems to be to sort sins into big ones and small ones, and mainly worry about not doing the big ones: “yeah I’m a sinner whatever at least I’m not having sex like those damn liberals.”
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. - Galatians 5:19-21Paul literally means that these behaviors (not a complete list) are sinful but we can be delivered from them. He isn't saying you have no chance as salvation because you once did these things. No. You miss out if you continue to live like this. Here is the rub. People are so caught up. Bound. Trapped. Some people want to get out of those lifestyles Paul described and can't. This is the real perniciousness of sin. We all know that such a lifestyle will destroy you - end your life. The reason why it took such a huge sacrifice to free us is because sin really is that bad. Not everyone is trapped in the same sins, but you are trapped in something. I can honestly tell you that in my life and as well as others that I know that Jesus is able to free you from any sin and its a continued process of sanctification as we grow and God removes those things from us that is not like him, until either we go to Him or Jesus returns.
Third FacePalm
Critics of Christianity should talk about this more often. I’ve seen non-Christians attack Christians for believing that Anne Frank is burning in hell for being Jewish. I’ve seen Christian apologists, say, roughly, “It’s a misrepresentation of Christianity to say Christians believe God damned Anne Frank for being Jewish. What we believe is that God damned her for failing Ray Comfort’s good person test.” (The Christian might add, by way of further explanation, that God forgives Christians and only Christians for failing the Comfort’s test.) I’ve never seen an atheist go after a Christian for saying that, even though those two claims are roughly equal in moral insanity.I think that the problem truly is that most of us truly don't understand how evil we really are. We don't really see how ugly our sin is. We like to look at other people and think that we are better than them because we haven't been caught doing what they have been caught doing. That is a delusion. Are we really so bad that we deserve death and eternal punishment? Many of us don't think so. But we think pedophiles do. We think Hitler does. Stalin. The men who were behind the 9/11/2001 Terrorist attacks. The problem is that without Christ you will be in hell right next to them. Worse if they had repented (and I'm not saying they did) and trusted in Jesus they are going to heaven and you ain't. On our best day we are horrible. That's the bad news: We have been judged. Weighed. Counted. Measured. And we have found wanting. We owe God. God is so holy and perfect that our very existence is offensive. We have all transgressed God's standards. He would be within His rights to destroy all of us. The good news is that God loved us so much that Jesus died in our place - those who put their faith in Him. His is our propitiation. He is our perfect offering - completely satisfying the debt caused by our sin. Admitting that you have sin a problem is the first step to being free of it.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. 1 John 1: 9-10I think the problem is that many of us have not truly experienced God's presence or power. So we don't understand how much we really fall short. By any stretch of imagination, Isaiah was good. According to our standards, he must have seemed very righteous. Yet, when he had a theophany in the temple and he finally understood where he was spiritually this was his response:
"Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." - Isaiah 6:5I can relate. The more I learn about who God is the more I see just how far I fall short and how glad I am that God is not going to judge me by my righteousness but by Jesus'.
It is not that we avoid responsibility and consequences completely. We don't get delivered from everything at once. There is some suffering involved. You go through things and suffer in this life because of sin - saved or not. The difference is that with Christ you have help - and goodies.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. - Galatians 5:22-26Plus you get to avoid going to hell.
What Christians don’t believe about sin and why it matters
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Reformation History on the Dividing Line
Reformation History on the Dividing Line
Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?
Where Should I Begin in Reading Van Til and Presuppositional Works?
Jesus in the Public Square: 3 Lectures by Darrell Bock - Apologetics 315
Jesus in the Public Square: 3 Lectures by Darrell Bock - Apologetics 315
Debunking Christianity: There are Honest Christians Who Want Real Answers to Real Questions
Here is an example of what John Loftus thinks is an "honest" Christian is:16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
By Roscoe
It's interesting to me that a Loftus believes that the only honest Christians are people who agree with him. I find a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Faith" is and what "Faith" isn't. Faith is not believing something that one does not have sufficient evidence to rationally believe. I find it amazing how confused people are on this point. I've quoted Hebrews 11:1 ad nauseum trying to get the point across as to what "Faith" is in a Biblical sense. This time I will re-quote something I was blessed to see last week:Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)I was a Christian for 26 years, two of which I was on staff with Young Life Ministries, after reading this book I willfully set my "faith" down. This book helped me realize that my God was a myth and that the Bible was indeed a product of man and not God. When doubting Christians ask me what one book they should read, I say without hesitation, Why I'm an Atheist by John Loftus. I currently have two of my Christian friends reading his book and they are stumpped.
Faith is not believing without facts; Faith is trust without reservation.Debunking Christianity: There are Honest Christians Who Want Real Answers to Real Questions
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Rob Liefeld Fills Biblical Plot Hole with 'Zombie Jesus' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
However, Zombie Jesus may seem somewhat blasphemous given Liefeld's background. He is a Christian and works with his pastor, Phil Hotsenpiller, on the Armageddon Now series of graphic novels, based on biblical prophecy. But as Liefeld told ComicsAlliance, it can't be heresy if it's right there in black and white.My main problem with the story is that it doesn't really accurately tell the story given in the Bible. Matthew 27:51-52 does not say that people crawled out of the ground and started eating people.
"I don't consider this in any way blasphemous or contradicting my faith," said Liefeld, who describes Zombie Jesus as "300 meets Dawn of the Dead with the clock from 24 running." He continued, "The fact of the matter is that the passage in 'Matthew' 27 EXISTS! It's a freaky, crazy, creepy passage. Zombies came out of the ground right after Christ's death and it's kind of glossed over like it's no big deal. I wanted to move on it a year ago when I read it, but I needed time to flesh it out. There are so many mysterious passages in the Bible, and this one may be the biggest mystery of all."
"What I've done is construct a story of how the ultimate battle between good and evil continues following the crucifixion of Christ. There are many players in the saga and everyone is racing against time to protect or devour Christ's remains. Joseph of Arimethia paid to have Jesus buried in a proper tomb and there is quite an exciting series of events as Judas and the zombie horde attempt to keep Christ and his escorts from reaching the tomb. The zombies that attack the city are at first defended by the Roman Centurions who eventually retreat and Governor Pilate decides to sacrifice the population of Judaea to the zombies.
"And then there's Lazarus, the hero of the story, who himself was risen from death by Christ's own hand. His destiny in protecting the sacred body of Christ as well as preserving the garments that touched Christ's blood is played out with the Disciples fighting alongside him. The story builds towards a confrontation at the tomb of Christ before it takes a MAJOR twist. It's Judas, possessed of the devil battling with his army of the Undead versus Lazarus and the Disciples for all the marbles. It's exciting."
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.Many atheists uses this passage to try to discount the whole resurrection because Zombies do not exist. I agree. The Bible does not say anything about zombies. Here are a couple of facts to keep in mind that in the first century, people were not buried in tombs indefinitely. After several years, tombs were recycled and the bones of relative were put into ossuaries. Therefore if the people who were in the tombs when they rose again, they had not been dead for very long. If you look at the art of Liefield, the people seem to look like what we think of Zombies today and they are attacking people. No where in the Bible does it describe anything like. When Lazerus was raised from the dead he wasn't raised immortal, he died again at some future point later. Also when Satan entered Judas Iscariot it was before he betrayed Jesus, not after he hung himself. Also during the days Jesus was buried his disciples were not fighting zombies...they were hiding from the authorities. It is important to remember that Jesus won the battle of good versus evil when He died. It was finished...perfectly and completely. Even the devil thought that, however he thought he won. Had he truly understood the plan of salvation he would not have worked so hard to see Jesus crucified and dead. God played him like a harp. These are important points of the events surrounding the parts that Liefield calls himself "filling in". It really irks me that people think Matthew had zombies in mind like those from our movies. He didn't. These people who were raised would have been known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem at that time.
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:Jesus rose from the dead Easter morning with all power in his hand. This is what the Gospel is. I'm all for fiction, but fiction that detracts from truth is indeed bordering on blasphemy. I hope Liefield talks to his pastor about this storyline and really prays about it. You see, I find it incomprehensible to be a Christian for more than a year and have never read Matthew 27. And no maybe we don't have as much detail as to who was raised in Matthew 27:52-52 such as what happened to them afterward? Did they go to heaven? Did they stay on earth and live a normal human lifespan? I don't know but I don't think its a good idea to make up stuff that contradict what the rest the Bible says.
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him" - 1st Corinthians 2:7-9
FacePalm of the Day #23 - Responding to Edward T. Babinski
Marcus, Your responses amount to saying, "These were great laws for their day and age." So you have acknowledged ethical relativism, and that it can be found in the Bible.
No. I have acknowledged no such thing. Rape is wrong. Adultery is wrong. The Fundamental principles of the laws have not changed.
Neither did you consider the woman's point of view. Forced to marry her rapist? Really?
Did you consider how other nations did things. A woman who was raped was considered "damaged" and most men would not marry her. What would would happen to such a woman? She would never be a wife and never have the protection of a husband. The law was meant to protect her and make men take responsibility of not just shaming her but potentially destroying the rest of her life. It was also mandated that the man could never divorce her or abuse her. The alternative for the woman? Destitution. Ostracized. Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman. In no way does the condone or proscribe raping a woman as good thing.
Forced to marry the men who slaughtered her husband and/or whole family, village?
Again this was to protect the woman from being treated as nothing but property and a slave.She could be integrated into society. And she would be married to only one man not men. And where does Edward get that the woman was forced against her will? The Bible does not say that. Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.
And in neither case is a wedding ceremony mentioned. It was an exchange of property.
Does it take explicitly stating and describing a marriage ceremony to understand that it was really a marriage and not just people living together and having sex? The Bible never uses the term "marriage" loosely. It's supposed to be a sacred covenant relationship between a man and woman; co-equal - because no where does the Bible say a man is superior to or more important than women.
And if the woman failed to please the soldier who slaughtered her people, she was let go. But if she did please him, only then was he obliged to take care of her.
I wonder if Babinski really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time, or even today. They used to kill the women if they weren't pleased with them. This was to protect the women. You couldn't just take a woman, use her for sex, and then toss her out without penalty.
And in fact a Hebrew male could have as many wives as he could feed and clothe. And also keep concubines and female slaves.
The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.As for the Book of Esther, read chapter 2. "Beauty pageant" is a euphemism. The king was raping every virgin in that pageant, including the Jewish virgin, Esther. God was not incensed though. He allowed the raping, so that the king could discover just how "good" Esther was in the sack. . . for the good of her people. Esther was found to be so "good" that the king made her queen, and the Jews got to take revenge on their enemies, killing 75,000 of them according to the story, all because a virginal Jewish girl was raped by a king and was so good in bed. Is the story true? Who knows? God isn't even mentioned once in that book.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. - Deuteronomy 17:16-18
I don't think Babinski has even read the book of Esther. Xerxes did not even know or care that Esther was a Jew. The Jews killing 75,000 of their enemies had nothing to do with Esther. It was not even widely known that Esther was Jewish until she revealed it to show the treacherous Holocaust Haman had in mind for her people. The Jews were defending themselves because on a certain day they were all supposed to be slaughtered and Persian kings could not change a law once it was passed so Xerxes gave the Jews the authority to defend themselves. It had nothing to do with Ester being taken against her will. Re-read Esther.
Ruth of course uncovers Boaz's feet, which is another euphemism for sleeping with him.
Not everyone agrees with that interpretation and even if it's true, Ruth initiated the scene not Boaz. She was in control.
As for Paul, the most he said about marriage was that it was honorable, and it was "better to marry than to burn." "Better to marry than to burn?" They should SING that kind of praise of marriage at weddings. So all Paul admits is that marriage is "honorable" and "better than burning with lust" constantly. Not a word of actual praise.
Um...how is "honorable" not praise? And how does this advance Babinski's argument? It doesn't. More failure.
All that Paul praises is the "spiritual marriage" of Christians to their bridegroom, the Lord. Therefore, Paul made clear that he thought celibacy was definitely a superior choice than marriage.
So what? Paul was saying that he recognizes than not everyone can live without being married. He said that nothing was wrong with remaining single or getting married. If the point is that Paul is saying that it's better not be married because you can focus more on God, then that's true. However he never condemned anyone getting married..
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. -1 Corinthians 7: 36-38As for Cain marrying his sister, and in fact all of the children of Adam and Even marrying their brothers and sisters. Nice. More ethical relativism. I guess when they chose who was sleeping in whose beds while still kids, that was quite a serious choice indeed. But of course God being omnipotent could have created a second couple so such a thing need not have occurred. But I guess God just slapped his thigh and said, let 'em all sleep with each other!
I'm always amazed by this. According the theory of evolution, brothers and sister must have had to procreate together to pass on the traits that make us human when we evolved from lower lifeforms right? At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens and I would wager that they were closely related unless you want to argue that a man and a woman independently evolved from lower primates? I don't think so. Close relatives would have had to gotten together in order for things like large brains and opposable thumbs be propagated to further generations. So what is the problem? Even throwing out evolution and just assuming that it was only Adam and Eve, who else would their children marry when there was no other human beings? Me thinks, Edward Babinski is just trying to introduce an argument that has no merit because he has nothing else. God allowed them to do that until He deemed it no longer needed according to His purpose. Any biologist can tell you that now its no longer a good idea and very dangerous for the children. This is how we get very bad mutations and sicknesses. Before the flood, this was not the case because of the genetic purity and closeness to the source.
Clark Kent Takes First Flight in 'Superman: Earth One' Preview [Exclusive] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
"Where did I come from?
What am I doing here?
Who Am I?
What Am I?"
These are basic question everyone should have an answer for. What I want to know is since you did not make you, how do you even begin to answer these? How can natural material processes even begin to answer this questions. Yes, it is very philosophical. To be honest there have been Superman stories like this before and most of the time its presented as if Clark Kent is destined to become what he becomes - a superman - very messianic in quite a few ways. This is actually the premise behind the Smallville television series. I want to see how Straczynski handles the stories.
I'm not at all suggesting that DC Comics endorses the concept of God. I am saying that I believe it is impossible to answer the very important questions of identity and purpose without consulting the one who made us.
Clark Kent Takes First Flight in 'Superman: Earth One' Preview [Exclusive] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Radio Free Geneva...Accomplished!
Radio Free Geneva...Accomplished!
Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism by John MacArthur - Apologetics 315
Explaining the Heresy of Catholicism by John MacArthur - Apologetics 315
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Christ the Redeemer - A Panoramic View
Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Christ the Redeemer - A Panoramic View
Clarence Thomas Was More Fun When He Was Drunk - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
On the Black Snob blog, there is a clip of an interview of Lillian McEwen, ex-ladyfriend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on Larry King Live. All I could say was, "Wow, she threw him under the bus!" It's amazing to me that she waited over twenty years to dredge up all this stuff now!? I think Thomas' wife calling Anita Hill's office inappropriately and asking for an apology for the hearings that would have been better left in the 80's when it happened. I smell something weird. It is obvious that McEwen is going to get a book deal and much promotion. Could the Thomases be in on this?Clarence Thomas Was More Fun When He Was Drunk - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Kalamullah.Com | In the Shade of the Qur'an | Fi Dhilal al-Quran
Kalamullah.Com | In the Shade of the Qur'an | Fi Dhilal al-Quran
YouTube - Call Me Senator - From David Zucker
Yes, it is hilarious. However it does have a ring of truth. One's position should never become so important that all your attention is given to the status while forgetting that you should be serving the people who put you in power.
YouTube - Call Me Senator - From David Zucker
Fistbump of the Day #5 - THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Five Reasons why Jesus would not agree with the Right Wing….
THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Five Reasons why Jesus would not agree with the Right Wing….
Apologist Interview: Alan Shlemon - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Alan Shlemon - Apologetics 315
Truthbomb Apologetics: Audio: Does God Exist? by Dr. Frank Turek
Truthbomb Apologetics: Audio: Does God Exist? by Dr. Frank Turekhttp://www.blogger.com/blog_this.pyra?t=&u=http%3A%2%2Ftruthbomb.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F10%2Faudio-does-god-exist-by-dr-frank-turek.html&n=Truthbomb+Apologetics%3A+Audio%3A+Does+God+Exist%3F+by+Dr.+Frank+Turek
