Does God Exist? A debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Does God Exist? A debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe
Does God Exist? A debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe
FacePalm of the Day #31 - Debunking Christianity: Why I Don’t Believe the Bible is God’s Word
According to Calvinists I don’t believe because God has determined from the beginning of time that I should not believe. It’s God’s secret will for me. I cannot believe unless God wants me to believe. It doesn’t bring him as much glory if I believe, so this is what he wants. He does not want me to believe the Bible is his word. For the Calvinist this is the end of the discussion. For me, it presents an additional reason why I don’t believe, for not only do I not see the evidence to believe, I also reject the supposition that God would both call on me to believe and at the same time secretly desire that I should not believe. What does God really desire here?...that I don’t believe…that’s the bottom line. My unbelief is exactly what God desires. It brings him the most glory. Calvinists should praise God that I don't believe. But what kind of God is this? See here.
Loftus mischaracterizes and mistakes what Calvinists teach. I'm not sure where he gets his understanding of Calvinism from. Several problems right off the bat. I'm going to ignore the fact he just tries to make this a tirade against Calvinism and not try to make Arminian arguments (though that would be easy because Loftus and most atheists think we have free will). How ever let us keep it simple. No where in the entire Bible does it say that God doesn't want anyone not to believe or not come to repentance. His unbelief is not what God desires. God's glory is independent of whether he, you, or I believe. Um, that is why He is God. I know Hyper Calvinists believe in double predestination that God decrees people to either heaven or hell. I can't find any scripture to back that up. Also manymany Calvinists like James White and RC Sproul don't hold this idea.
Analogies seem to break down somewhere, but here’s one: If I was a boss and told an employee to do a particular task, but I secretly threw obstacles in his way that kept him from doing this task and then fired him for not doing the task, I would need to see a shrink. Or, I hated that employee or the company itself. But no one who knew what I did would think I was a good employer and that I worked in the best interests of the company. Even if the employee was a very poor worker and deserved to be fired in the first place, I would still be duplicitous in my dealings with him, and hence not trustworthy to deal straightforwardly and honestly with any of the other employees.
Let's suggest a more realistic analogies. God isn't a boss working for a company. God is a king with all power and authority. As employees (er..subjects) of said King...we aren't just bad employees. We are criminals deserving death for the crimes we have done. "Being fired" would just be the tip of the iceberg of what we deserve. God isn't being "duplicitous" in His dealing with us. We are. Loftus assumes that we are able to reason and understand the evidence around us in a correct manner. Why is that? If we are as hopelessly enslaved to our own sin, as the Bible says we are, how can we hope to correctly understand or reason our way to God. Simple answer: We cannot. We cannot deal straightforwardly with God or each other without God's help.
Now to just a few of the reasons why I don’t believe the Bible is God’s word.
This have been good, but it wasn't. It's train wreck.
1) I cannot stomach the whole notion of hell by conservative Christians today. Such a punishment, however conceived, does not fit the crimes (“sins”) I have done. I am not consciously rebelling against God because I sincerely do not believe he even exists. I’m following what I have come to believe to the best of my abilities as a thinking and educated person. Christians who proclaim that “the doors of hell are locked from the inside” along with C.S. Lewis, are making a ridiculous claim to me. If hell is painful to any degree, then I would want out. If hell is what I want and/or enjoyable to me in any sense, then it’s not punishment.
John Loftus does not understand how evil and bad our sins are so horrible. Hell does fit the crime. Against an infinite God, why wouldn't an infinite penalty be demanded? Every time one consciously denies the power of God and his right to command us and refuse to glorify Him one is in conscious rebellion against God. Loftus wrote "I’m following what I have come to believe to the best of my abilities as a thinking and educated person." And that is the problem. Our intellect and abilities are not enough. No one is educated enough on their own to satisfy what God has demanded of us. God has every right to make such commands and demands. He made us not the other way around.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44
2) The Bible contains too many beliefs which we reject today. Christians must scramble to reinterpret these things along the lines of modern science, psychology, and biology. I call these things the Achilles Heel of Christianity, including the the Hebrew view of the Universe. Take for instance the modern Christian view of hell, mentioned above. The standard view of hell was of everlasting punishment in a lake of fire, but with such a repugnant view in light of the knowledge of a global world of sincere people, Christians are arguing for annihilation, or a metaphorical view of hell, like C.S. Lewis. Another recent change in Christian theology is Preterism, as a way to explain why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth as it was believed in the earliest centuries of the church. Now it’s said that Jesus already returned to earth in the year 70 A.D., so that there is no longer any serious problem with a the purportedly failed promise of Jesus to return, “within this generation.”
The world is sincere alright. Sincerely sinful. No one is righteous. Our rightesousness is like filthy rags in comparison to what God requires. Loftus does not understand what Preterism is because it's not about saying that Jesus came already in 70 AD only that much of the prophecies were fulfilled then, especially Matthew 24. Jesus did not say that he would return in his disciples' generation. He provides no exegesis to prove that Jesus did. He also makes the assertion that the Bible gets modern science, psychology, and biology wrong. He's wrong. There is no where in the Bible that says the Bible is flat. I agree that trying to legitimate the Bible by reading in points from science that the authors did not intend make is stupid but likewise reading in superstition and error that isn't there is equally dumb.
3) The God of the Bible is a barbaric God . Such a view is much more indicative of ancient conceptions of a king in a cruel world than in what Christians today would expect from such a God.
Loftus continues to make arguments to debunk a God that the Bible does not present. What definition is he using to understand what "barbaric" is? Why should I accept his opinion. God is indeed King of all. He does whatever he wants. However he wants. Whenever he wants. Or allows. The Bible does not present a God that is capricious or takes joy in human suffering. I have only experienced a God that is like the God of the Bible.
4) There are so many unanswered questions in the Bible about God, his nature and his work. How is it possible for God to foreknow the future? How is it possible for a being to never learn anything, and to always and forever exist as three-in-one without ever growing incrementally into something more and more complex? How is it possible for there to exist a being who is 100% man and 100% God with every essential attribute necessary for both? Why was his death on the cross necessary before God could forgive sins? What does it mean for Jesus, as part of the Godhead, to intercede on our behalf with God the Father, another part of the Godhead?
Just because there are unanswered questions that God has chosen to not reveal the answer does not mean that there is no God. Omniscience would include knowing the future before it happen. God doesn't just know what will happen. He also directs the future. His Omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience should boggle our minds. How does the finite fully comprehend the infinite? Perfection means never having to grow or become better or complex. The Bible clearly tells us why Jesus' death was necessary. Our sins are so horrendous that it took an infinitely pure and perfect sacrifice to propitiate our sins and satisfy the wrath of God. Wrath that you and I deserve. Instead of making us pay. Jesus paid for it. As for Jesus' intercession our his people's behalf, the point of the sacrificial system, including Yom Kippur, was to be picture to help us understand what Jesus did. The Epistle to the Hebrews explains how that works. Check it out.
5) There are problems I have with the claims of miracles in the Bible. How can we judge that they ever happened when we must believe the writings of ancient superstitious people to do so?...and when there were numerous claims of miracles in that same ancient world, claims that Christians themselves will deny , including those of other faiths and cults today. This is especially true when we consider the whole nature of historical study. Anything can be doubted in history especially miraculous claims, and yet God wants us to believe based upon history? If, however, God grants us all personal experience of the Holy Spirit , then why is it so many people who were born in different times and places do not sense it, or if they do, they don’t understand it’s coming from the Christian God?
Can Loftus prove that anyone whom we traditionally believe wrote the Bible were superstitious? Nope. The Bible allows for miracles and acts to be seen from other sources that from God. There is no reason to take the idea that other religions can offer miraculous experiences from other sources! Read Deuteronomy 13 to see how we are to be able to tell if a source of miracles is from God or not.
6) Then too, the way that NT writers and persons argued leave a whole lot to be desired. Paul and Jesus argued in an ignorant fashion. Matthew claims Jesus fulfilled prophecy but his exegesis of the OT texts is flawed.
Proof? Anything? I hear crickets. I see he made links to pass articles but when you read them you see that they are just as empty as this one. If he can state his opinion and assertions about what The Bible says, I can make judgments on his statements as well.
I could go on, but that’s enough for now.
[First posted 7/12/06]
Good thing to quit while one is behind.
Debunking Christianity: Why I Don’t Believe the Bible is God’s Word.
Monday, November 29, 2010
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 3 of 5 | True Freethinker
Image via WikipediaHere is the third part of Mariano's series about God taking human form in the Old Testament. This one brings in more Jewish sources.
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 3 of 5 | True Freethinker
RIP Irvin Kershner » let the wookie win
RIP Irving Kershner » let the wookie win
RIP Leslie Nielsen » let the wookie win
RIP Leslie Nielsen » let the wookie win
How Bad of an Idea Is The Marvel Digital Comics Vault? Very. - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
How Bad of an Idea Is The Marvel Digital Comics Vault? Very. - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Matthias and Makayla playing Rock, Paper, Scissors
High Five of the Day - Calvinistic Cartoons: John Flavel
Calvinistic Cartoons: John Flavel
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 2 of 5 | True Freethinker
Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe,
“If man should be humble, there is a sense in which God is strangely humble too: If a pupil is ill, and the teacher goes to visit him, the other pupils go before to announce the coming of the teacher. But when God went to visit Abraham in his illness, He went first, before the angels (Gen. XVIII, 1, 2). Is there anyone more humble than He? (Tanh., Wayera, 2, f. 31b.)” [emphasis added]
Paul made the same point in Philippians 2. I agree that most people who are not Christian will see the connection of God visiting Abraham in Genesis 18 with Jesus' incarnation. But if God can take human form and see Abraham while maintaining his godly attributes - omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence - enthroned in heaven. If God could do that for several minutes to interact with Abraham and Sarah, He can do it for years! Say, 33 years for example - in the person of Jesus Christ. A fundamental, theological, and logical objection to the Trinity is torpedoed.
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 2 of 5 | True Freethinker
Friday, November 26, 2010
ID.Plus: Michael Behe at Charles Darwin House
I heard that Michael Behe was going on tour and I'm grateful that Peter Williams blogged one of his appearances. This one is Behe in discussion with theistic evolutionist Prof Michael Reiss at Charles Darwin House, London, on Monday 22nd November. Definitely worth checking out. Hopefully a video or and audio will be posted soon as well.ID.Plus: Michael Behe at Charles Darwin House
Philosopher Jay Richards on The Grand Design - Apologetics 315
Philosopher Jay Richards on The Grand Design - Apologetics 315
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Makayla Feeding Matthias
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker
How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil
Through the centuries theologians and philosophers from a wide range of backgrounds and interests have tried various responses to explain what appears to be a logical contradiction in the following five propositions:1. God exists.2. God is all-powerful.3. God is all-knowing.4. God is all-good.5. Evil exists.
Both men are Christians and agree on a lot of things. Beisner wrote:
Does this mean God justifies His means by His ends? Yes. Is that wicked? No. An end-justifies-the-means ethic is fallacious and therefore wicked for finite men (who can neither control nor know all the results of their choices), but it is perfectly fitting for the infinite God (who both controls and knows all the results of His choices)–and, after all, God being supreme need not justify His choices to anyone:So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Rom. 9:15–21).Does the reality of evil make the existence of the Christian God impossible? No. For good reasons, God created a world that contained evil. For those same reasons, as we have seen, the Christian position does not self-contradict.
We have seen, then, that the atheist’s claim that there is a contradiction in believing in the coexistence of God and evil is false, and that the Christian faith does have reasonable explanations for how the God of the Bible and evil could coexist.10 For God to create a good and moral universe, He needed to make creatures with free will. Along with free will came the possibility—and, as it turned out, the reality—that these creatures freely would choose evil. God, however, is willing and able to redeem this fallen world and abolish evil. He will do it, and all will be well.
Where they disagree is regarding how to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God. I find that I agree more with Beisner than Meister.
Beisner wrote:
A False Choice. Meister presents a false choice between libertarian freedom and “sham” freedom. That choice presupposes that for the compatibilist–that is, one who holds determinism and moral responsibility/free choice to be compatible, as I have argued–there is no difference between how a stone responds to gravity and how a child responds to his or her parent’s command. Hidden within this mistake is a deeper one: the assumption that “a real ability to choose one way or the other”—“libertarian freedom”—is the same thing as free will, that is, a will that is not predetermined. Compatibilists assert that moral agents (God, angels, and men) choose, but that choosing per se and choosing indeterminately are not synonymous.
I don't think we as human beings have libertarian free will because we are enslaved to sin. The only one who truly had that kind of will was Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Adam and Eve were free of sin when they were created. They chose to be enslaved by sin when they chose to disobey God. Us? Not so much...like not at all. Jesus was sinless because he is God. No one else is in their league. We were born into sin. We can't obey God, without His help, even if we wanted to and we don't want to by default outside of God replacing our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh!
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8
How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil
Arguments for God's Existence MP3 by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315
He talks about the types of proofs, Pascal's wager, first cause arguments, cosmological arguments, arguments from design, morality, desire, and more. There is a lot of great content packed into this 76-minute lecture
Brian also was kind enough to put a link to Dr. Kreeft's website which lists 20 Arugments for the existence for God. Go visit Apologetics 315 using the link below to find the lecture and the links to Kreefts site.
Arguments for God's Existence MP3 by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
FacePalm of the Day #29 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by exrelayman
The natural world is all that we can detect with our 5 senses and instruments used to interact with those senses when the scale of perception surpasses the limitations of those senses. The supernatural world then would be that which we cannot detect with senses or instruments (at the present time). This means that at the present time there is no evidence which we can discern supporting the supernatural. If and when we become able to detect the supernatural, it will have moved into the realm of the natural, as we can then detect it.Here is the part that causes growning:
This means that at the present time there is no evidence which we can discern supporting the supernatural. If and when we become able to detect the supernatural, it will have moved into the realm of the natural, as we can then detect it.
The problem is that it assumes that only things that can be observed by our 5 senses or scientific observation are real or carry any validity. Does this make sense? Here is an example: How do I know you have a brain? Can I touch it? Can I see it? Can I hear it? Can I smell it? Can I taste it? No? Of course not. Can I scan it and detect it using an MRI or X-Ray Machine? I'd assume so, but it's only an assumption. Not everyone is going to have a scan or be able to test that assumption. So how do you know? Well, other people have had the revelation of seeing such scans so we take that evidence. You may have even had a brain scan yourself. It's no different when it comes to the Bible or when it come to the testimonies of what God has done for people. The marked difference is that you may not have the opportunity to view brains scans of your or someone else yet you can experience a person revelation of God from God through Jesus Christ. While you may have accept your brain's existence by blind faith, you don't have to accept Jesus by blind faith.
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by exrelayman
Fistbump of the Day #11 - The Dunamis Word: Is Yet Another Church Emerging Out Of The Church Of God In Christ?
The Dunamis Word: Is Yet Another Church Emerging Out Of The Church Of God In Christ?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Today on a Special Radio Free Geneva
So what prompted me to do a Radio Free Geneva? Well, first, the clips from the Ankerberg Show with Norman Geisler and his dismissal of the utter refutation of his horrific "farmer and the boys in the swimming pond" illustration (and the misquotation of Matthew 23:37 as well). But after spending the first half hour on that topic, I moved into the material posted by TurretinFan here on the blog (link). I cannot think of any clearer condemnation of the biblical gospel on the part of Rome than Clement XI's Unigenitus, and I explained that by reading major portions of it. The parallels between the condemnations of Rome and the arguments of Arminians like Geisler, Hunt, etc., are striking. You might want to listen to this one sitting down! Here's the program.
Tomorrow we will have another DL at the regular Thursday evening time (4pm MST). I will be reviewing portions of the debate that took place in Mexico City including William Lane Craig and Richard Dawkins.
Today on a Special Radio Free Geneva
Rejecting the Truth with Clement XI
Some of Rome's rejections of Scriptural truth are more clear than others. One particularly clear set of examples comes from the dogmatic Constitution, "Unigenitus,"dated Sept. 8, 1713, and authorized by Clement XI. I've previously posted a full list of the 101 "errors" condemned (link to full list).
There many alleged errors identified. I've taken the liberty to highlight a few of them. Remember, these are what the Roman church has officially proclaimed to be errors.
Scripture
The Power of God in Salvation
- 79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
- 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
- 81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
- 82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
- 83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures, and have heresies been born.
- 84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
- 85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.
Particular Redemption
- 30. All whom God wishes to save through Christ, are infallibly saved.
- 31. The desires of Christ always have their effect; He brings peace to the depth of hearts when He desires it for them.
Justification by Faith that Works through Love
- 32. Jesus Christ surrendered Himself to death to free forever from the hand of the exterminating angel, by His blood, the first born, that is, the elect.
Faith as the Gift of God
- 51. Faith justifies when it operates, but it does not operate except through charity.
The Church
- 69. Faith, practice of it, increase, and reward of faith, all are a gift of the pure liberality of God.
Total Depravity
- 72. A mark of the Christian Church is that it is catholic, embracing all the angels of heaven, all the elect and the just on earth, and of all times.
- 73. What is the Church except an assembly of the sons of God abiding in His bosom, adopted in Christ, subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living in His spirit, acting through His grace, and awaiting the grace of the future life?
- 74. The Church or the whole Christ has the Incarnate Word as head, but all the saints as members.
- 75. The Church is one single man composed of many members, of which Christ is the head, the life, the subsistence and the person; it is one single Christ composed of many saints, of whom He is the sanctifier.
The Absolute Necessity of Grace
- 38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil.
- 39. The will, which grace does not anticipate, has no light except for straying, no eagerness except to put itself in danger, no strength except to wound itself, and is capable of all evil and incapable of all good.
- 40. Without grace we can love nothing except to our own condemnation.
- 41. All knowledge of God, even natural knowledge, even in the pagan philosophers, cannot come except from God; and without grace knowledge produces nothing but presumption, vanity, and opposition to God Himself, instead of the affections of adoration, gratitude, and love.
- 42. The grace of Christ alone renders a man fit for the sacrifice of faith; without this there is nothing but impurity, nothing but unworthiness.
- 48. What else can we be except darkness, except aberration, and except sin, without the light of faith, without Christ, and without charity?
The Irresistibility of Grace
- 1. What else remains for the soul that has lost God and His grace except sin and the consequences of sin, a proud poverty and a slothful indigence, that is, a general impotence for labor, for prayer, and for every good work?
- 2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done.
- 5. When God does not soften a heart by the interior unction of His grace, exterior exhortations and graces are of no service except to harden it the more.
- 9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him.
Unjust Excommunication
- 10. Grace is the working of the omnipotent hand of God, which nothing can hinder or retard.
- 11. Grace is nothing else than the omnipotent Will of God, ordering and doing what He orders.
- 12. When God wishes to save a soul, at whatever time and at whatever place, the undoubted effect follows the Will of God.
- 13. When God wishes to save a soul and touches it with the interior hand of His grace, no human will resists Him.
- 14. Howsoever remote from salvation an obstinate sinner is, when Jesus presents Himself to be seen by him in the salutary light of His grace, the sinner is forced to surrender himself, to have recourse to Him, and to humble himself, and to adore his Savior.
- 15. When God accompanies His commandment and His eternal exhortation by the unction of His Spirit and by the interior force of His grace, He works that obedience in the heart that He is seeking.
- 16. There are no attractions which do not yield to the attractions of grace, because nothing resists the Almighty.
- 17. Grace is that voice of the Father which teaches men interiorly and makes them come to Jesus Christ; whoever does not come to Him, after he has heard the exterior voice of the Son, is in no wise taught by the Father.
Yes, folks, those are things that Rome has officially taught are errors - yet many of these teachings are the truth, as I think will be obvious to most of those reading.
- 91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
- 92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul; far be it from rebelling against authority or of destroying unity.
Rejecting the Truth with Clement XI
Misquoting Matthew 23:37---Even in Writing!
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing." - Matthew 23:37
Misquoting Matthew 23:37---Even in Writing!
ATP Synthesis Video
ATP Synthase Video
FacePalm of the Day #30 - Debunking Christianity: Science Saved My Soul
I for one agree science is wonderful and I love it. However I disagree with John Loftus about how science relates to Christianity. His post deserves a Facepalm because science, when it is not biased by naturalistic materialism,points to God - His presence, intelligence, and power. And finally how can science "save" a soul given that the majority of materialists deny the existence of the human soul.Debunking Christianity: Science Saved My Soul
Chavah - Messianic Music
Chavah
The State of Digital Comics: Censorship, Price, Distribution, and More - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Right now, digital comics are like a rock sitting on top of a hill, just inches from tipping over the edge. Digital comics are full of potential energy that's just waiting to explode into something new, but it will take nurturing, careful choices, and a willingness to break from tradition to make it work. Full penetration for the market is going to require relatively cheap reading devices, an audience that has been educated about the pros and cons of digital comics, a price point that customers and publishers find appealing, and some kind of standard format that scales across platforms and provides a chance for an open source solution to prevent monopolies.Very thoughtful indeed!!!
We're living in exciting times, and digital comics may be the most important development in comic books since Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman. It has the potential to change everything, but if handled wrong, it will change nothing. Staying educated about the risks, rewards, and vagaries of digital comics can only be a good thing, especially when you decide to take the plunge yourself.
We're obviously very pro-digital comics at ComicsAlliance, but no one actually believes that digital comics will destroy print comics. What's more likely is that the two would exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Maybe some monthly comics will turn a profit digitally and end up in deluxe trades down the line. Maybe digital comics will provide an easy way to enhance printed stories. Right now, we don't know. We can guess, but most of all, we can hope.
The State of Digital Comics: Censorship, Price, Distribution, and More - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Calvinistic Cartoons by Eddie Eddings
