The Great Debate: Does the Bible Adequately Answer for the Problem of Suffering

I have been waiting for the opportunity to see this debate. You can follow the he link below so you can see watch the debate.

The Great Debate: Does the Bible Adequately Answer for the Problem of Suffering

The debate is awesome. The problems of suffering and the existence of evil are the most powerful objection to Christianity but it has no teeth. It has no power. I love to hear Michael Brown. He did a greast Job. Ehrman is right about what the point is: Does the Bible give a coherent answer let alone an adequate answer. I don't get why Ehrman wants to give a single answer to problem in which the Bible gives multiple answers to multiple for different situations. The good does suffer and so does the wicked. The one thing I wish that there was more time was for Brown to answer Ehrman's points on how he thinks the Bible gives contradictory information and answers and how does Ehrman knows what is good and what is bad for people?

Debunking Christianity: The Omniscience Escape Clause

John Loftus accuses Christians of answering the "Problem of human suffering"  by claiming that God's will is a mystery.

We've heard this escape clause so many times before. "My ways are not your ways," an ancient superstitious canonized Biblical text says of God. "How do we know what an omniscient God might do?" an apologist chimes in. It could be how God purportedly communicated to us in ways that are indistinguishable from anything else we see in the ancient world, or the tragedy of the Haitian earthquake, or a child suffering and soon to die from Leukemia. How can we judge an omniscient God's ways we're asked over and over, with an implied "We can't." The answer is obvious. We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing. It's that simple. If God does not act as a loving person would do then all we can reasonably conclude is that God is not acting like a loving person would do. And if God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye.

I have a four issues with Loftus' analysis:

1.  Does this mean that Loftus thinks that the earliest copies of Isaiah does not have text we have in Isaiah 55:8-9?

 ⁸ "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,"
       declares the LORD.
 ⁹ "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

2.  How does the fact that people are suffering prove that God is not loving?

3.  I agree with Loftus when he wrote:

We must be able to understand enough of God's ways to know that his ways are good and that he knows what he's doing.

How does Loftus know that we can't understand enough of God's ways to know that God is good? Dare, I say that it? Yes, I should. It requires a relationship with God. something an Atheist can't have.


4. How does Loftus know "God does not respond in discernible loving ways when tragic events take place then it looks entirely as if tragic events happen randomly without his ever-watchful eye." Duh! Of course you cannot see God's movement or loving ways if you don't know God. it takes a relationship.

Also the old saying "God works in mysterious ways." is a colloquial one not a Biblical one. We can know God. We can know Him for ourselves.

 ¹³ "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, ¹⁴ if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. - 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

"Seeking his face" means getting to know God.

²⁸And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. ²⁹For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. - Romans 8:28-29

¹Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. ²Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Roman 12:1-2

Debunking Christianity: The Omniscience Escape Clause

YouTube - Does God Exist - Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig Part-1 of 14

It has just come to my attention that the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig has been posted on YouTube!




YouTube - Does God Exist - Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig Part-1 of 14

Brennon's Thoughts: Questions for Anti-Molinist Inerrantists

Brennon has asked some great questions on his blog that he believes Molinism answers, but God's decrees does not. My comments are in red.

How do you explain how God knew the two divergent paths that God foresaw if Zedekiah either chose to surrender to the king of Babylon or not (Jeremiah 38:17-18)? Assuming this was a free choice, God told Jeremiah to tell Zedekiah that if he chose to submit to Babylon, he, his city, and his family would all live. But God also foresaw the other possibility; what would happen if Zedekiah did not surrender, namely his death and his city's destruction. God obviously knew what would happen, and which choice Zedekiah would make. But God also knew what would happen if Zedekiah made the other choice.

I agree God knows each and every possibility and probability. God knew what Zedekiah would not surrender. I don't really see how that supports Molinism.  I  mean in order for everything that plays out the way that it did, the Babylonians had to destroy Jerusalem. Don't forget the fall of Jerusalem was prophesied many times before this point. I'm not saying that Zedekiah did not do what he himself wanted to do, but what I am saying that it's not a surprise because God already called this one centuries before through several prophets.  Check out Habakkuk 1 which some scholars date to the late 7th century BC and considering that Zedekiah made this decision around 586 BC - about 100 years later. Should not be a shock or a surprise.

How did Jesus know what Sodom would have done IF His miracles had been performed there in Matthew 11:23?

Jesus knew because Jesus is God and God knows everything.  Again I don't see how that supports Molinism.  I think a more important question that if God knew Sodom would have repented if  Jesus had performed his miracles, then why didn't God do that and prevent destroying them? The answer is that it was part of the overall plan God has. Where all things works together for them that love God and are called according to God's purpose (Romans 8:28-29) . God's will and purpose and ours. 

How did Jesus know what would happen if the disciples cast their net to the opposite side of their boat (John 21:6)?

Again Jesus knows everything. The question this begs is. Were the fish on the opposite side of the Boat because they just happened to be there or were they there because God told them to be there?  I don't know. In such a situation, maybe it doesn't matter.  I'd go the rout of decree because of all the little things that had to line up for those fish to be there. The weather, the currents, the time of day, the tides (gravitational forces on the water from the moon, sun, and other heavenly bodies), the life interactions and histories of each and every fish and their parents going back to the days of creation - had to line up just right for those fish to be on the side of the boat Jesus told them to throw their nets to. Not to mention all the factors I left out.  Why would we not serve a God like that?

Oh, and those of you who reject Molinism because of James White's weak polemic, you really need to repudiate that ridiculous picture he has floating around the web with Craig and the Pope. That's a pretty blatant genetic fallacy if I ever saw one.

I know when I saw that graphic Brennon mentioned I re-posted it myself. I didn't really stop to think that it might offend some people. If it did, I'm sorry. However, i think it illustrates some key points.

1. In his debate with Christopher Hitchens, William Lane Craig said Calvinism was a false Christianity.  I don't think that is true at all. No more than calling Jacob Arminius a heretic and claiming anyone who agree with him as bing hell-bound.

2. Molina came up with Molinism because he wanted to give an answer against the Reformers who began preaching that God was in complete control of everything regardless of what our free will says. Molina was a Roman Catholic clergyman and that was his job - come up with a counter answer. From what I can tell only Dr. William Lane Craig reaslly expounds on his ideas today and it's not popular in Roman Catholicism..

3. Picturing Craig with the Pope is not a genetic fallacy given that that Molinism is Roman Catholic invention and Craig has embraced the approach of magnifying the commonalities among Christians and downplaying the things we disagree on - y'know like the sinlessness of Mary and her being a Co-Redeemer with Christ.  Not all Roman Catholics hold these ideas, but the Pope does. Give the turns that WLC have made (not neccessarily sinful or bad) I see every reason to make the tie with the Roman Catholic Church.

Brennon's Thoughts: Questions for Anti-Molinist Inerrantists

How Not to Witness

This strip is funny and sad at the same time. It presupposes that faith and logic are incompatible at best and antithetical at worst. I must disagree. They are not. Unfortunately, many Christians have little else to back up what they believe other than "personal revelation". We should have more to say than that. As a Christian if your personal revelation conflict with the Bible, then it can't be from God. Of course skeptics ask how do we know we can trust the Bible? I think that is where Evidential Apologetics comes into play. We can rationally and logically show that there is plenty of evidence to accept the Bible as true. I've posted quite a bit information on the blog from various sources showing why the Bible is reliable.



zILhNlnaZZaXhaeprc.jpg (PNG Image, 700x300 pixels)