THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Watchtower date-setting: false prophecies or mere misinterpretations?

I liked this video. Take a look




THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Watchtower date-setting: false prophecies or mere misinterpretations?

Atheism is Dead: Christopher Hitchens – The Atheopic Principle

Mariano has posted a great article responding to Christopher Hitchens' arguments that he always uses.

Atheism is Dead: Christopher Hitchens – The Atheopic Principle

Sunday Quote: Francis Crick on Origin of Life - Apologetics 315

Francis Crick is quoted on Apologetics 315 as follows:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

- Francis Crick

I've followed Brian and have added more context to Crick's comments. I like the quote...even the longer one. The thing I need to point out that the shorter quote does not endorse a belief in God or the Bible. I think the only thing that the longer quote does is point out the awesome wonder of the origin of life given what we know contrasted with what we do not know.

Sunday Quote: Francis Crick on Origin of Life - Apologetics 315

Evil and the God Who Knows MP3 Audio by Bruce Little - Apologetics 315

Evil and the God Who Knows MP3 Audio by Bruce Little - Apologetics 315:

"Philosopher Bruce Little speaks on the argument from evil in this lecture entitled: Evil and the God Who Knows. If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why so much evil in the world? An important and helpful discussion of the issue and its facets. Original (with notes) at bethinking.

I agreed with much Dr. Little said. I just would have thought a little differently. In order to destroy evil - to get rid of it, God would have to get rid of every single human being who ever live now lives, and will ever live.

Lee Strobel Under Fire

I have come across a YouTube four-part series of videos where Lee Strobel's convictions are challenged. I want to present multiple viewpoints on this blog. Mr. Strobel is a busy guy and he can't answer each and every crackpot challenge. So I'll take this one.





The author of the videos made the mistake of trying to explain Lee Strobel's conversion away as He only started seriously studying the Bible as a believer looking for proof. This is false. By his own testimony, that I have read with my own eyes and heard in person with my own ears, he began to study the Bible to disprove it! He was an atheist. The creator of this serious must not know Strobel well at all.

What else is wrong? The author attempts to knock down Lee Strobel's remark that archaeology supports the Bible by pointing out examples showing where the Bible conflicts with archaeology. He offers 3 major points

1. Daniel says that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son, but he really was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson.

The author is ignorant of the oriental culture of the Babylonians and the Persians and the Jews. Grandsons and even Great Grandsons are often attributed to important fathers no matter how far the generations are apart. They also seem to skip details that some of us in modern western culture would have thought was important..ie the fact that Belshazzar was a co-regent with his father and that there had been 3 kings who reigned shortly after Nebuchadnezzar was not deemed important to include. No where in Daniel does it say that Belshazzar immediately followed Nebuchadnezzar. To imply or assume that is going beyond what the Bible does say.

2. Daniel says the Darius the Mede conquered Babylon when it really was Cyrus the Great.

Then Medes and Persians were one empire! Darius and Cyrus conquered Babylon together and Darius being about 62 at the time ruled for a brief time (about 2 yrs) and Cyrus took over the whole thing. source

3. The Bible say that Ninevah was so large that it took 3 days to cross the city but excavations show that the city is only 5 km across.

Look at the text in question - Jonah 3: 3

Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days.

Obviously the author of the video is using the KJV, but looking at the NIV is much clearer. It could be taken that it took 3 days to reach the city from where the fish dropped Jonah off. Ninevah is along way from the sea.


If the author was wrong about these three Biblical contradictions, what else could he be wrong about? As for the author's point that there is no evidence where there should be, I think it's only a matter of time. It took centuries to find the archaeological artifacts that we do have. I'm sure there is a lot more to find.



Then the author tries to knock down the thought that the Gospels that correlate. The problem he points out that:

1. Different number of women going to the tomb.

No Gospel disagrees with the other by saying so-and-so was not at the tomb when one of them says she was. None of the Gospels give the total number of women who went to the tomb therefore if it were more 5, then it perfectly concievable that different subsets were named.

2. Different number of angels

It's the same thing with number of angels. If one author offers more detail than another, why would you assume contradiction?

3. Location of the stone

None of the Gospels say that the women witnessed the stone being rolled away. There is no contradiction

4. Who did Jesus appear to first

Considering that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus in the same garden as the tomb just after dawn, I think it's safe to say that she saw him first. To charge contradiction with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, you would have to say that the episode happened before Mary Magdalene and the other women went to the tomb and judging by the fact that people usually did not travel long distances in the dark of night, I'm certain Mary's encounter happened first.

5. Which disciples went to the tomb.

Does it really make sense to conclude that because Matthew did not record any disciples going to the tomb that there is contradiction with saying Peter went and saying Peter and John went. a contradiction would be to say no one went, Peter did not go, and John did not go. Neither Gospel says that. Where is the contradiction?

When the author talks about Jesus' end times prophecy alleges that Jesus failed to come back in the life time of the people who heard Him. The author has a problem. Jesus could not have been telling people that they would be alive when He comes back. Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour of his return. He even said he did not know. He told parables illustrating that we have to live like He could come back at any second but not know when. Therefore to understand that Jesus has to return in the lifetime of the hearers means that there is a lack of understanding.

The alleged charge against Matthew saying the Jesus was riding 2 donkeys at the same time is either a lie or a misunderstanding. Jesus was riding a cold...the colt's mother was walking in front of Jesus and the colt. This is how they trained donkey that had never been ridden before.

As for the other alleged contradictions there are answers for them too if you bother to just look at the Bible in its context. For example the obligatory contradiction concerning Jesus' geneology in Matthew and Luke. to the Jewish culture, you don't list everyone in a geneology just the important ones (this is what Matthew did).

I have Doherty's book "Challenging the Verdict" against Strobel's "The Case for Christ". I agree read both. I think that the author of the video is wrong about the time line for the gospels. Not everyone agrees.

These videos do not represent truth and grossly misrepresent history and common sense. An example is the thought that Christianity is just like any other religion without interacting with all of Strobel's reasons for being convinced that it's not. Neither Islam nor Hinduism are based on a body of scripture that can be dated within 30 years of the events themselves. Not just the Gospels but the epistles as well.

Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe - Apologetics 315

Brian has again posted a great article on theistic arguments. This time, he defines the Fine-Tuning argument for the existence of God. I know Brian is right, a lot of deists try to argue that an omnipotent God, described in the Bible, is not necessary to explain fine-tuning. However, I believe that such a God would have to be omnipotent because how else could he control and direct every single particle and its energy in all of reality to make everything come out as it has so that life as we know it is possible? God must be omnipotent to do all of that.

Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe - Apologetics 315

Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Video: A Great Testimony of a Jehovah's Witness who Left the Organization because of 1914

Chad has posted a great post on his blog, Truthbomb Apologetics. It's a link to a blog called The Apologetic Front hosting a video discussing the Jehovah Witness church and their teaching that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914...yeah, I know, but some people still buy it. Check out the video below and visit Chad's Blog.




Truthbomb Apologetics: Featured Video: A Great Testimony of a Jehovah's Witness who Left the Organization because of 1914

Darwin's Surprise MP3 Audio by Dr. Charles Thaxton - Apologetics 315

Brian has posted an interesting Lecture by Dr. Charles Thaxton. Thaxton's title is Darwin's Surprise: Why Darwin Wouldn't Write the Origin Were He Alive Today.

Darwin's Surprise MP3 Audio by Dr. Charles Thaxton - Apologetics 315

This is great lecture. I like the idea of looking at what data Darwin had available to him in the 1850's versus what we have now, namely the cell and DNA. Thraxton even discusses problems with his theory that was known in Darwin's own time. This is a must-listen and should be considered.

"Does Reformed Theology Matter?"

Lane Chaplin has interviewed Dr. James White on the topic, "Does Reformed Theology Matter?"

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Zoroaster?

I can answer the question posed in the title of my post in one word: No. Many people think that Christians stole ideas from Zoroaster thereby mythologizing Jesus. There are several problems with this view. The first problem has to do with dating and with sources of information we have regarding Zoroaster himself. The second problem is that Zoroaster's life that we have documented does not parallel Jesus.

There are several opinions when Zoroaster lived and when the religion started. Some say 6000 BCE or 600 BCE. For the sake of argument lets take 600 BCE, arising from Persia. The earliest written records we have were written down between 6th-9th centuries C.E. Adherents (yes, there are still follower s of Zoroaster today) believe that Zoroaster himself lived 1500 - 1000 BCE. In other words, no one is really sure when Zoroaster lived. Therefore for the majority of the time the religion has been practices it's been based on oral stories before being written down. The time scale between the time Zoroaster actually lived and his stories written down is extremely large compared to Jesus and the New Testament, no matter how late you want to date any book in the New Testament. Of course myth and legend must have clear crept into Zoroastrianism during 2000 years. Not to mention it is far more likely Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism rather than the other way around since Judaism came first. In contrast we can date the creed from 1st Corinthians 15 to just a few years after Jesus' crucifixion that most historians agree really happen. And if you reject that argument you still have to admit that the creed found in 1st Corinthians 15 is from the 50's or 60's CE and that Christians had been teaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus since Christianity's earliest days, proving that the belief did not come from legend based on people who were not eyewitnesses.

I found a link that lists common alleged parallels between Zoroaster and Jesus and discusses if they hold up or not. I've pasted it below so you can see it here.

1. Zoroaster was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason."
Zoroaster's mom was married when she gave birth to him, and there's nothing suggesting she was celibate while married. The "ray of divine reason" was apparently a purely spiritual thing, and Zoroaster's body actually was created the usual way.
2. He was baptized in a river.
Zoroaster receives a revelation while on the banks of a river. That's the closest parallel to be found.
3. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
Sort of. At age 7, he was put under the care of magi, who he frequently argued with. Later, the magi had him imprisoned, but he was freed after he made the legs grow back on a horse.
4. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
There is a parallel in the Zoroaster story to Jesus' temptation, and, yes, it does apparently predate the Jesus story by a couple hundred years. However, Zoroaster's "temptation" wasn't by the "devil" (in Zoroastrian literature, Ahriman) and it may or may not have been in the wilderness (the texts don't say). Zoroaster is tempted by a demon, not by Ahriman himself. And his temptation doesn't involve turning stones to bread or leaping from towers, just dialogue between Zoroaster and the demon.
5. He began his ministry at age 30.
True, but the earliest reference to his being thirty is post-Christian.
6. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."
First of all, there's no reference to Zoroaster baptizing with any of these things. Second of all, there's no Biblical reference to Jesus baptizing with any of these things! Is the fact that neither of them do these things a parallel?
7. He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
There's no reference to Zoroaster casting out demons, and the earliest reference to his giving eyesight to the blind is from the 10th century A.D.
8. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
Zoroaster did teach about heaven and hell, and resurrection into a non-dying body. Judgment is done by other gods, but with Zoroaster pleading the case of those who are faithful to him, though, unlike with Christianity, the faithful are not automatically saved. Salvation is achieved by works alone, unlike Christianity. And the apocalypse Zoroaster spoke of was a flood of molten metal. Sounds like a pretty good comparison, huh? However, most of this is from post-Christian writings. Also, most of these subjects begin on the Bible's Old Testament, which predates the earliest Zoroastrian references by several hundred years.
9. He had a sacred cup or grail.
First of all, Zoroaster did not have a sacred cup or grail. Second of all, Jesus (at least according to the Bible) did not have a sacred cup or grail. The Christian "holy grail" is believed by some to be the cup Jesus drank from at the last supper, and others say it was a chalice that collected Jesus' blood at the crucifixion. But as far as its being 'sacred', the Bible makes no such claim. This is a medieval non-Biblical legend.
10. He was slain.
Ummm...okay. So were Caesar, Abraham Lincoln and John Dillinger. Is this supposed to be significant? Let's look at how Zoroaster was slain and see if there is any comparison to how Jesus was slain, shall we? One story has him murdered at the age of 77 by a wizard. Another has him killed in battle. Both of these stories date from the 15th century at the earliest.
11. His religion had a eucharist.
Since they believe in salvation by works alone, why would they have a eucharist? The closest thing they have to a eucharist is a ritual involving the haoma plant, but they don't claim the plant is Zoroaster's body or blood. Besides, the earliest reference to this ritual is post-Christian.
12. He was the "Word made flesh."
No reference to this, implicit or explicit.
13. Zoroaster's followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born Saoshyant or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
First, there's nothing about his being thirty, or of the redeemer being Zoroaster himself. Even the religion disagrees with itself on exactly what's going to happen, though the date of 2341 CE is given (although how this date compares to Jesus, I have no idea). A pre-Christian text (around 400 B.C.) refers to a single redeemer who ushers in a golden age. Later post-Christian texts suggest there will be three redeemers conceived by virgins who bathe in a lake in which Zoroaster's sperm is being divinely preserved. One of these redeemers will eradicate death. Only the one pre-Christian reference could be considered valid, but that one mentions nothing about the return of Zoroaster himself or virgin birth.

Any honest person would have to agree that Zoroaster does not equal Jesus Christ. They are too different. Here are some more sources

Was Jesus Zoroaster or Buddah? - This ia good article however the author rejects Jesus and Christianity, however, great information on Buddha and Zoroaster.

Zoroaster - Wikipedia

Aren’t there some striking parallels between the Jesus and Zoroaster stories?

Confidence in the Gospel MP3 Audio by Michael Green - Apologetics 315

Brian has posted a great lecture from Michael Green. I really enjoyed it. Michael Green talks about what Apologetics is and what the Gospel really is. I think anyone interested in Christianity and Apologetics should listen to it. It is given from the the European point-of-view and it is very interesting,

Confidence in the Gospel MP3 Audio by Michael Green - Apologetics 315

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Here is another great post on Richard Dawkins and Evolution from Mariano.

Atheism is Dead: Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Terminology Tuesday: Teleological Argument - Apologetics 315

Brian defines the Teleological argument, at Apologetics 315. Take a look!

Terminology Tuesday: Teleological Argument - Apologetics 315

Iron Sharpens Iron: Gary Habermas: Did The Resurrection Happen?

Image by Vasile Tomoiagă via Flickr

I'm excited. I really enjoy Gary Habermas and there is no more important part of Christianity than the Resurrection! Here is an audio interview in which Habermas discusses the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Gary Habermas: Did The Resurrection Happen?

Iron Sharpens Iron: Thomas McGovern: Testimony of a Former Jehovah's Witness

Here is a great testimony from a former Jehovah Witness. Proof showing that God can reach you no matter what!

Iron Sharpens Iron: Thomas McGovern: Testimony of a Former Jehovah's Witness

God and Morality Debate: William Lane Craig vs. Torbjörn Tännsjö MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

William Lane Craig debates Torbjörn Tännsjö on the topic of God and morality: "If God is dead, is everything permitted?"

It's a good debate. The thing is William Lane Craig was again awesome demonstrating that without God as ultimate authority on Morality, right and wrong have no meaning. What is to stop me from claiming whatever I want to do or say is right despite what your needs and desires if moraliy is relative? Nothing. As for DR. Torbjörn Tännsjö perfomance, three words come to mind: "Crash and Burn!"

God and Morality Debate: William Lane Craig vs. Torbjörn Tännsjö MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Sam Harris on "Real Time with Bill Maher"

Image via Wikipedia

I recently saw a Sam Harris' interviewed by Bill Maher on Real Time. I also found out that it's posted on Sam Harris' web site.





The interview turned into the two of them congratulating themselves on how smart they are condemning religious people as weak and stupid. I was so amazed at the utter infantile arguments and thoughts against God and the Bible. The interview however was useful in getting some insight as to how Sam Harris thinks. It helps to show why he is the way he is. Harris has had no personal life-changing encounter with God. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is the same tired dogma atheists use:

"Everyone is an atheist when it comes to other people's gods. I just believe in one less God than you do."

Such rhetoric assumes that all gods have the claim to validity than any other, and form common sense we know that is not true. For example, people have in the past worshiped rocks and thought it was rocks that caused rain to water crops. Is this true. No. Can I prove it? Yes. I know how the earth's water cycle goes. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I believe that Jesus is the propitiation for my sin and through Him I have eternal life. Is this true? No one can prove it wrong. Therefore if you are honest, either you must accept the evidence for the Bible and Jesus' claims or admit that you don't know.

Responding to "Top 10 Worst Bible Verse"

I came across a link in Twitter where there is a list of 10 Bible verses that which includes "approval for sexism, genocide and slavery." You can find the list yourself at Top 10 worst Bible passages. I'm reproducing the list in full and I want to respond to each verse in context. Let's see if they really do approve of sexism, genocide, and slavery. My comments are in blue. Another article that this responds to is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6816422.ece

This is the top 10 list in full:

No. 1: St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

The author of the article is correct that this verse is hotly debated. In a commentary I read I discovered the verse is badly translated in the King James Version and many English translations unfortunately follow suit. It should read "But I suffer not wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband." The Greek makes it clear. "Gune" translated woman is contrasted with "Aner" meaning "husband" not man. The context is not that women should be teachers or preachers in churches but that wife should not undermine the authority of their husbands. We would use the word today "emasculation". Any marriage counselor today will tell you that wives should respect their husbands.

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

How can one read verse 3 and skip verse 2 read the whole verse!

¹ Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. ² This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. ³ Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

The command given in verse 3 was a command to defend Israel against Amalekites aggression. Don't forget that this event happened centuries (more than 400 yrs) after the Exodus under Moses and the Conquest after Joshua.

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

So in ancient Israel, witchcraft was a capital offense. And today it's not. I'm not sure why people think that this is a problem. Sorcery was a crime. Why can't a society execute criminals? As for today, I don't think that God wants us to kill witches. This verse in context was for a theocracy. Unfortunately, today we don't live in a theocracy. This isn't cherry-picking. This is saying that God has granted mercy to all until Judgement day. I haven't the right to take anyone's life if God has allowed them to live.

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

As the article points out that the pslamist is praying for revenge against the Babylonians who destroyed his homeland and enslaved his people. It's not saying that God is pleased at the infants being smashed against rocks. The context is that when the pslamist's enemies are repaid, the ones who willl do to the Babylonians what they did to Judah will be happy when they do it.

No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

This a report of what happened and not a prescription for practice or condoned by God in any way.

No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:

“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)

In order to ignore this verse you would have to argue that intercourse with the same sex is just as natural as between men and women. Do we really want to go that far. Ignoring morality for a minute, let's just be clinical. In the face of evolution, and we know the author accepts macro evolution, how could homosexuality be advantageous to us as a species? Simple. It can't be. This does not mean that its the worse possible sin you can do and God doesn't especially hate homosexuality than He hates lying or stealing. God can cleanse us from all sin.

Please note that I have found out that there is a misunderstanding in the above paragraph. Some thought I was saying because of carefully researched evidence that I was saying that there are no good theories about the possibility of evolution explaining homosexuality. I was not. I was stating my opinion that I am not convinced by any of the theories for how macro evolution is compatible with the fact of homosexuality. For anyone who may want to start looking into the evidence themselves, AdamJTP, has given me a couple of links anyone can look at:
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouringmale homosexuality and promoting female fecundity



No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:

“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

No where in the text is Jephthah commended for his action. This is a report of what happened not prescription for what we ought to do.

No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:

‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

This whole incident was meant to be a picture of what God would do: sacrifice his own son for our sins. Again no one is told to emulate or copy this action in their own life. Look at what it is. When Isaac asked Abraham where was the lamb for the sacrifice, Abraham told him that God would provide the lamb. God did. When the angel stopped Abraham, God provided a "ram in the bush" then and He provided Jesus at just the right time.

No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

This verse does not teach that wives are less valuable or that their needs should not be met. It is amazing to me how people stop at this verse and don't go further. Verse 22 deals with wives role, but verses 23-33 deals with how Husbands should treat their wives. Husbands should love their wives and be willing to do what ever our wives need even if it means giving up our lives.

No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Slavery today conjures up the memory and guilt of racism, rape, and exploitation. People who think that the Bible promotes slavery equates ancient slavery with the way Europeans enslaved native peoples when they colonized the rest of the world. They are not equivalent systems except for being the economic basis of the society in which employed slaves. If you look at Ephesians 6:5-8 does tell slaves to obey their masters and tells them its about honoring God and not necessarily their master. Ephesians 5:29 speaks directly to masters of slaves, admonishing them to do right by their slaves and treat them as brothers. Gee...I wonder why they left these out.

Justification and the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ

For anyone who wants to understand what the Bible teaches about how people are justified by faith and reconciled back to God despite our sin-sick souls, I recommend this following sermon by Dr. James White. Check it out!

Evaluating the Claims of Evolution vs Creationism Introduction

I've been discussing Intelligent Design with Jorge Villalobos (aka minusfive) and he does not agree with me that there is a God or that Intelligent Design is a viable worldview. He also disagrees that Michael J. Behe is not a credible scientist and rejects his work. He has agree to a series of blog posts to interact. This is a beginning post to which to explain the parameters of this interaction to which I hope he will agree.

Intelligent Design is more than an alternative explanation opposed to Evolution. Intelligent Design also attempts to explain where everything comes from. Therefore it speaks to physics, chemistry, and biology. Evolution is generally considered to be a part of biology. So I suggest that we keep our discussion to how life has changed on earth and not worry about how it began this time. We can do origins later. Jorge, do you concur?

Here are some of the common assumptions that I think that we agree on.
1. There is a design in life we just disagree on how the design got there.
2. That given enough time questions about the mechanics of how life works will be answered. You, Jorge, just believe that macro evolution will be the ultimate answer.
3. We both agree that life on earth has not been constant, but has changed due lifeforms adapting to changing environments. We disagree that those changes lead to one life form to another such as a fish changing into amphibian.


More ground rules
1. A series of 4 weeks of posts, starting Wednesday September 2, 2009. Each cycle would be a week and you can post as many parts as you want. You can quote anyone and anything you want. You can post audio files and video files. Only rule about content is that it must be reference so that anyone can look up the resource themselves.
2. By September 9, 2009 we could post a positive presentation of our viewpoints without referring to the other side. Just what your conclusions are and the evidence for why you have come to those conclusions.
3. By September 16, 2009, we each post our rebuttals to the first week.
4. By September 23, 2009, we each post our rebuttals to the second week.
5. By September 30, 2009, we each post a concluding post .
6. We write with gentleness and respect for each other.

I suggest the the overall topic should be phrased as follows:
Evolution vs Intelligent Design - Which has the best Evidence?

Jorge, if you sgree to these termd please leave a comment here and the url to your blog or tweet the information.

Atheism is Dead: The Ultimate Anthropocentric Cosmology

Mario has post a great and humorous post about viewing the universe with profound self-centeredness.












Atheism is Dead: The Ultimate Anthropocentric Cosmology

On of the commenters posted a couple of great links to posts showing the immense size and majesty of the universe

Just a quick picture...
Hell Yeah, Hubble!

Disney Buys Marvel Comics

Image via Wikipedia

So far the biggest news that I heard today is the Disney is going to buy Marvel Comics in a deal that will cost $4 Billion. Shock! Awe!

I'm not sure if this going to be good or not. I should have seen it coming considering that almost every single animated series based

Image via CrunchBase

on Marvel Characters can now be seen on Disney XD (Toon Disney). Its been said that Disney wants to maximize its appeal to the 18-35 year-old male demographic. This should do it. I'm not concerned that Disney will "water-down" Marvel. It's important to remember that Disney owns Pixar, ABC, and Miramax and they managed to not mess them up. This could turn out to be good. Of course it also means that Disney will be in even more direct competition with Time-Warner that owns DC Comics.

Of course if the government says "no" this won't happen. I think that if such a merger will cause the lost of single job it should not go through.

Sources
Disney Buys Marvel: What The–?!
Disney Buying Marvel
Disney to Acquire Marvel Entertainment

The Censored Michael Behe Video Interview - Apologetics 315

On his Apologetics 315 blog, Brian has posted a great interview of Michael Behe by John McWhorter. It's real interesting. Behe is a biochemist and world renowned. He has written several book and research. He is on the cutting edge. McHorter admitted to being an atheist but found Behe's books persuasive enough to consider intelligent design. When I consider Behe's findings along with the rest of the evidence of living cells being complex mini machines on orders of magnitude more efficient than anything ever man-made, I've go to ask: "How does macro evolution account of that? It can't.

View on ExposureRoom

The Censored Michael Behe Video Interview - Apologetics 315