President Obama Address School Children

Image by SEIU International via Flickr

I don't get it. If you are not aware there has been a huge hoopla since last week because Obama planned to address America's children broadcast to classrooms around the country. The speech was delivered Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It has been insane! People have said it was inappropriate for the President to address children in a speech without their parents knowing exactly what he will say. Apparently they were afraid that Obama would try to convince children (who can't vote nor direct public policy) that his agenda concerning health care reform and bailing out banks and industries contrary to the wishes and values of the offended parents. All Obama did in the speech was encourage our children to study hard and take responsibility for their education. Hardly controversial. It seems simply fear. Obama's opponents are so afraid of his ability to inspire people that they don't want children directly exposed to his ideas. Pathetic. The funny thing to me is that every President since FDR in the 1930's have used mass media to address all Americans including children. I'm also amazed about the parents who thought that keeping their children out of school will keep them from hearing the speech considering that the the speech is being carried all over television and the Internet. Here is an interview I found from CNN where Anderson Cooper really ripped into the Florida Republican Party Head Jim Greer over his remarks concerning President Obama




Here is the speech

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

This is a great comment on American torture policies. Really Funny too!

Responding to God's Check List part 1

Image via Wikipedia

I was reading through my Twitter stream and I came across a link to a video someone made in attempt to dismiss the Bible's teaching on the character and nature of God by attempting to show logical inconsistencies. The author uses the idea of a checklist which God uses to delineate His purposes and goals. The author and I agree on what Christians believe about God. He does indeed have purposes and goals and He does interact with humanity throughout history. As unbeliever the author has the audacity to think he knows what the plan of God is and what God's purposes are. I think it's worth looking at his checklist and see if it is the same checklist we see in the Bible. This will be in 2 parts. The first part will cover the video up to 5 minutes and 6 seconds. I found a transcript of the video on the Internet

Christians, you believe that your god has orchestrated a divine plan for his creation, and that all events which either have taken place or will take place were foreseen by this god with infallible certainty, and taken into consideration for this plan. You believe that this plan is motivated heavily by God’s unwavering love for his creation, and his desire for us to lead healthy, ethical lives followed by an eternity of happiness alongside him in Heaven. You also believe that your god is perfect and sovereign, and as such you believe that as mere human beings we have no grounds to critique or question this plan, that any flaw or inadequacy we may find in the plan is attributable to our imperfections as sinful, arrogant, rebellious, finite beings. So, that in mind I want to take a moment to remind you of what this plan essentially is, because I think that you rarely afford yourself the opportunity to step back and appreciate it as a whole. So without further ado here it is; God’s perfect plan for his creation, the big checklist in the sky:

1. Decide to arrange for something other than yourself to exist. Check!

The Bible clearly agrees that nothing exists outside of the actions of God. Check!

2. Create a being by the name of Lucifer with full knowledge that this being will betray you, and ultimately cause an infinite amount of suffering unnecessarily. Check!

Um...Hold up! Yes, God had full knowledge of what Lucifer would do.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

Ezekiel 28:14-16

How do we know whether the suffering causing evil is unnecessary? How do we know that God does not fulfill His goals despite what evil occurs. God uses everything and in control of everything.

15 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept.

18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said.

19 But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.

Genesis 50:15-19

I'd reword it now: Create a being by the name of Lucifer with full knowledge that this being will betray you, and ultimately cause an infinite amount of suffering unnecessarily, but I will set him up for failure before he is even created. Check!


3. Allow an unfathomably horrific dimension of existence known as Hell to emerge, created by yourself or perhaps Lucifer, and allow that to continue existing. Do not override or prevent such a thing; it will come into play later. Check!

Um, How can you say when Hell was created? Something to be considered is what hell is for.

4. Create objective, unchanging moral prescriptions and base them upon whatever your nature happens to be, and then label any action or thought contrary to these standards as sin. Check!

God's objective moral prescriptions are as eternal as God Himself is. Therefore it would not be on the checklist. And By definition "sin" is opposite and contrary to God.


5. Be sure to include in these moral prescriptions edicts for social and psychological health, such as encouragement to beat ones children with a rod (Proverbs 23:13-14), permission to buy and sell slaves and will them as property to one’s children for life (Leviticus 25:44-46), requirement that women not be allowed to teach or have authority over men (Timothy 2:9-14), and of course the instruction to kill anyone who expresses interest in worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). Check!

Proverbs 23:13-14 says:

13 Do not withhold discipline from a child;
if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.

14 Punish him with the rod
and save his soul from death.

We are now living the consequences of not doing this: a youth culture built on disrespecting authority. Parents and teachers afraid of their children.

Leviticus 25:44-46 says:

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Slavery in ancient Israel is not the same as what we th8ink of when we discuss Slavery. It wasn't racial but economic and no where in the Bible is slavery condoned or talked about a good idea, just laws limiting what you can and cannot do. Recall that back then you could not declare bankruptcy or go on unemployment or get welfare. For some people the best you could do is to sell yourself into slavery.

I've responded to the women preaching here.

So you can't check that thought...not on the checklist.

6. Design a physical universe with planets, animals, and vegetation all with the appearance of age. Be sure to include in your creation biological flaws, redundancies, and over complications that appear as if they were the product of blind accumulative processes; perhaps a urinary tract that runs straight through the prostate gland, or an unnecessary appendix prone to inflation and rupturing, or maybe a respiratory and digestive system forced to share the same pluming. Check!

I realize that this is a swipe against Intelligent Design and Creationism. This point shows a complete lack of thought and in arrogance asserts that we can come up with a better design than God's. We do not know for sure if all those "problems" being raised are really bad and we don't know if a lot of those "unnecessary" organs are truly not needed! We are still trying to figure out how our bodies truly works.

20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? - Romans 9:20-21

Not even close to being on the list!

7. Create a garden with a tree in it bearing fruit that when eaten provides knowledge of your objective moral standards. Then create two sentient, cognitive beings without knowledge or awareness of these standards and instruct them not to eat from the tree which would enlighten them. In other words arrange it so that only after they eat from the tree are they capable of understanding that doing so was a violation of objective moral standards. Check!

Adam and Eve did know and was aware of God's standard. Violating the objective morals of God boils down to one thing - Disobeying God. They knew better and they chose to outright disobeyed..damning themselves....and us. Not of God's checklist either.

8. Warn these cognitive beings that they will undoubtedly die if they eat from this tree, but don’t follow through if they do. Endow a reptile with vocal cords, lips, or some other means of speaking audibly to your cognitive beings, enabling it to make a convincing case to one of them for eating from the tree; do not prevent this or intervene. Check!

God told Adam that if ate of that tree he would surely die. Humanity was created in the image of God so that He was not designed to die. Had Adman never sinned, then neither would he had ever died. Death is the conclusion of sin - the inevitability of being a sinner. As for the talking serpent, how do you know it didn't happen? You believe in dinosaurs but never seen one alive either. God did not intervened - that's true. My question is that if God had not allowed it would you or I be here having this discussion? No way. God does have a plan and purposes for which we are discovering daily.

9. Now by this point make sure that your cognitive beings have been equipped for reproducing themselves and multiplying, and because one of them has sinned, arrange that every single one of their descendants until the end of time will be born with an inherent sinful nature, defaulting in a future of everlasting torment. Do not by any means allow each of them to be born with a clean slate and the capacity for living a sin free life if they desire, as you did with your first two prototypes. Check!

We are shaped in iniquity and full of sin. Could I personally exist without war, adultery, fornication, stealing, or even chattel slavery? I'm an African-American born in the United States so unless everything had not happened exactly the way it has not one of us would be here. None of us have a clean slate we sin because we want to sin. I agree that none of us can be sin-free because we are enslaved to sin and unable to free ourselves.

10. Endow these cognitive beings with a soul, which keeps their thoughts and feelings and other cognitive faculties in existence forever one way or another, and then allow the sinfulness of these beings to be incompatible with your presence and let Hell be the only other place they can go once they exit the physical world. Do not make any attempt to spare these souls the eternal torment of Hell, such as allowing souls to stop existing all together, or creating an additional realm for them to reside besides with you or in Hell. Check!

The author seems to not like hell. The thing thing is God has given us a way out. You don't have to go to hell if you don't want to. all we have to do is go to God on His terms not our own. Jesus is more than just an attempt to spare us hell, because it is through Him we get to be with God.

11. Over time allow these beings to populate the Earth you have created, knowing with infallible certainty of course that after so many generations they will disappoint you enough that you find it necessary to kill all of them in a global flood, and start all over from scratch. Check!

Again God had a purpose. Generations of people lived and generations of people died. And God had a purpose for their existence. The flood is included in that!

12. Now, when this happens (Again, right on schedule), make an exception for one small family of cognitive beings whom you deem righteous. Of course it goes without saying that your powers of omniscience allow to know, again, with infallible certainty that this family too will ultimately disappoint you in the same way as those you drowned, rendering the entire endeavor futile, but for now it’s best that you pretend not to know that. Check!

Yes, God knew that Noah's descendants would be just evil as the the people who died in the flood. The difference is that God has chosen to give us mercy. And it is His right to do whatever He wants to do.


13. Instruct this small disappointment of a family to populate the entire world all over again by way of incest. Check!

I'm sure the author would agree the theory of evolution and thereby would have to agree that close relatives would have procreate to pass on advantageous mutagenetic traits to the next generation. Therefore...check!

Stay tuned for my part 2 response! And here is the video in its entirety!

Trouser-wearing woman spared lashes

About a month ago, I posted the story of Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein who was arrested in Sudan and faced the possibility of being lashed 40 times for wearing pants in public! This story sent me into a state of shock. I could believe sharia laws in Sudan could be that harsh. Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein is a brave woman. I admire her stand and her conviction. I'm not sure if I would have been so quick to make waves had I been her. Given that she was arrested with 18 other women at the same time and few of them have stood with her shows how committed she is. I've recently heard today (er Monday) that she will be spared being whipped and she would instead be fined $200. However, Lubna refuses to pay the fine, will appeal and go to jail if she has to. As I had said: She's brave. It takes people like her if anything is going to change. On top of that it's got me wondering. I mean most people were more horrified by the prospect of her getting whipped than by the fact that sharia laws in Islam are so much stricter on women than on men.





VIDEO: Trouser-wearing woman spared lashes

Sudan woman spared whipping for wearing trousers


Journalist Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein fined for wearing pants


'Tight pants' woman jailed for not paying fine

Shared via AddThis

Today Now! / Facebook, Twitter Revolutionizing How Parents Stalk Their College-Aged Kids

I fell out laughing when I saw this. I sure hope there aren't parents really doing this.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : List of Old Testament Texts Applied to the Messiah in Rabbinic Writings

Here is a great post made by Mariano exploring the Rabbinic and Jewish writing regrading the Messiah. This is very interesting.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : List of Old Testament Texts Applied to the Messiah in Rabbinic Writings

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Calvinism and Hell

Here are a couple of interactions James White had on British podcasts earlier this year. James White crossed swords with Roger and Faith Forester on Calvinism and the realitity of hell

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Calvinism and Hell

Galileo Galilei

Documentary on the life of Galileo Galilei

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: From nothing comes everything

Here is a video showing how far some people are willing to go to accept scientific evidence for the Big Bang - time/space bursting into existence out of nothing - and all the while ignoring that the universe was designed and created. Sad really. But this what you get when you ignore God!






THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: From nothing comes everything

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!