The term "prophet" is thrown around very liberally. Prophets are often thought of people who can just tell the future or reveal knowledge from supernatural sources. Biblically, the job of a prophet is much more than that. A prophet was God's mouth piece. He or she (yes, there are a few female prophets in the Bible) spoke the words that God gave them to speak. Here is a documentary about Edgar Cayce.
If you look at the documentary you can see that Mr. Cayce seemed to be a nice and moral christian who was only interested in helping others. He also seemed to advocate the wholistic health practices that are so en vogue today and although this documentary focuses on his medical successes I have seen another documentary talking about his forecasts concerning the future.
So, was the man a prophet or not? The Bible does not tell us to use the fact that a person is nice and moral, or that they perform miracles, or that their predictions always coming true as proof that God sent them. The Bible gives us the criteria to use.
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes. - Deuteronomy 13
Cayce embraced reincarnation and I can find no documentation that he endorsed Jesus as the answer to sin and reconciliation back to God. Truth is, Cayce didn't even describe God as a transcendent being as the Bible does. According to the scripture package I cited there is no way, you can say that He pointed to God. The thing is that Cayce was in a trance when he did his thing and no prophet in the Bible is described being moved by God the same way. I don't think Edgar Cayce is a prophet.
Here is a humorous video of actor Christopher Hayden Church acting the part of an American hunter who is injured in Canada but refuses to be treated by the free Canadian Health Care System. This is hilarious!
doI got the graphic at the left in a tweet from lilhappyheathen. The artist most definitely has a message to convey. With the slogan"Know Your Bible" and a visual aid supposedly depicting the meaning of 1st Timothy 2:11. Unfortunately I don't think the graphic adequately explains what Paul meant when he wrote to Timothy, and people who think it is what the passage means do not know their Bible as well as they think they do. Let's first look at the passage in context (vs 9-15)
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
I want to discuss this on two point of views. 1 - let us look at what the text is really saying and who the audience is. 2 - Let's look at what the early church thought about women.
First, in the context of the passage, Paul is writing to Timothy about how a church should run. I won't attempt a full exegesis of the whole passage I quoted but concentrate on the part the image focuses on. If anyone would like to discuss more of other verses, just let me know. The first thing to ask is why did Paul say that women in congregation should "learn in quietness and full submission"? Simple. In the first century literacy was really low for people in general and women in particular and did not receive the same level of education as men. So instead of interrupting services with questions, the teaching here is let women ask questions later.
If you were to take the view that the Bible is saying that women are weaker or dumber than men, then you have Paul conflicting with himself and with Jesus. If you look at 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly agrees with Genesis 3 that Adam was to blame for the failure in the Garden not Eve. She was completely tricked and had no intention of outright rebellion against God but Adam was not tricked he understood what he was doing (Romans 5). Also look at the fact that Jesus had women followers who sat at his feet and learned from Him personally (ie. Mary, Lazarus' (the one Jesus raised from the dead in John 11) sister).
As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." - Luke 10:38-42
Also don't forget that the first to find the empty tomb were women in a time when women testimony was not taken seriously in the 1st Century. And the first person to see Jesus after the Resurrection was Mary Magdalene.
Some of the named leaders in the early church were women! Dorcas (Acts 9:35-43) was an important church member. Priscilla along with her husband Aquila taught Apollos about Jesus in Acts 18:25-27. Priscilla and Aquila were partners in ministry and life.
If Paul did not think women could be church workers and teach why did he say of a woman:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. - Romans 16:1,2
What kind of work do you think she was doing? I'm sure it included teaching not just cooking and cleaning in the kitchen! The Greek word translated in the NIV as "servant" is translated in other translation as "deaconess". Phoebe was a female deacon and "deacon" meant the same thing then as it does today - a church official who supports the ministry and is trusted to teach!
Could a man who is chauvinistic and hate women write the following?
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3: 26-29
I don't think it's a fair conclusion that the Bible takes a low view of women. Just let the Bible speak for itself and at least assume that the same author would not outright conflict with himself. I mean if you are coming up with an interpretation that conflicts with another passage the problem is your understanding and you should consider revising it.
I'm not trying to argue that western civilization has not subjugated or persecuted women. And the Church is guilty of crimes against women and in trying to use the Bible to validate those crime - but I find no evidence that the 1st Century church did that and that the Bible condones it. Blame the people who did the evil, not the Bible because the Bible condemns us for it. It's not on God but people.
On September 9, 2009 President Barack Obama spoke to both houses of Congress about the plan he is advocating to reform our Health Care system. His speech was great. I thought that he was as articulate, intelligent, and gracious as always. I also thought he did a great job explaining his points and debunking the lies his opponents are pushing such as "death panels", insuring illegal immigrants, and covering abortion. Here is the video
Unfortunately there was an event during the speech that may overshadow what the President was actually trying to communicate. When Obama categorically denied that he was suggesting that illegal immigrants should have universal health care coverage, South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" in the middle of the President's speech.
I was shocked and appalled. These are supposed to be professionals. How could he disrespect the President of the United States that way? Second, how could he be that ignorant to think that Obama's plan would include covering illegal immigrants. I think that if Obama were white, Wilson would never have done that. Today, Wilson apologized but I don't believe it. I don't think that it from the heart at all, just going through the motion to protect his career.
This video is based on a book by Karen Armstrong. I read the book several years ago and I was extremely disappointed. Karn Armstrong approaches the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and Koran are all nothing more than human products. She disavows a personal God who intervenes in history and the lives of people. I think that Armstrong thought this because she failed to personally encounter God as a Catholic nun (read her introduction). I don't know why she did not meet God. I'm not qualified to judge her honesty or her experience, But I can testify that if we reach out to God we will find him. It seems like she was looking for an experience like those of the Catholic saints and the Biblical prophets instead of seeking her own unique experience.
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 keep track of 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. I will make his checklist bullets blue and my comments will be in black. This will be in 2 parts. The second part will cover the video after 5 minutes and 6 seconds.
14. Declare that until further notice that the way only for these cognitive beings to rectify their sinful nature while on Earth is to perform ritual animal sacrifices and other acts of senseless violence. Additionally, when certain sins are committed by any one of your cognitive beings, demand that the surrounding community kill that being themselves. Check!
Why must there be blood sacrifice? The principle is substitution - life for life. Sin is a debt that can only be paid by blood because sin is truly that bad...that awful...that the only way sin can be atoned for is that someone has to die. Unfortunately the blood of animals is not enough for final and complete cleansing. To argue against the public execution of law breaker in ancient Israel is to come against capital punishment and the death penalty. Many folks today reject the death penalty, but just because you yourself don't see any crime worthy of death, doesn't mean that God sees the world that way.
15. In the mean time perform many epic miracles for all to see, and intervene often with your physical creations; stop the sun in the sky, part the Red Sea, turn rivers into blood and women into pillars of salt, give men superhuman strength, speak to the thousands with a booming voice from Heaven, etc. But, before these cognitive beings become advanced enough in the areas of science and communication that they could actually document, share, playback, and verify these epic miracles, make sure you stop performing them all together. Check!
God has not stopped performing miracles altogether. There have been several documented cases of miracles happening even today. I myself know of God healing power when He healed me of arthritis, not to mention other cases. What about holding reality together? As near as we can tell, there is no reason why reality retains the qualities it does have. If quantum mechanics is correct then there is some ultimate observer determining everything we measure and observe. It this isn't miraculous than I don't know the author's definition. Check that.
16. Decide at some point that the most pressing of your objective moral prescriptions are not as obvious to these cognitive beings as you once thought. Take this opportunity to chisel your top ten moral concerns into two tablets of stone and commission one of your cognitive beings to deliver these tablets to the masses. (Note to self: Roughly half of these moral concerns should center around pleasing you, praising you, and remaining loyal to you.) Check!
Check this. Obviously the Ten Commandments are not obvious because we break them all the time. Breaking one, breaks them all. Only 4 out of 10 of them center around our relationship with God. The other 6 deal with how we treat one another. Funny how the author tries to insinuate that God is cruel and selfish.
17. After several thousand years, impregnate one of these cognitive beings so that she gives birth to your son in physical form, who also happens to be you at the same time. Check!
"Impregnate" is pregnant with the meaning of sexual intercourse and God did not have sex with marry to conceive Jesus Christ. While the Bible does teach that Jesus is God, incarnated in human form, it's important to really understand what is being said because the author makes it sound like Christians are confused. The Trinity is not a confusion. God is one being...existing as three divine, co-equal, and co-eternal persons. It's confusing because today we treat "being" and "person" as the same thing but they are not. "Being" describes what an entity is, but "person(s)" describes who entities is/are. Also given our finiteness its hard to grasp how God could be one being but three persons since we think of ourselves as one being/one person. Why would an infinite being be bound to that? Simple. God isn't.
18. Allow this cognitive being who is your son but also you to grow up and make several revisions to you/your son’s original standards of morality. Then arrange for other cognitive beings to torture and kill you/your son. Authorize this sacrifice of yourself to yourself as a means of granting all other cognitive beings immunity to the consequences of their sinful nature, which you allowed them to be born with in the first place. Check!
Jesus made no revisions to the standards the Jews were already given. He only pointed out that thoughts are just as bad as the actions themselves and when asked what the greatest commandment is.
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:34-40
Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.
In addition, because Jesus is the perfect sacrifice for our sins, we no longer need to offer sacrifices and again God allowed us to be born in sin for reasons we don't fully understand yet. But God is making something awesome and beyond wonderful and we can't see it all yet.
19. Do not however, make this sacrifice free. Establish that none of these cognitive beings shall be eligible for the benefits of this sacrifice unless they actively believe that it happened. In other words, despite the quality of their intentions, any cognitive being henceforth who finds themselves unconvinced that these events actually took place is unwittingly designating themselves for the endless suffering of Hell. Check!
The author presupposes that in and of ourselves a human being is capable of living up to the standards of holiness and purity that God has set. The author thinks that it's unfair that good people could suffer for eternity in Hell and the only thing they failed to do was not to believe that Jesus is the only way to God. The author is wrong. No one is that good or that moral that they meet the standard. Because all have sinned and fallen short of the ideal, the only way to be reconciled back to God is by riding Jesus' coat-tails. On our own, apart from Jesus, everyone of us deserve to go to Hell. Check that.
20. That established, be sure to refrain from making it clear and knowable to the rest of the world that these events actually took place. Ensure that no cognitive being born after the first century has the luxury of witnessing your son (Who is also you) say or do anything to indicate that he was a living god. Again, make sure that all of this occurs before the advancements in science and technology are available to verify it for those who aren’t present. Check!
This is one of the reasons why the Resurrection is so important. Jesus died really and for true, however He did not stay dead. He is alive and anyone who desires to have a personal relationship with Him can have it. You can experience the same Jesus that they did in the first century because Jesus can live through you in a union even closer than the apostles and His followers enjoyed when they were with Jesus as ministered on earth. It's hard to explain to one who has never experienced. We can categorically say that if you make the attempt to reach out to Him, you will find Him and experience what I'm talking about. The author is wrong, you can witness the power of God today and know Jesus for yourself!
21. Arrange so that the only surviving record of these events will be authored anonymously, by non-eyewitnesses, translated to a language different from the one you/your son will speak, and written no earlier than thirty years after you/your son performs these miracles and makes these claims. However, do make sure that these records feature the precept that believing in something without evidence is morally superior to investigation and verification. Check!
Check this: I don't have time to go over textual criticism or explaining how we got the Bible, but I totally disagree with the author. In terms of ancient documents, any document recorded 30 years after the events it describes is like an eye blink of time and could have easily been an eyewitness as tradition holds. I think its arguing from silence saying that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. Recall that on a few occasions Jesus spoke to Gentiles and to Pilate. How do we know that He spoke only Aramaic to them and a good case could be made that Jesus could read Greek (the Septuagint, from which Jesus quoted, is the Greek translation of the Old Testament). In addition, just like today educated and intelligent people spoke multiple languages. I'm sure that He at least spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Who would be more intelligent than Jesus - The Logos incarnate? I disagree that faith mean believing something without evidence. That's not the definition of Biblical Faith and if you read Luke and Acts, then you know the author says the he carefully researched and investigated the facts and wrote them down. Even if you disagree that the one who wrote them was Luke, you cannot deny the following passages:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. - Luke 1:1-4
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. - Acts 1:1-3
22. Be sure that after only a few decades the only accounts of these events in existence are copies of copies of copies of copies, which will be verifiably altered and added to in historically and theologically significant ways from generation to generation, sect to sect. Do not preserve the original copies of these accounts, do not protect them from revision, and do not set in place any mechanism for protecting them against being interpreted in hundreds upon hundreds of ways, most of which being heretical, and therefore punishable. Check!
Again, I don't have the time to go into textual criticism and how the Bible was transmitted, but I will recommend the King James Only Controversy by James White and his Debate with Bart Ehrman if you want to fully understand why the author is completely off base. God did preserve his Word - Both testaments whether you like the way he did it or not.
23. Do not bother to employ your omniscience in such a way as to discern which of these cognitive beings are truly rebelling, and which simply don’t know how to distinguish you from other versions of God which do not in fact exist, but which are attributed the same claims of exclusivity. Check!
God does know who is rebelling and who can't distinguish the truth. The thing is that we are accountable. No one will ever to be able to say to God, "I rejected Christ because I could not tell who was telling the truth." We all make choices and will have live with the consequences.
24. Do not make it clear to these beings that you’re even here. Allow for your very existence to remain an easily debatable, easily questionable, and easily doubtable proposition. Allow for billions and billions of souls to be unthinkably tortured for all of eternity regardless of their character, integrity, bravery, responsibility, or conduct, because they had not correctly assumed that the right set of propositions were true by the time their lives on Earth were over. Check!
It is clear to every honest person that God exists. People rationalize and contort and squirm but deep down we all know that there is a creator - one whom we are all ultimately accountable to. No one has a high enough character, brave enough, honest enough, responsible enough, or even remotely good enough to deserve heaven. We all deserve to go to hell.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
So, wanna re-think that item on the check list? You should. No way would it be on it.
25. And finally, when all is said and done, demand that you be praised for this plan. Check!
I do think that this one is on the checklist. God demands our worship because He deserves it. If you don't believe that creating all of reality by speaking it out of nothing into existence and holding it together by His will is enough to worship and serve Him, then let's make it personal: every single breath you take - every thought you are allowed to think - everything good and decent about you - you owe Him. Still not enough to praise Him? Fine. One last point: God is not obligated to save anyone. He could have chosen to save everyone, no one, or some of us. He'd be perfectly in his rights to do either. He chose to save some of us when we did not now we needed to be saved, did not want to be saved and did not love Him. He takes our rebellious and sinful hearts and free us from sin and its consequences. He make it available to all who believe! If that is not worth praising Him for, then you have no idea how horrible of a condition you are really in.
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
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.
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!
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.
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
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!
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tqwtBrk3x9P5TPyBPlogHgg2M1HZqVTFwxKA0gXD1yheT5AIvwXEzD-nbu3HBlXOUh-uTbh_Q840kCl6UQi82VY361qUfW_U3gA9CKdbcTw878Nho1UQVp__4GpbeXHa79zbZUXIB4xWDcC-r-GDo=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uNpLQ7TK5-XW99bveovYZZTI9kBDsrox-06IrhO7y9CPcGPQJmqYI3mApZDDBNZrvqWVIXYGF6wRsVVJvHB5XUD0rS4IiQ4rLNpiWoKvpUOb64QQsme1t49np5easV4dXwnk_KU8-gBCzw6nGuutGU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tbYo-KUQeI4mkzbv9mgQlsijm4SJj0eQTz344TD5JRwbLUbqGRKS2Q14Sjl2rbkvYelmxmk-M5v9oyu74PV20GyZOPS6KDvZg5P2C5Tq7UMChuIFP7zh0zaeamI5OJyHdz3mfIgskVgsn-IE5YJoes=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t0uvlYBVOYptgRYjFkWIjnF5ALShh8lmhZb2c1VZkffJfaSFNFJUf18MivpNe2JLwZNB17XQ30al18CLj9kObUn0DJM0u2Rg6l3G4oalz8HtbpbuVWgdCJPpmWOp0X9ofUz9i9aQwU96y1yoOKVoU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tDbbTFQ5QVwyMn6YxsYAsPeU9XlOgZXys-FzZQ8Ixv1GhDK096FjE26m5Ta1I9ytCqYLTozBHyUFNSIwFE3m6xPdYnkwNFHZIr9kwniFpguo7vQI_5vZWMkkI6WV-NiidoBQwP7SbMatuIjMKzzbXN=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vW-Xo4QEmABkoLbDhkstzJMknSABD6_9WGB4nkJS2qX4gOmASDdX2rF-6R-12cgw8m1-gugOydW-0zebNfIJ2sP8s6tImQbkMbvN9_bevIGvqGxS5IiRUAjBOacLjS0HOSvj0-FqG-etALrjJWwtRq=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tmz6hMUA5BqtB1nfrVtZHCtxJsgwGtVTyue3aXj5jqeHgyyNkHDIp0Un8VR5Kw-Ui20iHPVuMrT2J_ZGLK1zxA2SFZ6uDl3jr2gzZd848HDnQP-bgSiwt5t76eM953QTRV270YZY_X7fxCwUG1Dfw=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vY11YwhYdT0JJrYwJZtO-GqB5CQSDESd7boexm-sdw0rdl21AhLyU4yFokvrNdXwelggDImJI0HcPSnVUx-8cx6bIfiPBmkAV9u7enkdWl9dJUw6uqm-SKSyijn03wf3t4NXAtuW-9qvAH68qThKkk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ttLluXzcb7a85RVEorathm_cnjhEJOZqOr9Gy9WVJEvEMELI4SsisZJ2bIU1J4cJ59-pNGSyHJOOpWQGqXe_Rp5rcTqZ9COQDXmncAhRdql9OwhT8ApNx7mysEeIEP8zgWG0acasMbGfNW6GlJnFRk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s8BtKJ51HIVGD1QV5qc6Baf_5xA-PEUk0MSCC9CYIwwb_s_IAojkRFNodNcvNl7Vn_LNLZEifZrUiZQEros6PlM67BKJaTgxZDC51wVfCg9eBfdWEtfgVmAkhXlZeXTI3UCBrZ41WPNr69nGeA_So=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v5HhVXXBON7Shu6IZsonq2zsWnL7cleRIg3rVuTg2bUd6aaY1PjRjr3XtX7TmRJA4VUYnSl4p23YH3VG8VEIiM4V5heFPeGsqV33zWR6fdH9UGSop3nIL6Ixlaey82stPUevR9AiXmLo9BfUtFl9Lj=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t8WNfMFX5eEMI6RE2RxYP7HzskKxBfqG4QabnfnePQ9rnLbL9jK3FEg6ZxwwgmgvAIfJ2qavTd9LRaymtOj1lfE4TktffOMWWNbtQ19nTqAXxIGW_DN7Bjs9613YIBNAFGUErZsMloRh30IixrO-hl=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sUt6VGUmzNxqDAm246Rs3mUmP7DhGRfG-x1uZmqk5nxrKIYsy82bNNJS9b-WR355G7kgEi3egJQGydzCeyJglKzORjk_L9rUuByPzPqVUPK9d97CJjCTFE8Ns2qE1oYQwLHPA-MfJmt9aAKZIUbm_E=s0-d)
