Quotes of the Founders : Founding Fathers quotes on religion, faith, Christianity

One of the common arguments floating around the water cooler  and the Internet is not over the idea that the future decisions and culture of the United States should be influenced by the religious attitudes of the founding fathers. No, we all seem to agree that it should be: When they framed the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the very foundation of American government, what did they have in mind? The question is were they secularist, who believed that God and religion had no place in the life of enlightened people or in government (as I have seen some atheists argue)? Or were they born-again, Bible believing Christians (as many of us Christians demand) making America a Christian nation. It's a tough question. I think both views are extreme.

I doubt that many of the Founding Fathers would ever be considered orthodox on Biblical grounds  given that that majority of them were Free Masons and/or deists. Deists believe that God created all of reality and then left it alone and does not intervene in it. Neither free-masonry nor deism meet the Biblical standards that God has for us. On the other hand, they were not atheists. I don't think a single one would have taken kindly to be called an atheist and to twist quotes in saying that they were Christian or Atheists is not fair or honest. By the definition of what I see a Christian as, none of the Founding Fathers that I know anything about measure up. I don't measure up either, yet I strive to, just at I believe they did all they knew how to do..

iI have found a great website that contains a list of quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding their individual views of religion:
Quotes of the Founders : Founding Fathers quotes on religion, faith, Christianity
I want to end this post with one of my favorite quotes from the above link:

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [Patrick Henry  - May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: MaryJo Sharp of Confident Christianity

Here is a great interview of apologist Mary Jo Sharp. Given that there are few female apologists it is awesome to hear her point of view and to find so much common ground. Given her education, background, and dedication advice she gave 9o to glorifying it's no wonder she bested Ehteshaam Gulam in their debate on Jesus' Resurrection. I enjoyed the advice she gave and I know I can use all of it in some way!

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: MaryJo Sharp of Confident Christianity

Biblical Exegesis: Isaiah 7:14

Image via Wikipedia

This time let's consider Isaiah 7:14 which says:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

I was driven to write this post because I was challenged by TheGodless on Twitter who said:

If you believe in the virgin birth, you are saying things the Bible doesn't say. Practice what you preach.

I was very amused. Of course the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. I'm sure that TheGodless assumes that I just blindly believe everything without doing any research to see if I can stand on it or not.
I'm sure he heard the rhetoric that the word "almah" translated from Hebrew here does not mean "The Virgin" but should be "young woman". Some people who have this view have attempted to suggest that Christians changed the texts in translation to say that the young woman is a virgin. The thing is the Greek Translation (the Septuagint) made a couple of hundred years before Christ renders that word "Virgin". The translators of the Septuagint were not Christians. They were Jewish Rabbis who I would argue knew Hebrew better than the people trying to say "almah" does not mean virgin in this verse. Also don't forget that the word translated "sign" in the same verse is used never to refer to ordinary events or circumstances - it's understood to refer to the miraculous! A young woman given birth would never be referred to as a "sign". But if the woman was a virgin then of course that would be a sign.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the text is saying that a child would be born of a virgin -  a miraculous birth. There are a lot of pagan myths and legends where important men/gods are "born of virgins" but even if you grant them not one of them was a true virgin birth as describes in Matthew and Luke. I've written on several of these legends and I find they were not true virgin births because the women may had been virgin before the conceiving but after the act of conceiving I would not call them virgins anymore. Something penetrated them. In Alexander the Great's case it was a Snake. In many of other cases women were tricked or raped by a god. In Jesus's case there was no sex before the conception or before Jesus' birth! That is what I would define as a virgin birth.

Announcement: Biblical Exegesis Series

Image via Wikipedia

The Bible is an awesome book. It's so deep you can spend the rest of your life studying it and still won't get out of it everything there is to get from it. I thought it might be interesting and useful for anyone who might be reading my blog to start a series where I take difficult and often misunderstood scriptures and attempt to apply a consistent hermeneutic to exegete the text. Hermeneutics is the art and science of Biblical interpretation and "exegesis" is drawing the meaning of the text from the text and not reading in presuppositions and biases. It would be most useful if readers would participate with me.

a. You can post your own interpetation of texts covered here and link me to them through the comments. We can all have some great dialogues back and forth about what we disagree about and why.
b. You can suggests scriptures that should be covered
c. Please offer your own insights, questions, and concerns in the comment section.

I think starting out, I would like to do one of these once a week and I hope you will go on this journey with me. I plan to choose scriptures based on feedback from readers as well as scriptures that just plain interests me.

Fox News shows murder and blames it on the godless

Image via Wikipedia

I found the following video on YouTube. The maker of the video plays a portion of Glenn Beck's show where Beck blames the ills and murders on society on the "godless". The video maker is quite upset and being apparently an atheist, doesn't like Beck saying that atheists are the problems and reason why there is violence in this country. I felt compared to write this because the video maker and Beck are wrong.







While, yes, America is experiencing judgement, it is not just because of atheists. We are all responsible. Just because one is not an atheist does not make one "godless" just a hypocrite if you are not living your life to God's standard. No one is hitting it perfectly so of course because of God's justice there is going to be problems. Beck is being irresponsible and not giving the full measure of what the Bible really teaches.

The Amazing Arrogance of Richard Dawkins

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Anyone who has been reading my blog knows I love James White's work. One of the things I like most is that he can disagree with a fellow Christian brother, respect him, and not throw him under the bus or consign him to hell. Although he disagrees with William Lane Craig on several points he does recognize the fact that either either he or Craig could dismantle all of Richard Dawkin's sorry arguments and expose his errors. Follow the link below to find out what James White has to say about Dawkins refusal to debate those who could challenge him on philosophical, historical, Biblical, and scientific levels. I really think Dawkinsm is scared. Against William Lane Craig, Darwin would be no help!





The Amazing Arrogance of Richard Dawkins

Iron Sharpens Iron: Doug Wilson: Is Christianity Good For the World?: Reflections on the Doug Wilson-Christopher Hitchens Debate

Doug Wilson was a guest on Iron Sharpens Iron yesterday. He talked about the interactions he had with Christopher Hitchens and the movie documentary he participated in. It was a great interview. I love hearing Doug Wilson and I think that his an able scholar and apologist. I tend  to find very little I disagree with him about however both Chris Arnzen and Dr James White disagree with Wilson on certain things. I heard Arnzen says that there were disagreement. However I'd like to see the movie and I've seen a previous debate of Wilson vs Hitchens and enjoyed it. In this interview Wilson does a great job in explaining what presuppositional apologetics is and what it isn't and how it differs from evidential apologetics.. 

Iron Sharpens Iron: Doug Wilson: Is Christianity Good For the World?: Reflections on the Doug Wilson-Christopher Hitchens Debate

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is the Judge?

Mariano has posted another article on the Trinity. This time he discuss who the Bible says is judge and worthy to judge us. Just as the Bible says: the Father and the Son are both judge.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is the Judge?

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: The Five Ways

It's Tuesday on Apologetics 315 and this week Brian gives us Thomas Aquinas five definitive arguments in favor of God's existence. Many have tried to refute these, but i think that these are good arguments and must be reckoned with. Take a look at Aquinas' logic and see if it does not make sense to you.

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: The Five Ways

Groom Fights General Zod at Superman Wedding

I'm a comic book fan. Pure and simple. However, there are lengths to which I can't go to! I'd file this under "things my wife would kill me for!" This guy enacts a scene with his bride and grooms men where he dresses up as Superman and saves his bride from General Zod with the Superman movie theme music in the background. I think that's a little much, but just me.






Groom Fights General Zod at Superman Wedding

James Bond: Agent, Hero or Misogynist? : A Feminist Reading of the Film Dr. No

Image via Wikipedia

James Bond: Agent, Hero or Misogynist? : A Feminist Reading of the Film Dr. No
A feminist reading of the film Dr. No.

This article is interesting and reminds me of  "many" scholarly articles/books where the author takes a piece of art and rcuts it to pieces with an ideological ax to grind. In this case: feminism. The premise pf the articles is that James Bond is nothing but a chauvinistic, alpha-male - out to dominate women by possessing them sexually. Okay. While James Bonds is far from the model of a man that God wants me to be like, i think the article is fairly harsh. And no, saving the world time and time again is not enough to offset using women for sexual self-aggrandizement, but I think a lot was read into Dr. No that is not really there but was only used  to emphasize the point: James Bond....bad. Women standing up for themselves....good.

http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/29860/james_bond_agent_hero_or_misogynist.html

Atheism is Dead: Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 2 of 2

Mariano has posted his second part of his latest post on Dan Barker. I love his introduction

We now continue and conclude considering Dan Barker’s hypocrisy and contradictions as he seeks to condemn in other those very characteristics which he, himself, displays.

This article is great and take a look!

Atheism is Dead: Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 2 of 2

Doctrines of Grace Seminar, Introduction, St. Charles

Last Friday, James White delivered a presentation of what the Reformed Theology is and is not. This is a great lecture.





Doctrines of Grace Seminar, Introduction, St. Charles

On Remaining Sound in Islamic Apologetics

On his blog today,  Dr. James White joined Dr. Dan Wallace on calling attention to an argument made by "Walid Shoebat [who] alleges that Codex Vaticanus (B) identifies the mark of the beast not as "666" (or 616 as some earlier manuscripts have) but instead an Arabic insertion "in the name of Allah" along with a symbol of crossed swords." Dr. White does not repeat Wallace's arguments but linked to them but I like the two addtitional comments that Dr. White offered. 

1. The rendering of Revelation 13:18 is not from much later than most of of the codex.
2. There is no way you can get the number of the mark of the Beast 666 (or 616) to be "in the Name of Allah" in Arabic! White even posted pictures of the Greek texts verses what Arabic "Allah" looks like. No way do they match!

This is important because in our zeal to show Islam is wrong about key issues concerning Jesus and the Bible, we can't just lie on Islam. We must accurately represent it at all times. Trying to equate Islam with the Anti-Christ is unfair and lying on God!


Revelations 13:18  says:

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

666 from Revelations 13:18 

Allah in Arabic

On Remaining Sound in Islamic Apologetics

When sex doesn't sell: Slew of bad ads backfire in the blogosphere -- DailyFinance

Everyone agrees that sex sells! When they work - meaning that advertisements  influence people to buy the product being advertised - they work well. People remember the product. This particular article is great. It points out that people remember advertised products either because they were awestruck or horrified. If you are horrified, you will remember the product but you might not buy it! The article points out 4 advertisements that are recent and shocking that use sexuality to sell their products. The article is right, you may find something humorous that offends another. I find the same thing in these examples. By and large many people were offended.

Example 1:  Halls commercial - mother and roommate eat a halls and it is so good that the middle-aged woman and the roommate make humming sounds of  satisfaction while looking into each others' eyes. I found this funny not offensive because neither person was doing anything wrong...it just looked awkward.



Example 2: Beer ad from Australia....no words. I'm offended because this goes under "things you can't unsee". Snow White has happy, innocent memories for me...sullied for ever.

Example 3: Mrs Clause cheating on Santa. Scary. Somethings just shouldn't be done.



Example 4: Cashing in on Sarah Palin's family problems. Remember Levi? He is the father of Palin's grandson. This ad is not just offensive...it's bad taste. How is this kid going to feel about this when he grows up?




When sex doesn't sell: Slew of bad ads backfire in the blogosphere -- DailyFinance

Richard Dawkins: The Genius of Charles Darwin

Image via Wikipedia

I just came across a television program by Richard Dawkins celebrating the life of Charles Darwin. In the interest of always presenting the views of everyone, even those who disagree with me, I'm posting the three-part series. Listen closely to how Dawkins refers to Darwin in almost messianic tones. Like he was the one who came down from Mt Olympus to enlighten humanity, freeing us from darkness. Too much. IT looks like a love letter.




Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Watch The Genius of Charles Darwin -Episode 2 in Faith & Spirituality  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Apologetics 315: 5 Characteristics of Willful Unbelief MP3 Audio by John MacArthur

Image by DashHouse via Flickr

 Here is a great sermon from John MacArthur I got from Apologetics 315. I like the way he gives 5 things that characterizes the unbelief of people in plain contrast to facts. Her uses the unbelief of the Jewish leaders when they questioned the man Jesus healed who had been born blind.. Worth listening to. 

Apologetics 315: 5 Characteristics of Willful Unbelief MP3 Audio by John MacArthur

Apologetics 315: Origins of Life Debate MP3 Audio: Meyer, Sternberg, Prothero, Shermer

 Here is a great debate! I've been looking forward to seeing debates regarding Neo-Darwinism vs Intelligent Design. We need more of these. We need to see debates where both sides presents their sides - evidence! This one is a keeper!

Apologetics 315: Origins of Life Debate MP3 Audio: Meyer, Sternberg, Prothero, Shermer

YouTube - President Obama bows to Emperor Akihito

Image by jmtimages via Flickr

Here is a slow-motion video from a couple of weeks ago. The President got a lot of flack for bowing before the Japanese emperor. I don't get the controversy.

1. Obama was not on his knees.
2. What else are you supposed do when you greet the Japanese emperor. I bet every single President or Head of State who has met the emperor of Japan bowed the same way.





YouTube - President Obama bows to Emperor Akihito

Vatican Cardinal on Gays and Transsexuals: 'No Heaven for You!' -- Politics Daily

Image via Wikipedia

 I found a great article on an interview of Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, a Mexican cardinal, who is catching some flack. Why? Because he believes the Bible and is not afraid to agree and quote it in public. For shame.
Cardinal Barragan is said to have said about abortion:

In the interview with the aptly named magazine Pontifex, Barragan begins by talking about abortion, saying that even the morning-after pill, as an abortifacient, is comparable to "an assassination." Each abortion, he says, "is a crime" and as such "merits punishment."

Grant it a lot of people don't like this. I agree with the Cardinal because he agrees with the Bible. But this is not the only "controversial" thing he said. According to the article's writer, the Cardinal really stepped in it when he was asked about what he thought of homosexuality and the transgendered.What was so bad? He said Paul was right!

The interviewer then asks the cardinal how he views homosexuality and transgendered people. Here's my translation of his answers:

A: "Transsexuals and homosexuals will not enter into the Kingdom of God, and I do not say this, but Saint Paul does."

Q: But if a person is born homosexual?

A: "One is not born a homosexual. One becomes a homosexual. It is for various reasons, such as education, or for not developing one's own proper identity in adolescence; perhaps they are themselves not responsible, but acting against the dignity of the human body, certainly they will not enter Heaven. All that goes against nature and against the dignity of the human body offends God."

The cardinal adds:

"Homosexuality is therefore a sin, but this does not justify any form of discrimination. God alone has the right to judge...We on earth cannot condemn, and as human beings we all have the same rights."

If the translation is right, I agree with the Cardinal. What is missing from this discussion is the fact that homosexuality is no worse a sin than any others. The things is stealing, lying, adultery, and every other sin that comes to mind is just as bad as homosexuality and are inborn in us. Without Jesus we all go to hell. Bottom line. A homosexual is no worse a sinner than a liar or a thief. God does not love homosexuals less than any other sinner.

Unfortunately, the Vatican is not supporting the Bible the way this cardinal is:

Catholic leaders in Rome, and a few in the United States, have been wary of accepting scientific research showing that homosexuality could be biologically determined to a great degree. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says only that its "psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" and says homosexuality is "objectively disordered" and can never be approved. It calls on homosexuals to live chaste lives.

In a sign that the Vatican prefers to take a more nuanced approach to homosexuality, a papal spokesman told Reuters that Pontifex should not be considered an authority on Catholic thinking "on complex and delicate issues such as homosexuality."

I think the Vatican is dodging. We know what explains homosexuality. The same as all sins: our depraved sinful natures that we are all born with! Sins that we can only be delivered from by Jesus. Instead of upholding what the  Bible says, they try to be palatable to the society.

Vatican Cardinal on Gays and Transsexuals: 'No Heaven for You!' -- Politics Daily

Atheism is Dead: Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 1 of 2

Mariano has written another thoughtful article about Dan Barker. One thing that I would like to point out is that Barker praises Unitarian Universalists because of their openness and non-exclusivity. Mariano, points out that they don't stand for fundamental anything and allows just about any interpretation of the Bible as long as it does not conflict with them. Mariano gave the example of how asserting Jesus' uniqueness and necessity for salvation is not tolerated among them. No wonder Barker is comfortable in their circels.

Atheism is Dead: Is Dan Barker Self Loathing?, part 1 of 2

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is the Mediator / Intercessor / Advocate

Image via Wikipedia

Here is Mariano's next part on his series on the Trinity. This time he considers which person of the Trinity is our Mediator, Intercessor and Advocate? This one is a little more complicated because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fulfill different roles. Check out his answer!

Jesus is our mediator and our advocate
Holy Spirit is our intercessor

Thanks, Mariano!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Who is the Mediator / Intercessor / Advocate

Third Eye of Oculus: Sun Tzu's Tactics used in the Vietnam War

Here is a great documentary explaining how the ideas of Sun Tzu have been used and ignored throughout history. I like this one!











Third Eye of Oculus: Sun Tzu's Tactics used in the Vietnam War