BBC News - Unholy row over New Zealand Mary and Joseph billboard

I came across this news story and I am shocked. St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, New Zealand recently put up a bill board shown on the left. I don't know what kind of response this springs up in you, but I find it offensive for two reasons. It makes me wonder what was the message the church was trying to send? I did some research and I found the following quote:

Church vicar Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said the billboard was intended to challenge stereotypes about the way Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story.
"This billboard is trying to lampoon and ridicule the very literal idea that God is a male and somehow this male God impregnated Mary," said Cardy, who described his church as having very liberal ideas about Christianity.
"We would question the Virgin Birth in any literal sense. We would question the maleness of God in any literal sense," he said.

In other words, the point was to take a swipe at fundamental Christian doctrine and theology. It's admitted that they were making fun of the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth  by implying that God had sex with Mary. The Bible never implies that Jesus' conception was sexual. On top of that the man said that they are coming against the maleness of God. However, God is never described as male or female...God is beyond all of that. Historic Orthodox Christianity has never embraced these ideas.

Once I found out what kind of church this is, I was not surprised. It's a liberal Anglican church. Anglican church is certainly no longer orthodox. They used to be but they really seemed to have "jumped the shark" so to speak. I went to St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, New Zealand main website and found that like many American Anglican churches are performing same-sex marriages and like more than a few churches today have turned its back on the Bible as being the final authority for faith and practice.

You can imagine that the billboard has offended a lot of people.

Lyndsay Freer, spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, said the poster was offensive to Christians.
"Our Christian tradition of 2,000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she told the New Zealand Herald. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."



As a Roman Catholic she holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, for which there is only Roman Catholic dogma and tradition that we have support so of course she is not happy. I want to be clear that not all Christians dislike the billboard for the same reasons or would agree with her 2000 year assertion or Mary always being a virgin. I've already written on why I disagree with her. However, I do agree that the billboard is wrong but for denying Jesus' virgin birth or trying to cast God as having human gender is wrong.

Sources:
BBC News - Unholy row over New Zealand Mary and Joseph billboard
Religious billboard provokes wrath, mirth
Billboard Depicting Joseph, Mary In Bed Sparks Row
Vicar wants to keep billboard

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : The Isaiah 9 Controversy, part 1 of 4

Wow! I had no idea that some tried to avoid Isaiah 9! That is mind blowing. I love this series and I hope to read more - parts 2-4. I wanted to add a couple of observations. There are several places in the Hebrew Bible that prophecies were given in the past tense although it was talking about the future. I believe it is because to God He knows the future so well (because He is doing it) that He can talk about it as if it has already happened! The only other thing I've gotta to add to Mariano's brilliance is the inescapable fact that these verses 6-7 could ever be applied to anyone but Jesus, least of all to me, you, or Hezekiah. Who else is "Mighty God", "Prince of Peace"? Wait Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize! Naahh!!!! Just kidding.

⁶ For to us a child is born,
       to us a son is given,
       and the government will be on his shoulders.
       And he will be called
       Wonderful Counselor, ^[a] Mighty God,
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
 ⁷ Of the increase of his government and peace
       there will be no end.
       He will reign on David's throne
       and over his kingdom,
       establishing and upholding it
       with justice and righteousness
       from that time on and forever.
       The zeal of the LORD Almighty
       will accomplish this. - Isaiah 9:6-7

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : The Isaiah 9 Controversy, part 1 of 4

YouTube - WWII:RARE COLOR FILM:PEARL HARBOR DECEMBER 7 1941 1

Image via Wikipedia

Archival Gold!





YouTube - WWII:RARE COLOR FILM:PEARL HARBOR DECEMBER 7 1941 1

Breaking Down The Iron Man 2 Trailer

In case you missed it...the first official trailer for Iron Man 2 has been released. Check out this article from G4TV analyzing the trailer in exquisite detail. Here is my analysis: I can't wait for this movie. I like the idea of the government coming to Tony Stark and telling him that his technology is too dangerous for him as a private citizen to control. I think that in real life if a guy really came up with such a suit, everyone would be after him trying to take it. The trailer really makes me wanna see this movie. The thing I'm most excited about is seeing the War Machine armor.






Breaking Down The Iron Man 2 Trailer

Biblical Exegesis:Acts 2:30

This week let's consider Acts 2:30 which says:

 ³⁰Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (Acts 2:30, King James Version)

But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. (NIV)

I was inspired to write this post by the arguments of TheGodless on Twitter. He was trying to use the Bible to show that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. He took this verse to mean that Jesus was a son of David in terms of what we mean today - genetically - and therefore Jesus had an earthly father and was born the same way as everyone else. I thought that it would be instructive to really look at the text and see if you can draw that meaning out.

Let's start with context. Who is speaking, to whom, and what is the speaker talking about? Peter is speaking. He and the other followers of Jesus (from 12 - 120 people) have all received the Holy Spirit and had began speaking in tongues. They had also just spent 40 days with the risen Christ and had seen him ascend into heaven.

Now consider the audience - hundreds of Jews from all over the empire in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover and Pentecost feasts. They had just heard local Jews speaking and praising God in languages that they could not have known (tongues). They knew about Jesus' crucifixion and the empty tomb. Peter is attempting to explain all of this to them and in verse 30 he makes a direct statement that Jesus was a dcscendant of David just as they knew the Messiah had to be. Keep in mind that both Mary and Joseph were descended from King David and Jesus was truly human...he had Mary's genetic traits. God performed a miracle - a live human birth without the genetic material of a man.

Instead of just focusing on defending Jesus' virgin birth, lets look closer at the first Christian sermon following Jesus' assention. It's fascinating. You get to speak up as a Christian for the first time anyone outside of Jesus has given the full gospel...what do you say? See verses 14-41. Peter tells them that they are watching prophesy being fulfilled. The people speaking in tongues and declaring God's wonders in a miraculous way. So he started with building on the miracle God had already performed because God already had their intention. Then Peter reminded them what they had witnessed concerning Jesus and then Peter warns them no to miss out on this opportunity to be free of their sins! Not all of his listeners believe but at least 3000 of them do

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'[c]

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'[e]

29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[f] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '[g]

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.!

Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim

Here is a talk that Chuck Missler gave regarding UFOs, extraterrestrial life, and the Nephilim. Here is what Missler said.




I agree with Missler on the science he presented. I even agree with his discussion of dimension and perspective. He makes good points. And I think that these ideas shared by many should be explored.

I heard a talk given by Dr. Walter Martin that shows that he thought that perhaps the talk of UFOs were because of beings that exist in higher dimensions than just the 4 we easily perceive. Some folks even go as far as postulating that the aliens that are reported are actually demons. Martin, didn't really go as far as that, but he did say that we can't just ignore the accounts of so many who claim to have interacted with extraterrestrial life. They are seeing something...experiencing something.

I have to disagree with the further assertions Missler makes. Things such as that demons attempting to pollute the human gene pool to keep the Messiah from being born or that the Nephilim of the Bible were half-human and half angel. I just don't think that the Bible holds up that interpretation.

Missler had to go outside the Bible, the apocryphal "Book of Enoch" to come up with his hypothesis. In addition the view kind of requires that we think that God and Lucifer are equals playing chess and that there is a possibility that God can loose if he doesn't block the movers Satan is doing. For example, Missler said that God sent the flood to kill the hybrids, and that Noah was saved because his DNA and that of his family was untainted. The Bible says God chose to save Noah because

 This is the account of Noah.
      Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.  Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.  So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.- Genesis 6:9-13 (NIV)

The KJV says Noah was "perfect in his Generation" but I think that the NIV is clearer. God was not choosing Noah because of his genetic purity....but for his moral purity. In addition we have no scripture that says that Angels are able to take physical form at will on their own prerogative. All this leads me to reject the notion that the Nephilim were not just human. So why would God allow demons to deceive the world into thinking that they are space aliens? I think the jury is out if this hypothesis is true or not...I'm gonna vote - I don't know what UFOs are or what people are experiencing.



Chuck Missler - Return Of The Nephilim

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resources about the Twilight Saga

Chad has posted some great resources on his blog about what Christians should view about the Twilight cultural phenomenon. I personally really like science fiction, horror, and fantasy genres. I think that what makes these genres so interesting is how we can explore philosophy, religion, and think about what it really means to be human and worldview. Some people tend to write off the genres and noit really think about what they are really saying. We need to think about who and what we are and what does society says versus what God says in the Bible.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Resources about the Twilight Saga

Golden Duas from Quran

Recently U.IBRAHIM ALI  left a list of 13 Duas in the comments of a recent post - important verses of the Koran that Muslims  should recite  everyday. On their face I agree with most of them and see no problem with them because the Bible tells us to pray the same way...except for numbers 5-9. They deal with repentance and atonement. I don't read Arabic and I know the Bible far better than the Koran so i may be understanding them out of of context. I invite  U.IBRAHIM ALI to comment further. Here is what I don't get.

1. In reciting the verses the Muslim admits that he is undeserving of mercy because he has sinned, so does that mean the Muslim expect God just to fogive that sin without penalty? Where is the the justice in that? Why shoiuld one not be heald accountable for that crap he hasd done against his creator?
2. On what basis do we have the right to ask for forgiveness on the behalf of our forebearers and others when there is no foundation for why we should be forgiven besides on the basis of God's mercy, grace, and kindness?
3. What guarantee is there that God would give us these mercies? The verses here to suggest that the guarantee for the Muslim is that he believes.

From what I know about Islams thes questions are not answered. Allah saves those He wilts and damns the others...being a Muslim is not a guarantee you will be accepted. As for how the Bible answers these questions it is quite different. The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. His character is revealed not just in scripture but in active relationship with those who believe even today.  So what does the Bible say about the questions I have asked.

 ³Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. ⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— ⁶to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
 ¹¹In him we were also chosen,  having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. - Ephesians 1:3-14

We are saved by faith in Jesus'  paying for our sins on the cross and we are guaranteed this freedom...this forgiveness...by Jesus' resurrection and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit! Here is all thirteen duas in Arabic and English.



13 Golden Duas - Arabic English Transliteration


Golden Duas from Quran

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Described as Truth?

Here is another in a series of posts from Mariano who shows that the Trinity is upheld in the Bible through showing that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each described as Truth. God is Truth. He offers several scriptures to prove that!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Which Member of the Trinity is Described as Truth?

Doctrines of Grace , Saint Charles

Image by size8jeans via Flickr

Dr. James White has posted the 2nd and 3rd parts of his recent sermon defining and defending the Doctrines of Grace.

Super-Gods: The Greatest Mythology in Comics

I just saw a great article summarizing the greatest fictional comic book character that are inspired by the ancient mythologies of other cultures. Turns out to be a lot. If I remember correctly there is a counter part for each of the Roman -Greco, Egyptian, Mayan, Aztec, Babylonian,and Norse gods and myths in the Marvel and DC universes. Thor is pictured on the left.


Super-Gods: The Greatest Mythology in Comics

Apologetics 315: A Brief History of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism MP3 Audio by Douglas Groothuis

On his blog Apologetics 315, Brian has posted two get lectures by Douglas Groothius. Them first one is about Islam and the later one is for Buddhism and Hinduism. Check  him out.

Apologetics 315: A Brief History of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism MP3 Audio by Douglas Groothuis

He Lives: Mary, once a virgin always a virgin?

This is a great post! My two cents is that Mary's perpetual virginity is just Roman Catholic dogma that cannot be supported by the Bible. The gospels clearly say that Jesus had brothers and sisters trying to make them cousin or half-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph is nothing but an attempt to keep Mary a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

Yes, I think it would have sucked to have Jesus for a br0ther at time - constantly seeing him be perfect and all, I think that Jesus experienced what it truly means to be humble and submit to his parents. I don't think they truly understood, while he was growing up who He was. If they understood they would not have mocked him or thought he was an embarrassment

John 7:5 says

For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

No, i think that to his siblings, Jesus was just their big brother. We know Jesus submitted to Joseph and Mary. He did all the jobs and chores the oldest son was supposed to do. Instead of literally lording himself over others he served others.

To me the final nail in the coffin showing that Mary's perpetual virginity is dead and should be buried is the fact that Mary was Joseph's wife and she was obligated to give herself to him sexually. No way around that. I don't care how pious and humber Joseph was there are certain things a man demands of his wife.

He Lives: Mary, once a virgin always a virgin?

Isn't religion to blame for most of history's killings?

One of the most favorite arguments against Christianity is based on the idea of shaming Jesus and his message because of us who claim to be his followers. The argument is usually worded as such:

More people have been killed by Christians in the name of God than for any other reason.

Here is a quote from John E. Remsburg:

"The name of Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other name has caused."

People whose arguments such as these really think that the Crusades, Inquisitions, the European religious Civil Wars, and persecutions by Christians in the name of God have killed more people than secular and totalitarian governments. This simply is not true. If you add up the 2000 years of Christian history and estimate the number of deaths due to atrocities committed in God's name you get  17 million! However if you do the same for agnostic/atheistic atrocities for just the 20th century, you get 1,128,000,000 people! That is about for every one person killed by a Christian, 66 were killed by atheists!

In presenting this I'm not trying to say that the atrocities committed during the crusades, inquisition, or witch burning is okay or better than say the Nazi Holocaust or Stalin's purge because less people died. No. God is going to hold all perpetrators accountable. It's all evil. However, to say that Christianity is responsible for the most deaths is simply not true.

Isn't religion to blame for most of history's killings?

Is there a Connection Between Jesus and Romulus?

In continuing my essays on the critical view that our thoughts and belief about Jesus are borrowed from pagan myths, I want consider the myth of Romulus and Remus - the founders of Rome. I found an interesting article that makes the claim that beliefs about Jesus was influenced by Romulus because according to legend.

1. Romulus and his twin, Remus, were the sons of a virgin raped by Mars - the God of War.
2. Romulus and Remus' uncle who supplanted their mother's father as a King wanted to kill them
3. After Romulus killed his brother and founded the city of Rome, a darkness covered the sun and he was ascended to heaven and made a god himself.

One of the articles I read asks the question for why is Jesus more credible than Romulus.

1.Generally speaking the founding of Rome is thought to be 753 BC, however Rome did not completely conquer the Greek Empire until about 30 BC and I doubt that we can argue that the Romans were worshiping the Greek god Ares whom the Romans called Mars back before the 750's.
2. Another point is that one of the earliest written examples of the myth was by Plutarch and can't be dated before the 1st century AD. How do we know that legend did not crop in there.
3. How closely does Jesus really resemble Romulus? He doesn't.
a. Romulus killed his brother Remus and Jesus never killed anyone - sounds more like Cain and Able.
b. Romulus became a god, Jesus was always god.
c. Romulus was conceived when a god raped his mother. Jesus was not conceived sexually - a true virgin birth. Even if you want to argue that Mars is a real god, it doesn't stack up against Jesus.

Source:
More Clues in the Legend (or Is It Fact?) of Romulus
Romulus and Remus
Plutarch
Romulus & Remus: A Lesson for Christianity

Summary & Recap on Romans and Election

Image by Brent Nelson via Flickr

If you have been reading my blog you may be aware of a discussion I've been having  concerning human free will. I wanted to make this summary post. Follow the discussion:

1. Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis
2. Responding to True Paradigm: Corporate versus individual election
3. HaloScan.com - Comments back and forth dialogue.

Response to Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog Part 2

Here is part two of my response to a tweet from TheGodless of a article that laughably tries to poke holes in the Christmas story as told in the Gospels. Again I have provided the title of the blog for laughs. His comments are quoted as he published them with mine following.

6. Despite extensive accounts of Caesar Augustus’ reign there are absolutely zero mentions anywhere that an empire wide census for which all citizens had to return to their ancestral home to register. NONE! And furthermore – how could such a thing ever logistically take place, for example –  the Bible says that Joseph must return to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there, but David lived 1000 years before Joseph. Do you seriously believe that every citizen living under the Roman empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from 1000 years prior??

This has been used too often to count. Let's try again and look at  Quirinius and the Census
and take a look at the following link also to see evidence for why we know the Census really did take place: Was Luke Wrong about the census under Quiriniua? and When Did the Luke 2 Census Occur?

7. Matthew writes than Joseph was pissed off  upon discovering that Mary was pregnant. He retires to bed that night, presumably with intentions to kill her the next morning as per Mosaic law, but an angel appears to him in a dream to comfort him that she is carrying the Holy Spirit’s child. Whereas Luke writes that Mary is unaware that she is pregnant but an angel appears to her to advise she is carrying God’s baby.

First the way the point is worded is highly misleading. It makes it seems like Jesus' conception was sexual and it wasn't. Secondly, although Joseph by right of Jewish law could have had Mary stoned, the text clearly states that he had no intention of shaming her or publicly punishing her. Thirdly,  the point that Mary did not know she was pregnant until an angel told her is false. When Gabriel appeared Mary was not pregnant yet! If the point here is that Luke and Matthew disagree then there is no point because there is no disagreement...both are true. Joseph got the information about how Jesus was conceived from an angel in a dream and Mary got it months earlier from an angel before she was even pregnant. There is no problem.

8. Matthew writes that three wise men are guided by a star from the east that leads them to Jerusalem. The star takes a breather. Starts up again and leads them to the very house that baby Jesus was born in. A star!!! Amazing shit isn’t it? Think about it, a star a million times bigger than earth parked above a small building? We can forgive the author of Matthew for this mistake as they believed stars to be basketball size fire balls 2000 years ago, but we can’t forgive those that believe this fable true today.

 As pointed out in the comments section on the article that this post is based, Matthew does not tell us how many wise men there were. Tradition assumes three because there were three gifts named that they brought the baby Jesus...I also would surmise the tradition of three wise men was also influenced by the Trinity Doctrine. However, the point is we don't know how many wise men visited the Baby. As for the star, I think the writer of the article is being too literal. Yes many stars are millions of times larger than the earth, however if the star was say millions of miles away, wouldn't it appear to be able to mark out a small building? Get real.  Of course the Bible is not describing a ball of fire "basketball size". Many debate about what the star really was. The Christian Research Journal published a great article on this. Read it here: http://www.equip.org/articles/the-star-of-bethlehem

9. Luke writes that shepherds are lead to the new born baby Jesus by an angel that visited them in a nearby field. Matthew wrote something completely contradictory (see point 8 )

The wise men (the Magi) were coming from much farther away and arrived maybe as much as two years after Jesus' birth. The shepherds' experiences of seeing the mulitude of angels heralding our Lord and Savior's birth was the same night as the birth. How is that contradictory? It is not!

10. Many other irreconcilable discrepancies of the gospels illustrated in the New Testament chapters of ‘God Hates You. Hate Him Back’ (Making Sense of the Bible) available now on Amazon or Barnes & Noble

I've written several posts responding to such contradictions. I have seen many people try to show contradiction but they just don't work. No way does it make sense. It's been 2000 years, does anyone think they can come up with a fresh contradiction that has not been refuted yet? I don't think so either. This list sure doesn't add anything new.

Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog

Apologetics 315: The Theological Roots of Modern Science by Henry F. Schaefer MP3 Audio

Image via Wikipedia

I just heard a great lecture by Dr. Henry Schaefer. He was talking about how almost all of the greatest scientists of the past 2000 years were at least religious if not full-blown Christians.  I've heard of Schaefer before and then I realized why: he said that used to be a chemistry professor at UC Berkeley and he used to teach freshmen Chemistry. I took that class myself, but not from him.. If he taught chemistry as well as he delivered this lecture, then his students were extremly blessed!

Apologetics 315: The Theological Roots of Modern Science by Henry F. Schaefer MP3 Audio

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 4

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This fourth post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: church and state, non-Christians, Environmentalists, and pluralism. My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On Church and State
If the judge can't figure out what the proper biblical punishment should be for a crime, then the judge must take the case to the church (Doug Wilson's church). The church (Doug Wilson) will then decide what the Bible says the punishment must be and the judge "wields the sword." The ultimate authority for every matter is the church (you know who's church). Everyone must be a member of and submit to Doug Wilson's church.

God has established the magistrate for the purpose of executing His wrath, but He has not made the civil ruler the exclusive authority on the question of when wrath is appropriate. If a matter is too hard for the judges to determine with the knowledge at hand, then they are commanded to take the question to the church for clarification. The church decides, based on God's Word, what judgment should be carried out, and the judges are obliged to pronounce sentence accordingly.
The state wields the sword, and must wield it in submission to God's law. But if the law is not clear on a particular point, and the state has a question about what God's law requires, it is powerless to interpret Scripture on its own authority. Instead, the state must take the question to the church, which has been charged with protecting, interpreting, and teaching the law of God. The leaders of the church are instructed to make a judgment as to what the law requires, but the church does not thereby take up the sword. Rather, the judgment is passed back to the state, and the magistrates then wield the sword in a manner consistent with the judgment of the church.
[I]t is not enough that the civil government give Christianity a place at the table, even if it is the most honored place. … Nor is it sufficient that the magistrate render "personal submission to the spiritual government" of the church. While our rulers should be members of Christ’s covenant household … a Christian who is also an executive, legislator, or judge owes a duty of submission different than that of the ordinary layman.

I do find my self disagreeing with Wilson on this point because i can find nothing in scripture that says civil authorities should take anything to the church. In fact I find the opposite.

 ¹If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? ²Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!^{[a] 5}I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
 ⁷The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ⁸Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
 ⁹Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

In addition, I doubt Wilson mean his own personal local church, but the Christian, Jesus-following, church.

On Non-Christians All citizens would be required to to take oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship. "Reforming the State ... is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion." We should have the courage to punish heretics, apostates, blasphemers, swearers, sabbath-breakers properly. (They should all be killed.)

[T]he political leader is the head of the civil covenant. If that head acknowledges that his authority comes from God (as he should), is it enough that he honors God personally? … Or can he also require, for example, oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship? (Before you balk, keep in mind that we don't have any problem saying pledges of allegiance to mere flags or the nations for which they stand.) Again, we have no problem making school children dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance, or requiring new citizens to swear oaths of loyalty to the U.S. government. Why can't they also be required to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God, and to "zealously renounce all heathen practices?" … Someone who is required to renounce Buddhism as a condition of citizenship is no longer trapped by a spiritual snare, and can't be a snare to anyone else. That is a blessing. Reforming the State is not about forcing people to be Christians. But it is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion. Historically, the civil magistrate has enforced laws against blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, swearing, and working on the Sabbath. The difficulty is not in defining or punishing these crimes; the difficulty is finding the strength and wisdom to do so.

No where in the quote does Wilson talk about killing anyone. And this is the way it was done in theocratic Israel. I don't even think that Wilson is trying to say we should do this, but it would be nice if we could. If we did it God's way would have less problems!

On Environmentalists All environmentalists are anti-Christian and all true Christians are anti-environment.

An environmentalist who seeks to "manage" the environment by letting it run wild is disobeying God's command to fill, subdue, and exercise dominion over the earth. The consequences of environmentalist philosophy are disobedience to God in the short run…. Droughts and famines do not come upon a people who are obedient, but they are promised to those who disobey. An earth left to itself will only yield thorns, thistles, disease, and decay. If Christians are to be obedient to God's dominion mandate, they must oppose the rebellion inherent in environmentalist government policy. (11)

Wilson is not talking about all envrionmentalists. Be honest!!! He referred to managing "the environment by letting it run wild". He points out that is untenable, not that we should not take care of the planet.

On Pluralism There wouldn't be any. Everyone would be forced to belong to the One True Church (Doug Wilson's Church).

[T]he Christian magistrate acknowledges there is such a thing as a true church, and that he has a responsibility to nurture that church so that it thrives and to protect it against those things that threaten to do it harm. Obviously, this excludes the idea of pluralism. (12)

A "true church" does not just refer to his church....but to all who are willing to follow the bible and obey, And by that criteria there is only one  church across several localities and denominations. Puralisim is the thought that all religous beliefs and thoughts are all equally true. Wilson is right.

The writer of the article I am responding to definitely has an ax to grind and misrepresents Wilson and the Bible. It's sad really.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Response to Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog Part 1

I received a link to this post from TheGodless on Twitter. Apparently, he seems to think that this article gives 10 good reasons to disbelieve the stories of Jesus' birth as found in the Bible. Just in time for Christmas! Oh Joy. I'm amazed that people keep bring up these points that are easily refuted and have been refuted. I've got to admit that the name of the blog on which this was posted make me laugh at the contradiction: Assuming that the writer is an atheist, how can you be "rational" (the name of the blog) and hate God although he assumes God does not exist. If it weren't so pathetic it would be funny. Therefore, I will take each of his 10 points and make comments.

1. Mark being the first of the synoptic gospels makes no mention of Jesus being born of a virgin. Matthew & Luke, the other two synoptic gospels, have differing reasons for Jesus’ immaculate conception.

So what? Mark does not discuss any of Jesus' life before his ministry began. Matthew and Luke does talk about his birth. There is no reason to dismiss Matthew or Luke or Mark because neither one conflicts with the other just because one offers details the others do not. Who are you to tell Mark how to write his gospel? In addition several commenters on the original post pointed out that "immaculate conception" historically does not refer to Jesus but to Mary and that does not go back to the first century. Jesus' being born of the Virgin Mary goes back to the beginning. No where does the Bible say Mary also had virgin birth.

2. Matthew, a Greek speaking non-Jew, goes to extraordinary lengths to match Jesus’ life to Old Testament prophecy. His inadequate Hebrew linguistic skills cause him to make more than 20 interpretative errors of the Hebrew Bible. The glaring error being he cites Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy, which it is clearly is not. Further, he mistakes the Hebrew word ‘alma’ to mean virgin. Thus the Jesus myth of a virgin birth is nothing more than a language balls up.

Again the comments made on the post thoroughly dismiss this point. I wrote about this earlier this week myself at Biblical Exegesis: Isaiah 7:14

3. Luke, the only other gospel to mention virgin birth, does not make any reference to the prophecy as being the reason for Jesus’ non-sexual conception.

Seriously?!!! Luke does not contradict the prophecy and nor does he say that there is no prophecy of Jesus’ non-sexual conception. There is no point to be made here.

4. Luke writes that Jesus was born when Quirinius was the governor of Syria! Problem is that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until 10 years after the death of Herod. Which means Matthew can’ be right with his claim that Herod was king at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Well, that's not quite true. We know that Quirinius was in Syria between 8 and 5 BC. No where in the Bible says that Quirinius was called "governor" it says that he was governing. Quirinius was running the first census during the time of Jesus' birth. You can read a great post about this at Historical Evidence for Quirinius and the Census.

5. Despite extensive records of King Herod’s reign there is no mention of a baby killing edict of children under the age of two in the Bethlehem vicinity.

Common Sense! Herod was so willing to endear himself to the Jews by spending considerable time and money on the temple in Jerusalem, do we really think that he would keep records that he massacred innocent male babies in Bethlehem? Besides this Bethlehem was a small town. With a population as estimated to be about 1000 citizens we can surmised that there were about 10-30 babies killed - horrible as that is. And of course anyone who knows anything about Herod "The Great" knows that such a thing was well possible given his character. Here is another great article on this subject: Did Matthew Fabricate the Account of Herod’s Slaughter of the Bethlehem Infants?

Top 10: Problems with Baby Jesus « Rationalists's Blog

Atheism is Dead: Atheism is Dead—God

Mariano has posted a recommendation of a book by Norman Geisler. I love the title and the cover. I will get to read this book!

Atheism is Dead: Atheism is Dead—God

Is Hell Endothermic or Exothermic?

When I was in college in 1997,. there was an e-mail floating around that I thought was hilarious. I was so green then, i took it as a true, but humorous story about a student who got a question a final exam in science that is nigh impossible to answer. At the time i thought that it was plausible because there are some mean-spirited hazing  professors in academia.. It is however just a joke. I have found several versions of it. Here is the one most like the first one I saw.

Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

The most funny alternative ends with hell being endothermic.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra during my freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct…leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting
"Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY
"A".

I know what you are thinking: it's just a joke why bring it up? or "what's Endothermic/exothermic?". Endothermic means absorbs heat and exothermic means gives off heat. As for the reason for bringing it up, other than I think it's funny, is because it shows a lack of understanding theology and where faulty premises can lead you astray. Here are some examples?

1. Souls do not have mass, but just because something is immaterial does not mean it does not exist. The Bible tells us that both those going to heaven and those going to hell will get new bodies...that I think will have mass.
2. The Bible says that hell is enlarging itself

Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied. Proverbs 27:20

Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5: 14

3. Assuming that all humanity is going to hell is assuming that all religions are wrong. That can't be assumed without proof.
4. I don't think that there is enough information to say whether of not hell is exothermic or endothermic.
5. It doesn't matter because hell and death will be cast into the lake of fire. - Revelations 20:14

The only way out of finding out first-hand if hell is endothermic or exothermic is to put your trust in Jesus and believe.

snopes.com: Endothermic or Exothermic?

Posted using ShareThis

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama Accepts Nobel Prize

I was alerted to the fact President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize today at a ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Here is the speach




Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - President Obama Accepts Nobel Prize

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]