Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Common Questions about Islam and Muslims

 Beggars All is one of my favorite blogs and it has a great post on it answering specific and common questions concerning is Islam. It is definitely worth a look!

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Common Questions about Islam and Muslims

Biblical Exegesis: Revelation 3: 4 & 5

Image via Wikipedia

It's come to my attention that Revelations 3:5 is sometimes viewed as saying that it is possible for a person to loose his or her salvation. Instead of just looking at verses 3 and 4.

⁴Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. ⁵He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

Jesus is talking here. It seems to me, from the context, that Jesus is not talking about those who are not in the Book of Life. Instead, Jesus is talking about the characteristics of those in the Book of Life. Jesus is not telling us that people who overcomes the suffering and tribulations of life get to be in the Book of Life. Jesus is saying that a characteristic of those who overcome will be that they will not be erased from the book. This means that they will be in that book. No where in scripture do we see an example of someone who becomes "unborn again". Someone who is written in the Book of Life and then dropped. We did not save ourselves, why would we think that we can loose what we did not gain on our own. Therefore an apostate wold never have been in the Book of Life in the first place.

Atheism is Dead: Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

Mariano has posted a great article exploring Nietzsche's published thoughts about the logical conclusions of what Atheism  gets you. It's well-written and worthy of consideration. Nietzsche was an atheist, but he thought through the decision he was making and what it really meant! I think that is why he lost his mind. He truly saw what happens when a man totally disconnects from God. It isn't really pretty. So why don't more atheists loose their minds? One word...Grace. Even though they let go of God, God does not always let go of them. I don't think they truly see what Nietzsche saw. If they did they would abandon their silly worldviews, but they have convinced themselves that they are good without God.

Atheism is Dead: Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

TimeTravel Experiments, Parallel Universes, Stargates, 2012 and New Revelations

Here is a documentary trying to combine science and science fiction. Take a look and see what you think. I think that they tried to combine too much stuff and tried to tie things together that aren't really related.




TimeTravel Experiments, Parallel Universes, Stargates, 2012 and New Revelations

He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

I first heard about Pat Roberston's remark about the disaster in Haiti that came yesterday. David wrote:

Pat Robertson, on Haiti,

They made a deal with Satan.

Robertson reports that "Haiti" said to Satan: "We will serve you [Satan] if you get us free from the French." According to Robertson, Satan responded: "Okay, it's a deal."

Here is the video. The money quote begins around the six minute mark of the video.

I can't believe Roberston could be that stupid. Bad things don't happen to people because they made a deal with Satan. The truth is Haitian rebellion from the French happened because God allowed it and America was blessed by their freedom. Remember they bankrupted Napoleon to the point that he had to sell the Louisiana territory to the U.S. effectively doubling it. Besides loosing Haiti and loosing to Russia weakened Napoleon enough so that the British could win and start their own empire for the next 100 years! The Haitian War for independence was a watershed event that was pivotal to world history.

I think Roberston thinks that Haiti must have done something really wrong for all the horrors, not just the Earthquake, that they deal with. He thinks that God is punishing them. That makes no sense. Why don't we just see what Jesus had to say about this.

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13: 1-5

He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

The Nature of Morality part 2 of 2

As I talked about in part 1, I had been dialoguing with Beechbum about the existence of God and it ultimately came down to whether or not morality is an objective reality or depends only on what we as people agree on. I promised to respond to his point that marriage and ultimately adultery are not universal because of a handful of cultures do not accept marriage as we have in western culture. He pointed to two cultures as an example: the Na of China and Kung San in Africa. 

I checked out Kung San of Africa but I could find not example of marriage being unrecognized. All i could find was references to wedding rites. Sorry, but if you have wedding rites, private or public, your society recognizes marriage.

The Na of China (also known as the Moso)  is a lot more complex. Describing their society as not recognizing marriage is a little dishonest. They don't have the institution as we have come to define it.  Added to the myths and misunderstanding about them has not made the situation any clearer. The best resource I found on the internet was a pdf file written by Tami Blumenfield in which she attempts to debunk the myths. She points out that while to our western minds doing away with strict monogamous legal contracts, which is what marriage has become here, would promote promiscuity and abandoned children but the Na have little of that. I think that in evaluating their customs it leads us to view our own ideas of what marriage is and what it should be.

It seems to be that what the Na have is not marriage if you define marriage as a legal contract obliging a man and a woman to one another for a lifetime. But given that most of the children see and interact with their fathers, and the fathers are obligated to support the children and the children's mother, describing the Na as without "fathers" is a lie.  Of course they have fathers. Also that men have lattitude to have multiple families and women in their lives is not unheard of. The difference between polygamous societies and even our own with the Na is that the man is not legally liable to any of the women. She is free to be with who ever she wants. That's not marriage but it is what we call "an open-marriage" without the baggage of  legalistic or monogamous expectation.

Some of the articles I read seems to look at the Na system as a good one. But what does the Bible say is the ideal?  I know many will point to the polygamy illustrated in the Old Testament but never does the Bible neither condemn nor confirm that polygamy is good for people. Given the context of the Na, the system does not fall apart completely in a matriarchal world where the needs of the group/family are more important in the individual. In no way would this work in our patriarchal and selfish society. I'm not sharing my wife with anyone. In the culture shown to us  in the Bible, polygamy was allowed because some women would have had no means of support or protection if they were not married.  But I think one example shows us why it's not the best situation. Remember Jacob had four wives and according to Genesis between the wives and their children fighting, I doubt Jacob had a moment peace! No thank you.  Beechbum even admitted that it is best for a child to have father and mother in the same household...even the Na actually have that  although the households share the men.

The thing I noticed was that the ideal that all cultures really strive for is a man and a woman together in the same household with children...at least part of the time.  They all  go for it and all fall short without God. Why? Because it is a universal decree for the Creator, but because of sin, we can't do it perfectly without God. Much more could be said but the conclusion of the research I have done shows me that adultery is still wrong in every culture. The Na can break up and hook up with one another but there are still rules that govern their behavior. Rults that show that they still feel jealousy and want consistent and reliable mates even if they don't have a word meaning  "jealousy". So back to what the Bible says about the ideal. Let's end with what Jesus said.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19: 3-12

See? We were never meant to divorce our wives for any and all reasons. The Old Testament was clear on that even as Jesus demonstrated. Marriage was meant to protect men and women not subjugate women or classify them as property! One man - one woman - is the best and moral structure for a marriage.

Sources:
Shunya's Notes: The Na of China
A Society Without Fathers And Husbands: The Na of China
A World Without Fathers and Husbands
Moso
THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS
Tribes in the Kalahari desert South Africa

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

We all need to pray for the people of Haiti. We are talking about huge earthquake in the place in the western hemisphere least able to handle it. My father-in-law lives in Port au Prince and my wife still has much family in the area. There is still no word from them yet, but we will keep praying and beleive God that He will make everything workout. I have found the following news article that sums up what we know thus far. Following it are some videos.

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

Hazakim

I've posted a few articles about Hazakim on the blog. I love their music. It's not just good hip hop...it's awesome music. More important than that their message straight from God. They boast clever uses of language combined with sound exegesis. These two videos are based on two songs from their latest album. I can't wait for the next album!







Hazakim - more Info

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Alan Kurschner has posted a great article on the Pros Apologian blog on why he isn't a Roman Catholic. He quotes Tim Staples, a Roman Catholic apologist, saying thus:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."

Kurschner is not taking Staples out of context. Dr James White actually played the comment in context on his webcast recently! Tim Staples actually said this. I don't think it's fair to say that that all Roman Catholics believe this way or would agree with Staples, but from what I understand it is the official view of the Pope and what is taught from the Vatican. I vehemently disagree. Totally not Scriptural. It's important because this is the core of the Gospel that we are admonished and commanded to teach. Staples is postulating a different Gospel. In rebuttal, Kurschner printed Isaiah 52:13–53:11. Staples is not the only one who teaches this. Some Protestants do too. Norman Geisler wrote something similar in his bid to redefine the Calvinism/Arminan debate in his book Chosen be Free. God really wanted to drive the point home that is by Jesus' death our sins are atoned for and by his Resurrection we are justified!

Jesus' sacrifice was complete and perfect for all who their faith in Him! I like how 1 Peter 3: 17 - 19 puts it!

It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison

I've heard that James White will soon debate Tim Staples January 28 at 4pm MST on Purgatory and I hope it will help those who have not recognized that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and the only offering that has any power to save us. It will most certainly come up.

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues

Mariano has written a great post about various issues related to the Trinity and Resurrection. I've really enjoyed his series about the Trinity and I know that if you have any desire to know if the doctrine of the Trinity is correct and Biblical, Mariano's articles are a great place to begin your research! The issues discussed are:

Importance of Resurrection
Resurrection is Physical
Resurrection Prophesied and Witnessed
Who Resurrected Jesus?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues

Atheism is Dead: About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 3

If you ever attempt to share your faith with atheists, many of them will try to use the argument that Christianity is evil because Hitler was a Christian. Mariano's blog Atheism Is Dead has many resources refuting this farce. And this particular article is one of those In this one, Mariano lists several quotes that are used to make Hitler sound like if not a Christian, then a theist. Check it out because soon Mariano is going to unpack each one and show that Hitler was not saying what people thing he is saying.


Atheism is Dead: About.com, Austin Cline, Adolf Hitler and the Continued Promulgation of Nazi Propaganda, part 3

Apologetics 315: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus MP3 Audio by Craig Hazen

I got this great lecture from Craig Hazen about the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus from Apologetics 315. It's awesome. He discusses it and gives us 12 facts the majority of scholars agree on concerning Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and then goes through all the major theories for explaining those facts and how only his physical, bodily resurrection fits all of those facts. Take a listen using the link below.


Apologetics 315: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus MP3 Audio by Craig Hazen

Biblical Exegesis: Exodus 32:30-35

This time I would like to interact with Exodus 32:30-35. It was pointed out to me that sometimes people interpret verse 33 as referring to the "Book of Life or the "Lamb's Book of Life" discussed in Revelations. This book refers to the list containing all those who will be saved. from Hell. See Revelation 20:15 , Revelation 3:5; 20:12; and Philippians 4:3.  and Revelation 13:8; 21:27. This is confused with the "book of life" in Psalm 69:28: “Let them [David’s enemies] be blotted out of the book of the living.”. This is the "book" is Moses and God are discussing. Look at the context in the passage itself.

 ³⁰ The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."
 ³¹ So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. ³² But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."
 ³³ The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. ³⁴ Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."
 ³⁵ And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

I see this as totally not talking about the book in Revelations because in the context these events take place right after 3000 people were killed after Moses found Israel worshiping the Golden calf. I read about this issue in an article that defends the doctrine of "Eternal Security" also known as "Perseverance of the Saints". We know that as a nation, Israel was punished by lots of the people dying by the sword and by that plague.

Source
What is the Book of Life?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 3 of 4

Here is part 3 of  Mariano's series discussing Psalm 22 from Judaism and Christian point of views. This is awesome. This part deals with various scholars from across all the centuries. Here is Mariano's introduction:

There seems to be two issues in dealing polemically with Psalm 22. One issue is whether v.16 should read “they pierced” as Christianity claims, or “like a lion” as Judaism claims. The second issue is the question of whether this Psalm is Messianic or not.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 3 of 4

Iron Sharpens Iron: Leslie Wagner-Wilson: The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony

A few months ago, one of the survival of the Jonestown Massacre was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron and the mp3 has recently became available.  Here is the description!

Leslie Wagner-Wilson, author of "Slavery of Faith", will address the theme: "The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony".

Tomorrow (Wednesday, November 18) marks the 31st anniversary of the "Jonestown Suicide-Massacre" in a remote jungle settlement in Guyana, South America. 918 United States citizens died that day. An estimated 93% of those who died were African American. It was the largest number of American civilian lives lost in a single event "(before September 11, 2001, during which there were 2,974 fatalities on American soil, out of which there were 2,669 American lives lost: 2,266 civilians and 403 among the FDNY, NYPD and Port Authority Police Dept.)". This included United States Congressman Leo Ryan and his entourage. His assassination marked the first and only murder of a U.S. Congressman in the history of the United States.

After surviving sixteen months in the armed jungle compound and through daily prayer amongst a world of madness, our guest Leslie Wagner-Wilson, then twenty one years old, escaped Jonestown walking thirty odd miles through the jungle along with nine other members of the cult on the morning of November 18, 1978. Strapped to her back was a 40-pound care package - her son, later to be known as the youngest survivor of Jonestown. After reaching a small outpost that night, she would be told that Congressman Leo Ryan and four of his entourage had been assassinated along with a Temple defector. Within the next two days she would be told that all of the residents of Jonestown had died, including her husband, mother, brother, sister, niece, nephew, sister in law, brother in law and friends she had grown up and loved since 13.

Since Jonestown, Slavery of Faith also chronicles Leslie's return to the U.S. under a veil of secrecy in fear of the “death squads”, her fight to maintain faith in her darkest hours; suffering Post Traumatic Stress, survivors’ guilt, drug addiction, a family suicide, redemption and finally forgiveness. All the while holding on to the only thing she knew was true-God. It shares her journey through psychological and spiritual jungles to reach a place of remembrance—- to “live their love and not their deaths.”

I have given this a listen and I am amazed. Her testimony is nothing short of miraculous. I'm so sorry that her family was killed but the story of how she survived is amazing. She also spoke about although it wasn't reported often that most of the victims were black. We are talking about 0ver 900 civilians killed almost at the same time. I've seen documentaries. Listened to the news. However nothing like hearing it from someone who was there. I thought Jim Jones started out orthodox, but Leslie testifies that he wasn't and they were so brainwashed and so caught up they couldn't see it.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Leslie Wagner-Wilson: The Jonestown Suicide-Massacre: A Survivor's Testimony

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are Jesus and the Archangel Michael the Same Personage?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is the next article in Mariano's series of blog posts regarding the Trinity. This time Mariano presents Bible passages that refute the heresy that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. Some Jehovah Witnesses teach this. The Bible says different!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Are Jesus and the Archangel Michael the Same Personage?

Apologetics 315: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible MP3 Audio by Amy Orr-Ewing

On his blog, Apologetics 315, Brian has posted a great lecture presented  by Evangelist Amy Orr-Ewing. The subject: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible. The Five questions she answers:

• “How can you present the Bible as true?”
• “How can the Bible say anything at all?”
• “Isn’t the Bible sexist and out of date?”
• “Why is the Bible any better than any other Holy Book?”
• “How can the Bible be relevant for 21st century life?”


You can hear her by visiting Apologetics 315 at the link below.


Apologetics 315: Five Postmodern Questions About the Bible MP3 Audio by Amy Orr-Ewing

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

I found this interesting documentary on google. Here is the summary:

Written and presented by Desmond Morris (1997). Will boys always be boys and girls always be girls? Will we ever really understand each other? You may be shocked by your conclusions. Prepare yourself for an intimate, erotic examination of physical differences between the sexes, from body fat to brain power. See Turkish men demonstrate their suitability as mates by wrestling in olive oil. Celebrate Mardi Gras in New Orleans, where women bare their breasts to entice men to reward them with strings of beads. Observe women who flaunt their femininity as exotic dancers, and female body builders who develop their muscles to the point of masculinity. Examine brain scans that show that men and women even think differently about the same problems. 'Different But Equal' explores whether the amazing differences between men and women are based on biology or history.

The Human Sexes (Part One) - Different But Equal

The 10 Most Expensive Comics Ever

Although finding a near-mint condition copy is nearly impossible, if you happen to own any of these old comics where popular characters make their first appearance, you could be sitting on hundreds of thousand dollars. Take a look through our gallery of the ten most valuable comics in the world, and what makes them worth six figures.

The 10 Most Expensive Comics Ever

The Geek Teamups of Sherlock Holmes, From Batman to Doctor Who

This is a fascinating article about various ways Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed in modern comic books and literature! This is a fun article! Sherlock Holmes has teamed up with Batman, fought Dracula, fought Joker, and has adventures far outside the ideas of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


The Geek Teamups of Sherlock Holmes, From Batman to Doctor Who

The Nature of Morality part 1a of 2

This is wonderful. I've really struck a chord with the previous post about morality. Beechbum has actually provided comments worthy of response. His response is in black and mine are in red! I've changed the format of his response to make them easier to read.

Beachbum said...

You don't think the bible treats women as property:

"Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't."

This is from the King James Version: Judges 19:23-25 (King James Version)

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

And if you want a real good definition of chattel, read to the end of the chapter. But I have more, just in case; Genesis 19:7-9 Another case of Women as property

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But does god punish Lot for throwing his daughters to the mob, of course not, he protects him from the harm that besets the cities by sending him out of Sodum and Gomorrah, but wait the god is not done yet he then turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back in remembrance:

26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

No, your religion doesn't treat women as property, it treats them much, much worse. But you have asserted even more from your state of... anyway. From your point of view slavery of biblical times isn't real slavery, not compared to, as you say; "the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans" Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed. So this is one heinous act regulated by the godly that proves morality is not objective, therefore can be changed and if it can be changed it is subjective but when it can be changed for the better, but is stopped by superstitions or a superstitious tyrant - that is truly heinous.

January 8, 2010 4:23 AM  

All Beechbum has managed to prove is that he is so biased he can't read properly. No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live.". It's not God commanding the men in these passages to do these heinous things. The Bible does not condone these behaviors. It only describes what happened. Description not prescription. What does the Bible really say about the equality of men and women.

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 3:27-29

I have written an extensive blog post truly describing how the Bible portrays women: An "Evil" of Christianity. Beechbum obviously needs to study more. I doubt Beechbum even knows why Lot's wife was punished. She wasn't punished because she was a woman. She longed for the life in Sodom that God was delivering her from. That was why she got what she deserved. And don't think that we all don't deserve the same. We should be grateful for God's mercy.

As for slavery, I was not referring to slavery practiced in all the ancient Mediterranean but only to the slavery as it was described in the books of Moses. Is Beechbum really trying to suggest that the same the same things as he referred to in the following quote happened in ancient Israel?

Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.

If such was practiced in ancient Israel. it was against scripture. No where in scripture does it say that one person can own another as property and be pleasing to God. Slavery is still with us today...denouncing it is not universal but I wish it was. I've also written more about this at Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 1.

Beachbum said...

"Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us."

Stoning is vastly different than capital punishment, not in the result of course, but for the crime that incited such action, i.e. being in the company of the wrong gender, or religious affiliation, being raped or molested. You know, crimes of the heart or mind, for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.

 Beechbum calls himself moral relativist but he feels like he has the right to judge ancient Israel for the crimes that were considered capital offenses in comparison to what is a capital offense today. The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. "Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay."  Which side of the road one drives on is arbitrary as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by the community at large, that was the point. I wouldn't equate transportation regulations with a personal choice, that would be as silly as saying adultery was wrong because your sky fairy said so. Adultery is wrong (immoral) because infants without two fulltime parents are less likely to do as well in this world, and it was even worse in our evolutionary past when social cohesion was built on the family, even extended family, unit. Along similar lines, is the socially destructive nature of theft, societies that didn't curtail it did not persist through time. The motivation for attaining goods in such a society were greatly diminished without a trust that one would reap the full reward for ones labors. Like all of your "misguided" concerns with regards to morality, while this one is only a vitriolic example of arrogance from ignorance, sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s) have been poisoning the minds of man. But this does show the level one will stoop to protect their silly superstition. Do you honestly think anyone would condone a world view that would permit such an act, hardly, but the religious relish your decrepit attempt at fear mongering, disgusting. I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted as long as you kept a wife and family.. There are a lot of taboos and crimes that were shunned by the majority of people that are no longer viewed as wrong today. They are condoned and on public display. I agree that sex with children is awful and horrible and should never be considered as plausible. However not everyone agrees with us on that point. What if they manage to convince more people that it does not harm children and the majority starts thinking that adults can have sex with children and not harm anyone. They'd be wrong, but then that would be minority view. According to Beechbum, then sex with children would then be moral. This isn't attempt at fear mongering. This is the logical conclusion for Beechbum's worldview. If morality is subjective and depends only on the opinion of the majority, then what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?

January 8, 2010 4:25 AM  

Beechbum wrote:

The rights of one individual end where another individual's begin, that is why it is not your place to tell someone else how they can live their life, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. Like your use of the old canard about Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong, conducting himself immorally. Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except  most of the nations on this world said "No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us." The majority is the only authority, because of examples like Hitler's affiliation with the Church and their interpretation of what god(s) "supposedly" said or commanded him to do about the Jewish problem. The power of morality, moral choices of right and wrong, in the hands of the power hungry is what gave us a Hitler, or the Aztec kings, just about all totalitarians in history. What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him. Since you cannot prove your god(s) even exists, how are you going to convince me that you can talk to him. Which means I would be a fool for taking your word for anything. But that doesn't matter, the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds, because there is no god(s). You had better be glad that morality is not stagnant and objective or we would still be living with the morality of Lot's daughters or the concubine, slavery or any of the bloodthirsty acts in the bible. The very fact that our morality has evolved is the proof that you are wrong about objective morality, it has already changed. You said the magic words yourself, "remember when it was illegal."

The point having a personal relationship with God is the fact that you don't have to take my word for anything. You can go to God yourself and let Him tell you how things are. The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight.  We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours. Is their good just as good as yours? If so I hope Beechbum will give me all his money, because that would be consistent with His worldview. The morality in the Bible has not changed because it is based on the unchanging character of God. Our understanding has changed. Our moral views have changed not God. When I said "remember when it was illegal" I was talking about our culture not the one God has painted for us. In that scenario - theocratic Israel - there is no such thing as "when it was illegal".

 ¹Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. ²This is what the ancients were commended for.

 ³By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. ⁴By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

 ⁵By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. ⁶And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."

Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all. And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.

 January 8, 2010 4:27 AM

          Beechbum is incorrect about the "Golden Rule". Jesus and Confuscious actually said two different

          things. Jesus did not say "Don't do to others that you don't want done to you." Jesus said that we

          should do to others as you we want done to us. It included what Confuscious said but calls us higher.

          Just don't do to other what you don't want done to yourself, but do good to others as you want them to

          do to you! That's higher. We can't just not help others but help others the way we would want to be

          helped even if they are unable to help us. This is antithetical to what is in us inherently. We only really

          want to do these types of things for friends and family if that. Jesus is commanding more. We are to

          show love like this to everyone...even enemies.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

So who has the higher morality? Jesus. We should follow him.


What had happen' was.....: The Nature of Morality part 1 of 2

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites

I respect William Lane Craig. He is a gifted scholar and debater. I was recently pointed to an essay he wrote on his website answering the question as to how could God order the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations and still be moral. I like his answer and I wanted to call attention to it. I disagree with what he said about biblical inerrancy. It is just as important as the deity of Christ or the existence of God because it is by the Bible we have proof of these things. Craig is an existentialist which is not a bad thing. but it does mean that we see something differently.

Reasonable Faith: question_16_Slaughter_of_the_Canaanites