Responding to YouTube - Evid3nc3's Channel

Image via CrunchBase

I've been challenged by hudsonryan on Twitter by a serious of videos on YouTube that he believes proves atheism is the only honest worldview that a person can hold and is true while the Christian World view is false. Unfortunately, he assumes because I am a Christian I have not and will not consider any other view point. In an attempt to open a dialog and rise above the assertions being leveled without proof, I have begun a new series of articles that will answer some of these videos. I will post the video and respond to it. It is my hope the hudsonryan and others will respond to my posts and explain their viewpoint insuring a useful dialogue. I welcome comments on the post themselves or full responses on their own  blog.

YouTube - Evid3nc3's Channel

Battle for the Bible Conference.

The Christian Research Institute is holding it's first National Conference. Lee Strobel will be there and there will be a debate between James White and Robert M Price on reality of Jesus' existence. This one I got see. Price has long denied that Jesus really lived. This one is one to watch.

http://www.thebattleforthebible.com/

Apologetics 315: Signature in the Cell Discussion: Meyer, Berlinski, Woodward & Medved

This is a great discussion! I thank Brian for pointing it out on his Apologetics 315 blog. I really, really enjoyed. This. Go to the link to find the post Brian made and to hear why these intelligent people are skeptical of evolution and believe that the universe had a designer. Unfortunately I could not find a video of the discussion but I did find a video showing what the overall point of Meyer's book Signature in the Cell is.


Watch Signature In The Cell in Educational & How-To  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Apologetics 315: Signature in the Cell Discussion: Meyer, Berlinski, Woodward & Medved

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 4

Mariano has continued his insights on  Bart Ehrman. This is a brilliant series and highly recommended.

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 4

Blogalogue - Ehrman vs Wright - Is Our Pain God's Problem?

I came across a blogged debate on theodicy between scholars NT Wright and Bart Ehrman. I'll be reviewing their arguments in a later post, but I want to point out it's existence. Follow their exchange at the following link.

Blogalogue - Debates About Faith


I found the awesome graphic at the following link: http://www.gavoweb.com/hit_the_back_button_to_mo/2008/04/nt-wright-bart.html

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 3

Mariano has continued his series examining the work of Bart Ehrman and his bid to undermine Christianity and discredit the Bible. Take a look at Mariano's analysis.

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 3

Confident Christianity: Women in Islam Documentary Video

Image via Wikipedia

On Mary Jo Sharp's ministry's blog there is a trailer for a new documentary about Muslim women. I want to see this because I have questions about what it mean to women to be Muslim. I mean for men Islam offers a lot of promises but what is it that attracts women? I believe that this documentary may begin to answer that question.

Confident Christianity: Women in Islam Documentary Video

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Biblical Affirmation of Monotheism

Mariano has published another great article in his series on the Trinity. In this case he covers Monothesism. The Bible is full of verses explaining that there is only one God. This is a great post.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Biblical Affirmation of Monotheism

The Apologist's First Question by Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias via last.fm

I read an essayt from Ravi Zacharias on the Internet  that I think bears reading.

The Apologist's First Question

By Ravi Zacharias


I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the Gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out. I remember well in the early days of my Christian faith talking to a close Hindu friend. He was questioning the experience of conversion as being supernatural. He absolutely insisted that conversion was nothing more than a decision to lead a more ethical life and that, in most cases, it was not any different from other ethical religions. I had heard his argument before. But then he said something I have never forgotten: "If this conversion is truly supernatural, why is it not more evident in the lives of so many Christians I know?" His question is a troublesome one. In fact,it is so deeply disturbing a question that I think of all the challenges to belief, this is the most difficult question of all.

I have never struggled with my own personal faith as far as intellectual challenges to the Gospel are concerned. But I have often had struggles of the soul in trying to figure out why the Christian faith is not more visible. After lecturing at a major American university, I was driven to the airport by the organizer of the event. I was quite jolted by what he told me. He said, "My wife brought our neighbor last night. She is a medical doctor and had not been to anything like this before. On their way home, my wife asked her what she thought of it all." He paused and then continued,"Do you know what she said?" Rather reluctantly, I shook my head. "She said, 'That was a very powerful evening. The arguments were very persuasive. I wonder what he is like in his private life.'"

Because my Hindu friend had not witnessed spiritual transformation in the life of Christians, whatever answer she received were nullified. In the doctor's case, the answers were intellectually and existentially satisfying, but she still needed to know, did they really make a difference in the life of the one proclaiming them? The Irish evangelist Gypsy Smith once said, "There are five Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Christian, and some people will never read the first four." In otherwords, the message is seen before it is heard.


For both the Hindu questioner and the American doctor, the answers to their questions were not enough; they depended upon the visible transformation of the one offering them. 1 Peter 3:15 gives us the gives us the defining statement: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer(apologia) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Notice that before the answer is given, the one giving the answer is called to a certain prerequisite. The lordship of Christ over the life of the apologist is foundational to all answers given. Peter, of all the disciples, knew well how to ask questions and also how fickle the human heartis. He knew the seductive power of the spectacular in momentary enthrallment.

He knew what it was to betray someone and to fail. He knew what it was to try to explain the Gospel--as he did at Pentecost. Peter's strong reminder of the heart of the apologistis the basis of all apologetic attempts. With character in mind, there follow two immediate imperatives: the quality of life lived and the clarity of answers given. The way the Christian's life is lived will determine the impact upon believers and skeptics alike. This is a defining line because the claim by the believer is unique. The claim is that of a "new birth." After all, no Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim claims his or her life of devotion to be supernatural, yet they often live amore consistent life. And how often does the so-called Christian, even while teaching some of the loftiest truths one could ever teach, live a life bereft of that beauty and character.

In apologetics the question is often asked, "If there is only one way, how is it that there are few in all of creation who qualify?" That question is actually more potent than the questioner realizes. It should further be raised, "Out of the few who actually qualify, why are even fewer living it out?" The spiritual condition and character of the apologistare of immense importance.

This call to a life reflecting the person of Christ is the ultimate call of everyone who wishes to do apologetics. When Jesus spoke to the woman at the well(John 4:1–26) she raised one question after another as if that were really her problem. It would have been very easy for the Lord to call her bluff with some castigating words.

Instead, like a gentle and nimble-handed goldsmith, he rubbed away the markings of sin and pain in her life until she was amazed at how much true gold he brought out in her. He gave her hope, knowing all along who she was on the inside. Likewise, we cannot simply vanquish the person in an attempt to rescue the message. The value of the person is an essential part of the message. This means the apologist's task begins with a godly walk. One ought to take time to reflect seriously upon the question, 'Has God truly wrought a miracle in mylife'

Is my own heart proof of the supernatural intervention of God?

That is the apologist's first question.

Line of Fire » Michael Brown Debates Anthony Buzzard on the Deity of Christ

Yesterday I heard that Michael Brown had Anthony Buzzard on his Line of Fire program during which they discussed the deity of Christ. Buzzard denies the deity of Christ and the Trinity. I was amazed at Buzzard's logic. He seems blind to quite a few scriptures. I mean did he just  not see all the places Jesus was referred to being pre-existent and God? The exchange between Brown and Buzzard is awesome but too short. They didn't have enough time to really delve as deep as they would have like to. Hopefully in future interactions Brown will have time to press him on the texts I have questions on that I think Buzzard is missing. Yes indeed God is one being. Buzzard kept seeming to equate "being" and "personhood" and they ain't the same at all.

Line of Fire » Blog Archive » February 8, 2010

Responding to Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction

I found this article from  tweet. It is about research being done in evolutionary psychology to explain how to fit homosexualtiy in with the theory of evolution. The controversy is over the idea that macro evolution is explained by the idea that all living things do all they can to pass on their genetic information to the next generation. Individuals who have the best advantageous traits pass those traits to next generation. Therefore the question arises about how homosexuality helps humans do that? Here is a quote:

One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.
Two evolutionary psychologists, Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category—called fa'afafine—neither man nor woman. The fa'afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study.
Past research has shown that the fa'afafine are much more altruistically inclined toward their nieces and nephews than either Samoan women or heterosexual men. They are willing to babysit a lot, tutor their nieces and nephews in art and music, and help out financially—paying for medical care and education and so forth. In a new study, the scientists set out to unravel the psychology of the fa'afafine, to see if their altruism is targeted specifically at kin rather than kids in general.

So the idea is that homosexuals could help raise their silblings' children and in doing so make sure that some of their genes get passed to next generation. I've got a few problems with this theory. No one who has children passes on all of their genes...just half of them. And when you have more than one child, there is no guarantee that any two get an identical subset - unless you have identical twins! Therefore any way you cut it quite a lot of genetic information can go missing and if you don't have kids of your own all the genetic information goes missing.This research does not convince me at all that homosexuality gives humanity any reproductive advantage.

The article is definitely not trying to come to the conclusion that homsexuality disproves evolution.  it ends thus:

Do these findings have any meaning outside of Samoa? Yes and no. Samoan culture is very different from most Western cultures. Samoan culture is very localized, and centered on tight-knit extended families, whereas Western societies tend to be highly individualistic and homophobic. Families are also much more geographically dispersed in Western cultures, diminishing the role that bachelor uncles can play in the extended family, even if they choose to. But in this sense, the researchers say, Samoa's communitarian culture may be more—not less—representative of the environment in which male same-sex sexuality evolved eons ago. In that sense, it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.

 The article admits that its not really a tight fit to apply the finding to all of humanity but they are gonna try to shoehorn it anyway! There is nothing wrong with choosing to stay single the problem is that the Bible tells us that it goes hand-in-hand with choosing celibacy. And its not because God wants us to be miserable because He wants us to have the best. This study does not prove that male sexuality evolved eons ago and besides if it really is inherited and if they never procreated then wouldn't that particular mutation never have been passed down to succeeding generations? Lots and lots of holes here.

Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction

Boa Sr, Last Member of Bo Tribe on Andaman Islands, Dies - AOL News

I just saw this article on AOL News and I'm kind of shocked. The thought of a whole civilization wiped out give me a sick feeling deep in my stomach. That tribe is gone with nothing but video, audio, and photographs to remember them. How many other tribes and people have been erased due to American and European colonialism?







Boa Sr, Last Member of Bo Tribe on Andaman Islands, Dies - AOL News

Major Debate Announcement: Is the New Testament Historically Reliable? vs. Robert M. Price

James White has announced his upcoming debate against Robert M. Price. This one is going to be awesome! Price is often touted as a legitimate scholar who denies the historicity of not just the Gospels but most definitely denies that Jesus even existed. I have seen many refutations and I think Price has lots of problems. The great thing about this debate will be that we will get to see Price's arguments publicly declared, examined, and cross-examined. We will get to really take the issues and really scrutinize this. I wish I could be there personally, but I think I will watch/listen to the recording. Follow the link below for the details!

Major Debate Announcement: Is the New Testament Historically Reliable? vs. Robert M. Price

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 2

Bart Ehrman via last.fm

Here is Mariano's second part of his analysis of Bart Ehrman's "scholarship". Mariano does a great job in pointing out how Ehrman twists things and gives some facts but not all of the truth to point to the conclusions he wants people to get. Read Mariano's insights at the link below.

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 2

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

Image via Wikipedia

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Felker initiated a challenge on his blog to show why Matthew 24 is either in whole or in part to be fulfilled in the future. We have been going back and forth.  And I have been learning from the experience. He said in the his final post that this was the end of the exchanged but invited me to clarify anything that needs to be clarified. My comments are in red and his are still in black. He was gracious enough to quote the comments of mine he responded to and he bolded them. 

This will be my last response to Marcus in his well-written answers to my MATTHEW 24 CHALLENGE, where I challenge anyone to show me a verse in Matthew 24 which demands a fulfillment beyond the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Here is the dialogue thus far:

Marcus' initial response

My response to Marcus

Marcus' second response

The verse in question is Matthew 24:3. I have looked it up in 5 translations and two out of three of them use the word "world". I agree that Jesus did not use the word kosmos - the word used is aion. I think "age" is the correct rendering...but what "age" is being discussed? I didn't discuss this in my first post because it never occurred to me that not all my brothers saw the "end of the age" as "end of the world". Let's look at the context. In verse 2 Jesus tells all listening that the temple was going to be destroyed. I think Mike and I agree that Jesus meant that the temple destruction being at a different time than His coming and the end of the age. Therefore I don't think AD 70 can fulfills the entire prophecy Jesus gave in Matthew 24. If the disciples thought that his coming and the destruction of the temple were near simultaneous events then it appears to me that the ask the same thing twice and that does not seem reasonable to me. So I ask what did the disciples thought was ending? Israel as a sovereign nation? No, i think they meant the point at which Jesus would set up his kingdom and take control.

But why can't the disciples be asking two questions in referencing the same event? I think it would help to look at the parallel accounts to show that this doesn't demand a post 70 A.D. fulfillment:

"When will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age." (Matthew 24:3)

"When will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled." (Mark 13:4)

"When therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:7)

Interestingly, if Mark and Luke are parallel accounts to Matthew 24 (which I don't see how anyone could doubt), why would they omit the main event; namely, the second coming? My answer is that it is because a "second coming" wasn't in the scope of the disciple's questions at all. But just to be as fair and open minded as I can, I would be willing to grant that this verse could be used to support either position. Why? Because, if the context was speaking of a literal second coming, then it would only be appropriate to assume that Jesus was actually answering the disciple's question correctly. But if the context doesn't reference any second coming, then we would have to assume that Jesus didn't answer their question.

I appreciate Mike a great deal, for it just as a the Bible says indeed -  "iron sharpens iron". He makes a good point that i had not considered before this exchange: Do we know that the disciples had in mind at this time that Jesus was going to have a second coming? At this point they didn't even get that Jesus had to be crucified or resurrected. I'd say an emphatic "No!" And I apologize for some of the language I had used earlier pointing to the second coming as we think of it. They had in mind that He was going to come on a white horse and a sword and slaughter Romans and re-establish Israel as a sovereign nation. I really think the disciples wanted to know two things: one - When will the Temple be destroy and two - when will the end of the age happen? I still don't think that neither Jesus or the disciples thought the two events were the same event.

I totally agree that Jesus was referring to Antiochus Ephiphanes and making a parallel. However during the Jewish War (c 70 AD) there had been no idol set up in the Temple. It only almost happened then. I totality agree that we don't know really know what the "abomination" is and i don't think the Left Behind series has truth I wanna base my life one but i don't think the events of 70 AD completely fulfill the prophesy. Some of it like this part I think speaks to 70 AD and the future.

With all due respect to Marcus, this is merely an opinion based on ignorance. The reason I say this is because, even in Marcus' own admission, "we don't really know what the abomination is." And if we really don't know what the abomination is, then how can he claim that it wasn't fulfilled in 70 A.D.? I submit that the clues provided in the context suggest a very strong basis by which this event was fulfilled in the disciple's lifetime:

I've got to admit that I don't like ignorance being ascribed to an opinion that I've spent years of prayer and research and study on, but I realize that Mike isn't trying to insult me and the last thing I want is to give the devil a foot hold when there none intended. 

1. In 24:1, Jesus was clearly referencing the temple, which at least should grant the possibility that the "abomination" was in reference to this.

2. The pronouns "you" throughout the context of Matthew 24 strongly supports the idea that all the events were in reference to the disciples. If it were in reference to a group thousands of years later, wouldn't "they" or "them" be more often implemented?

3. "This generation" was in reference to the disciples, not some group thousands of years in the future, as i'll discuss in more detail.

4. The parallel account in Luke 21:20 supports the possibility that the "desolation" was in reference to Jerusalem itself, not specifically the temple: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near." So what is the "desolation" in reference to? Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. Yes, this "desolation" certainly would include the temple, since it resides in Jerusalem as well as the possibility that it was desolated in some way similar to what Antiochus Ephiphanes did.

Therefore, on what basis does the reference to the "abomination" demand a post-A.D. 70 fulfillment?

I don't understand how these 4 points show that the what was "standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—" was fulfilled in 70 AD. I think each of the parallel accounts and Matthew itself clarifies not just the Temple but all of Jerusalem would be destroyed - no dispute there. But how was there an abomination causing desolation standing in the Holy place in 70 AD? 

The discussion where Mike explains how you can see that Jesus' coming could be explained as happening in AD 70 really didn't move me. If I understand correctly, Mike is arguing that the "Son of Man coming on clouds" refers to judgment and punishing Israel. He points out that there are many Old Testament passages including Jesus later on using the language to say He will be vindicated. Thing is, the destruction of Jerusalem did not make Jews who denied Jesus embrace Jesus. The Roman went on like nothing happened. For them, it was another day at the office. I just don't see how Jesus coming on clouds "with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." can be found fulfilled in AD 70.

But where in the text does it say that the "coming on clouds" is what triggers the Jews to embrace Jesus? From what I can tell, there is nothing in the text which suggests such a thing. And as I pointed out in my last response, the "coming in the clouds" has nothing to do with a "coming to earth." So even in what seems to be Marcus' view, even a "second coming" scenario in implementing this text wouldn't support such a conclusion either. But with that aside, I don't see how 24:31 is meant to be a direct or consequential result of 24:30. And as for Marcus not being able to see how v. 31 could be in reference to the first century, I think the details of such a discussion would have to be reserved for another time, as I intended this discussion to be more focused upon one or two texts.

I was referring to Matthew 26:64 when I said that Jesus coming on clouds would signal Jews to embrace Jesus because that is when Jesus claimed he would be vindicated. As for verses 30 and 31 I still want to know how that was fullfilled in 70 AD? Jesus said in vs 31 and 31:

³⁰"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ³¹And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I've always had the filling that once these words were fulfilled nothing could ever be the same again.

I think you have a point but "this generation" is translated by some as "this race" as in the human race.


But which translations and on what basis? Is there anything lexically which would merit such a translation? Also, check out the context in which "this generation" is used in other places. Would "this race" be appropriate in those places as well? I think that a lot of justification would need to be made before implementing such a conclusion.

I admit that I haven't really dug to find out if this variant translation is warranted but it is footnote in every single NIV I've ever looked at. It's even in online NIvs. It may be just a textual variant but I think it is worth consideration. Look at this example: Matthew 24:34

I want to thank Marcus for such a profitable discussion and hope that the readers have benefitted from the interaction. I think this goes to show how two people can disagree in a respectful manner while remaining brothers in the Lord. I'll leave the last word for Marcus so that he can clarify any points that he sees fit.

I really appreciate this exercise. It has been helpful and extremely profitable and thank God for Mike. Something else did occur to me Matthew 24: 9-14 did not happen in 70 AD but is still being fulfilled even today.

⁹"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. ¹⁰At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, ¹¹and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. ¹²Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, ¹³but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. ¹⁴And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: My last response to Marcus on the Matthew 24 challenge

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

James Swan has posted a great article showing that Roman Catholic apologist Art Sippo does not argue fairly. In trying to use psychology to discredit Martin Luther, Sippo manages to to take a swipe at Calvinism. Swan quoted Sippo:

My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote [The Bondage of the Will] is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly[sic] disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind. When I studied psychiatry in med school the professor told us "There are only 2 kinds of people who deny free will: psychotics and Calvinists." In my experience, there is only ONE kind of person. [source]

I read The Bondage of the Will and I see no evidence of that at all. In addition Martin Luther's work pre-dated John Calvin! Martin Luther was not a Calvinist. Swan did a great job to showing that Sippo misquoted Luther and I totally disagree that denying free will is crazy and that isn't really what Calvinism does. Just like its stupid to accuse all Arminians and non-Calvinists of denying God's sovereignty and saying that we get to tell God what we are going to do. These are gross over simplifications. we need to pray for Dr. Sippo.

Catholic Apologist Dr. Art Sippo Says: Calvinists Are Psychotics

YouTube - Hovind debates Strayer,Reisbig, and Schlieter

Image via Wikipedia

I found this Debate on YouTube and I have enjoyed it. I have to give Hovind some kudos for going up against 3 scientific proponents from 3 different disciplines at the same time. I think Hovind did a good job because Evolution has a lot of problems and all he had to do was point them out. For example, I think he killed them on the whale evolution. I don't agree with all of Hovind's theology because (for a start):

1. He's a Young Earth Creationist and I don't think the Bible gives us enough information alone to figure out the age of the earth or the universe.
2. I think he is a King Jame Only advocate which leads him to think that Unicorns are in the Bible.
3. He rejects the Big Bang Theory which really vexes me. By agreeing with the Big Bang Theory people who deny God agree with the Bible. Hovind does not seem to understand that. The theory says that all space, time, matter, and energy did burst into existence out of nothing. This is supported by Genesis 1:1 the Hebrew word we translate "created" carries with it the idea that the creation is out of nothing.

I thought many of the arguments on the evolution side are horrible. For example arguing that a designer does not make sense because the design is flawed is just as stupid as arguing that the Bible may be wrong because it does not have a bibliography. Both were used by way. Arguing that the design is flawed presupposes that you know what the design and purpose are. I was glad to see Hovind shred that argument with a concrete example of the difference between the human eye and an octopus' eye. When the scientific arguments failed the evolutionists went into philosophy and it imploded even faster. I was expecting better of the other side.




YouTube - hovind debate

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 1

Bart Ehrman via last.fm

Mariano is starting a great series on the work of Bart Ehrman. He is dissecting Ehrman's work and closely scrutinizing it to see how much weight it can support. Unfortunately, not much. Read the article at the link below.

Atheism is Dead: Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 1

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker Sues Hillary Clinton

Mariano has written a great post I want everyone to read about how Dan Barker's organization does business. I love this quote:

Well, Hillary Clinton is sure to be the next target of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s tireless efforts to make a living by filing lawsuits in order to claim martyr victimhood status and beg for donations.

Read the post at the link below.

Atheism is Dead: Dan Barker Sues Hillary Clinton

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : On God’s Odd Attributes

Mariano has posted a great post about some of the attributes of God that some people construe as casting God negatively such as jealousy and anger. Take a look at his answer at the following link.

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : On God’s Odd Attributes

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Baptist Mission Team Detained in Haiti

Dr Mariottini had a great post about the news folding in Haiti about Baptist missionaries being arrested for illegally moving Haitian children. I'm not sure but maybe they thought that by moving the children they were helping them, but it was against the law. I'm going to be watching the story




Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Baptist Mission Team Detained in Haiti

Hope For Haiti Now - Telethon

A couple of weeks ago, there was a telethon to raise money to fund relief efforts for the survivors of the worst natural disaster to ever hit the western hemisphere in my lifetime. It was like the whole world came together and gave Haiti a hug instead of the wedgie that nation usually gets. The celebrities who performed turned in their best performances.