Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sola Scriptura Debate with DavidW - Index

 Here is a great article summarizing a great debate in theology. Here is the Intro!

My formal written debate against Eastern Orthodox blogger DavidW on the statement:
Resolved: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience."

is now complete. I have indexed out the posts in chronological order so that anyone interested may easily follow its flow.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sola Scriptura Debate with DavidW - Index

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : List of Relevant Biblical Citations

Image via Wikipedia

 Mariano has posted a summary of the Biblical citations complete with their context. This is awesome!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : List of Relevant Biblical Citations

YouTube - Facts, Laws and Theories - A great Video

I was recently in discussions with cherokee_Autumn on twitter. She said that from a scientific definition Gravity is a theory. I disagreed. She ended up sending me the following video to bolster her definition of scientific theory. I think she may need to view the video again.

I agree with the definitions of fact, laws, and theories given in the video. Here is the definitions used in the video. I agree because this is what I have learned in my scientific training.

Fact = What; a verified observation
Law =  How; a statement of an observed regularity among facts
Theory = Why - an explanation for the observations supported by evidence

The video then goes on to use Gravity as an example. Gravity is called a fact. The Law of Gravity is given ( which is what I was referring to). Then the video says that there is a theory for Gravity, but does not give it. I have heard a few for trying to explain what it is and why it exists, but I think the sort answer is we don't know. It's much more correct to use Fact and Law to describe Gravity, but more words are needed to explain a theory(ies) for Gravity. Gravity is a force not a theory (if you are a physicist). This video was made because some people think that to say something a theory is to deride it as a guess. I agree that this is not true. However there are much stronger evidence and observations for Gravity than there is for Evolution. There is no law of Evolution but there are mathematical models used to study evolution. There is evidence that is used to infer macro evolution, but no mathematics to predict mutation or evolution. So evolution is a theory used to try to explain why we have a fossil record and why all living things have a common ancestry (I still wanna see better evidence for these conclusions not observations.).  This post is to serve notice that these are the definitions I will be using on Twitter and on my blog for discussing evolution.

YouTube - Facts, Laws and Theories

Christianity and Islam: the Nature of God

In case if you have not heard, Dr. James White is in London, England. He posted a table of contents slide for a presentation he will be doing today. I can't wait to see this one!

Christianity and Islam: the Nature of God

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Design

Apologetics 315 has posted a wonderful quote from philosopher Anthony Flew. It is significant because Flew was a leading atheist for more than 50 years and now he agrees that the evidence from the design of the universe is that it was created by an intellect that we call God.

"Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formatted, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.”

 - Antony Flew (There is a God, p. 95.)

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Antony Flew on Design

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: King Tut and His Medical Problems

Dr. Claude Mariottini has posted three very good articles concerning  recent new information concerning what has been learned about the Pharoah King Tutankhamen. New DNA technology has been able to show his family relationships with other mummies that have been found, show evidence that he may have had malaria, and that he may have needed a cane to walk around.  Following the video Mariottini's blog  sent me to, I have a link to those blog articles from his blog.





Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: King Tut and His Medical Problems
Dr. Claude Mariottini - King Tut the Warrior

FULL: Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate (disc 2 of 2)

This was a great debate on the John Ankerberg show. It's Kent Hovind defending Young Earth Creationism and Hugh Ross defending Old Earth Creationism.






There was a lot of great stuff in the debate. I learned a lot. I think Hovind was wrong to attack Ross. My own studies has led me to many of the same conclusions as Ross. The greatest proof that the days of Genesis not being literal 24 hours days is the point that on day 7 where the Bible says God rested it does not say that evening and morning were the seventh day as it was for the previous 6 verses! I never looked at it that way before. We are still in that seventh day. My friend Mariano left a comment on a previous post that points that when the Bible says God rested it does not mean He was tired only that he stopped creating. I liked Ross' point that when God brings the new heavens and the new earth God will begin creating again.

Another great point by Ross is that Genesis account does not really show any appreciable change in our natural laws. As far was we can tell there was still entropy before the fall because if there wasn't there would have been no stars. I thought Ross was far more scientific than Hovind.

FULL: Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross debate (disc 2 of 2)

Atheism is Dead: Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 1 of 3

Image via Wikipedia

I really enjoy looking at Mariano's essays and articles. It's good to see that he runs into the same issues when he deals with atheists. This article is interesting a great case study in speaking with atheist about Christianity.

Atheism is Dead: Midwest Atheist and Friend - Considered and Refuted, part 1 of 3

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think - On Good & Evil

Image via Wikipedia

Here is the next part of my series on responding to video comments from atheist Sam Harris. In this particular video he gives his views on what good and evil are.





Sam Harris bring up the fact that theists charge that relative morality is unable to set up a standard that protects everyone. Yet he never answers the charge other than to assert that humans are capable of figuring out what is right and what is wrong. HE basically says that whatever the majority believes is good is good and what the majority says is wrong is wrong. Sounds great unless you are a Jew living in Nazi Germany in the 1930's and early 1940's. Or a Black man living in the southern United States from 1607 to...well...now. IF there is no absolute authority no absolute standard then why was Hitler wrong to kill six million men, women, and children for no reason besides the fact that they were Jews? Why is wrong to take a black man and lynch him, tar and feather him, for no reason other than he is black? How do you answer that without some authority to back you up. Why is our morality that says these things are wrong more correct than those who would do these things? Harris provides no answer.

What does he give us instead? He gives uz an attack on the Bible. He argues that it gives us no ethics to aspire to or live up to. This is not true. I'll give one scripture passage that shows what I mean:

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. - Matthew 5:43-45

This is not one something we are born or find easy to do. This is the standard the Bible calls Christians to live up to. Harris then uses the atheist's favorite argument that the Bible is immoral because it condones slavery. The thing is that the idea of "Slavery" cause so much guilt and pain, especially in America. It conjours images of black men, women, and children being sold like animals; women being raped; and people standing naked on auction platforms. Is this the image we should have of what slavery was in the Old Testament? No. Not at all. I'm going to be preparing a post to fully explore this point.

In the meantime, I want to point out that Harris was lying about how the white slaveholders were theologically aligned with the Bible. Yes the New Testament says  "Slaves, obey your masters."

 ⁵Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, ⁸because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. - Ephesians 6:5-8

Fine, but if the white slaveholders were not cherry picking slaves like the man above would not have had endured such brutality!

 ⁹And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. - Ephesians 6:9

Harris is either lying or ignorant. Take your pick.You however can't endorse his conclusions. Jesus did not come to just free slaves but to free all of us because we are slaves to sin,

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think

Response to Hammock Highlights: In Defense of Rational Thought

My prayers have finally been answered. Someone has taken me up on my challenge on Twitter to take something I have written and deal with it. @Beechbum has undertaken to do such a thing. He has posted a response on his own blog! God be praised! Here is my response to what he has posted. My responses will be in red.

Sometimes it is worth noting the confusing contradiction of religious fundamentalists for posterity. Some time back I sent the following tweet to @mmcelaney: http://tinyurl.com/yf9hyz8 and part 1 http://tinyurl.com/ydhd8po Watch and grow wiser. To which he wrote the blog here. This is a response to that blog and I fear he didn't grow at all.

I'm not sure why he constantly misspells my name and Twitter username but I will just assume that he simple had typo problems and means no insult.






Marcus McElaney Tries his hand at Bible BS again. The most obvious point is that he does not confront Matt directly but instead addresses yours truly, in this blog.

Actually, I responded to Matt's points in the videos not to Beechbum. What I did was give him credit for sending me the tweet.

As to your first point, @mmcelaney, I would like to bring to your attention that the bible is a work that was canonized 1,685 years ago, when it was transliterated, edited, then rewritten into a form markedly different than the book now being discussed. But, due to the advances of science, the book has been completely discredited as a collection of lies, myths and allegories. The story that has not changed, is the fundamentalist diatribe of apologetics that continually start with the conclusion that god(s) exist, then work out the story in reverse. That is the consistent part of this never ending story that you so arrogantly portray as an ecclesiastical point, when all it points to is typical apologetics are the greased pig of revelatory interpretation. In other words, it is next to impossible to nail down the facts when they are moving around in a sea of ignoramuses. This is why most theologians no longer hold to the interpretations of 100 years ago and many would even disagree with yours today. Every time science advances your ecclesiastics take a step back with apologies and several 'but's'. And with that:

A whole lot of assertions are made as to how the English Bible came down to us. I disagree. Beechbum gives no evidence. No references and no proof. Let me provide a reference that completely kills his hand-waving. Read the King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White. I also would recommend the work of  Dr Daniel Wallace on textual criticism.

1. God of having bad moral standards: (KJV)

a. Slavery:
How about the rules for owning Hebrew slaves or a family of slaves, see Exodus 21:2-6. What should happen to an aggressive master Exodus 21:20-21 and on. These are in the list of commandments - some 613 of them. How about the rules for selling your daughter in Exodus 21:7-9. Maybe 1 Cor. 7:21 where it is said that one should be content as a slave and not seek freedom or Eph. 6:5-6 on slaves being obedient to their masters.

How about showing that the slavery guidelines in the Bible are immoral. You are arguing that any kind of slavery is immoral under any circumstance at any time. Does that really make sense? I also notice that you seem to conveniently forget the scriptures that tells slave masters that they should respect and not mistreat their slaves. Slave masters were not to think of their slaves as mere property to treat how ever they saw fit.  You brought up Eph 6:5-6 but why didn't you bring up the rest of the passage? Simple it denies what you are lying....um insinuating.

 ⁵Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, ⁸because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

 ⁹And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. - Ephesians 6:5-9

 b. Genocide:
Genesis 8:21 The book of your religion says he killed every living thing. Then in Exodus 12:12 he supposedly kills all first born or how about Judges 6:16 where he is said to have killed all Midianites or 1 Sam. 15:3 in which it is written that he commanded the deaths of all those poor Amalekites.

I've written about this in several places on my blog. So I will refer you to one of  those article:

http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/youtube-morality-without-god-response.html

c. Human Sacrifice:
First of all, the sacrifice of the daughter of Jeph'thah, your god(s) was complicit in the act for there were many chances for an omniscient entity to change the outcome and nothing was done in that regard. Second Molech was also a god, which was what bothered your version - for he is a jealous god(s). And last but definitely not least, he sacrificed his own son, remember the crucifixion.

He raised his son from the dead. and God was not complicit for Jephthah's actions at all. Where did God tell him to do that? As for why did God not stop him, that's weak because God just allowed Jephthah to live the consequences of his actions.  God has that right.  The Bible says God is a jealous god because He has the right. If your wife was paying more attention to another man, wouldn't you have the right to be jealous because you belong to each other? It's the same thing with God. We belong to Him. It's not any more immoral than it would be for a person to be jealous because of the actions of a cheating spouse.

In 2- 4 Marcus, you insinuate that Matt was incorrect or corrected himself, I'm sure you need to listen to it again for he does not correct himself but his interlocutor, because slaves are mentioned in the ten commandments (the tenth one about coveting maidservants or menservants) and are more explicitly discussed in those verses I mentioned above, Matt did not misspeak.

I made no such insinuation...I called him on it outright.  Matt said, at about the 4 min mark on the first video that he was not referring to the 10 commandments but the totality of the law. He didn't remember about the 10th commandment coveting another's maidservants or menservants. He did misspeak,. Nice try to save him though.

5. People that are so arrogant as to presume to know the unknowable, are also those that are so arrogant as to presume to know without learning by reading what is knowable.

I agree but I fail to see how that applies to the Bible. In my many conversation with Beechbum he failed disprove anything that the Bible says. Therefore God is knowable because the Bible reveal Him to us. God is knowable. If you choose to stay ignorant of Him that is your own fault.

 ²⁴"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'  - Acts 17:24-28

6. The bible or god(s) character is an observers opinion, and personally, I think Matt was being quite generous, for in my opinion, your god(s) is a contemptible war monger.

Beechbum's and Matt's opinions of the character of God is unsupportable. You can cry and wail against God all you want and call His ways and character into question but that doesn't make it true.

7. Accuses God of not caring about what you do but only what you believe.

Titus 3:4-6 (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Titus 3:4-6 does not say that God does not care about what we do. It's saying that what we do is not the basis of our salvation. Therefore no one can take credit. We are riding Jesus' coat tails. When I have said that Beechbum can't exegete scripture this is a great example. There is no conflict. Read what Paul said in Ephesians 2: 1-10 and it's about believers. So is Titus. Neither Beechbum or Matt can apply these passages to themselves.

¹As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, ²in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. ³All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature^[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. ⁴But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. ⁶And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And there are many more on both sides of that argument but, the main thing is the first 5 commandments are about worshipping that sadistic artifice of the deluded.

First 5? Does Beechbum  mean the commandment about honoring father and mother? How does that figure with the first 4 dealing with relating with God? Oops. Same sort mistake as Matt's. Will Beechbum admit it? Most likely not.

8. Our morality is the result of millions of years of evolution, cooperation, and cohabitation within an extended family. All the morals in the bible are the expected ethics of a bronze age tribe of desert goat herders, so yes, none of us need that book for the apprehension of ethics useful in today's societal interactions. Especially when that book also holds up some of the most heinous acts ever committed by humanity as testament of a leader's good works.

And Beechbum accuses me of preaching?! No evidence is given. Just more accusation. If our morality came from  "he result of millions of years of evolution, cooperation, and cohabitation within an extended family." where did Hitler's morality come from? And why is ours better than his such that we had the right to stop him from killing Jews and conquering the world?

9. He said "infinite punishment for finite deeds" and the theology you follow preaches that your deity is infinitely good therefore what he does or sanctions is purported to be good, i.e. the many crimes perpetrated in the bible. And we all know that's BS, no matter how 'mysterious his ways,' as apologists put it.

"Our sins are so bad that it equals the need of an innocent man to be tortured to death to balance the debt. Our sins are not finite."

This quote is an example of a "scapegoat," quite typical in Bronze age cultures, just as the many animal sacrifices asked for and sanctioned by your mythical patriarchal deity who shares this blood lust with many of the mythical patriarchal deities of Mt. Olympus. This is an example of how absolutely damaged ones perspective can be due to these delusions. No one can take your responsibility away from you, no one can pay for sins that were never perpetrated or may never be committed in the future, and why do we owe someone other than the victim of our transgressions anything? One shouldn't base their perspective on the narrative of bronze age myths without expecting their morality to be crippled in this way. The manufactured self-loathing of Christians as a product of their origin myths, doctrines and dogmas is in part, part of a mechanism that subordinates the ordinary human being to ideologies and the purveyors of those ideologies. The genius of our Founding Fathers in this regard was the realization that any authority supported by these ideologies was actually in the hands of those interpreting origin myths, doctrines, and dogmas which have never been supported by evidence of any kind. In attempting to fit this preposterously insane concept into the reality of the 21st century, one needs to chisel out room for the absurdities, thus creating the vacuum easily filled by these types of ethical atrocities. Of course every Christian I know starts making excuses at this point, for what boils down to a total lack of character and fortitude in the face of questions of morality.
To all the fundamentalists out there, the crucifixion narrative - never happened and that's the good news. No one should carry the guilt of such an obligation on their shoulders. I can't believe anyone would try to justify the torture of an innocent human - that's just sick/ religion.

More preaching?! More philosophizing. Zero interaction with what the Bible says is the character of God. God is so Holy so other...so beyond us that just the mere existence of sin is an afront to the existence of God. By definition, if you agree that certain acts are good and should be done and others are bad and ought not to be done you have admitted that sin exists. I agree that it's an out. I deserve to die and be eternally separated from God, yet God chose to save those who believe Him. You can't do enough "good" to ever balance what you owe God. To lie on someone is to lie on God. To steal from your neighbor is to steal from God. To cheat on your spouse is to cheat on God. Yes, we all deserve to die - eternal separation for God and eternal torment...we earned it.  

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 6:23

10. The problem is that humans, according to your theology, are purportedly being tortured for not living up to the unattainable standards set by the mythical creator in this bronze age story, the point being that our short comings are this characters responsibility, he, in this origin narrative, supposedly created everything. The tests are his to set and judge, this is distorted superstitious irrationality and very bad writing, so why not cut to the chase in this fictional story - eliminate the games and torture humans outright. It's all a script for a sick 'B' movie.

Jesus lived that life and we can be judge by his righteousness or your own. take your pick. God has a purpose that everyone live and die during certain times in certain places. That preclude torturing us out right. I'm glad for that. If you end up in hell, it's your own choices that put you there. Read Paul's letter to the Romans.

The trinity is a load of irrationality created by starting with the conclusion and reverse engineering an explanation that actually never made sense. But in effect god was himself and JC and the holy spirit, monotheism if one closes one eye and the brain when looking into the apologetics. Do you feel stupid yet? Really, it's not good news if you don't. The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Yeah, Beechbum's problem is that he does not understand the Trinity. He even admits it that he doesn't get it. Just because it's beyond him doesn't make it false. "Being" and :"person" are not the same thing, "Who" you are - "person" - is not the same thing as "what" you are  - "ontological being." For humans we tend to treat them as synonymous but they ain't. God is one being. But three persons. No one completely gets what that looks like but scripture bears that out.

This god character is, without a doubt, extremely evil for not protecting his creation from another of his creations. In every story in which someone is responsible for creating something harmful, their immediate goal is to correct the problem except in the Christian myth. What's the excuse for that one again? And as for moral superiority, there are few people alive today that are not far more ethical than the characters in that canonized myth, especially the main character. And, it has been my observation that those perpetrating the most heinous crimes against humanity, have done so using the instruments of religious inculcation, indoctrination, subjugation and the same dogmatic adherence to totalitarian revelations without any evidence to support their claims.

Oh Beechbum must be referring to macro evolution. Satan has a purpose. God has been playing him like a harp. One day, when God is done with him Satan will be going to hell. I don't know why Beechbum wants to join Satan...but each to their own.

The child analogy to which Matt refers is quite accurate actually, for our father who art in heaven blah blah blah... Some apologetics are so lame as to be embarrassing even to the likes of that jail bird Kent Hovind - or maybe not. This sky fairy of yours is the one claiming to love his creation, humans, and torture in any form is wrong. This is how the evolution of morality works in reality, as we become wiser we also become much more ethical, understanding and tolerant eg. abolition of slavery, women's equality & suffrage, human rights, democracy - none of these things are advocated by biblical Christianity. The child being tortured in the basement for misbehaving is symbolic, simplistic, but accurate when one considers that smarting off to ones parents is a capital crime in the ten commandments, punishable by death.

Does Beechbum really think that a boy would just have to sass his parents one time and he would be stoned? He and Matt have a lot in common. Throwing out a law and calling it part of the 10 commandment when it really is part of the whole law. I'm disappointed that Beechbum did not respond to my modification of Matt's analogy. How is his better than mine, given that all are evil and fall short of God's standard.

The problem with Christians is that they don't even know that they are using religion in place of actually thinking. The sins that Matt is talking about are not in the bible they are the tools used by those brain washing, inculcating, and indoctrinating children to the point that they can't see anything except through their god(s) goggles. Matt is talking about what fearful people do to feel good like a child sucking their thumb, holding on to that security blanket of eternal life or espousing comforting, but ludicrous, claims in the face of evidence to the contrary. When many logical conclusions have presented themselves and many having been confirmed by multiple sources; hence, I think this lying for Jesus is a sin.

The only lying I see is from  Beechbum and Matt. I have seen no contrary evidence presented here. No proof that there is no transcendant, all powerful God who made us and therefore has a right to do anything with us  that He wants. Instead they reject the thought and his revelations and call Christians crazy because we understand what they reject.

In light of the evidence from cosmology, holding on to the Genesis myth like it is the last thread of a security blanket should make anyone question their stand. Evolution is so damning to religion because without Adam and Eve there is no original sin i.e. the Tree of Knowledge narrative, or more accurately, the rest of Genesis is a confirmed myth. Instead of moving forward with knowledge that can help humanity we are stuck defending the freedoms of people from the tyranny of theocracy. Christianity has never given humanity anything substantive, science has progressed in spite of religion which is only the organization of primitive superstitions into a force for totalitarianism.

Didn't you get the memo, Beechbum? All of reality snapped into existence from a singularity that itself popped into existence out of nothing - empty space. Which works with what Genesis 1:1 says - all there is was created out of nothing. Beechbum makes a lot  of assertions like evolution disproves the Bible. Don't believe the hype. Not all scientists agree. I would suggest Beechbum consult the works of Jay Richard, Hugh Ross, and David Heddle before he goes on expressing error like these. I would also suggest he and everyone look at the following links if you really think  Christianity has contributed nothing substantive.

http://tawapologetics.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-there-god-evidence-of-cosmology.html

http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/what-theology-has-done-for-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CloudOfWitnesses+%28Cloud+of+Witnesses%29


Hammock Highlights: In Defense of Rational Thought

YouTube - Morality Without God - A Response

Image via Wikipedia

I found a suggested video from a tweeter who goes by Cherokee_autumn who suggested this video from the ThinkingAtheist.com as proof that you can can Morality without God. The video says that atheists are often asked where there morality comes from. I was expecting a compelling argument and was disappointed. Instead of giving an answer to how you can have Morality without God it attempts a red hering argument trying to show that God is not moral. The video doesn't even make an attempt to use any new arguments. I'm going to put my responses in red and list the points I understood being made in the video .

1. Provides proof that God endorses Rape because Lot offered up his virgin daughters to a mob rather than allow them to rape his male guests that were really angels. Genesis 19:6
2. Argue that God condones rape and incest because Lot's daughters got Lot drunk and used him to impregnate themselves. Genesis 19:33-34
3. Argue that God endorses human sacrifice because Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because He won a battle. Judges 11:30-39

Points 1 -3 have the same answer. In trying to make it appear that God is immoral because these acts really took place in the Bible, the video is not being honest. If you agree that the Bible is true then you must agree that these things happened. It's not a translation issue or a mistake.  Check the scriptural references for yourself and you will see that God had nothing to do with what Lot did,  or what his daughters did, or Jephthah did. God did not command them to do any of it. In Jephthah's case God never asked for a sacrifice...he wanted to make sure and thought a vow would make a difference and he never thought he would have to sacrifice someone he loved. In that day it was their culture that you can't break a vow when you make one - to anyone especially God.

4. Argue that God condoned slavery because guidelines were given in Exodus 21:20-21

This one I actually find insulting.  First the video uses one of the worst images of an American black man bearing the scars of a scourging he had gotten while he was a slave. The video attempts to imply that the treatment the man had experienced is the same kind of treatment prescribed in the Bible for slaves. Several errors here. First and foremost the slavery that is prescribed in the Bible for ancient Israel is nothing at all like the slavery my forebearers endured in America. To equate them is an insult to my ancestors and to Israel and to God. Go ahead and look at the laws in the Bible. If the white slave holders had followed them, the man in the picture would never had been beaten like that.  Those laws in the Bible restricted and defined the rights of slaves which were more  fair and kind than any other civilization's slave laws that I have studied. In ancient Israel, as much as it pains me to admit it, slavery allowed people who would have otherwise been destitute to still earn a living. Also don't forget that slaves in ancient Israel had to be free every 70 years and there are so many other ways they could be freed. Not like my ancestors who were freed through a civil war that killed thousands and we still live with the repercussions today. The slave system as defined in the Bible is not immoral and does not legitimate slavery anywhere at any time because it's not the same thing..

5. Argue that God endorses Kidnapping because God rewarded the Israelites with 32,000 virgin women. Numbers 31:35
6. Argue that God condoned stealing plunder including women. Deuteronomy 20:10-13
7. Argue that God condoned animal abuse because Joshua hamstrung horses Joshua 11:6
8. Argue that God condoned killing babies because all of enemies including Babies were slaughtered. Joshua 6:21-27; 1 Samuel 15:2

 Numbers 5-6, and 8 go together also. The idea is that all these things are immoral and God is immoral because he commanded Israel to do these things. The interesting thing is that what is not discussed in the video is the reason behind the command. One of the best examples of how to discuss this can be found from William Lane Craig and I discussed an article in which he discussed this at this link. 

As for number 7, the Joshua hamstrung the horses because God directed him to do so. Don't forget that in context, this was an act of war. Horses were a weapon being using in a war with Israel in which they were outnumbered and outgunned. The only way I can explain Israel victory is the God handed their enemies over to Joshua on a platter. Of course Joshua obeyed God. It was an accepted war tactic not immorality.

One more comment about number 8 - the "What about the poor babies" argument. It crack me up. Many Atheists are "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion but when God does it it's immoral.

9. Argue that God is immoral because he executes people for making innocent mistakes - referring to Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6:6-7

This point assumes that God was just being a bully, picking on Uzzah who was innocent of wrong doing. But go back and look at the context. The only ones who were authorized to touch the Ark were priests who were of the Levi tribe. At this point, Israel was trying to move the Ark of the Covenant but they weren't doing it the way their law prescribed. Although Uzzah was only trying to keep the Ark from falling, he was wrong and knew he was wrong to touch the Ark because he was not a priest. God chose to bring justice and send a message to everyone. That was God's sovereign right - not immorality.

10. Claim that God is immoral because the Bible says he is responsible for people dying followed by a laundry list (Ex 12:29;37:27;Numbers 16:35;16:49;21:3;31:17-18;Deu 2:33-34; Joshua 10:10-28;30;32-37; Judges 1:4; 3:29;7:19-25;20:43-45; 2 Kings 19:25;Revelation 6:8

This point tries to make it appear that God is responsible of killing innocent people out of spite or selfishness or some immorality in God. There is no context given. There is no discussion of why these things happened. So I will give a summary answer: They deserved it. And as much we do not want to hear it...so do we.  Like them and every human being we are sinners deserving of death. And most of the examples cited were people being executed for something they specifically did and for the others, they like us deserved to die just on principle. As for the last reference from Revelations - that one is yet to come. When something bad happens to us - that is justice. When something good happens - that is mercy

What Jesus said in Luke 13:1-5 applies!

 ¹Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ²Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴Or 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? ⁵I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

11. The the video offers the three basic surface level most-used Christian responses.
a. The passages are being taken out of context.
b. It was a "different time"
c. They are using the wrong translation
d. The rules are different for God.

I agree that these answers are not satisfying and only surface level. They really don't answer the question fully. So let me blunt:

Is God better than you so much that He is not beholden or accountable to you for anything he does? Yes. It's a good thing that He loves us because if He treated us like we treat ourselves we would have nothing to go back to...no recourse. Nothing.

⁶ Seek the LORD while he may be found;
       call on him while he is near.

 ⁷ Let the wicked forsake his way
       and the evil man his thoughts.
       Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
       and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

 ⁸ "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,"
       declares the LORD.

 ⁹ "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 ¹⁰ As the rain and the snow
       come down from heaven,
       and do not return to it
       without watering the earth
       and making it bud and flourish,
       so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

 ¹¹ so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
       It will not return to me empty,
       but will accomplish what I desire
       and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

 ¹² You will go out in joy
       and be led forth in peace;
       the mountains and hills
       will burst into song before you,
       and all the trees of the field
       will clap their hands.

 ¹³ Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
       and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
       This will be for the LORD's renown,
       for an everlasting sign,
       which will not be destroyed." - Isaiah 55:6-13

12. Then the video gives one of the most famous quotes of Richard Dawkins.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Dawkins should stick to Biology and stay out of exegeting scripture because he is better at reading in his own fears and bias into scripture. The video attempts to use this as a capstone to the dilapidated edifice that it tries to build against God. Utter failure. Only serves to show that Dawkins knows nothing about God.


13. The video then ends with the mantra "Morality is a choice...not a church".

Is that it? Dodging the question. Hem and hawing. Real pathetic. No explanation as to where an atheistic's worldview's moral authority comes from or how an atheist proves  his/her morality is objectively true and has a right to insist on it. If "morality is a choice", then who makes the choices? Based on what? I don't want it based on my thinking or any other human being's to be honest. Look at Jeremiah 17:5-11

⁵ This is what the LORD says:
       "Cursed is the one who trusts in man,
       who depends on flesh for his strength
       and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

 ⁶ He will be like a bush in the wastelands;
       he will not see prosperity when it comes.
       He will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
       in a salt land where no one lives.

 ⁷ "But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
       whose confidence is in him.

 ⁸ He will be like a tree planted by the water
       that sends out its roots by the stream.
       It does not fear when heat comes;
       its leaves are always green.
       It has no worries in a year of drought
       and never fails to bear fruit."

 ⁹ The heart is deceitful above all things
       and beyond cure.
       Who can understand it?

 ¹⁰ "I the LORD search the heart
       and examine the mind,
       to reward a man according to his conduct,
       according to what his deeds deserve."

 ¹¹ Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay
       is the man who gains riches by unjust means.
       When his life is half gone, they will desert him,
       and in the end he will prove to be a fool.

Here is the video



It's a well done video - tugs at the heart strings but in the end it's empty of any real value. A subjective, relative morality is no morality at all.


YouTube - Morality Without God

YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I found this great lecture on the Internet from Dr. Lawrence Krauss whom I respect as a physicist and his ability to explain Physics to the general public. He is a gifted scholar and writer. I agreed with all the evidence and numbers and math he provided it all made sense. When he talked about the time in the early 20th century when it was proved that the Universe is not eternal and that there was a beginning and all the galaxies are rapidly expanding from each other, he pointed out that many religious people took it as proof that Genesis 1:1 is correct. He correctly points out that how you come to conclusion can be influenced by what you believe. During the course of the lecture, he stated that although it has been evidenced that the universe came from nothing, quantum mechanical pertubations (matter and energy spontaneously jumping in and out of existence) makes the creation of matter inevitable if there is truly a multiverse and we just just happen to live in the Universe where everything is optimum for our existence at the right time in the right place in our galaxy where we can actually measure and do all the science - collecting the evidence he presented. Therefore, according to him, there is no need for a creator because what we observe was inevitable. I find it interesting that through out the talk a lot of presuppositions were made that reflect his bias against religion.

1. There is a multiverse - multiple universes where the laws of physics are different in each one. And as yet we can't prove that.
2. He argues that there is no design because all possible realities exist but can't prove it.
3. He assumes that because so much of our observable universe is inhospitable to our form of life, we are anomaly and not special or favored or purposed in any way.
4. He also stated twice that we live in a universe where rare things happen often including life. If something happen rarely it can't happen often And where else in the universe is there any life at all?

As I said I agree with all of the evidence, math, and observable science that Dr. Krauss presented but it's his conclusions and his bias against the very thought of God that he is accountable to taints his conclusions. He neglected to mention why theists who understand Genesis 1:1 have no problem with the thought that the reality of space and time and everything in our universe came from nothing. Genesis 1:1 says exactly that but say that God caused it...he forced it. Krauss seemed to imply an eternal state of nothing that gave rise to the universe, but says nothing about where that singularity in fact came from.



YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

MythBusters Superhero Special Episode Goes Online - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Comics Alliance has published a very interesting article on an episode of MythBusters in which several aspects of Superhero fiction was examined. It is a great article to read and has the episode embedded in it. Extremely cool! IT reminds me of when I was in my first Physics class in college and a friend pointed out to me that it makes no sense that Superman was able to move the earth by pushing it. And we both remembered that they showed him do it twice in two different episodes of Superfriends.

MythBusters Superhero Special Episode Goes Online - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2)

I found a great debate on the Internet between Astronomer Hugh Ross and Dr. Kent Hovind. Both believe the Bible. Both believe that God created the Universe. They disagree on the age of the earth and how God did it. Hovind believes that we should understand the Bible is claiming that the days of creation were six twenty-four hour days while Dr. Ross believes that the Bible, in context, was actually talking about six periods of time that could have been millions of years. I enjoyed the debate. I think Hovind lost big while Ross did a better job of arguing his points from scripture and science. The best feature of the debate is that they stepped through the days of creation (didn't make it through all of them) and talked about what happened from their different points of view.

1. I agree with Ross that you can't use the genealogy in Genesis to calculate the age of the earth because we don't know if everyone who lived is listed in that. Genealogies in the Hebrew culture don't list everyone. This is what Hovind does to find the age of the earth.
2. I'm not too sure I agree with Ross on his interpretation that Day 2 was the water cycle but I admit that there is room for further discussion.
3. I did not like the way Hovind seemed to look down his nose at Ross.
4. I've studied physics at the college level and done a considerable amount of research I found nothing wrong with anything Ross said from the astronomical point of view. I admit that I have a problem with anyone who tries to argue that the speed of light is not constant. Most our technology based on quantum mechanics rely in that fact. I've measured the speed of light myself in a lab and got the same thing the texts say it should be. Yes, it's constant everywhere and no reason to think it isn't. Not good at all, Hovind.
5. The other offputting thing about Hovind's performance was instead of really interacting with Ross he seemed to just throw out all of his evidence. In my opinion the Big Bang - all Matter & Energy - all dimensions of Space and Time - simultaneously exploding together into existence is what Genesis 1:1 says!




Watch Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2) in Educational & How-To  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Kent Hovind v Hugh Ross (disc 1 of 2) | Free Educational & How-To Videos - Watch Educational & How-To Videos Online | Veoh

Sam Harris | Author | Big Think - What Is Faith?

Image via Wikipedia

Here is the next part of my series on responding to video comments from atheist Sam Harris. In this particular video he gives his view on what "faith" is.





Samuel Harris describes "faith" as believing something that you have no evidence for. I disagree. Harris admits that people have different definitions of "faith".  So why don't we go and see what the Bible definition for faith is. Hebrews 11 defines what faith is. Here are the first 10 verses:

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.
 ⁷By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
 ⁸By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. ⁹By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. ¹⁰For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 

Just because you hope for something or can't see something that does not mean there is no evidence. There are plenty of things that are real that no one has seen but we know exists. For example, you can't see gravity but you know it exists. You can't see magnetic fields, but you know it exists. You can't see these things but like God, you can see their effects affecting you and other physical objects.

Regardless of if you reject the Bible or not, you cannot deny that it and Harris are talking about two different things that Harris is erroneously calling "faith".


Sam Harris | Author | Big Think