Apologetics 315: Author Interview: James Spiegel & The Making of an Atheist

I really enjoyed this interview of James Spiegel on his new book from Apologetics 315. I think Spiegel is right. People reject God because they don't want to be accountable or beholden to him. I think I will read his book.


Apologetics 315: Author Interview: James Spiegel & The Making of an Atheist

YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit - The Bible - Fact or Fiction

Here is a video from Penn and Teller's show. It was on ShowTime so it does contain some profanity. In this episode they attempt to prove that the Bible is wrong - inconsistent and false! Michael Shermer and Paul Maier are interviewed kind of in a faux debate. Penn most definitely hates the Bible and insults believers every chance he can. Shermer is given more time to make his points than Maier and I don't think Maier is given the same weight. Some ideas brought up in the show arew definitely the same tired drum but not new. It is asserted over and over again than we have no evidence for the Jews in Egypt or the Exodus. Or Adam. Or Noah. Contrary evidence was not presented. For example it was remoarked that it made no sense for Noah to be able to gather up two of every kind of animal and put them on the continents we know they live today. Forgetting that in Noah's time, there was only a single continent and that Noah brought the ancestors of the animals today. For example, Noah did not bring 2 Saint Bernards and 2 dobermans, he brought two dogs that were the common ancestor to each of them. Onm point Penn brought up was how horrible that God killed the firstborn of Egypt. He seemed to have forgotten that the Egyptians had murdered all the male Hebrew children when Moses was as baby. It was justice. Egypt had it coming.

The equivocation between Jesus and Elvis was funny...in a pathetic way. Penn and Teller threw out all the evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. But at least they did say that there is enough evidence to accept that Jesus historically lived and was crucified. Unfortunately, they also try to argue that there were other messiahs at the time of Jesus. Shermer throws out Apollonius as an example. I did a post comparing truly if our ideas of Jesus came from Apollonius here. Not a good argument at all. And as for Jesus' miracles being demeaned to being like the magic acts of Penn and Teller, I wanna see them raise a man from the dead who was dead 3 days - or do a single healing miracle. No? Didn't think so.






YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit - The Bible - Fact or Fiction Part 1

How I found God and peace with my atheist brother: PETER HITCHENS traces his journey back to Christianity | Mail Online

Christopher Hitchen's  brother wrote a brilliant piece about his finding God and his relationship with his brother. It's extremely moving. 

How I found God and peace with my atheist brother: PETER HITCHENS traces his journey back to Christianity | Mail Online

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens On the Ten Commandments With Better Ones

Image via Wikipedia

Christopher Hitchens shares his views on why the Ten Commandments doesn't makes sense. Watch his pontification below with my comments following.





Okay, Let's take his points one-by-one. You can read the ten commandments at Exodus 20:1-22.

1 & 2. The first and second commandment does not mean that no images should be made...just none with the purpose of bowing down and worshiping them. This is what "graven image" means. Hitchens is trying to say that the commandment is against art, but we know it can't mean that because God commanded sculptures and art in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.
3. The third commandment is about reverencing God. It about not cursing with God's name. Alleging that we don't know what the command means is silly because you know why you have God's name on your lips.
4. Keeping the Sabbath is described as worshiping only on Saturday, but many Christians worship on Sunday because of the fact that Jesus rose on the 1st days of the week and the sabbath was meant to mean something symbolic and it was never applied to Gentile believers outside of theocratic Israel. I will be making a fuller post on this later.
5. Hitchens seem to be okay honoring father and mother. Finally we agree on something.
6. Hitchens points out that after being told not to kill, Levites were commanded to kill apostates. The problem is that the commandment is not to murder. Not all killing is murder. When the Levites killed those who were not loyal to God it wasn't murder it was justice.
7. The seventh commandment against adultery, Hitchens tries to mitigate it in saying that it's not as bad as murder (shows he knows that the 6th command was against murder not killing), theft, and perjury). He clearly doesn't think adulterers should die for cheating on their spouse. Thing is God Hitxcdisagrees.
8. Hitchens has no problem with number 8. He even goes as far saying that stealing if frowned upon nearly all societies. The "elephant" in the room of course is why? Why is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong because we all think it's wrong or is it objectively wrong? It's objectively wrong because it's a sin against God to steal because everything belongs to God and it is he that gives you everything you have. If someone takes it from you, they take it from God.
9. Hitchen actually seems to like this one. The 9th commandment is about how we should not lie on anyone. Hitchens seems to think it's talking about in a court of law. It is, but it's also broader than that. God is saying to not lie on anyone at anytime.
10. Hitchens offers three objections to the 10th commandment against coveting another person's possessions.
a. He says the commandments equivocates wives with cattle. I disagree because to say that would mean that you think its okay for a woman to covet another woman's husband. No way. On top of the New Testament explicitly states that a husband belongs to his wife and a wife to her husband.
b. He objects because God is punishing us for a thought crime. This is nothing new. Jesus said that if you lust after a woman in your mind you have committed adultery. It's fair.
c. God did not put covetousness in us because God neither tempts us with evil, nor is he tempted by evil.

Hitchens claims that these commands are inconsistent but he provides no evidence then he rewrites the ten commandments for the 21st Century.
1. "Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity of color." The Bible agrees!
2. "Do not even think of using people for personal property." The Bible agrees. Slave holders in Ancient Israel were not to think they owned slaves as property. Neither were Christians in the New Testament.
3."Despise those who use violence or the threat of violence in sexual relationships." The Bible agrees. Considering that sexual relationships are just supposed to be within marriage, and the Bible specifically describes how husbands and wives should relate to one another, there would not be violence.
4. "Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child." Of course the Bible agrees.
5. "Do not condemn people for their inborn nature." Sorry doesn't work. Some people steal...that is their inborn nature. Some people lie incessantly...that is their inborn nature. So should we not prosecute thieves? Or people who lie in court? Sin is sin. Just like you can be delivered from your inborn nature of stealing or lying, you can be delivered from Homosexuality. No sin is worse than another.
6. "Be aware that you too are an animal and subject to the whim of nature." So? How does this help us be more moral?
7. "Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus." The Bible agrees you don't wanna be a false prophet or teacher.
8. Most definitely a joke.
9. "Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions and terrible sexual repression." The Bible agrees that extremists are bad and warns us against being that way.
10. Be willing to renounce any God or any religion if any holy commandment contradicts any of the above. Hitchens failed to show how the 10 commandments contradict any of his 10 commandments.

Debunking Christianity: Christopher Hitchens On the Ten Commandments With Better Ones

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christopher Hitchens: The New Commandments (milkandcookies.com)

YouTube - The Absurdity of John W. Loftus

John W. Loftus was a guest on the radio program "The Things That Matter Most". In it we get to see the contortion Loftus has gone through to deny God's existence. It's shocking to me that he has gotten to the point that at the beginning it really wasn't "nothing" but positive and negative energy canceling out with a 60% chance that the universe would come into existence on it's own. WHAT? Scary indeed.






YouTube - The Absurdity of John W. Loftus

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Suffering of Job and Divine Justice - Part 2

Here is part 2 of Dr. Claude Mariottini's insights into the Book of Job. He did an awesome Job. He really mines the text for all it is worth. Face it, the fundamental question of the book is "Why?" Why do good people suffer? Why is there evil? Some folks say that the book dodges the question, yet God does answer only no one really likes the answer. It's a gift of God to accept the answer and say "Amen!" - "So be it!!" I've got to quote Mariottini a couple of times because it so so poignant.

The theology of Job’s friends was not all wrong, but neither was their theology right enough to explain Job’s suffering. Notwithstanding their words of wisdom, Job’s suffering continued. Thus, in the end, human wisdom could not bring the healing or the answers Job was so desperately seeking.

I think Mariottini has hit the nail on the head as to what God's purpose in all of this this is...in part. I've come to the same conclusion.

God’s purpose was not only to heal Job, but also to instruct him. God asked Job several rhetorical questions which were beyond human capability of answering.

God not only instructs Job but us. I for one would rather read and understand these lessons rather than experience them as Job did. Job's response is the same response we should all have.

At the end of God’s encounter with Job, Job humbly repented of his presumption, that he could contend with God. He also repented of his pride in seeing only himself while failing to recognize that God’s purpose for his life was much more than he could understand. He bowed in recognition of his insignificance before his sovereign Lord.

There is one theological point that I think is really important to point out. Some people have tried to argue that the concept of physical resurrection is alien to the Hebrew Bible. This is not true. I was reminded of this because Mariottini quotes the passage and it's one of my favorites from Job.

 ²⁵ I know that my Redeemer  lives,
       and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
 ²⁶ And after my skin has been destroyed,
       yet  in my flesh I will see God;
- Job 19:25-26

I cannot emphasize it enough. Job's redeemer is our redeemer - Jesus Christ!!!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Suffering of Job and Divine Justice - Part 2

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman's Problem, part 2

Image via Wikipedia

Here is Mariano's second post on some of the textual issues Bart Ehrman builds his fame and his agnosticism on. It is another great article!

We now continue and conclude considering the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD as we focus on the participation of Dan Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) as I glean from the reports of the forum written by Ed Komoszewski from the theology blog Parchment and Pen; part 1 and part 2.

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 2

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Invention of the Alphabet

Dr Mariottini has posted a great article that lists a link to an article to the Biblical Archaeological Review magazine. It's about evidence that the idea of the Alphabet as we know it today began 4000 years ago. Real Interesting!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Invention of the Alphabet

3 LA Teachers Removed Over Choice of Black Heroes - ABC News

Would you think of OJ Simpson, RuPaul, and Dennis Rodman as examples of Black Heroes? I wouldn't. Three LA Teachers however apparently would and they have been removed from their classrooms. Read the article below.

3 LA Teachers Removed Over Choice of Black Heroes - ABC News

Atheist Liberals More Intelligent than Religious Conservatives, Say Scientists

A little while ago I came across an article hypothesizing that Atheists Liberals are more intelligent than religious conservatives using IQ Tests!

From the article: “Religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.”

I took three IQ Tests when I was 17-18 years old. My highest score was 114...100 was supposed to be average. IQ tests prove nothing but how close you can think like the person who made the test. I also think that the article makes no sense. The article is wrong. Half of the population is neither Atheistic nor Liberal. The thought that some people are unable to believe agrees with the Bible. It is also funny to see atheists trying to account for religion from the standpoint of evolution and then trying to argue that more people don't believe because we are evolving. Really pathetic. I have yet to see any understanding or evidence for a genetic mutation affecting how people's minds work.

Atheist Liberals More Intelligent than Religious Conservatives, Say Scientists

Related articles by Zemanta

• Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

Is 1 John 5:10 Relevant to the Ordo Salutis and 1 John 5:1/2:29, and 4:7?

There is an anonymous response to James White's discussion of 1 John 5:1 and other passages regarding the order of salvation - "ordo salutis".

 An evidently anti-Reformed textual critic has posted a brief criticism of using 1 John 5:1 as a text relevant to the ordo salutis and in particular to the relationship of saving faith and regeneration (though both terms appear in the text). Anyone who knows the identity of this blogger please let me know, I'd be interested in knowing. I have seen his material linked on the Evangelical Textual Criticism list. In any case, here is my response.

This video shows how careful and thorough a scholar James White is. I agree with his analysis. It fits the whole testimony of scripture.

Is 1 John 5:10 Relevant to the Ordo Salutis and 1 John 5:1/2:29, and 4:7?

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 1

Image via Wikipedia

Mariano has launched a new series of articles again considering the work of  Bart Ehrman but this time juxtaposed with other scholars

Hereinafter, we will consider occurrences at the Greer-Heard Forum of 2008 AD.
The forum’s topic was the reliability of New Testament manuscripts as pointers to the original text.

The lectures and discussions primarily featured Dan Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) with contributions by Michael Holmes (Bethel University), Dale Martin (Yale University), David Parker (Birmingham University) and William Warren (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary).

I will be gleaning from the reports of the forum written by Ed Komoszewski from the theology blog Parchment and Pen; part 1 and part 2.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 2 reviews of Bart Ehrman (Christian fundamentalist to liberal Christian) (rateitall.com)

This is good!

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 1

John Piper on 1 John 5:1 (My Comments to Come Later)

James White posted a video by John Piper doing a presentation on 1 John 5:1 that was referred to from Pastor Bob Brodersen in a clip against Calvinism .I posted a video yesterday that James White posted and here is the video he referred from John Piper. I like how Piper explained it as well. We all start out dead - hostile to God - God has to regenerate us before we can believe. Regeneration is the cause of faith and belief and not the cause.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 1 John 5:1





John Piper on 1 John 5:1 (My Comments to Come Later)

Iron Sharpens Iron: Postmillennialism Defended

Last week, the Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast did a series of programs that I have not seen anyone do: each day they had a different eschatological view presented and discussed. I'm planning to post on all of them. This post is about Postmillennialism with John Jefferson Davis, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary

Iron Sharpens Iron: Postmillennialism Defended

1 John 5:1, Exegesis, Regeneration and Saving Faith, and Brian Brodersen

James White posted the following video on his blog discussing 1st John 5:1 and the comments from Calvary Chapel's Brian Brodersen comments on Calvinism and what regeneration is and when does it happen. Does it happen before apart from us or does God only regenerate us when we say it's okay? I think the Bible shows what White is explaining. It's sound exegesis and we do need to look past our traditions and see what the scriptures really are saying!




1 John 5:1, Exegesis, Regeneration and Saving Faith, and Brian Brodersen

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Nail from Christ’s Cross: A Fantasy

Dr. Mariottini has posted a link to an article challenging the previous article that a new archaeological fine sheds light on the kinds of nails that were used in crucifixions about the time of Jesus.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Nail from Christ’s Cross: A Fantasy

Apologetics 315: Dinesh D'Souza vs. John Loftus Debate MP3 Audio

I got this debate from Apologetics 315. From the introduction of John Loftus I expected a lot more. He didn't offer anything new. No new argument. Nothing - just like what God used to create all of reality. I love to see Dinesh D'Souza argue for God and Christianity. He is brilliant. While I understand the need for his apologetic in the public square, I prefer an apologetic based on the Bible being true. This debate is the one where I think I've seen D'Souza defend the Bible because Lofus really did attack it. He made some claims and thoughts that D'Souza did not have time to address. The thing about Loftus that I found most interesting is that it says that he was once a student of William Lane Craig and at times it seems that Loftus was debating him not D'Souza. My favorite point that D'Souza made was when he compared the historical evidence for Socrates's life and teaching and showed how what we really know about him is less than what we know about Jesus if we apply the same criteria to Socrates. Yet I have not ever heard a qualified historian argue that Socrates never existed. I disagreed with many of the facts that Loftus asserted. They weren't right. Neither were his conclusions correct. For example, as far as I can tell everyone agrees that the universe began as a singularity - the debate is the nature of that singularity and how it got there. Also Loftus proof that Jesus did not claim to be God is the exact opposite of what Jesus claimed. Look at  Matthew 19: 16-17.

¹⁶Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
 ¹⁷"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." (NIV)

¹⁶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
 ¹⁷And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (KJV)

Loftus tried to use this to argue to say that Jesus was saying that no one is good but God and that he wasn't claiming to be God. D'Souza didn't have time to address this, so I will, because I can't stand this objection because it is stupid.. Jesus was not claiming that he was not good. This is what you would have to assume to get Loftus' understanding. No, Jesus is calling attention to all what the Young man has said in calling him good. If no one is good but God, and Jesus is good, then that means Jesus is God.  QED!


On Wednesday, Dr. James White was on a radio program discussing the Trinity, a Jewish woman called in and offered this very same scripture as a rebuttal to the Trinity. Listen to how White  handled it.

On Apologetics 315, you can find the audio link to the debate and below is a playlist from YouTube.





Apologetics 315: Dinesh D'Souza vs. John Loftus Debate MP3 Audio

Related articles by Zemanta

• Former Pastor John Loftus debates Christian Apologist Dinesh D'Souza (new.exchristian.net)
• Reasons to Believe that there is a God (oup.com)

Response to video called "Context!!!!!"

Image via Wikipedia

godlessgirl tweeted this video on March 1, 2010 and I have to admit it does make a couple of important points. One, context is important and two, Christians are guilty of crying foul when Atheists brings up verses in which events and actions that moral people today think are repugnant but do not apply the same level criticism to the nice and happy verses that makes us feel good. But I think the video's author also inadvertently makes some points that he did not intend to make. Watch the video below.






Notice how the Christian tries to give the context of some of the verses and it all seems like Blah, Blah, a cacophony of sound without any context or real meaning? Well that is what an atheist hears when we answer his/her questions if they are not really interested in knowing why we don't see it the way they do. "My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts." is the attitude. I also think that the author shows that sometime Christians misapply the context defense by saying that God didn't say something that the scripture did say because they aren't familiar with the scriptures as they should be. Notice the slick editing? When the Christian was tripped up you could hear the exchange just fine, but when the atheist was not listening you could hear nothing. The video also showcases that many atheists and Christians are biased and bring their own presuppositions. Christians must guard against this. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of setting our own notions of what God should be just because we believe Him to be somethings He is not or won't do things that He really did. The goal is to be in relationship with the real God not our idea of God. This is what the atheist has. That is why they reject God. When they hear an argument like the imagined Christian in the video makes that if something sounds evil, immoral, ridiculous, silly, ect then it's out of context, they see that as being dishonest and it is. The atheist that dismisses a passage as such without trying to understand what is happening is guilty of the same sin. The video is just another mirror of reality. Unless both sides are willing to listen in no way can we reason together! I thank the author for making this video because it's instructive. All the Bible verses used in the video were either given without context and some in the wrong context. Let's take each verse one-by-one and see what the context is. This time let's use sound exegesis. Ask who is talking? Who is the Audience? When? Where? Why? Here is a table listing each passage discussed, the context, and the reasoning.

John 13:34
Passage Context:: John 13
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: The twelve apostles
Where: After the last supper, just before He was arrested and crucified.
Why: Jesus is delivering his last instructions before everything profoundly changes
The point: In context this passage is not to the world but those who count themselves Jesus' followers.  In verse 35, Jesus tells us that if we love one another we show ourselves His disciples. In context we got to love one another if you are a Christian but the command means nothing to nonbelievers. Not saying that we are told not to love non-Christians but that has nothing to do with this passage.

Joshua 1:9

Passage Context:: Joshua 1
Speaker: God
Audience Audience
Where: Just east of the Jordon River
Why: God was encouraging Joshua for the work he was getting ready to undertake.
The point: Many Christians take this verse out of context, applying this promise to Joshua to themselves for something they want to do. This is a problem. If God did not tell you to do something and you go out on the limb, then  you are not like Joshua. God told him to go. This is why Joshua got that promise. I learned this lesson extremely well, but it cost me a lot.

Psalm 23:4
Passage Context: Psalm 23
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where: Israel
Why:: David uses the imagery of God as a shepherd to praise God.
The point: David recognized that God shepherds us through life just like he used to shepherd sheep.

Matthew 7:7
Passage Context: Matthew 5,6,7,
Speaker: Jesus
Audience: A multitude and disciples
Where: Mountainside
Why: The sermon on the mount
The point: Many folks have tried to say that Jesus was saying that you can have what ever you want, but in context Jesus was talking about what you need; look at Matt 7: 7-12. It's in the context of our needs and not necessarily our material desires.

Proverbs 30:5
Passage Context: Proverbs 30
Speaker: Agur
Audience:
Where: Israel
Why:  Agur tells us why we should trust the word of God and what it means to life
The point: Good advice

1st John 4:7;1 John 4:8
Passage Context: 1 John 4:7-21
Speaker: Apostle John
Audience: Church
Where: A letter
Why: Passing on what He learned from Jesus
The point: We cannot expect to be true followers of Christ without loving one another. This is in context of the church holding us to a standard that those outside of the church are not being held to.

Lev 21:9
Passage Context: Leviticus 21
Speaker: God
Audience:The Priests of Ancient, theocratic Israel
Where: Mt Sinai
Why: It's not just the priest himself who is called to be set apart for God but his entire family.
The point: The verse is raised as an example to show that God is silly because of the presupposition that prostitution is not a crime worthy of death.  God's standards happen to higher than ours. The priests' daughters had responsibilities and laws that they were obligated to follow.

Lev 24:16
Passage Context: Lev 24
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where: Sinai
Why: A person was caught blaspheming God
The point: It was against the law to blaspheme God! What is wrong with that? It's not the Bible's fault that our standards are lower.

Lev 26:21-22
Passage Context: Lev 26
Speaker:God
Audience:Ancient, Theocratic Israel
Where:Sinai
Why:God was explicit vs 1-13: This is what happens if you obey;the rest of the chapter: This is what happens if you disobey
The point: Yes, no one would want these results....but given disobedience it is a just result. If you don't want these things to befall you, obey God.

Nahum 1:7
Passage Context: Nahum 1
Speaker: Nahum
Audience: Ancient Israel before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria
Where: Israel
Why: For Tells the destruction  of Ninevah, Assyria's capital which was unthinkable at the time this prophecy was given.
The point: Nahum in verses 1-7  give great insight into who God is and verse 8 begins to tell us will happen to Assyria. Anyone who is a student of History and knows anything of the kinds of regime the Assyrians had and the way they treated others would have to agree that they had it coming...just we do.

Joshua 10:39-40 
Passage Context: The Book of Joshua
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: This is a historical narrative
Where: Canaan
Why: God commanded Joshua in how he carried out the war of conquest..
The point: The people that had lived in the land before Israel returned from Egypt were corrupt...evil...and had it coming. God had given them 400 years to repent and stop child sacrifice and worshipping idols and they didn't, It's fascinating to me that people who support abortion balk and get angry charging God with genocide and murder of children while not seeing that abortion is no different and that those societies were killing some of their children anyway and sacrificing them to idols.\

Philippians 4:13
Passage Context: Philippians 4
Speaker: Paul
Audience:The church at Philippi and all Christians
Where: Philippi
Why: Paul is thanking them for the gifts they sent to the church in Jerusalem
The point: Paul said he could do all things in the context of learning how to be content no matter how much material things he has and does not have.

2 Sam 7:28
Passage Context: 2 Sam 7
Speaker: David
Audience: God
Where :Jersusalem; David is established as King over all Israel
Why: David said he wanted to build God a temple, but God said that wasn't for him, but instead gives David a Messianic prophecy foreshadowing Jesus (vs 16)
The point: David is told what is going to happen after he dies, immediately and 1000 yrs later.

Jer 20:7
Passage Context: The Book of Jeremiah
Speaker: Jeremiah
Audience: God
Where: Judah
Why: Jeremiah is telling God how he feels about his present situation. All he did was tell the people what God told him to tell them and has gotten nothing but stiff opposition and persecution. So he feels like "I didn't sign up for this!" And he was right look at chapter 1, God called him from before birth. No where is it recorded that God promised Jeremiah or us a problem free, unopposed life if we follow and serve Him. No, it's the opposite. We are promised trials and tribulation.
The point: It's okay to question God and cast all your fears, anxiety, and frustration on God. God can take it, support you and protect you just like God did for Jeremiah.

Deut 28:53
Passage Context: Deut 28
Speaker: Moses speaking for God
Audience: Israel just before Moses dies and turns over leadership to Joshua; Moses Farewell address
Where: Just outside Canaan
Why: The whole chapter tells what happens if the people follow God and what happens if they don't.
The point: Deut 28:53 is about what happens if they reject God. And we see this fulfilled historically: When the Babylonians and Romans laid siege to Jerusalem we hear stories of these things happened. Is it moral? Yes! They brought it on themselves. This is what happens when you reject God...ultimately nothing good can come of that.

Deut 32:41-42
Passage Context: Deuteronomy 32
Speaker: God through Moses
Audience: Israel
Where:  Oustide of Canaan, before Joshua takes them in; Moses Farewell address
Why: More insight into who God is.
The point: God does not play and you don't want him as an enemy. How could anyone read this and assume that it's all going to be okay if you try to oppose God?

2 Kings 1:10-12
Passage Context: 2 Kings 1
Speaker: Elijah
Audience: Soldiers sent to arrest him.
Where: Judah
Why: King Ahaziah tried to arrest Elijah because he didn't like the prophecy God sent through him - a rebuke because he tried to consult an idol instead of seeking God
The point: This shows how much God hates idolatry and that you can't just mess with God's servants with impunity. I also see how Elijah depended on God. He moved when God told him to move and trusted him. Is it moral? The two companies who tried to arrest Elijah were wrong. Elijah did no crime. The third group had the good sense to humbly request Elijah to come with them that is why they didn't die.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
Passage Context: Deut 13
Speaker: God
Audience: Ancient Israel
Where: Outside of Canaan
Why: Our society is so different from theocratic Israel. Worship and belief in a single deitiy is not the basis of our society today like it was back then.
The point: Apostasy and inciting apostasy was a capital offense legitimately because God was ruler of Israel at the time. It would and does today erode society and splits it up. This passage was also in the context of false prophets...people who claimed to speak for God or a deity and then try to teach the people to break the law.

1 Samuel 17:57
Passage Context: 1 Samuel 17
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where:Ancient Israel about 3000 years ago
Why:  David just won his battle with Goliath...this was a war. David took his head as proof that he did indeed win.
The point: I don't understand what is objectionable. So what if David carried around David's head for several hours. A lot of folks throughout history would have displayed it on a pike.
Isaiah 37:36
Passage Context: Isaiah 37
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical Narrative
Where: Judah
Why: Assyria (the most powerful nation on the planet at the time) attacked Judah during the time of King Hezekiah and God sent an angel to fight for them.
The point: I fail to see why this is bad. Assyria had come to destroy Judah, and God protected them.

2 Kings 2:23-24
Passage Context: 2 Kings 2
Speaker: Narrator
Audience: Historical
Where:  Israel
Why: Modern sensibilities are ruffled because young people were killed by 2 bears who had been making fun of prophet  (Elisha).
The point: Often times people think that these were children but it were young adults. We would have used the words juvenile delinquents who drained society. We aren't talking about children who did not know what they were doing.

Num 25:6-9
Passage Context: Numbers 25
Speaker: Narrative
Audience: Historical
Where: Israel in the lands of Moab/Midian
Why: The man outright defied God. He knew that it was unlawful to bring the Midianite woman who did not believe what Israel did and worshiped idols.
The point: Must point out that sex was used as a weapon against Israel to get their attention from God and to women who enticed them to worship other Gods. They were told stay away from foreign women so that kind of thing would not happen not because God is racist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

Apologetics 315: A Case for Apologetics MP3 Audio by Brian Auten

I've been following Brian Auten's work on his Apologetics 315 blog. I have enjoyed and benefited from the powerful and useful resources he has provided and pointed out.  I've found his comments and thoughts very insightful. When I found out that he was making his own podcasts I got real excited because I knew that this was going to be special. And I believe that this is the first one, posted just a few days ago, shows that my hopes most certainly were not misplaced.  He does an awesome job explaining what Apologetics is and why it is important. I really enjoyed it.  I look forward to more!

Apologetics 315: A Case for Apologetics MP3 Audio by Brian Auten

The Trinity on the Janet Mefferd Show

Dr. James White was a guest on the Janet Mefferd Show in which he talked about how important the Trinity doctrine is and why it is important. One of the high points  is hearing James White defending the Trinity against a Jewish caller.  This is worth listening!

The Trinity on the Janet Mefferd Show
Original Source (hour 2)

Stand to Reason Blog: Sproul & Meyer Discuss ID

I saw a tweet from Brian of Apologetics 315 blog. It is an interview from the Stand to Reason blog. RC Sproul interviews Stephen Meyer on the philosophy and science behind Intelligent Design and why it points to the God of the Bible. This is real awesome and worth watching.




Stand to Reason Blog: Sproul & Meyer Discuss ID

He Lives: Pre-trib Rapture? No thanks, I'll pass.

I've been following David Heddle's blog for a while now. I don't agree with everything he does but I enjoy the way he writes and I love nuclear physics so his blog is always interesting to me. This is a particular pet peeve of mine as it is his. I also reject the idea of  Pre-Tribulational raptures (especially as viewed by the Left Behind series). According the Left Behind series, the problem of the fact that there are still believers on earth during Tribulation  is solved by saying that there are 2 raptures. In my opinion that means that some people will get two chances to accept Christ. The "Pre-Trib" idea can't seem to be dated any earlier than the 19th century. If it were true I'm sure other Christians would have seen it earlier. One defense of it is that God would not allow the church to go through the Tribulation. My question: Why? They sometimes point to the fact that the Hebrews in Goshen were not touched by the 10 plagues that were applied to the rest of Egypt.To which I ask what about Job? He was righteous and he still suffered. I think it's attractive because Christians can think of themselves as not having to suffer and miss the Tribulation entirely. I know I do, but I just don't see it in scripture.

He Lives: Pre-trib Rapture? No thanks, I'll pass.

@MartijnLinssen: Global Warming, IT and Christianity - the Law of Infallibility

I've been talking to a MartijnLinssen on Twitter and he posted the following blog entry. My comments are in red.

On Twitter, I do talk a lot. About anything. My monthly tweets have exponentially grown to currently over 1,200 a month, and that now is my baseline it seems.
I talk a bit with fundamental Christians at times, but that's at night time usually, somehow.
I talk mostly with IT people during the day, as I work in IT and usually operate as an Enterprise Architect who started off writing BASIC at age 11 and COBOL at career start - been there, done that.
And every now and then I do read and / or say something about Global Warming as that has become part of our everyday life

I find it easy to talk to him although we don't agree on the Bible. It's obvious why now I know that he is in IT.

When having conversation with Christians, I usually run into strict believers who have a good share of quotes and take the Bible literally or at least believe it contains absolute Truth. I challenge them on the crucifixion and say that the Bible should be taken figuratively, not literally, that Jesus' death is just a spiritual death (I believe Jesus' true words, meanings and life are according to the Gospel of Thomas) which is met with fierce resistance that it is all the Word of God, and True, and that it should be taken literally. The Bible is infallible, they say.
Then I ask them what they think of Luke 17:21, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that "the Kingdom of God is inside you". The answers always are alike "Jesus didn't mean that when he said such", "You have to place it into the context", "No that needs to be translated among, not inside or within" - much like this lengthy commentary
And before you know it, the True Word of God is being bent and interpreted right in front of you - by Christians themselves

He and I had a similar exchange. He commits two mistakes. The first is that he should try to prove that the rest of the Gospels should be read in light of  the Gospel of Thomas. It conflicts with the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The other  problem is that he misinterprets Luke 17:21 because he thinks he can take Gospel of  Thoms equal or more weight.  In the NIV, Luke 17:21 says

nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within [oR among or with] you."

He wants to interpret this verse as saying that the Kingdom of God is inside everyone including Jesus' enemies. We know that this interpretation is incorrect because inconflicts with other scriptures. His argument leads to Jesus' enemies - those who hate and work against him -  going to heaven. This makes no sense

²²Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, ²³and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. ²⁴The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

 ²⁵Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, ²⁶but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. ²⁷My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ²⁸I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ²⁹My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. ³⁰I and the Father are one." - John 10:22-29

The rest of  the post talks about infallibility and expresses that if something is infallible it must also falsifiable - able to be proven false. This is one of the characteristics of Christianity from the beginning. Either Jesus was crucified or he wasn't. Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. You can't duck it. You can't call it spiritual or metaphor. The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection and they pointed to evidences like the empty tomb (look at Acts 2).

[The picture is showing the 'Christian percentage by country' - although that just is counting quantity of course, not measuring quality]

@MartijnLinssen: Global Warming, IT and Christianity - the Law of Infallibility