Debunking Christianity: David Wood vs John W. Loftus: Does God Exist?

I was kind of very disappointed with John Loftus' performance. He didn't use any new arguments when he recently debated Dinesh D'Souza, and it didn't work any better against David Wood than it did against D'Souza. Loftus said that neither he nor David could not completely refute each other, but it sure would be nice to have heard some real interaction with David's arguments. It was good to see David really press John on morality and John's worldview. I wanted to see some newer arguments from John Loftus that has not been used by him or anyone else before. And it was not there. Loftus did not answer anything.










Debunking Christianity: David Wood vs John W. Loftus: Does God Exist?

Unbelievable? 6 Mar 2010 - Debate: Which is more trustworthy - The Bible or Koran?

James White had a very debate with Muslim Adnan Rashid. They debated which is more reliable: the Bible or the Qur'an? James White did a great job summarizing textual transmission of the Bible. Rashid disagreed on how White talked about how the Qur'an came to us. I've heard other scholars agree with White's presentation. Rashid seemed to lean heavily on the work and conclusions of Bart Ehrman and he never really did refute White's explanation about why Ehrman's conclusions is wrong. In fact he used the same defense White used for the Bible to defend the textual integrity of the Qur'an.

I find it interesting that Rashid ends up seeming to put the Gospel of Thomas as more authoritative than the four gospels. White explains how different the Gospel of Thomas is from the rest of the Gospels. It does not belong with the rest of the Gospels. Adnan seems more than willing to agree with the Qur'an that Jesus did not die because of crucifixion yet agree that history says that Jesus did die by crucifixion. He also tried to make it seem like Bruce M. Metzger agreed that the New Testament is unreliable. The man did not believe that. This is a great discussion.

Here is the information about the podcast containing the discussion.

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is on the show this week and next defending the Christian faith.  Today he argues the Bible is historically more reliable than the Koran.
Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute argues for the Koran and criticises the transmission of Biblical writings.
How were both scriptures written and passed on?  Among other things the Koran and Bible disagree on an important event - Jesus' crucifixion.  So which should we trust?
For James White visit http://www.aomin.org/
For Adnan Rashid visit http://www.hittininstitute.com/
For more Christian and non-Christian debate visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable get the MP3 podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=267142101

You can listen to the podcast here



Here is a video James White made regarding Adnan Rashid arguments against the New Testament.

Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name | conversantlife.com

Sean McDowell has written a great post for why apologists are not more successful. I think he brings up great and solid points. Like all aspects of ministry, we must allow God to lead us as to how to minister. We must depend on God to know when to be gentle and when to be forceful. I'd call Elijah's apologetic on top of Mt Carmel successful, but it most certainly was not gentle. Sometimes sarcasm is needed I'd expect most of time it's not. Love is always necessary.

Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name | conversantlife.com

FCC Unveils Plan To Beef Up Broadband

Image by qthomasbower via Flickr

I just heard good news that the US Government is planning to make our information infrastructure better and more accessible to everyone! Awesome! Now if we can only get affordable health care to every single American too!

Obviously the United States is the most awesome, super-special nation in the world, but one way in which we are not number one is our internet. Sure, we have the greatest percentage of YouTube superstars and websites devoted to naked pictures of people's ex-girlfriends, but compared to other nations, our internets are slow. Very slow -- We're number 26 in the world according to a report by the Communications Workers of America.

But fear not: Our government is on the case. The FCC yesterday unveiled its plan to bring us into competition with internet speed demon nations like Japan and Sweden, laying out six goals to make America more cyber-y. Here they are:

* 100 million homes should have affordable access to download speeds of at least 100Mbps and upload speeds of 50 Mbps.
* The U.S. should lead the world in mobile innovation.
* Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service.
* Every American community should have access to at least 1 Gbps broadband service to anchor schools, hospitals and government buildings.
* First responders should have access to a nationwide wireless public safety network.
* Ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy.

Wait a minute, FCC, you want every American to have fast internet? Even the ones I don't like? How is that patriotic? I say, it's a socialist plot cooked up by Freemasons and reverse-vampires to get our kids hooked on Hulu videos and crack.

Okay, not really. I think speeds of 100Mbps would be freakin' amazing in terms of downloading apps, playing online and quick reading of Harry Potter fan fiction. The gaming implications of faster more stable connections are obvious. Sure it'll be expensive (estimates range from $20 and $350 billion) but it's worth it when tax-payers support the things I am interested in.

If you'd like to read the entire National Broadband Plan, here's a link to the document. Thank you, The Government, for (finally) putting this is in place. Not to be all preachy, but we actually do need to be competitive with other nations in terms of our information infrastructure.

Read more: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/703247/FCC-Unveils-Plan-To-Beef-Up-Broadband.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed#ixzz0iPAlvkjr



FCC Unveils Plan To Beef Up Broadband

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Gnosticism

A great article defining "Gnosticism" has been posted on Apologetics 315!
Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Gnosticism

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Forsaking Their “Hesed”

Dr. Mariottini has posted a great article about how to understand Jonah 2:9.

שַׁמְּרִ֖ים הַבְלֵי־שָׁ֑וְא חַסְדָּ֖ם יַעֲזֹֽבוּ׃

Mariottini shows us how the verse is rendered in several English translations and then breaks down each word to make it clear before giving his own best translation into English. His line of reasoning makes a lot of sense to me! This is an awesome article!

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Forsaking Their “Hesed”

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Peter S. Williams of Damaris.org

Here is another great interview from Apologetics 315. It's interesting to hear Dr. Williams' take on Apologetics and Christianity. Follow the link hear it.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Peter S. Williams of Damaris.org

Iron Sharpens Iron: Thomas McGovern: The Failed Prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses & Their Alleged "New Light" Now Revealed

Iron Sharpen Iron is a great show. I found out that this session holds great resources for talking to Jehovah Witnesses.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Thomas McGovern: The Failed Prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses & Their Alleged "New Light" Now Revealed

Debate: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? - William Lane Craig vs Marcus Borg

I'm not sure if I posted this before but here is a debate from 2001 in which William Lane Craig debates Marcus Borg regarding the Resurrection. I don't consider Borg a Christian because he denies the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus and Jesus' deity. He uses much the same language as Christians but means someth8ing entirely different. I do hold that the Bible is literally true, but it does have symbols and metaphors. Jesus Resurrection and the empty tomb are not examples of metaphor.



Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Debunking Christianity: Either the Garden of Eden Test Was a Sham or a Myth

Image via Wikipedia

On his blog, John W. Loftus has written an interesting post based on one of his previous posts.

John Loftus wrote:

In a previous post of mine I argued that the "supposed" test in the Garden of Eden was a sham. Then along comes my friend Dr. Dan Lambert who argued that we atheists have it wrong because "The Garden story is a myth invented to explain why people sin. Simple. End of story." At least Dan understands it for what it is. But if he's correct then how does this save his faith from refutation? Whether it's a sham test or a myth it doesn't matter. Why should any intelligent person base his faith on ancient myths? And there are lots of them in the Bible.

The previous post in question says:

If under the same initial test conditions in the supposed Garden of Eden every human being would fail that test, then either, 1) God created us faulty in some way, or 2) The test was a sham. And since a fair test would mean some of us would not have sinned, then some human beings are being punished in this world for something they never would have done in the first place. This is just one of many problems that keeps me from believing.

I think I see Mr. Loftus' point but it is based on a poor assumption. Loftus is arguing that not every single person would have failed in the Garden. He raises the objection that we are being unfairly punished. I can relate to this. When I was a child, I was angry with Adam....I thought that he messed everything up for me and all of us. However I had an epiphany - a moment of clarity.I realized that while Adam disobeyed God in the the Garden, I had to realize that I would have failed in the Garden myself. None of us would have passed. I realized that I disobeyed my parents so why should I expect Adam to be better than I? Adam represented all of us...just like Jesus is our representative. God can do what God wants. If God wants to judge us based on Jesus that is God's sovereign right. However all of us are sinners deserving death. Therefore God is being fair.

 ¹²Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— ¹³for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ¹⁴Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 ¹⁵But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! ¹⁶Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 ¹⁸Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. ¹⁹For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 ²⁰The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 5:12-21

And

¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. - 1 Timothy 2:13-14

Adam knew exactly what he was doing...Eve was tricked. The fault was Adams. 

Eden was not a sham.  We know that it was not a myth with all due respect to Dr. Lambert.. Romans 5 shows that  Paul did indeed believe that Adam was a historical person and his failure in Eden a historical event. More importantly Jesus taught that Adam was a real person and taught that Genesis was true.

 ⁴"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6

Debunking Christianity: Either the Garden of Eden Test Was a Sham or a Myth

Celebrating Pi

Today I found all kinds of  videos celebrating the number Pi. Why is Pi so important? It is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter!  It does not matter how large or small a circle is you get Pi. The number appears in almost every single formula describing the physical world we use. The number is special because it is irrational ( can't be written as a fraction) and goes on forever.

Salvation By Grace: Dr Skepple Defining Sovereign Grace

Here is a video in which Dr. Roger Skepple defines what Reformed theology is. I really like the way he breaks it down and explains that it's more than just the 5 points we usually point out in Reformed Theology. He also points out that it's about the 5 "solas" or the 5 "onlies" (ie only faith, only Christ, ect). Check him out.





Salvation By Grace: Dr Skepple Defining Sovereign Grace

Racism, Stereotypes and Comic Books Part 2: The Blackquel

I read an interesting article. I liked it however I did not agree with all of it. It is about racism and stereotypes in comic books. I think the writer is correct that racism is a part of the fabric of American society including comic books. This quote is very telling from the article.

Some people might say: What about Black Panther and Spawn? The argument for that is simple: The characters are covered from head to toe to hide who they truly are. Anyone could be under the that costume. In fact, when Spawn was created everybody thought he was white. Don't lie, you thought he was white. I did too, and the big gimmick became that he's black. Not that it matters, cause his face looks like rotten flesh. He doesn't look black, which shows you that white people would rather take an ugly monster looking creature as their savior than a black person. The Legion of Superheroes have a bunch of characters that are monster-like and up until recently, did not have any black heroes in it. This can be parallel to Star Trek. who has all kind of monster-looking creatures on their show, just so they can avoid putting blacks on TV. My friend and I used to laugh at the fact that Captain Kirk screws every known creature in the galaxy from purple to green to blue, but never a black chick. Yes, I'm aware that Kirk and Uhura was the first interracial kiss on television. Though if you've seen the episode, you'd realize that it only happened because Parmen forced them to kiss. As if no white man would ever want to be with a black woman unless if he was forced. They tried to fix that argument in the new movie by showing Kirk drooling over Uhara. Comic books need to do something of that kind to fix the damage they have done. The best way they can do this is to make some of the more prominent characters white in the comic movie. Just another example that every industry has to hold the black man down one way or another. While I am no fan of Will Smith, I think he would be the perfect man to play Steve Rogers. After all, you did promise black people forty acres and a mule, but since you have renege on your promise, we will take Captain America instead.

I admit it. I thought Spawn was white. And he has the point about Star Trek, and the fact that Spawn does not look black and makes it easier for Spawn to be accepted by white people. However, I think that it's not true that Black Panther is not identifiably black because he is covered from head to toe. I would say that Black Panther cannot be anything else other than a black man. I also don't think it makes sense to change the race of characters that are already established. This makes no sense. Will Smith should not play Captain America and Beyonce should not be Wonder Woman. Not because they are black but because the characters are not black. We have black characters that could be adapted for movies and television.

Racism, Stereotypes and Comic Books Part 2: The Blackquel

SuperHeroism: Black Exceptionalism Released.?.. : ThyBlackMan.com

I heard of a great article by Nadra Enzi about black superheroes in fiction and real life. I thought that it was an insightful view point.

 Black superheroism is an “ism” I’ve practiced alongside many others. My brand is costume optional but focuses on exceptional characters and cultures within the Diaspora. Icons like Toussaint L’Ouverture and Paul Robeson join generational standards like “being twice as good to get half as much” and “give a brother a rope and he wants to be a cowboy” as models for against-all- odds success. It’s really another name for Black Exceptionalism; the art and science of excelling within racially hostile societies. We have superheroes in fact and fiction from whom to draw strength.

SuperHeroism: Black Exceptionalism Released.?.. : ThyBlackMan.com

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus? - Responding to Chuck O'Connor

Image via Wikipedia

I've been having a discussion with Chuck O'Connor in the comment section of the one of the comment sections of John Loftus' blog posts - link at the end. I posed several questions to Chuck O'Connor that he was gracious enough to write answers of his own. I pasted his answers and making my own full responses. The points and has comments are in black and my remarks are in red.

Marcus,

"1. Can you point out an example and show why it showing deceit and dishonesty?

Ted Haggard operating as the President of the Evangelical Churches Association all the while snorting crystal meth and fucking men while demonizing homosexuals.

In asking for example, I wanted to bring up the question why does it matter. How does what Ted Haggard's sins - for that is what deceit and dishonesty are - sins -  invalidate Christianity or bolster atheism? IT doesn't.

2. What criteria are you using to judge truth and honesty? 
A person says what they mean and they mean what they say. They don't demonize a minority while ingesting illegal drugs and paying men for sex.



So? Agreed Haggard is wrong.. So what? How does that validate your atheism? It doesn't. If you could show that Haggard is only following the commands of the Bible instead of outright rebellion, you'd have a point. But the Bible condemns him just as much as it does the homosexual and all who practice sin.

I mean if morality is subject and truth a matter of preference how did you come to your conclusions? And what standard are you using to make your judgements? That is a strawman argument. I never said that.


So there is an objective, higher standard? Many atheist disagree. If you agree with me that morality and truth are objective, then where does it come from?  I made an assumption not a straw man argument. If you don't agree other atheists than I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I should have given you more credit.

Where did that standard come from? The standard comes from living in a democracy where respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law win out.


A standard that in no way can be said to be universal or perfect. Respect for the individual? Seriously? Yes, things are better but no where they ought to be. Rule of  law? More like who can afford the most justice gets justice. These: "respect for the individual, transparency of information and the rule of law" are far from universal. This answer is far from answers the question. Nazi Germany would not accept your standard. What makes us right and them wrong? Communist China is beginning to agree more and more but what makes them wrong and us right? Saudi Arabia and whole bunch of nations disagree with our moral standards and lack of moral standards. What makes us right and what makes them wrong? As for those things that everyone almost universally agrees are right and wrong (adultery and theft  for example), where did that come from?

3. Accusing Christians of lying or deceit is accusing us of being sinners. So?
I never accused you of being a sinner. I don't believe sin exists. It is a mythological concept that has no relevance outside of primitive justice customs. It is a byproduct custom of ancient religious people looking to create order in barbaric times.

Lying and deceit are defined in the Bible as sins. Sin is rebellion against God at the core - transgressing God's standard. It's just as valid today as it was when Adam disobeyed God because neither God or those standards change.

The Bible says the same same thing.

The bible is a book of ancient myths.

In order to assert this, you have to show that a story in the Bible did not happen...not that you don't believe it could happen.  You are making a claim that the Bible says things happened but they didn't. Can you prove that? You could say that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it did happen, but if you are claiming it didn't you can't just say that without proof. The best you can say and be honest is that you don't know for sure.

We know. We agree. That is why we trust Jesus and ride his coattails because we know we are not good enough on our own. We agree it is wrong to lie. Why do you say it's wrong to lie?

I don't say it is only wrong to lie. I illustrate the lies of Christians to implicate their hypocrisy. They "ride the coat-tails" of the divine yet do not behave in an accountable way for their own behavior. Always blaming a mysterious supernatural "sin" state that allows them to absolve themselves without changing. It is your pretentiousness and that I judge.


See? I never said that you believe that lying is the only morally reprehensible behavior one can engage in. I used it because it's the most ubiquitous. Everyone lies and knows its wrong. "Sin" is not a scape goat to use to absolve yourself. It is name given to that part of all of us that fails to toe the standard that our conscience knows is there. Sin bring condemnation not absolution. The Bible challenges us to change not give us an out. When I talked of "riding Jesus' coattails", I was referring to the fact that none of us can do enough to balance the debt we owe because of our sins...not that you get to live any kind of way you want and get off scott free. If you continue sinning constantly in practice. that proves that you are in Christ. Chuck accused me of suggesting he believes something he doesn't, hasn't he done the same to me here? Yup. What kind of Christians does he talk to? What Bible is he reading if he thinks that is what Christians think?

I say it's wrong because it reflects poorly on God and it's disobedience.

How does the lies of a finite being impact an infinite omni-powerful character in any way at all? Your theology is incoherent.

This question means that Chuck does not understand who God is or what sin is. God is infinitely Holy. Anything that isn't Holy is an affront to God's being. Chuck's understanding of humanity and God is incoherent, not my theology. Look at it this way: When your children commit a crime, it reflects on you, your person, your teachings, and your character. It hurts you. This is exactly the same thing with us and God. God is personal and relates with us...like how a parent relates with their child.

4. How do Christian sinning invalidate or falsify the Bible?
Christians lying doesn't falsify the bible in any material sense it simply falsifies the claim christians have when they state an authority to revealed morality within. If the bible is magic it seems that its efficacy is variant and can't be seen as predictable or real.

Christians are not claiming an "authority to revealed morality  within." I am arguing that the revealed morality is written on our own hearts and seared into our consciouses and in the Bible. Even if a person does not have all of the revealed truth..we are responsible for what we do know - for what we do have. Where does Chuck get the idea that the Bible is magic when it says that we should have nothing to do with magic?  Just because people cherry pick, twist, and subvert scripture does not mean that it's not predictable or real. It is consistent and makes sense if you let the text speak for itself and not read your own biases into it. One sure way to tell if you are applying bias is to see if you can find a passage that refutes what you just assumed the text is saying.

One more thing Marcus. I was a lay-minister, missionary and evangelical christian for the past 7 years. I know the bible and your superficial theology. I practiced it.

The last thing I have to say about Chuck's comments is that apostasy is proof that he doesn't understand the Bible, my understanding of, and that he did not live it consistently.  If he was truly born again, God will reclaim him and if he was not, I hope he will be in the future. The way Chuck describes sin or salvation is not the way the Bible does. As for my authority to say such thing, another way is to ask the question: "Who died and elected me and other born-again Christians to the right and position to have salvation and proclaim the Gospel? Jesus! And He validated it with His resurrection!

Debunking Christianity: The Absurdity of John W. Loftus?

YouTube - John Loftus vs David Wood Problem of Evil

I've had an occasion to listen to John Loftus' debate with David Wood regarding the question of does the presence of evil invalidates the existence of God. Loftus wrote some comments that can be read here. And David Wood's comments can be found here. I was really disappointed I expected something new from Loftus that I never heard before but nada.What I saw is what I always see when atheists try to object to the existence of God using the existence of evil. The thing is that just doesn't add up is that the way they describe God does not describe the God in the Bible. The thought is that if there was a God then there would be no evil - no one would hurt anyone else and there would be no suffering. When I look at the world, I notice that if there were no war...no crime...no evil...none of us would exist. I mean if there had been no slavery in the United States, me and everyone I know would not exist. Had there been no WWII, my parents most likely would have never met. Further, for the sake of argument, if God decided to annihilate all evil in an instant, every single person would cease to exist. It would be over. If I decided to kill all evil people, I would have to start with myself. No one deserves death more or less than anyone else. Truth is the Bible more thaan explains why there is suffering. The Book of Job discusses it in great detail. For God's answer look at Job starting at chapter 38. And Jesus said in Luke 13:1-9

 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."
 ⁶Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. ⁷So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'
 ⁸" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. ⁹If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

YouTube - John Loftus vs David Wood Problem of Evil 1/10

YouTube - PZ Myers talking about his debating experience

Image via Wikipedia

I'm sorry that PZ Meyers has had poor experiences debating Christians. If what he has said is true about that radio program where he debated Geoffrey Simmons then it was wrong. That doesn't make his atheistic evolution correct however. I'd love to see PZ Myers Debate Stephen Meyers in a public, moderated debate complete with cross examination.






YouTube - PZ Myers talking about his debating experience

Debate: Christianity Good for the World? - D'Souza vs Shermer

I recently watched a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Michael Shermer. I was great! The debate topics was "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Shermer tried to apply all of arguments to religion in general, basically handing the debate to Dinesh on a platter. I though D'Souza did an awesome job going after Shermer and pressing him on key points. In effect neither of their arguments were new, but always interesting. Morality and it's source always comes up in discussions such as these. Shermer and the like-minded are ready to equivocate problems with accepting homosexuality with slavery, racism, and sexism as backward ideas that need to be rejected. The thing is the Bible never condones slavery, racism, or sexism...and the fact that we as a society reject these repugnant evils now means that we are now more in line with what the Bible says more than that now we are doing better than the Bible. Shermer cries out that he doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality or gay marriage. He doesn't see the harm. Duh! That is why we need God to tell us what is right and what is wrong because we can't see the big picture.

I was particularly offended when Shermer said that Christians reject homosexuality because of only one Biblical passage and refused correction saying that it doesn't matter. Those other passages explain why gay marriage is harmful and why we need to avoid homosexuality for own good. Dinesh did not get a chance to address this fully because I believe he was trying to avoid being side tracked.








Is Christianity Good for the World? Part 1

New Documentary 'Comic Book Literacy' to Debut at C2E2 in April - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I've always thought that comic books were a great medium for art and storytelling as well as education. The first place I ever read the word "exacerbate" was in a Incredible Hulk comic book back in High School by Peter David. Comics Alliance has posted an article about a documentary putting comic books in a historical context! Here is a blurb and the trailer.

Here's CBL's official synopsis:

"Comic Book Literacy" emphasizes the positive attributes of a misunderstood medium. The film features appearances by comic book writers and artists such as Paul Dini, Scott McCloud, Terry Moore, Joe Quesada, Jim Salicrup, Gail Simone and Art Spigeleman as well as historians and scholars who discuss the role comics play in education in both an historical and contemporary context.

New Documentary 'Comic Book Literacy' to Debut at C2E2 in April - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Iron Sharpens Iron: Anthony J. Carter: Black, Reformed, but Foremost Christian

Anthony J. Carter was interviewed on Iron Sharpens Iron.He offers insight as to how he got saved and became reformed. He spoke about black Christian culture in America and provides some great insight. He was quoted to have written:

As our guest Pastor Tony so profoundly put it, "...our service--yes, our worship and allegiance--is not first to the black cause, though noble it may be at times. It is not first to the Reformed cause, though grand it may appear to be. It means that our service is to Christ first and last, now and at all times. If we can serve Christ while sincerely serving an African-American cause, then let us do it. If we can serve Christ while promoting a Reformed agenda, then by all means let us do so. But if Christ is in conflict with the black cause or the Reformed agenda at any point or at any time, then may we have the courage to say, 'Away with blackness and away with Reformedness--give us Jesus and Jesus only'. It means that we must understand that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life that we might vote, but Christ gave his life that we might live. Frederick Douglas gave his life that we might be free from slavery, but Christ gave his life that we might be free from slavery to sin and death. We are black; there is no mistaking that. We are Reformed, and make no mistake about that. But these two distinctions have revelance only insofar as they are understood in light of the fact that we are Christian. C.H. Spurgeon said, 'I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; But if I am asked what my creed is, I reply, "It is Jesus Christ"'..."

Amen, Amen, and Amen! Listen to the whole interview at the link below.

Iron Sharpens Iron: Anthony J. Carter: Black, Reformed, but Foremost Christian

"God the Failed Hypothesis" Part 2 - August 17, 2008

Dr Hugh Ross  debated Dr. Victor Stenger about God's existence and the creation of the universe on the radio program called The Things That Matter Most. I think Ross went too far in granting that the Bible allows for multiple universes.  I don't see it that way. Besides that Ross was on point. I hate that Stenger just resorted to the many-worlds defense and poor design to argue against Intelligent Design. I mean it seems that this is all the other side has to use. They also discussed what "nothing" really is.

"God the Failed Hypothesis" Part 2 - August 17, 2008