I found this article from the Brennon's Thoughts blog. It interesting how both Arminians and Calvinists can end up attacking one another - misrepresenting one another. I know I had Arminius all wrong. I thought Pelagianism was the logical endpoint of consistent Arminianism. But this is not true. Near as I can tell, Arminius never taught that. On the other hand I don't know any balanced Calvinists that would agree with what the article's author said:
Thus God is sovereign, but He does not, nor has He, determined anyone to behave in ungodliness merely by decree.
God is not accountable for the ungodliness of any of us. However He can and has stopped people from sinning. I've seen it in my life and I see it in scripture. Yet God does not stop everyone from sinning in all cases or circumstances. I cannot reconcile the fact that God is all powerful with the idea that my free will can undermine or change God's plan.
I think too much is made of the controversy. You can believe that you had a hand in choosing to live for Jesus on your own or God decreed your salvation before He said "Let There Be Light!" in Genesis 1:1. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter. I'm saying that it's not a salvation issue or a litmus text for orthodoxy. Before I started talking to Brennon and reading his blog, I thought that all Arminians denied that it took the power of God to draw people to Jesus and that people just made a decision. I'm happy to see that this is not the case. However there are those calling themselves Arminians who deny the need for grace.
I agree with Brennon that the article I linked to below is a good one and worthy for your consideration.
Here is Shane's next problem: My Response is in red.
Here is another descrepency.
Genesis 1:3, "God said let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness night".
So as of the first day of creation week, we have day and night. The scripture even verifies this by saying afterward-"And evening and morning came, marking the first day"!
Yet, we have in Genesis 1:16, "God made two great lights-the larger one (sun) to govern the day, and the smaller one (moon) to govern the night".
So we have here, God creating day and night on the first day of creation week....but God does not make the sun until the fourth day of creation week?
How was it that day and night existed before the sun was even created.....?
We now know in this modern age, that day and night are reconciled with the sun....the sun is our only source of light.
We now know in this modern age, that the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!
It seems pretty obvious that the author of Genesis was not a divinly inspired person.
More likely, the author did not relize the immense size of the sun thousands and thousands of miles away, and did not realize it was the sun itself which gives us our only source of light.
More likely the author did not realize the moon was not a light in and of itself, the moon only reflects the suns light!
It is easy to see why the author would not realize these things. If we never developed the sciences and understandings we have today, we would probably think the same things based on our limited observations.
The first thing I need to say is thatI am not an young earth creationist. I think evidence points to the the earth being more than 6000 years old...a lot more. That being said I think that the fact that evening and morning are discussed before the sun is visible tells us that "day:" or ("yom" in Hebrew) must mean something different than a 24 hour day because without the sun how would you know if its evening or morning. Add to that I think that most people look at the Genesis account being told from the point of view of some one standing in orbit and viewing what is happening on earth. However this is not the reference point from which the events are described, It says that God hovered above the waters. A lot of detail is skipped between verse 1 and that point, but let's start at that point. If someone had been above the waters what would they have seen? Sciences says they would see the earth cloaked with a think layer of gas blotting out the sun. and the stars and the moon. From the standpoint of verse 4, the moon, sun and stars were just made visible at that point just like we know from science that happened. I agree that the author did not how far away the sun was or the star or that the moon was reflecting sun light. So? Shane, is it your contention that the author was saying the sun was not millions of miles away or that the moon did not reflect sunlight? I think not. It is describing what a person would have seen had they been on earth at that time (floating in the air with God above the waters before land was created). It's not trying to give us every single detail or explanation. Does this conflict with science? No. Do all Christians agree with me? No. But although this is a controversy is doesn't show the Bible errant and it's not a salvation issue. Interesting? Yes. I think that this is what science is: Figuring out how God did it.
The men tripped the 27-year-old student, kicking him as he lay on the ground and grabbing his mobile phone and iPod. What the assailants did not realise was that they were standing outside Ninja Senshi Ryu - western Sydney's ninja warrior school. They also failed to notice a ninja, Nathan Smith, standing in the shadows outside the dojo. Mr Smith immediately alerted his sensei, or teacher. Kaylan Soto, a sensei with 30 years' Ninjutsu training, and three of his students raced out of the dojo towards the startled attackers. All five crusaders were clad in the ninja's traditional, all black uniform.
I mean think of it real-life thug that remind anyone my age of Cobra's Dreadnoks getting stomped by ninja! In Real life! I wish someone had gotten that on video! Yo, Joe!
Iron Sharpens Iron was two part show last Wednesday May 19! Not one but two great interviews. A great show.
In the first part RC Sproul was interviewed about the 2010 Ligonier Ministries conference. I hope it's going to recorded and archived somewhere because I can't go. Sproul talked about where evil comes from, how to answer how you can be happy in heaven if you know some of your loved ones went to hell, and a couple of other great stuff.
In the second interview, Ken Jones was interviewed. He talked about how as an African American Christian he came to embrace reformed theology. It was an awesome show. Pastor Jones is one of the contributors of Glory Road, which I am beginning to read now.
Last week on Iron Sharpens Iron, for four days there was a debate between two pastors regarding if we should be worshiping on Saturday or Sunday. It is really good!!! Here is a description written by James Swan.
Rod Henry is pastor of Next Step Christian Church (Seventh Day Baptist) in Thornton, Colorado. Rod's first calling was to be a missionary to the Philippines, where he did evangelism, church planting and developed a program for training Filipino pastors. He is author of The Filipino Spirit World: A Challenge to the Church . Rod received his Master of Theology (ThM) degree in the field of Missions from Fuller Seminary. For 14 years he served as Director of Extension, Director of Pastoral Services, and Interim Executive Secretary of the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference. He developed the Training In Ministry by Extension (TIME) program to train pastors in the US and around the world. He also wrote the book, The Sabbath: God’s Creation for our Benefit, which has been translated into over 10 languages.
TUESDAY, MAY 11th: Rod Henry (alone) presents his case for the Saturday Sabbath (listeners may call in @ 631-482-8300).
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12th: Sam Waldron (alone) presents his case for the Sunday Sabbath (listeners may call in @ 631-482-8300).
THURSDAY, MAY 13th: Sam Waldron cross examines Rod Henry (first half-hour), then Rod Henry cross examines Sam Waldron (second half-hour): NO calls from listeners.
FRIDAY, MAY 14th: Rod Henry cross examines Sam Waldron (first half-hour), then Sam Waldron cross examines Rod Henry (second half-hour): NO calls from listeners.
We are arranging another 4-day debate on "Iron Sharpens Iron" in July, God willing, between John Reisinger of Sound of Grace Ministries (a non-Sabbatarian Baptist) & Sam Waldron on the theme: "Is the Decalogue for the New Covenant Church?"
I'm glad Dr. James White posted this video. Thankfully, not all Arminians are this mistaken! But it does show us that we have to be careful in how we present what we believe and why we believe it.
I read a link from John Loftus that tries to give an example the best case for atheism. The article sums it up this way:
In sum, the real problem with God is --
It cannot really be explained, it cannot be proved, it fits nicely into a human strength for creating imaginary characters, it is deeply undermined by the problem of indiscriminate evil, it is not the best explanation for anything, and it’s the most improbable cause of observed reality.
The best case for Atheism, then, is...God.
None of his arguments are new or amazing. I disagree with all of them but let's focus on the summary. God is not undermined by the "Problem of indiscriminate evil" because there is no such thing as indiscriminate evil because of God. Without God you do have purposeless evil without any counter balance. Without God we have no objective standard for what good is and no purpose. If there is design for how the universe is shaped and designed, then there must be someone responsible for that. God is the only reasonable cause and explanation. Undirected chance is no explanation,
Shane, are you really sure? Let's compare the lists:
Matt 10:2-4
Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot,
Mark 3:16-19
Peter, James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot
Friom Luke 6:14-16
Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot
From John 21:2
Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. (at least 7 men)
Matthew and Luke agree with number of people and the names used. Luke is different, and I will deal with Luke in a moment. John 21:2 cannot be compared to the other passages because it is not attempting to name the 12. It lists only 7 people not 12. Therefore no way could John be trying to name the twelve...and Jesus had more more disciples than just those twelve. Besides this is after Judas Iscariot....um... moved on to where he belongs.
As for Luke's differences. Thaddaeus was also known as “Judas, son of James” (Luke 6:16) and Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3 KJV). Simon the Zealot was also known as Simon the Canaanite (Mark 3:18 KJV). (http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html)
Recall that in the first century many Jews went by a Jewish name and a Gentile name. Like Paul's Jewish name was Saul. Mark's Jewish name was John. Judas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah. Thaddaeus is a Greek from of an Aramaic name. One way to refer to him would Judas (or Jude) Thaddaeus. Matthew and Mark used his last name, Luke used his First name. There is no conflict here.
Why would you, Shane, think that this is conflict?
Update: I did a little more digging. The Greek word for "brother" (aldophus) is not in the text of Luke 6:16. I saw a translation that says Judas was a relative of James. When I examine the text the word translated "son of" in Luke 6:16 is 'IakoBou (sp) which means in the context of the verse mean "of James". The word is used in verse 15 where it says that apostle James is the "son of Alphaeus". Why change the meaning of the word in verse 16? It shouldn't..
Mariano has published his second part of his series on how we can reconstruct the New Testament even if we some how lost all of the copies. Mariano, in doing this summarizes what Textual Criticism is and how it is used to understand what the Bible text really says. You should read this!
John Loftus has pointed to a news article suggesting that students who major in Humanities are more likely to walk away from religion than those who are into the sciences. I'm not surprised by that. The humanities have men and our natures as the standard and relatively equal. However, in the sciences we can see objective truth. There are absolutes. There are well defined and predictive description of nature outside of opinion and emotion. When it comes to history, psychology, sociology, and the like they drive on emotion and one can argue about what is right and wrong and you can't really pin down truth because outside of God you have no rule brick and standard to examine truth claims. I think this is why I like science and engineering better. The truth is you need all the disciplines to understand our reality. If you try to apply sociology to Physics you miss a lot but you also miss much the other way. You need both. If anything in such of things as history, I can see the hand of God just as well as I can physics. I don't really see how people can deny design of the created order and how can people also deny that in order for the world to be just as it is today - billions of choices were made that made things happen as they are. Do we really think that it was by happenstance - that it's not going somewhere? I think that takes more faith.
John Loftus has posted a video from YouTube in which there is a mock quiz show with questions from the Bible. The thing is that the questions are phrased a certain way out of context and such that the answers seem ambiguous and conflicting. Let's see if we can help with the confusion.This is Part 2.
How many fighting men did Joab count? 800K 2 Sam 24:9;1 Chron 21:5 1.1 Million 2 Sam 24:9, 1 Chron 21:5
Did both thieves mock Jesus or just one?Did Luke 23:39-42; Mark 15:32; Matt 27:44
Both Thieves mocked Jesus and then one of them repented. One account is just more detailed. Just because one reports that one repented and another says that they both mocked Jesus does not mean both did not happen. It is not mutually exclusive. Also look at 101 Contradictions Cleared Up - number 53
Did Jesus heal 2 blind men or one on the way to Jericho? Mark 10:46; Matt 20:30, Luke 18:35
2 Blind men. Just because one account only focuses one blind man and the other mentions that there was another does not make for a contradiction. If one had said that no one was healed on the way Jericho or only one man was healed or only two men were healed then there would be grounds for misunderstanding.
Accused contradiction concerning the number of angels and their actions at the tomb Matt 28:2,MArk 16:5,Luke 24:4, John 20:12
No contradiction the accounts vary in detail...there is no logical conflict.
And the number of women at the tomb
John 20:1, MAtt 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10
Neither Gospel tells us how many women total went to the tomb, but instead focuses on certain ones. Where is the contradiction.
The video then lists a bunch of crimes and then ask what the penalty was.
Crime:
Fortune Telling
Cursing a parent
Hitting a parent
Not listening to a priest
Following another religion
adultery
Not seeking the Lord God of Israel
Fornication
Prophesying falsely
Homosexuality
Blasphemy
Working on the Sabbath
Allowing a few people in the town to worship other gods.
Then it tried to show that the Bible is unfair because the penalty for these crimes were all death. The part about disobedient children was not carried out for any and all offenses as the video tries to lie. The thing about ancient Israel is that it was a theocracy and by what right do we judge these punishments as "overkill"? An emotional one...because we know it means we deserve death. You can find yourself on this list. easily. If you broke one of them you are guilty of them all.
Good or Bad to be rich? Luke 6:24;Psalm 122:1-3
Jesus never says it's wrong to be rich. It's wrong to put your wealth ahead of God. Love of money is the root of evil not money itself..()
Sell possessions and give it to the poor - Luke 18:22; 12:33; 14:33
Never are we iold to give and not have anything for yourself.
Socialism - Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:34-37
Depends on how you define your terms. If sharing everything so no one has need or goes without then that is what the early church did - but that is not what socialism is and has never been like that where it has been practiced.
Did the curtain rip before or after Jesus died: Mark 15:37-38;Luke 23:45-46;Matt 27:50-51
Should Homosexuals be killed or exiled? 1 Kings 15:11-12, LEv 20:13
1 Kings 15:11-12 is a description of what Asa did, not what God said to do. Lev 20:13 is what god said to do. Therefore there is no contradiction. Did the the author even bother to read these?
When the women arrived at the tomb was it open or closed? MAtt 28:2, Luke 24:2
Did Judas hang himself or did he fall down and his guts spill out? Acts 1:18; Matt 27:5
Both. He fell from hanging himself and his guts spilled out.
Is God the author of confusion? 1 Cor 14:33
No
Was Jesus born during the time of herod or not? Luke 2:1, Matt 2:1
Yes he was. Jesus was born somewhere between 9- 6 BC and Herod died i n 4 BC. There is no problem here.
The video shows no understand of what the promises of God are. It's not just heaven. It's about having a relationship with the only one who can tell you what your purpose is. The video author is gravely mistaken. Gee, I wonder if Loftus bothered to check any of these out? Guess not.
In Shane's latest lame attempt to point out a contradiction in the Bible he offers the following:
Marcus.
I guess its time to move on.
Here is another biblical issue.
There is a huge mistake regarding Jesus triumphal entry.
According to Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus entered the city riding on A donkey.
According to Matthew, Jesus is said to be riding on two donkey's? (Matthew 21:1-7).
Matthew mentions two animals in three of the verses so it cannot be explained away as a translation error. Matthew even has Jesus riding both animals at the same time.
This is because Matthew obviously must have misunderstood (Zechariah 9:9) which says "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey".
Anyone who is familiar with OT Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not mean another animal, but instead its used in the sense of "even" a colt!
"Even" is given for emphasis here!
Matthew was evidently not aware of this.
This is but one example I am prepared to offer here that shows Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies working the way Matthew wanted them to. And that Matthew in his zeal to prove Jesus was the Messiah, searched the OT for passages that could be construed as prophecy and modified events Jesus life to fulfill them!!!!
Here is the most succinct answer I have seen.
(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context) The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event. It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no "contradiction" as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear. Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says: "Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey'." Matthew 21:5 By saying "a donkey" and then "on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as "parallelism", simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers. So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway. Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening. This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two. Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.
John Loftus has posted a video from YouTube in which there is a mock quiz show with questions from the Bible. The thing is that the questions are phrased a certain way out of context and such that the answers seem ambiguous and conflicting. Let's see if we can help with the confusion. This is part 1.
How long Does God's Anger lasts?
Micah 7:18; Jer 17:4
18 Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. - Micah 7:18
4 Through your own fault you will lose
the inheritance I gave you.
I will enslave you to your enemies
in a land you do not know,
for you have kindled my anger,
and it will burn forever." - Jeremiah 17:4
There is no contradiction look at the whole verses. Micah 7:18 is with respect to the remnant. The people God saved out of the ashes of those who were consumed by his wrath that kindles against them forever in Jeremiah 17:4. There is only one message here.
Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied. - Genesis 22:1
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; - James 1:13
So the issue is does Genesis 22:1 say "God tested Abraham" like modern translations (ie NIV) or does it say "tempted" like the KJV. The Hebrew word in question is "nacah". Any lexicon will tell you that the word can mean to "temp" or :"test" depending on the context. So why in this verse is "test" a better translation...or even "try" as in refining metal of impurities? The answer is simple. It lies in the difference between "tempting" and "testing". "Tempting" has the goal of destruction. The idea is to goad one into doing something wrong with awful consequences. However "testing: is about improvement. Why do we give students tests in school? It's not to watch them fail but to show what they have learned and give them more tools to run with. God tests us. Satan tempts us. In addition, comparing the two passages is a problem because Genesis is in Hebrew and James is in Kione Greek. Are they the same ideas? In James 1:13, the word is "peirazo" and it is used to translate nacah into Greek.
Can Salvation be attained by works? Yes and No
Gal 2:16,Romans 3:28
Matt 19:17, Luke 19:26-8;James 2:24
The Bible clearly tells us that salvation cannot be attained by works. I find it interesting that the quiz does not reference what Paul or James wrote about "works". These scriptures clear up the supposed confusion.
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. - Ephesians 2:8-10 (written by Paul)
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. - James 2:17-19 (Written by James)
So both Paul and James were talking about salvation and faith, but were they talking about the same "works"? No. They both use the word "Ergon" but in different contexts. Paul is talking about religious acts and traditions that people think are going to guarantee salvation. James is talking about the hypocrisy of claiming faith and salvation but never doing anything to help others! They taught the same thing when you sum up all their letters: Salvation is throught faith in Jesus Christ but we are saved to do good works but we don't do good to get salvation.
Consequences of seeding Yaweh's face? Death and life
Exodus 33:20,John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16
Ge 32:30,Ex 33:11, Genesis 12:11; EX 24:9-11
This video answers the above:
Does Yaweh Delight in burnt offerings?
Jer 7:22
Ex:20-24
Jeremiah 7:22 is offered as a rebuttal to the idea that God does not delight in burnt offerings but it's woefully out of context.
21 " 'This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the meat yourselves! 22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.
God does desire obedience more than sacrifice but that does not mean that they were not supposed to make sacrifices!
Is God the Author of Evil
IS 45:7;1 John 4:8
This question is not a Yes or No question. The question presupposes that God is accountable for allowing evil. I wrote more about that here!
Was Humans created before the animals
Gen 2:18-9;1:25-27
Genesis 2 is a snapshot that gives more detail than Genesis 1 does. There is no conflict because Genesis 2 does not say the animals were made after Adam, just reiterates that God did it.
Did Paul's companions hear the voice he did on the road to Damascus?
Acts 229:9; Act 9:7
Will the Earth last Forever?
2 Peter 3:10; Ecc 1:4
The Bible and science says no. Ecc 1:4 is talking about the earth being a constant with respect to human life spans. It is not saying that the earth is eternal.
Is Jesus the only man to have ascended into heaven? 2 Kings 2:11; John 3:13
Jesus is the only man who ascended into heaven. He went on his own! Enoch and Elijah were taken.
Were Children supposed to be punished for the sins of their fathers?
Deut 24:16; Deut 5:9
Again context is ignored. Deut 24:16 is in context of people punishing crime in society. Deut 5:9 is about what God does. The two can't be confused or conflated. Big mistake.
God never tires or rest. IS 40:28 but Is 1:14; Is 43:24
More stupidity. Isaiah 40:28 is about God not being able to be tired with respect to becoming weak after exertion. God doesn't do that. Isaiah 1:14 and 43:24 are about about being fed up with circumstance and situation. This shows that God's patience does have limits.
Mariano's second part in a two-part series examining the theology in movies and television. This one focuses on two television shows: Reaper and Supernatural.
Mariano has posted a link to a free ebook in which criticisms of the book Signature In the Cell, by Stephen Meyer, are examined and discussed. I think it's an important book. Meyer's book has been tagged as the book critics against Intelligent Design must deal with. So far I am unimpressed with their feeble attempts.
I found the picture on the left and it struck me as problematic because people actually think that God is like that: at best that God doesn't care about our sufferings or worse gleefully hits us with them! This is not what the Bible tells us about God. The question "Why do bad things happen to good people?" presupposes that there are good people who don't deserve the bad things that happen. The problem is that there is no such thing as someone who is so "good" that they don't deserve bad things from happening. We are all deserving of hell and total separation from God! Of course bad things are going to happen to us! What is more incredible and hard to understand why does God give us mercy and blessings at all!
44But I tell you: Love your enemies[a] 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. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? - Matthew 5: 44-46
Here is an interesting video: Laura Bush supporting gay uber-rights and abortion. No wonder her husband's administration kept her mouth shut when he was in the White House.
I came across this article from Brennon's blog, Brennon's Thoughts. It is a good article I wanted to comment on the points made. I like the title. I would like to add to it. Who is accountable for this mess? If there is someone accountable, whom is the responsible party accountable to? The article is from an Arminian position and I think everyone should think about what she wrote I recently realized that I equate responsibility with accountability. I think most people do. The problem is that the two ideas are real different. You can be both responsible and accountable for something but necessarily. For example you can only be blamed for something if you are accountable to someone. Without someone to hold you accountable there can be no condemnation or accountability. You can have responsibility but no accountability. It's hard to think of an example because almost every responsibility has the weight of accountability. God does not deserve blame for our sins, but He is responsible because he could have stopped Adam, but He didn't. There are many examples in the Bible and in my own life that God has stopped me from sinning and in those cases in my life God made sure that I understood that I wanted to do something and He said No. Yet at other times He allowed me to go ahead and let me mess up so that He could use it for a purpose. I think this is true for everyone. Does this mean that without God's decisions and actions, evil would not exist? Yes. Does this make God the author of evil or accountable? No. I mean who is God accountable to? Who is that rules over God. No one. This means that God is not culpable, but it does mean that God is the only free-will agent because of humans we are slaves to sin until Jesus frees us when the Holy Spirit convicts and the the Father draws us. I see where the author is coming from but I don't think that it torpedoes the Calvinist position at all. Another point is that suffering and evil are not purposeless. God has a reason for everything and there is no way we can possibly understand it all now. The best we have is to trust God.
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. - Romans 8:28-29
Mariano has written a great article in which he describes how we can reconstruct the Bible if for some reason the copies of the original text were lost in some way. I agree with Mariano we can still reconstruct the text. This is part one of his essay.
Dr Mariottini wrote a great post about Ruth. I'm amazed that there are people who think that Ruth was barren before she married Boaz, but the text does not say that. May be they think that because she had no children with her first husband. But as Mariottini points out that does not fly!
Anyone who has spent anytime looking at the arguments of atheists who share their ideas on the internet has realized that many of them have similar arguments and have similar worldviews. David Heddle has established a list of these arguments. Hilarious. Also sad.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uVbNF35I2_PJkrcDySFRDK5wSjjwcC9RfL9dHedsT_S681H2UoMp0F6ObgnD85BfnGAQrxr-8L51WOSl3AOKjOugPa_E1F-u2J4wA6srsoY1-SJH3NWVSLW8fMC3zqADkhcTvIkpSmAZgFQ0jDu9k=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_ttcmWu6amAUy8mNWv8gLUqqJu-Qi1twRztHUe_YDfAkBMnjg0zhiblt7zYTZlnR3X9NNoa3fOTqKG1QmEkPMZfubgFHshDi0IcmrpQgQcDXD_KBbBG3VtacdvrSvrVdxybaohjpwmyq0JP2He7lXTb=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_trcFhREnivPAPWCDMCWs34ian0SD8rgJvdKWUDCtHgtfiOEcRG5xUVFh756boXaY0wIyFxMl-369z5m0rmyC-UIAA44JYui_Dn0NDl6FVCfmsLuCLAY7Gv8pgkBpY0wPxVRv27s2KTAVae2-I3Xts-=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_urrATLvleMMGeof08GteWnCdaynBjEwdvmLifJNlsjqMpaXzoHJFBXG1l092l4OZOqthI2wJl_8WYtDdrZFlaoWbXwJXpbh8QRk24krYc51P5GWHvcGAfuLbk6RwaTdw6Wb7VnKXb77f_pEBVQw41Y=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tD7xZGDk7srbTW7PZEhM737uu9IgZ4t1itIQkJN_XaoWwW8N26nlubmcOerjtuHXzG4JNessADHeXMHjGSqg8bmx-kXf7hRESYThAkZplxDD02Du_ipGjUlgcp8OwB1vRD8PE6LWquIGKn752VEHI=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vY-NgETUnl8bTzwaQYaQmulwcsOVxVgzm5RRiMR7zIRmZZxwdU_Eb62p6MoxWk1cVsTseCaGrCagdWN-X6-Sc4FoyjE7UJcx_2aQV3uoAxz-myQoAlfRyCJGPXPGLdnO90Cmjtp4ySGS_0HpyiP15B=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sXLpbX-CvrAAixqK90coBl4Xw6JU57EmNBlATYypVoe32J5wtJBNH_PqRtpXsP9w3ZFaYSFcwvzj5ErkbQcktA_IQATMEbCxmTsjcJHfkXpdinj_G2CXv-K-h_E_S1APeIb3DVUEEC0hBfnkCel1w=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tbEKJmmp73vdhb_xHRkL_DQoUCa4cGb89Xz9RPpw9N3osUu9TTc9AG_2uBIil2qBQaf8a_Z4a4PHZw9ViHzGd9lQExvJA4AnclRBrZ_i4jU1HuWn3RiGlHJy2LuNoTIoju-qWB9AjdkeSp4n_-pZIs=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uMNgG9lPHF4Kg294gZxUFwszgoQkFd_ncql7RhNBDYrfIFwQm3SHJmzN5l2VELM_SGybJr1QIPHwkYWNRU6wEkUDIVz776FDh1-T9xzl7KP3T6Ol96S_O9OWosh8QjratgyDEFzTX6PJ1kbz-H4Fk=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sYkFgbw90IsOK1zbHP9v88gCaOdYX5gg58-cXt9ROUrwvo3hdaB_lZc6WEU2GubKyVt_WzaTUk4EFRV_W0_OlefNpVvhMBKQ2JdNIUS9bqJIIfzaucJjfnol6JugUELSK4uf6DKb1cfazm9v9rk6Q=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vkIpZEkBv-tNDqIbFQWOcFMoN8stFFNVPYB__GWNRiy2a0foPM14LnnayyRWBzv-DznXmJhQNfpGrFKSJYGYsMFlY-SwdEihvUzVO7i0lw2m-MEe7lKZ20XMnjL32wqIfpN5xzM3XNz3z1TGMdLLGO=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uSXyYi_LbxGYaoOrJCHZ-8H_Z1t3QaaPNv8H_5pT9Ll5cNXiyaUpFs0P50UWVGkSkrawtpqtWAY56cSlVXAnurSvoyIjdCr-NQVyU-NZ8yHLJFZsWJL0eJlbYzjwcvLUpuhZo60tjEVxONXP878ut2=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tKaF6sXXQ3ghIpkIIx0GuyphL_XsKyJqHuI0AYFDfHt6CIjQQ7bT1kgeIC8Ux7cTyBHaLHc3C8cvaLrS5WrRoJFEaaELF09f0Tp_ZSjAnzmtncs6s3TLvxCZM-h4RYB3p3P40BeYBTZHjqtfQ3pVd4=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uO5ky94tCZU5e4duRCvd4LBDs6VA1R_X3uyRTY9-QR8VgNtSdqK_MawaL7l9pQalGEZawInbFcy626sRQMrGN-9CBCvmebK7f8EnvSOz9FiBRfbNDVM7V5QiPovVS5N1O12ZPa6hWJR-Xg2dbeEAYc=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vhC9R-XiNB_DG6TuWaaVzBO_Uo4o7BM6ie8xSKTaWEKVERtuJyuGduMdJPCW7yJ6-y_urwrxQKVPK9QJor4-WY93o37CS1YD_JuU9hsSeK-U9ppEweSkQSzDwZCOcbsVpT-Whgys3h-UflODiREGQ9=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v5y_1TKWO2sn83mRas-vxSS3skvaIem3rqOJzNe2DBZVBdG7-a6q17g9wJbGeDfch5cz5O_rd4VzfLy3U4MrPI4KObRhsnPlX1b3Hw76MJBVrUQaU42AMXRgumrLAnHwNNocj7pdfaZs0hxStW6jJb=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vct3JrKEAIuUNjMR-IIYamHGkJ--_ZjHNO8-3D2HG6inm-ajUYZ8VS3Nx3WT-GLfN4vkBnJsBj2iN4DYPvQiwWaEJX31jGlGc4VWICTmdBcixHVVeWhqBVdonI10uJduHXLnjgncVdmZ7e0G2PbmRW=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tqm8Oyr0asODbjiJ2eTEwCz3SNhqtDB1RMBQX6jQZC-xmPC0EeTAaCtKO-KE5_p3a0DbyLDSkqIebqpOIKFIZpGAa6t3duKJbjF-xZGKu6aPW_wK7NFBwxb4Zo2PalhTPM-_d5zKoztlkpgpLKhjiv=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tor1Frxl7k9GAi59SaVMWEwZ0SMVXjaPbaDYiRN08rH0NB2wuq6mw8AAkHau67QB6P3cXrfL5A0aysWuNR_fvCmPZaUHA8u9ovG3EOc_GS6nnTeaI_Xs2zGbIaE76pSg5h3_lkwQS19vHitKr2Cmrz=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_szot8KuseOiNL09lI5r6inAGdGV8BU6xGCc4TYeAoLNMwLUUXWOBUiIY71hAPoHDguIGnQcbYXcYj31ZZErBrvG15bXHBJ2olga-bfW8XMCxNLCiz5ibC4svhUfYEHhAIUm6Qt6rEIWM83ABHPfbA=s0-d)