Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True? Part 1

John Loftus has been posting several posts he calls "Reality Checks" in which he takes an aspect that he believes most Christians believe and then tries to dispute it based on trying to show that it doesn't make sense. He has been promising to make post summarizing his points. Today he published the first 30. My comments are in red. My approach is to agree that some people who call themselves Christians believe what he says, but what I wanna ask is: "Does the Bible say the same thing?"

Below I've put together all thirty theses (so far) that most Christians agree on and why they are all improbable:

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

Why does Lofus think that God never made a decision? Where does the Bible say that God is simple or doesn't make decisions? That is something people say If God is omniscient and made everything that existed, does exist, or ever will exist how can there be something that He does not know? How can anything be new to him? We don't choose our own ontologcal nature. God is,. Never changes. There is no need for Him to choose His nature. Why does this make God seem unreal? Why would you want to worship a god that needs to take risk? Supreme being means not having to risk failure. In God there is no failure. I realize some people think that God can't be omniscient because he is bound by time. God made time. Why would he be bound by it? As for agreement in the Godhead the Bible agrees.  I'm not going to pretend that I understand how the Trinity works, but the Bible says the Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God. And that God is one. One Being. Three persons.  Being and person are not the same thing.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

The Bible agrees that God is spirit and does not have a Body and created everything out of nothing. However it does not say that God "experiences a sequence of events in time". We do. God is. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  In other words, God is eternal.  

Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. - Isaiah 26:4

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

Excuse me God does not need anything. God certainly doesn't need anything from us. God does not just deserve praise for saving the people who believe and punishing those who don't believe. God deserves praise, honor and glory for who God is. In addition people do not believe just because they are born at the right time and the right place. If that was the case everyone born in Christian homes would be Christians and those not born in Christian homes would never become Christians. And again the Bible disagrees with Loftus. Paul told the Athenians that every single person was born in the place, at the best time, and under the best circumstances for that person to best find God. 

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

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

When people make this argument, I've got to ask if you think that Satan was so dumb and stupid to start a war that he could not even hope to win, then why do you commit the same act of stupidity in rebelling against your creator?

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam and Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

The argument that there are some people people would not have sinned under the same initial condition  is silly because if that were true we would not sin now. However, we all sin and fall short of the standard of Holiness. Sure Adam and Eve failed their test, but we continue to fail in our tests. We are all sinners. 

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

 ⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.  - Romans 8:5-8

We deserve hell. Those who are spared and their sins forgiven are given an undeserved gift.

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Bible are not talking about real people or real events. And if you really compare the Bible to other Ancient Near Eastern Literature you will find significant differences. For example, the proportionate ratio given for the ark that Noah used to survive the flood would have made it uncapsizeable and seaworthy while the description pf the craft the survivors of the flood used  given in Sumerian texts would not have worked.

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

I think that number seven is really weak. No proof is given that the Bible represents superstitions, different perspectives (or what they are), or what is meant  by evolving theologies. More details need to be given.

8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

I don't know any Bible-Believing Christians who would agree to number eight. I do know that some scholars disagree about the Exodus, the extent of David's reign, and Luke's report of a world-wide census, but Loftus misrepresents that it's agreed by all experts that these things are not facts. This is not true. There is evidence that such things are true. As for the unverifiable miracles, assuming that they aren't true is also disingenuous. Loftus also ignores the facts reported in the Bible that most scholars and experts do agree.  For example they agree that Jesus really was crucified. 

9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

I don't know any where in the  Bible that claims that  reported miracles in other cultures were lies or hoax. The Bible is clear that Satan deceives people Remember: Pharaoh's magicians were able to turn water to blood and make their staff turn into snakes.  How do we know when a miracle is from God or not?

¹ If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, ² and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," ³ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. ⁵ That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 13: 1-5

Realize "testing" doesn't mean tempting them to do evil, but allowing them to be  exposed so that they will know what the counterfeit looks like.  

10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

There is no problem of miscommunication. God did forsee that there would be false prophets and liars. We are warned throughout the Bible. In addition to Deuteronomy 13:1-5 we can add

²³At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. ²⁴For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. ²⁵See, I have told you ahead of time. - Matthew 24:23-25

¹²And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. ¹³For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. ¹⁴And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. - 2 Corinthians 11:12-14

11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

Loftus does not know what faith is. At no time does the Bible condone blind faith. The Bible disagrees with Loftus.

¹¹Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. - Acts 17:11


 ¹Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. - Hebrews 11:1

12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

People often cite this as though it means something. They again ignore Acts 17:24-28. And another relevant passage is Romans 1:18-32

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
 ²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
 ²⁴Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
 ²⁶Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
 ²⁸Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³²Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The  Bible also tells us that obeying the laws leads one to Christ. We know that if one follows what God has given us you will be led to Christ.

¹⁹This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. ²¹But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." - John 3:19-21

13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.

That's a bold statement. Completely erroneous,  but bold. Here is one single example: 

⁴¹Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. - John 12:41 

What did Isaiah see? Who did he see? When?

¹ In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. ² Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. ³ And they were calling to one another:
       "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
       the whole earth is full of his glory." - Isaiah 1:1-3

Isaiah saw the Lord. How is it that Isaiah saw God? John is saying He saw Jesus. John is explicitly calling Jesus God.

14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

Jesus' virgin birth was not sexual. Alexander's mother was supposedly impregnated by a snake. Hercules' mother had sex with Zeus who had taken human form (how would that be a virgin birth?). Dionysus came out of Zeus' thigh (how does that even compare to Jesus?). I've done some research on just how close these examples really parallel Jesus. Take a look at these. In case you don't want to take the time to look it up yourself I'll save you some time: They don't.


15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

 The Jews believed that God could take human form.  Recall that Abraham saw God  (Genesis 18). These are called theophanies. The Old Testament is full of examples. Jesus is not the same as the Greco-Roman gods taking human form.  Don't forget the Greco-Roman gods had bodies and were not spirits. Jesus was not an example of God minus. But Jesus was God plus an uncorrupted sinless human nature. Jesus is what we should strive to be. He is what God is transforming a believer into. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God incarnate

 ¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

Debate: The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection - Holding vs Carrier

I've come across an interesting written debate on the internet between Jame Patrick Holding and Richard Carrier. The debate is over The Julius Caesar's Rubicon Crossing and Jesus' bodily Resurrection from the dead - Which is better attested to by history? One tell-tale sign that a written debate is good is if there is a lot of back and forth. That means that each side brings up good points that must be answered and challenged. This when it gets good. Holding quotes William Lane Craig's statement in Reasonable Faith and this is what causes such uproar:

Historians of the Roman Empire often refer to "Caesar's crossing the Rubicon" as an undisputed fact of historic significance, even though it is attested only by four ancient writers, two to three generations after the event, all dependent on one eyewitness account [long since disappeared!], and preserved in significantly different forms corresponding to the various authors' ideologies, including one which attributes Caesar's decision to enlarge his frontiers to divine guidance.

I invite anyone with even a passing interest to read Holding's and Carrier's website. For my comment I want to focus on how much attestation we have for the Rubicon crossing. Carrier said he thought that Holding is being nit picky by pointing out that no where in the The Civil War (assuming in any of the 10 copies we have) does Caesar mentioned the Rubicon. I think it might be because Caesar looked at it like crossing the street not a watershed event in his career or history. How could he have known that. I mean he would have to have been God to know that. The thing is a lot of people (especially Muslims) are skeptical because no where in the Gospels does Jesus explicitly says "I am Yahweh, worship me!" and desire to ignore all the evidence that is in the Gospels and yet are willing to see that there is is plenty of Evidence that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Notice that no where does Holding try to argue that Julius Caesar did not cross the Rubicon and Carrier tries to prove that Jesus did not rise from the Dead. Jesus however does claim to know what was going to happen to him well before his crucifixion and Resurrection.

 ²¹From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. - Matthew 16:21

How did He know know? Gee, Jesus would have to be God or something. Yup, definitely God.

The other point that needs to be made from the stand point of manuscript attestation is that we only have 4 textual attestations for the crossing of the Rubicon.

The fourth point made is that we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the age: Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Plutarch.

This is true, but it is irrelevant. As my co-apologist Mike Licona has noted, replying to the objections of Acharya S, these sources are rather late - later than even Carrier believes the Gospels to be from their sources: Appian wrote in the 2nd century A D, Plutarch after 70, and Suetonius around 115. And to make matters worse for Carrier, our earliest manuscripts of these works are as much as a millennium removed from the originals.

I make this point not to accuse these works of unreliability or having been tampered with, but because I see no reason to think they have been. The point rather is to treat these documents in the same way Carrier treats the Gospels would be unreasonable. (A reader has added that Plutarch does give an account of the personal crossing.)

Carrier has a retort for this, observing first that these other authors "have been confirmed in material evidence and in other sources." Of course the same may be justly said of the Gospels, especially Luke; but Carrier offers no further details at this juncture, so neither will we.

He adds secondly that these authors "often quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading of the witnesses and documents, and they show a desire to critically examine claims for which there is any dispute." Be that as it may, it would not occur to Carrier that the Gospels lack this because there was no dispute over source material which required this kind of comparative work -- in other words, it is unreasonable to demand that the Gospels do comparative work if their sources are uniform and reliable, as indeed would be first-hand testimony.

On the matter of alleged bias in the Gospels, we refer the reader here, and to here, section titled, "Was Paul a Liar?", for a reply to the matter of the use of oaths, which shows exactly the opposite of what Carrier claims.

So the earliest attestation of Julius Caesar moving a huge army across the Rubicon is well over 100 years after it happened. Does this mean that Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch were wrong? Nope. I wouldn't argue that. But that leaves folks like Richard Carrier in a quandary: Why accept Suetonius, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Plutarch because all four talk of the Rubicon crossing, yet discount Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who all talk of the crucifixion, empty tomb, and Resurrection? Rejecting one means rejecting both.

While the discussion in the two article is really about the historicity of the Rubicon crossing with the Crucifixion of Christ, it lends itself well to the discussion to just how reliable History is in general and the New Testament in particular.

JP Holding - The Rubicon Crossing and the Resurrection
Richard Carrier - The Rubicon Analogy

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Panentheism

Brian Auten  has posted a great definition for "panentheism". He even goes as far as contrasting it with "pantheism" and this is good because they are often confused with one another. This is an important post.

Apologetics 315: Terminology Tuesday: Panentheism

CADRE Comments: The Best Attested Event in History?

I like this article. It's very honest. It does make me think that when I quote William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, JP Holding, and Paul L. Mair that I need to be careful how I quote what they say. I have never hear them say things that in context makes it seem that they overstate or exaggerate any of the facts. I know that I can be so imprecise. I will be more careful to be clearer and to not overstate anything. The whole article is well worth reading. I think the bottom line of the article is thus:

So, overall, I think that the claim that the attestation to the life of Jesus is "the best attested event of history" is definitely wrong, and the claim that it is "the best attested event of ancient history" is also an overstatement -- but not by much. Certainly, given the circumstances of the time, the amount of information available about Jesus from the contemporaneous biographies is (to my knowledge) unprecedented.

I'd go a tad further. The article mentions that Jesus' earthly background does not mean that someone like him would have much written about him because at the time they didn't know how important Jesus is. Of course more would be written of Julius Caesar. I think that the very fact that we as everyday people know so much about Jesus and next to nothing about the other itinerant preachers, and would-be messiahs shows us that Jesus is different. That Jesus wasn't and isn't like everyone else who has walked this planet. Regardless of whether or not you believe the things Jesus said and did, the fact that you can know something about Jesus is indisputable. The truth is Jesus' life affects yours on way more levels than Julius Caesar's did. Jesus matters.

CADRE Comments: The Best Attested Event in History?

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know Part 2

Brennon has posted a great list of scriptures that support Arminianism. I'm not certain that they support the Arminian position. Rather than try to responding to them all at once, I will break them down into several posts based on how the list is presented.This topic interests me because I really wanna know what the Bible says. Here is part 2 regarding the idea that Bible teaches that atonement is available for all.


Verses that show the atonement is available for all:

• Isaiah 53:6 - The iniquity of us all was put on Christ.

       We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.

I think without question, everyone has gone astray. This agrees with other scriptures that tells us about Jesus died for all.

• Matthew 11:28-30 - Any who some to Christ are welcome.

²⁸"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. ²⁹Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

The passage indeed tells us that all who come to Jesus are welcome but it does not tell us anyone can come when they get ready.

• Matthew 18:14 - The Father does not wish that any should perish (anti predestined-reprobation).

 ¹⁰"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
 ¹²"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? ¹³And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. ¹⁴In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. - Matthew 18:10-14

I think we need to look at the context of verse 14. Who are the Father's little one? Everyone?  Nope. Jesus is talking about the sheep and we know that not everyone is the sheep. I do agree that predestined re-probation is not supportable because re-probation is default. Before one knows they are elected to salvation, they are going to hell whether they know it or not. God knows they are elect, but they don't.

• John 1:7 - Jesus intended for all, wants all to believe.

Oops, this passage is not regarding Jesus himself:

 ⁶There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. ⁷He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. ⁸He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. ⁹The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. - John 1:6-8

The passage is about John the Baptist and does not talk about Jesus' intention or desire. The point to John the Baptist was to point the way to Christ.

• John 1:29

²⁹The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' ³¹I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." - John 1:29-30

I don't see how John the Baptist was saying that atonement was available for all considering that not everyone is going to get it it. It says to me that it's only through the Lamb of God - Jesus  -  that sin is done away with. I do not see this as a promise that Jesus substitutionally paid for the sins of everyone who has ever lived.

• John 3:16-17

¹⁶"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Again God is the actor. He does it. He sets it in motion. Jesus is not suggesting that those who believe believe because of their own volition. Further, Jesus did not need to condemn the world because it's in the crapper whether or not He came.  Jesus came to fix it not make it worse - and He has.

• John 6:33, 51

³³For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

⁵¹I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus does not suggest that the eating of the bread He gives is something that people can eat on their own. Jesus tells us what happens when we take the bread.

• John 12:47

⁴⁷"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. ⁴⁸There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. -  John 12:47-48

Jesus is not saying that those who reject His words will not be judged for it. They will be.

• Romans 3:23-24 - All have sinned and all have access to justification in Christ Jesus.

 ²¹But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²²This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
 ²⁷Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. ²⁸For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. ²⁹Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, ³⁰since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. ³¹Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3:23-30

I don't see how Paul is making the argument that everyone is justified in Christ. He is explaining how the atonement justifies us.

• Romans 5:6 - Christ died for the ungodly. Since all are ungodly, Christ died for all.

⁶You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. ⁷Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. ⁸But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
 ⁹Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! ¹⁰For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! ¹¹Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5:6-11

Paul affirms that  all have sinned but he does say that Christ died for all. :Look at verse 8 and 9 and 10. We are reconciled to God through the death of Jesus. Christ died for us true.. and we are all sinners and ungodly. Yet Paul did not say Jesus died for all. He died for us. Who is us? We - those who believe in Christ.

• Romans 5:15 - Since sin spread to all, Christ's atonement is meant for all.

 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!

Christ's atonement is a gift. A gift can't be earned or obligated only received. And it's not a gift to all but to many.

• Romans 10:13 - Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

¹³for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

 Agreed, but it does not say that everyone has the ability or the opportunity to call on the Lord. It's a gift.

• 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 - All died, yet Christ died for all.

¹⁴For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. ¹⁵And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

Does Christ's love compels everyone? Nope. Was Paul telling us that all no longer live for themselves or only for those whom Christ died for? I don't think so. I don't see how "all" mean every human being in this context.

• 1 Timothy 2:3-6 - God desires all men to be saved, and gave Himself for all

¹I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— ²for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. - 1 Timothy 2:3-6

It is impossible to understand verse 3-6 without 1 -3. The "This" that pleases God is that we make prayer and intercession for everyone and living lives characterized by holiness and godliness.While God wants all men to be saved because he gave us one mediator - one sacrifice. I think that this this is the strongest verse against limited atonement. I'm not to comfortable saying that Paul is referring to only :"all kinds of men" not what it says. I'm planning to do more study on this but I don't think we can use it to say that everyone has equal opportunity and ability. Indisputably it is a gift of God.

• 1 Timothy 4:10

⁸For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.
 ⁹This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance ¹⁰(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.- 1 Timothy 4:8-10

Jesus is the hope of all men because He is the only hope we have. It seems to me Paul is highlighting that the salvation is actualized in only those who believe. It's not saying that believers believe as an act of their own will aside from God drawing them.

• Titus 2:11 - God's necessary grace that leads to repentance appears to all.

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

I think this verse goes back to the fact that no one has an excuse for not accepting God's grace because it is being plainly presented.

• Hebrews 2:9 - Jesus tasted death for everyone.

 ⁵It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. ⁶But there is a place where someone has testified:
   "What is man that you are mindful of him,
      the son of man that you care for him?
 ⁷You made him a little lower than the angels;
      you crowned him with glory and honor
    ⁸ and put everything under his feet." 
    In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. ⁹But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
 ¹⁰In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. ¹¹Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.- Hebrews 2:5-11

The passage does not say that everyone shares in the atonement of  Jesus' death. Look at verse 10. The author says that "many" not "all" sons are brought to glory.  

• Hebrews 10:10 - Christ offered once for all.

⁸First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). ⁹Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. ¹⁰And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  - Hebrews 10:8-10

Is the writer of Hebrews saying that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all people or once for all time? I'd say once for all time because the letter then goes on and draws a parallel between Jesus' office as high priest and the high priests of the Levitical priesthood who made sacrifices for the whole people of Israel. In those days the sacrifices weren't for the sins of the whole world but only for Israel - God's people. Why would the ultimate and best sacrifice also not be for only the people of God?

• 2 Peter 3:9

⁹The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The Greek term from which "wanting" is translated comes from the word "Boulemai" and that term shows desire but not follow through. It's passive. In effect, God does not want anyone to perish but He isn't going to force it or make it happen. Peter is agreeing with Paul who wrote in Romans 8 that the whole of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed.  This is something God does.

• 1 John 4:14

¹⁴And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

The verse does not say that the whole world is saved it's saying that no one will be saved apart from the Son.

• 1 John 2:2 - Jesus is the propitiation, not just for believers, but for the whole world.

¹My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. ²He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for  the sins of the whole world.

Admittedly here is another verse that seems to be against Limited atonement and will require more study on my part. If Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world then he took away the sin of the whole world also. I don't believe the Bible teaches that Jesus just makes up savable. I believe that his sacrifice literally saves us on an individual level. This verse seems to be saying that this is true for the whole world. Yet there is something going on because we know that some of the world will be going to hell. This isn't a contradiction just proof that I don't understand everything.

• John 4:42

  ⁴²They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

The Samaritans in that town understood that Jesus is the savior of the world in that there is no salvation apart from him not that everyone is justified and reconciled apart from faith.

• Revelation 22:17

 ¹⁷The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

 One of my favorite scriptures. Due to Romans 8:5-8

 ⁵Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; ⁷the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 

I have to conclude that no one apart from God can come to Jesus. I mean without God revealing to you that you are sinful, needy, and thirsty that you even know you need a savior. A mind controlled by a sinful nature is unable to process that or even agree. 

Additionally, I think there are two scriptures the shed even more light on atonement.

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

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

These passages as wells as other underscores that salvation is a gift - not something to be earned - or obligated. The atonement was enough to save every human being ever but salvation itself is something for which we can only thank God for.

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know

Manuscript Attestation For The New Testament or Jesus Christ versus Julius Caesar

Ryan Anderson has responding to a comment I made on one of my blog posts Jesus in the Qur'an. I admit that it's gone far from the subject of the text but worth scrutinizing. One person said that they didn't believe it was true that Jesus is mentioned anywhere outside of the New Testament. To which I provided a link to Mariano Grinbank's blog in which he lists 236 attestations to Jesus Christ covering a span of three centuries. Ryan Anderson disagreed that this was significant and even wants to throw out most of them. According to him, we have only 6 - the Gospels and two references from Josephus. I think that there are far more than that, but be that as it may. I challenged Ryan to name someone else from antiquity who has as much attestation as Jesus. He countered with Julius Caesar. He went as far as saying the there are countless references to Julius Caesar from the first two centuries of his death. I want to first say that I was not saying that there is no proof of anyone in antiquity who lived and did important things that we can definitively know about other than Jesus Christ. I was saying that Jesus is just as well attested if not more than anyone else we accept as historical fact.

At the this link: Manuscript Attestation For The New Testament; I found a great article that summarizes what the manuscript evidence exist for the New Testament and for Julius Caesar's work "The Gallic Wars". First, I loved the way the post summarizes the rules scholars use to measure the validity of an ancient document as historical.

QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS TEST...
1. "How many copies of the document in question are available?"
    a. In order to compare them with one another
    b. The more, the better
2. "Where were the copies found?"
    a. If they all came from one place, collusion is possible
    b. But if they are from places far removed by time and location,
        collusion is unlikely
3. "What length of time passed between the original and the
    earliest copies?"
   a. If the earliest copies we have were written hundreds of years
       after the original, a lot of changes could have been made and
       we would not know it
   b. But a short interval of time would increase our assurance in
      the reliability of the copies
4. "What variances exist between the copies?"
   a. If the copies of a document are filled with significant
      differences, then it would not be possible to know what the
     original author wrote!
   b. But if the variances are few and minor, then the process of
    copying over the years has been faithful to the original!

The Article summarizes how the answers stack up on four ancient documents I've got a couple asides I need to mention. I will italicize them to set them apart.

   A. HOW MANY COPIES OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS ARE AVAILABLE?
     1. Over 4,000 Greek manuscripts; 13,000 copies of portions of the
        New Testament in Greek! We have more than 5,000 now!
     2. Compare this with other ancient historical writings:
        a. Caesar's "Gallic Wars" - only 10 Greek manuscripts
        b. "Annals" of Tacitus - 2
        c. Livy - 20; Plato - 7; Sophocles - 100

  B. WHERE WERE THESE COPIES FOUND?
    1. Various places:  Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy
    2. Such varied locations would make COLLUSION very difficult

 C. WHAT LENGTH OF TIME PASSED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE EARLIEST COPIES?
   1. We saw in the previous lesson that several PAPYRI FRAGMENTS have been dated to within 50-100 years Yeah, I know not everyone agrees with the dates but the sheer number of copies is indisputable and gives us better reliability than other ancient manuscript.
   2. We have several nearly complete New Testament GREEK MANUSCRIPTS which were copied within 300-400 years, for example:
     a. Codex Sinaiticus, found near Mt. Sinai
     b. Codex Alexandrinus, found near Alexandria in Egypt
     c. Codex Vaticanus, located at the Vatican in Rome
   3. But COMPARE THIS WITH MANUSCRIPTS OF VARIOUS CLASSICAL HISTORIES:
     a. "Histories of Thucydides" - earliest copy is 1300 years removed from the original
     b. "Histories of Herodotus" - earliest copy is 1350 years removed from the original
     c. Caesar's "Gallic War" - 950 years
     d. Roman History of Livy - 350 years (and the earliest copy is only a fragment)
     e. "Histories" of Tacitus - 750 years
     f. "Annals" of Tacitus - 950 years (and there are only two manuscripts)

 D. WHAT VARIANCES EXIST BETWEEN THE COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
   1. It is true that there are SOME VARIATIONS between the many thousands of manuscripts available
     a. But the vast majority are very minor (spelling, differences in phraseology, etc.; modern translations often note the differences in footnotes)
     b. Only 1/2 of one percent is in question (compared to 5 percent for the Illiad)
   2. Even then, it can be stated:  "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading...It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain:  especially is this the case with the New Testament."
      -- SIR FREDERICK KENYON (authority in the field of New Testament textual criticism)

The point I want to stress in this article is that "The Gallic War" - which everyone seems to agree was written by Julius Caesar - has no original. It's lost. However the earliest copy is almost 1000 years after the original and we have only 10 copies in Greek. My point is that by the rule, if Julius Ceasar's campaign in ancient France is well documented as historical fact, then so is Jesus. The manuscript evidence is better in this case for the New Testament as a whole, then for the Gallic War from the first century BC.

D. James Kennedy’s Show and John Ankerberg’s Show: On Canonization | True Freethinker

Image via Wikipedia

Thanks, Mariano











D. James Kennedy’s Show and John Ankerberg’s Show: On Canonization | True Freethinker

Flavius Josephus, the Historical Jesus and Pseudo-Skepticism Outdated By Four Decades | True Freethinker

Mariano wrote this great post on why it's a bad idea to throw out the references to Jesus as complete forgeries in Josephus' histories. Good stuff!

Flavius Josephus, the Historical Jesus and Pseudo-Skepticism Outdated By Four Decades | True Freethinker

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know Part 1

Brennon has posted a great list of scriptures that support Arminianism. I'm not certain that they support the Arminian position. Rather than try to responding to them all at once, I will break them down into several posts based on how the list is presented. This topic interests me because I really wanna know what the Bible says. about it. Understanding just how much in control God is in everything helps us understand God better. Here is part 1 regarding the idea that Bible teaches that God's election is conditional.


Verses that show election is conditional:

• Matthew 11:28-30 - Salvation is an invite to those who will come.

 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

I just don't get how this how this is saying election is conditional because to say so is saying that it's our choice whether or not we come to Jesus. It is presupposing that we can choose either to learn from Jesus or not learn from Jesus. Whether you are an Arminian or not, you have to agree that the Bible teaches that if you don't learn from Jesus and apply it you will be cast into hell. That's not where the disagreement is. The issue that this passage brings up is can you take up Jesus' yoke and learn from him on your own - of your own will?
I'll give an answer at the end of the post.  

• John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

When Jesus said this was he saying that He came because we chose Him? No God chose to love the world and the the sone came so that people who believe in Him will not be cut off from God. In addition the passage does not talk about who has the ability to believe and I don't see how it's saying that everyone has the ability to believe.

• John 4:42

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

To say this verse tells us that election is conditional does not really make sense to me because the most about election you can get is that the elect worship God in spirit and in truth. It does not say that you become elect by worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

• John 6:40

"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

I agree that the elect are those who look to the Son and believes in Him. However, Jesus is not saying that anyone can look to the Son and believe on their own.  More on this at the end of the post.

• John 6:51 - Must eat of the bread of life to receive benefit.

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

I agree that Jesus is saying that the elect eats the bread of life to get eternal life.  However Jesus did not say that everyone has the ability to do so on their own. Again more on this at the end of the post.

• Acts 13:39

Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

I love this passage because it points to the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. However it's describing what the elect does. It's not talking about how we become elect. And it's not saying we elect ourselves because we believe. We believe because we are elect.

• Romans 1:16-17

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

I don't think that Paul is saying that all the elect become elect because of their own choices however he is describing what it mean to be elected to salvation by faith  through Jesus.

• Romans 5:1-2 - It is through faith that we are made a part of Christ.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

I'm still missing how the fact that it is by faith we are made a part of Christ tells us that our election is conditional on our faith.

• Romans 9:30 

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

By what condition was the election of gentiles earned? It wasn't.  Gentiles obtained righteousness the same way the Jews did: by Faith. The passage does not tell us that faith is a condition of election. What we again see is that the elect are characterized by having faith.

• Ephesians 1:13

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I find this passage very interesting. Are we trying to say to that people choose to put their faith in Christ and then they no longer have free will because we are then marked and seale with the Holy Spirit? Why should free will stop when you get saved? I realized that many people believe that salvation is conditional and one can loose their salvation but this is one verse that shows that it's not possible if you have believed.  This is because you didn't save you.

• 1 Timothy 4:10 - Jesus died for all, but there is a specific subset that receives the benefits, namely those who believe.

(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

This passage is used a lot to discredit the idea the Jesus died for only the elect. It might. Nor do I think it tells us election is dependent on faith. IT only tells us that there is not salvation outside of the living God.

• 1 Peter 1:1-2 - Election is according to God's foreknowing who shall believe.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
      To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
      Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

This passage is not telling us that God chose those who would choose to believe. It gets sticky because how can you tell if you believe a. because you were chosen or b. because you were chosen because you believed.
That is why many Calvinists think that Arminians are pushing a man centered theology if you think that God's election is based on our choices.

As for the question of what our ability is to believe is the Bible answers this thoroughly. I'm amazed that John 6:40 and 51 are used in the list but verse 44 is not on the list. Here is John 6:40-59:

⁴⁰For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
 ⁴¹At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." ⁴²They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
 ⁴³"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. ⁴⁴"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁴⁵It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'^[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. ⁴⁶No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. ⁴⁸I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. ⁵⁰But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. ⁵¹I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
 ⁵²Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
 ⁵³Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ⁵⁸This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." ⁵⁹He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

In the context, neither verses 40 nor 51 tells us that our salvation is contingent on our choices.  Our salvation is contingent on the Father drawing us. Unless one wants to argue that God draws everyone the same amount to the same degree and the final choice for your salvation is your own, I just can't see how we can say that election is conditional. Of course I can't find any Bible passage that says that God draws everyone the same amount and we make the final choice.

Instead lets look at a couple of passages in which the word "election" and "predestination" are actually used.

⁴For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love ⁵he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— ⁶to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. ⁷In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace ⁸that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. ⁹And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, ¹⁰to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
 ¹¹In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

Romans 9:10-12 said::

¹⁰Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. ¹¹Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: ¹²not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

2 Peter 1:10-11 said:

 ¹⁰Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, ¹¹and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I don't think Peter is saying that unbelievers make their calling or election sure but believers do.  Again it doesn't tell us that election is conditional. I just can't see how we can get conditional election out of the Bible.

Brennon's Thoughts: Verses All Arminians Should Know

Your Guide to the World of Avatar: The Last Airbender - G4tv.com

I admit I wasn't sure which blog to put this this link, but I finally decided to put it on my main blog. It's a primer on the background for The Last Airbinder movie. I've seen most of the animated series on which the movie is based. I like the article from G4TV because it doesn't give any spoilers for the movie or the animated series and yet gives a lot of information I did not know. I've seen almost every episode and it's well done. The only thing is that it does speak from a pantheistic worldview and incorporates many religions. At the same time it does have a lot of good moral and interesting ideas for children. I don't think the show was good for children at all. All the characters grow and change and much character development is done right. There is plenty of humor and action and adventure. If the movie makers stick to the source material this movie will be one of the best movies ever! If they play too fast and loose it is gonna suck. I'd like to do some posts comparing the animated series and the movie and what they have to say about the world as well as comparing the movie with the animated series. I'm not going to believe the critics until I see it for myself.  They probably didn't understand the animated series either. So far the only complaint I think holds weight without seeing the movie is casting the movie with all white actors while in the animated series all the characters are people of color and all the nations are modeled on Hindu, Buddhist, Eskimo, Native American, Chinese, and Japanese cultures.

Your Guide to the World of Avatar: The Last Airbender - G4tv.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Last Airbender: The Worst Movie Ever? (manolith.com)
• The Last Airbender (beliefnet.com)
• The Last Airbender Movie Insult (socialactions.net)
• 'Last Airbender' Scene Inspired By Bruce Lee, M. Night Shyamalan Says (mtv.com)
• Review: The Last Airbender (cinematical.com)

Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer? | True Freethinker

Here is another great video from William Lane Craig that I was pointed to by Mariano. Take a look.




Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer? | True Freethinker

Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra | True Freethinker

Here is a great video that Mariano posted on his blog. Greg Koukl did really good encouraging Chopra to put his world view on the line.Kooukl just doesn't talk about how to engage people and share the truth of the Bible, he really does it.




Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra | True Freethinker