Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries

I just read a blog post from James White in which he reports that Peter Stravinskas wants to sue him and his ministry. I'm amazed by this. But once you watch the clip is shouldn't be surprising why Stravinskas is angry. I think that James White has made a very valid point:
So if Peter Stravinskas wants to "warn" Roman Catholics against debating me, let me add a few items. If you want a debate where your opponent does not study your position nor accurately represent your position, do not debate James White. If you want a debate where the resultant video recordings are not given wide distribution or clips allowed to be posted on YouTube, do not debate James White. Meanwhile, let's ponder the real reason why Peter Stravinskas wants control over video clip posting of any debates:


Follow the link below to see all of Dr. White's comments.

Peter Stravinskas Threatens to Sue Alpha and Omega Ministries
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"

John Lofuts posted a video of John Shelby Spong explaining that "hell" was invented by the church. He doesn't think that there is any warrant for Christians to believe in Hell. Loftus wrote:
Evangelicals you are wrong, listen to Spong. ;-)
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my lifetime and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years. Evangelicals are already embracing annihilationism, so why not? Watch him below:


The problem is that Jesus spoke about Hell more than He spoke about Heaven. Loftus is right that there are some people who call themselves "Christians" who have embraced annihilationism - meaning that people who die in their sins simply cease to exist and that there is no hell. This is not what the Bible says. Spong is wrong. Pure and simple. It's a heretical position and not something that Christians have believed over the past 2000 years ago. I don't really care what Spong thinks if he is going to contradict Jesus. Spong didn't die for me and take my sins away. Jesus did. What Jesus says carries more weight. Listen to Spong instead of Jesus and you will see just how wrong he is.

Debunking Christianity: Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Cling to the Cross: A Gospel Message for Muslims



Cling to the Cross: A Gospel Message for Muslims

DEA Looking For People Who Can Translate "Ebonics" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I just could not resist linking to this story. I do agree that not all black people can understand every single slang term out on the street. I know I don't. The article is interesting. I should have seen this one coming. I especially like the clip from "Airplane" embedded in the post. I wonder if the DEA ever saw this and decided it was a good idea.

Compose

DEA Looking For People Who Can Translate "Ebonics" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 23, 2010

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matthew Flannagan

I really enjoyed the interview of Matthew Flannagan. Brian Auten asks him great questions about his work as an apologist. He's from New Zealand and has been growing an international reputation. This is well-worth listening to.
Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matthew Flannagan
Enhanced by Zemanta

Richard Dawkins Elucidates, Yet Again, Why He Will Not Debate William Lane Craig | True Freethinker

I thank Mariano for posting this. I've heard of this incident but now the video is available.


Translation: "I'm Chicken!!!"
Richard Dawkins Elucidates, Yet Again, Why He Will Not Debate William Lane Craig | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

What Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Tell Us About Nature and God

I really enjoyed the lecture. a lot of good points were brought up. I have to admit that it was put on by the Discovery institute. Many atheist hate the institute and think that they are willing to practice bad science inorder to believe in the god of the Bible. I have a different viewpoint. I ask anyone who disagrees that there is evidence found in Physics pointing to God would listen to these lectures and point out why they are wrong in detail. Yes, in case you are wondering, I am calling you out.


What Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Tell Us About Nature and God
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Lee Strobel, You Are Just Plain Stupid!

John Loftus posted the following commentary and video.
I like Bishop John Shelby Spong. I've read a couple of his books more than a decade ago and they were eye-opening to me. He presents a superior case against Christian fundamentalism. Watch Spong in action below but take special note of how utterly stupid Lee Strobel is at the end. He merely repeats platitudes that Biblical scholars have long ago debunked. Sorry Lee but you are one ignorant man.


Let's discuss just what "stupid" is. I keep hearing Loftus and others completely agree with some of the fallacies Bishop Spong kept bringing up and making it seem like all Christian Scholars agree with him and the minority who don't are either uneducated and biased for Christianity because of their faith. I disagree because I know of many well-educated and researched scholars who disagree with the conclusions reached by Loftus and Spong.
I think the real reason Loftus doesn't like Strobel is because Strobel used to be an atheist and flies in the face of Loftus' rhetoric that Christians are Christians because they were raised that way and reasonable people become atheists when they look at the evidences for themselves. The thing that Loftus seems to forget is that Strobel isn't the only one who comes to Christ from a non-Christian background. Just because I did does not mean everyone does.
Debunking Christianity: Lee Strobel, You Are Just Plain Stupid!

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Debunking Christianity: The Bible Says Women Are Foolish and Flighty

John Loftus posted the following on his blog
Such tomfoolery should be ignored. Why on earth would enlightened people in our age take seriously the Bible if it is wrong about women? It's wrong about almost everything important.
Of late, Loftus has been posting a lot about feminism and why atheism is the only reasonable response in favor or Women's rights. I read the article that Loftus references called

Does The Bible Present Women as Foolish and Flighty?

I've got to admit that Loftus and the article writer would be right if the Bible really said that about women. This is the best example of "cherry-picking" I've ever seen. Here is a quote from the article:
The Bible definitely presents women as inferior to men, or as Peter terms it, "the weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7). The woman is thought to be more easily deceived (1 Tim. 2:14) and thus not worthy of the leadership role in the Church (1 Tim. 3:1-2). The woman was created "for" the man (1 Cor. 11:8-9) and she is not to usurp his authority (1 Tim. 2:12). She is to be subject to her husband  in everything
In the Old Testament, it is even worse. The woman is considered to be the property of her father or husband (Exod. 20:17; 21:7). She has no rights. She cannot divorce her husband. If she is raped and does not cry out loud enough, it is her fault (Deut. 22:24). The list goes on and on.(Eph. 5:24).
Women are not presented as inferior to men. Look at  1 Peter 3:7 in context.
 1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
 7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. - 1 Peter 3:1-7
The passage tells us Women should submit to their husbands not because men are smarter or better.  The Bible is only talking about roles and position not ontology. Peter writes to warn husbands not to take advantage of their wives because of their position. God honors women so far as to tell us men that if we don't honor and respect our wives, understanding that they share the gifts and deserve an equal share of everything, God will ignore our prayers!!! That is much different than the way Loftus is trying to spin this. Further we know that women is not less than men because we know that husbands belong to their wives as much as wives belong to their husband
2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1st Corinthian 7:2-5
 The New Testament also clearly shows that there were female leaders and teachers in the first century church. This was changed, true enough, and only now really coming back as a rule. But the status of women as not being fit for being leaders and/or teachers was a church invention not a Biblical one. I wrote more about this in the following three articles:

An "Evil" of Christianity

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Phoebe: A Diakonos

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Feminism

So why does the Bible say that a wife should obey her Husband in everything? This instruction was written to the church with the idea in mind that her husband would love her like Christ loved the Church! She should not have to worry about abuse or not becoming all she should be because her husband would love her and make it his priority to help her! I mean read the whole passage in context!


I disagree that women were treated as property in the Old Testament. Women were afforded more rights and privileges than any partriarchial ancient society of what is now the Middel East. The laws served to protect women not subjugate or hurt them.The point about raping women is not a valid one, the Law does not say it's the woman's fault if she is raped but does not scream. The law assumes that she complicit if she does not try to get away. That may seem hard to swallow in the context of our culture today, but that was the Law. IT  does not validate the notion that women are less than man.
The New Testament has a few strong women in it. So doe the Old Testament. People usually trot out Deborah (Judges 4-5) as an example of a powerful female leader in the Old Testament. She also holds the distinction of being the only leader in Israel's history who was not only a political leader but a prophet simultaneously! But let's talk about someone else who doesn't get discussed too ofen: Abigail (1 Samuel 25). Abigail is honored above her husband whose very name "Nabal" means "Fool". Think about it. No one can really argue...and be serious...in stating that the Bible teaches us to be misogynistic and terrible to women. It's just not there. If you say it is, you are being dishonest...or stupid.
Debunking Christianity: The Bible Says Women Are Foolish and Flighty
Enhanced by Zemanta

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Pascal on Christianity

I really appreciate Brian Auten posting this quote from Pascal. It amazes me when atheists try to demeans Christians as stupid and backward. They try to make it seem like anyone who believes the Bible is dumb and faith retards science. They never answer how is it that a man like Pascal whom had done so much to advance science was also Christian? Do they consider themselves so much smarter and intelligent? I hope not and that they have other reasons than just because they hate God (but I think that's it).


"Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true. Venerable, because it has perfect knowledge of man; lovable because it promises the true good."
- Blaise Pascal in Pensées (187)
Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Pascal on Christianity
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Samsung May Not Care About Customers....But They Make Good Phones!

As you probably remember, I posted a blog post a couple of weeks ago about how I felt cheated that I bought the Behold II because Samsung said that they would be upgrading nor supporting the phone at least up to Android 2.0 (phone hasn't even been out a year!) and now have said that they will not. Well, I'm still not happy about it but I now have a resolution that I can live with. T-Mobile agreed to sell me a better phone at a low discount. At first I was upset that the best Phone I could get from them was a Samsung model, but I have to admit that it's a great phone and now I can do all things that I need to do with the Phone that I could not do with the Behold II - such as make real good use of Bluetooth! So I thank God for allowing me to find a solution. It's not the solution I wanted but it is the solution I needed.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Story of the Arrest of Nabeel, David, Paul and Negeen

Here is a great summary of the event last June where four Christians were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan during an Arab cultural festival because they shared their conviction in public when asked.


The Real Story of the Arrest of Nabeel, David, Paul and Negeen
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 20, 2010

Apologetics 315: D. A. Carson’s The God Who Is There MP3 Series

Here is audio series in which DA Carson innocolates people to the "God Who wasn't There" video with reasons whty you can be sure that God is here and you can know Him. Thanks to Brian Auten for posting this!

Apologetics 315: D. A. Carson’s The God Who Is There MP3 Series
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 19, 2010

YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV

This was hilarious to me! A 13 year-old poking holes in atheist arguments like an expert. This kid reads. Love it! Who says God can't use young people? Well
done! Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no excuse for not being able to see past silly arguments.



YouTube - Atheist Experience show messes up bad on TV

Online Videos - Rev. Tony Costa vs. Osama Abdallah

Here is the link to an interesting video where Christian Tony Costa debates Muslim Osama Abdullah. The debate is over the question; "Is the Bible the Word of God." I liked it. But nothing new. It is a good summary of the debate from bother perspectives.

Online Videos - Rev. Tony Costa vs. Osama Abdallah

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matt Slick of Carm.org

I really enjoyed this interview Brian Auten made with Matt Slick. He gave a lot of great advice. I've heard him before working with David Wood and I was impressed. The thing that amazes me about his testimony is that he claims that that he was tricked into an alter call and it worked. No wonder he has a reformed perspectives. I would also like people to hear what he said about how he approaches evangelism. I also like his use of both Presuppositional and Evidential Apologetics.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Matt Slick of Carm.org
Enhanced by Zemanta

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Laura Schlessinger quits radio - "special interest people" (read: n*ggers) blamed

I found the following clip from a blogger who is...um...angry about the Laura Schlessinger debacle over the past few days. She showed herself as a racist and inconsiderate woman who seemed to forget that marrying outside your races should not make you fair and reasonable target for racism. Just when I thought that maybe she was just off her meds that day, she showed up on Larry King Live. Y'know...damage control over her being fir...er...choosing to leave radio. Just when you think you've seen everything.


THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Dr. Laura Shlessinger quits radio - "special interest people" (read: n*ggers) blamed
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Debunking Christianity: "Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"

John Loftus introduced the following link: Biblically Christianity is Bankrupt
That's right, so argues Michael Dowd, a liberal author of the book Thank God for Evolution. I agree with his criticisms most emphatically. Check him out. When Christians are done tearing into each other all I have to say is that I agree with them all. And I agree with the non-Christian religions too. What's left after these religions tear into one another? Atheism. Get the point.

I want to write a fuller response to Dowd and to Loftus. I want to make it clear that I know Loftus is raising another point in addition to the points the Dowd is making in his blog post. I want to deal with Loftus first.

Let us first define what "Biblical Christianity" is. John Loftus does not really define what he means in his post but Dowd does.


Biblical Christianity that does not integrate our best evidential understanding of the universe and human nature is doomed precisely because it is wedded to unchanging scripture. It suffers from what I call “idolatry of the written word.” No longer does it link together what young people learn in church and what they learn in their science and history classes at school—and on the Discovery and History channels at home. As well, biblical Christianity’s strongest lifeline for claiming continued relevance is seriously frayed—although only those who track scientific advances in neurobiology, infant psychology, and the social instincts of apes and monkeys may be aware of this perilous condition. 



I disagree. The fact that the scriptures do not change is why it's powerful for basing one's life and practice on.  There is no reason at all not to have a world view based on the Bible without integration of evidence regarding science and history. Some will say that we have so much evidence that shows the Bible to be wrong, but when I study and look at all the evidences I come to the alternate conclusions.When I have done so I have only seen the Bible supported not broken. I would endorse "Sola Scriptora"  or "Scripture Alone"  as a non-negotiable characteristic of  Biblical Christianity and a good way to understand what is and what is not Christian. Anyone who depends on just the Discovery or History channels (to say nothing of public school) is going to get a woefully inadequate view of reality. I don't think at all that people should be shielded from opposing ideas or viewpoints. I say "Bring it".  The Bible can take it. Don't just take a single side but look at and judge all sides. Your soul weighs in the balance, best to be sure...really sure you are taking a view you can live with.



Dowd further wrote:



What is that frayed lifeline? It is the intertwined strands of two crucial religious functions: first, the matter of where we acquire our moral compass, and second, how we come into right relationship with reality, or “get right with God,” when we have fallen from the path. As to the former, we moderns come to the Bible with a culturally evolved moral compass by which we carefully pick and choose which passages to preach and study and teach our children. We do not get our morality from the Bible.

The reason we do not consult the book of Exodus when dealing with a disrespectful teenage son, or the book of Leviticus for parenting advice when a daughter loses her virginity, or the book of Numbers for how to handle Sabbath breakers, or the books of Deuteronomy or Revelation when needing guidance regarding family members who choose a different faith, is because murder is no longer considered a moral option. 

Dowd is definitely familiar with "Christainese". He uses many of the words but He doesn't really understand the Bible. I wanted to point out the above quote because it shows he does not know what he is talking about. Many folks speak to the prescriptions for parenting advice when a daughter loses her virginity,  how to handle Sabbath breakers,  regarding family members who choose a different faith in Ancient Israel as Murder. But this isn't true. These were capital offenses...not murder. Feel free to disagree about if the punishment fit the crimes or not, but don't claim moral superiority. Our society is far from superior now that almost anything sexual goes (as long as its consenting adults for now). He's right,. We don't get our morality from the Bible. That's why we are in this mess.



We need to preach and study and teach from the whole Bible! There is a context to those so-called "problem texts". And many of them are descriptive of what happened and not prescriptions. The other issues are understood to apply to ancient Israel in terms of the ceremonial laws and civil punishments.

Debunking Christianity: "Biblical Christianity Is Bankrupt"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: How To Be a Biblical Scholar

the_bibleImage by Brent Nelson via FlickrYou know the most interesting thing about John Loftus' blog is that he writes so many assertions that the Atheist supports of John agree with and hardly ever challenge him. In fact the attitude seems to be that everyone already knows the facts and if you don't then you will come to the same conclusions or if you read Loftus' books you will get the evidence and be led to the truth of his conclusions. That's some bitter Kool-aid to swallow. Recently, he posted an article in which he tries to argue that the Bible is not reliable. Here is a quote:
You see, Christians take the biblical texts as if they are a divine history of their faith for the first millennium or more without attempting to discern the context for these documents. There is a discernible development to their intellectual history and it looks completely like the evolution of a faith, not a divinely revealed one.
Here's a meager comparison. It would be like reading a history of the United States that was partially written during the Revolutionary War without referring to why early Americans revolted in the first place (i.e., the context), and partially written during the Stock Market Crash by a rich author, without any context as to what caused the crash in the first place.
There is a complete lack of historical perspective in the periodically written texts of the Bible. Add to that the extraordinary claims or "wonders" we find in it and there simply is no good reason to believe them.
I have to admit that most people have never bothered to study the context of the Bible. He does have some valid points that the Bible is composed from several viewpoints. We are talking about 66 books, over 40 different authors, 3 continents, different cultures, various genres, three different languages, and most of Authors could not have known one another given it took 1500 years for them all to be written. Loftus' meager comparison is indeed meager. If someone from today were to read such a history of United States it would indeed be a confused mess. However the Bible is different. Each book was written with a specific audience in mind and the contemporary readers of those documents would have known and understood the context of those writings. Centuries removed it takes more study to get an understanding of those contexts.
However I disagree with Loftus' conclusion. And I'm not the only one. Many people have studied the contexts of the scriptures - historically and culturally - and come to the conclusion that the Bible is a coherent whole telling the same story - God redeeming His people and glorifying Himself. It's His story. I recognize that there are different opinions. Some people I've spoken to on Loftus' blog (and some scholars) even deny that we can know anything about history conclusively. If they're right then Loftus' comparison is even more meaningless.
I've got to disagree that there is a lack of historical perspective in the Bible itself. The lack of historical perspective is because of those who read the Bible out of its' own context and try to superimpose their own views and prejudices. Loftus makes the suggestion that all the other texts like the intertestamental text indeed gives a equally valid but different views of Christianity. However the intertestamental texts, like the Apocrapha, is not about Christianity but they are in a Jewish context. I do agree with him that one must study early Christian literature to understand what earlier followers of Christ thought and taught. Thing the 27 books of the New Testament all predate the gnostic and Christia n apocraphal texts. I've read many of them and they contradict the New Testament in fundamental ways. Given the New Testament was first and early, it makes sense that it better represents the teachings of Jesus and the first century church. The next point of contention that is raised is that message found in the New Testament is not coherent but contradictory. I disagree.
I invite anyone who disagrees with me and would hold that New Testament contradicts itself to put their evidence on the table in plain sight and let's discuss the texts in question and see if there is a contradiction if viewed from a historical and cultural context.

Debunking Christianity: How To Be a Biblical Scholar
Enhanced by Zemanta

Every Jot and Titttle

You may have noticed comments from Ryan Anderson on posts on my blog. Recently he has asked a couple of great questions that deserve more fully answers than just comments. He wrote these in context of comments made by me. In challenging the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible, he commented:



Yeah, but I can't imagine an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would write the truth on our hearts with various intensities or not all for some people. Nor one that would write different laws for different times and cultures. 
I responded as follows.

The laws varying according to time and place are a different matter. Look at the practical laws concerning harvesting. I live in a city. Was that law written for me? The ceremonial laws were for ancient theocratic Israel meant to point to Christ, why do you think they should apply today given that Messiah has already come?  

To which replied:
I'd be curious to know where you find scriptural support for the idea that there are divisions in the law, such as ceremonial law, dietary law, etc..
And even if you find some or stretch something else to accommodate yourself, you are still stuck with the very inconvenient line about jots and tittles. Surely even the parts about the harvest are included in every jot and tittle
Ryan claims to have been a Christian yet he seems to have forgotten all the places where the ceremonial laws are directed to the people of Israel and not all of humanity. However instead of focusing on such passages, why don't we look at how Paul dealt with his question. I'm amazed how often it comes up because it should have been put to rest 2000 years ago. To follow the ceremonial laws would mean to become a Jew. From the beginning there were those thought to be Christian means you must also be a Jew.  Paul dealt with this head on.

15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
 19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

- Galatians 3:15-25

Paul affirmed the Law not set it aside. IT has it's place but  Jesus fulfilled the Law. The New Testament is very clear point. I did ask Ryan the following question:
how do you explain those who become born-again who were not raised as Christians or in a Christian context?

His answer:
Missionaries? Also, probably the same way I'd explain Christians leaving the faith or becoming Muslim, Buddhist, etc...

He is making my point for me. It is silly to argue that the only reason people are Christians is because they are raised in Christian families. He said: "I think the "pull" of Christianity for today's westerner is that western civilization has been steeping in the story for 1650 years. Probably the same reasons Muslims like Islam."  He just admitted that isn't the case.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Hank Hanegraaff - Does God Harden Hearts?

Hank Hanegraaff has offered an answer to the following question:
If God wants all people to come to Him, why does He in both the Old and the New Testaments harden their hearts? Or, as 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 says blind the minds of unbelievers and veil the Gospel to those who are perishing? So in essence Chris is asking: Why does God blind people’s hearts? Why does He veil the Gospel? Why does He harden people’s hearts, after all He wants people to come to Him, why would He do that?
I really respect Hank Hanegraaf and I agree with most of his answer. Indeed God does not deserve blame for those who are blind to the gospel message. I'm disappointed that he brought up Pharoah hardening his own heart without dealing with the scripture where God says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. The passages cited in Exodus 4:21;7:3;9:12;10:1,20,27;14:4,8,17 are ignored.
I think what is ignored is the fact that our hearts are hard by default. God has to change us so that we can yield to the message. We resist by dI alsefault.
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
If the Bible is right about the minds of sinful people (and I know it is) and everyone starts out this way, I don't see how anyone can ever be saved outside of a sovereign act of God.
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! - Romans 5:7-9
I also totally agree that the gospel is not hidden. It's in plain sight. And I also agree that it is Satan that veils the Gospel because that is what the text says.
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
Also people who don't want light, don't want light because they can't want it. The final point is that God is in ultimate control. The enemy can't veil the truth unless he is allowed to do so. I mean we can't seriously consider the devil more powerful than God when it comes to revealing or veiling truth. Therefore howcome some people see it and others don't? I don't know. God does know. I don't understand how people miss it. But I do understand how we make it.
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. - Ephesians 2:1-10
God has good reason for everything He does - decrees and allows.

Hank Hanegraaff - Does God Harden Hearts?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath on Atheist Fundamentalism MP3

I think Alister McGrath makes great points regarding how atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens  treat Atheism as  a fundamentalist religion, and seem oblivious to that. I'm grateful to Brian Auten for posting this interview.
Apologetics 315: Alister McGrath on Atheist Fundamentalism MP3
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 16, 2010

Debunking Christianity: The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story

John Loftus recently wrote a post about why he believes Christianity has a pull on the hearts and minds of people. He wrote:

There is just something about the Christian story that makes me want to believe it. I know of no other story like this one. In fact, when I watch music videos of the Christian story I feel its psychological pull on me, and I'm a former believer who has rejected that story and became an atheist. So how much more does the story have a great amount of psychological pull on the hearts of others, especially believers, whose faith is confirmed whenever they ponder it.

It is interesting that he thinks that the pull is because the story gives us hope and things we want to believe. Yes, the part about he further we wrote i think is a valid point.

We want to believe we can be forgiven for things we have done wrong. We want to believe there is divine help when in trouble. We want to believe there is life after death too. And we want to believe we are so important that God would take notice of us and redeem us. Yes, we are that important, such selfish bastards that we are. Yes, Yes, Yes. God, the creator of the universe cares for me, Lil 'Ole me, enough to become a baby and die for me, and enough to help me through life and welcome me into his presence.

If I understand the Lofus the problem he has with the "story" of Jesus is that he does not have enough evidence to convince him that it is true. If you press most atheists you find that their reasons for rejecting the story is just as emotional as Loftus accuses Christians of being in accepting it as true. I have a different theory for why the story is attractive. The Bible tells us what the issue is in 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.


Debunking Christianity: The Psychological Pull of the Christian Story

The Dunamis Word: We Are Crying For You Juanita II...What A Mess!

I really appreciate District Superintendent Pastor and Elder Harvey Burnett for calling attention to this bit of news I missed. I mean just when you think someone has been shown for what they truly are they would either repent or at the very least sit down somewhere, they return unrepentant and supposedly "better than ever" - repackaged for mass assumption. I don't think any woman should be beat by their husband. It's wrong under any circumstances. The problem I have is that Juanita Bynum has proven herself to be a false prophet and is hooking up with people we know are not interested in being Christ-like. I would direct you to Pastor Burnett's comments and to the comments on the blog article.




The Dunamis Word: We Are Crying For You Juanita II...What A Mess!

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Hastings Rashdall on Moral Law

Here is a great quote I got from Brain Auten's blog.

"On a non-theistic view of the Universe...the moral law cannot well be thought of as having any actual existence. The objective validity of the moral law can indeed be and no doubt is asserted, believed in and acted upon without reference to any theological creed; but it cannot be defended or fully justified without the presupposition of Theism."

- Hastings Rashdall

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Hastings Rashdall on Moral Law

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I had already heard that Haiti was forced to pay France money to make up for it's loss of Haitian resources when Haiti took its independence. According to this article, there has been a suggestion for France to give the money back. I doubt that it will happen. Then again I was wrong about there ever being a black president of the United States. I hope I'm wrong about this too. My gut tells me you can put this with the "40-acres and a mule" promise my fore-parents never got. This brings up a more fundamental questions about the "debt" France collected from Haiti: Why did Haiti pay it? I mean they had already kicked the French off the island. What did France have on them that the Haitians decided it was less trouble to pay them rather than fight? I mean the United States didn't owe England money after the Revolutionary War. From Wikipedia:

In exchange for French recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern equivalent of $21 billion). - External debt of Haiti


I'm still left with the same question. Most countries at the time refused to recognize Haitian independence. There must be something more. Ahah! I should have known...basic intimidation and extortion. Classic.

Haiti’s legacy of debt began shortly after gaining
independence from France in 1804. In 1825, France, with
warships at the ready, demanded Haiti “compensate” France
for its loss of a slave colony. In exchange for French
recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France
demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern
equivalent of $21 billion). Haiti was forced to choose
between paying this exorbitant sum, about five times Haiti's
annual export revenue, or facing a bloody military clash
with the French fleet. - Fact Sheet - Hatian Debt

Also remembering how in 1825, France was desperate. They just very recently failed to take over Europe and I am certain that they were out of funds. So what do they do? Extort money from Haiti for a "crime" 20 years after the fact. Yup, France should give the money back...with interest.

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

I think that Presuppositional Apologetics is really unassailable. It highlights that without God we cannot explain anything. One of the examples that I thought were really truly epic is the point that you have to assume your own existence to assert it. That is circular reasoning. This is definitely an epic discussion between an Atheist and a Christian. I agree that you can't make sense of logic and existence without presupposing God's existence. Sye expertly shows why presuppossitional apologetics works!

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Presuppositional apologetics vs. Atheism on the Unbelievable radio program

Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: PART 2: The Islamisation of America: Why Christians were Arrested in Dearborn, Michigan

Three of the four Christians who were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan at a cultural festival for Muslims. They were not antagonizing anyone only making themselves available to dialogue with Muslims at the festival regarding Jesus and Christianity. The interview is really interesting. Take a look at the link.


Iron Sharpens Iron: David Wood: PART 2: The Islamisation of America: Why Christians were Arrested in Dearborn, Michigan

60 Questions Muslims Don’t Like To Be Asked!

I found the following link on the internet. I think the list of questions are valid. However it has been my experience that not all Muslims avoid questions or fear scrutiny. I think it's unfair to assume that they are stupid. They are not. Unfortunately, many Christians avoid hard questions and truly expect you to do what they say without question. This is not the model put forth in the Bible, and I would call such a church a cult. I'd like to see some Muslim answers to these questions although I have my own answers from a Christian viewpoint.

60 Questions Muslims Don’t Like To Be Asked!

Man-Thing and Marvel's Other Monsters to Menace 'The Superhero Squad Show'


Here is some exciting information:

In an interview with The Comics Continuum during Comic-Con, Marvel Animation's Cort Lane broke down what viewers can expect from the upcoming "This Man-Thing! This Monster!"

"Me and Tom Kenny [The voice of Iron Man, Captain America, MODOK and others] are big fans of the '70s monster titles and so we built a whole solo adventure for Iron Man that features Werewolf by Night and Dracula and Man-Thing and Ellen Brant, and when he saw that script he went crazy."
According to The Continuum, Dave Boat (the voice of Thor) will voice Dracula and Man-Thing while Nina Dobrev ("The Vampire Diaries") will guest star as Ellen Brandt and Rob Paulsen will guest star as Jack Russell.





Man-Thing and Marvel's Other Monsters to Menace 'The Superhero Squad Show'

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Listen to C S Lewis (literally) | True Freethinker

I really appreciate Mariano Grinbank for posting these videos of C.S. Lewis. I didn't even realize that video of him existed. He was a great scholar and  intellect. God really gifted our world with him and his work.










Listen to C S Lewis (literally) | True Freethinker

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Dr. Laura Wants To Know Why She Can't Use the N-Word

Danielle Belton has written a great article on the advice Schlessinger gave a black woman who is experiencing disrespect and racism from the white family she married into. I agree with Ms Belton and disagree with Dr. Laura. A black person does not give up the right not to be called "nigger" just because they marry a white person.  As Ms Belton said:

Apparently, they liked to use the N-word and such around her and Dr. Laura got all kinds of "get over it" because that's just what you're supposed to expect if you marry outside your race. You DESERVE all the racist hell relatives unleash on you (according to Dr. Laura). You're asking for it and just like wearing a miniskirt is an invitation for rape: White people can't help but be racist towards you. You're black! (Per Dr. Laura) So why so serious? Why on Earth would she find a racially loaded pejorative so inflammatory? It was almost like she expected people to respect her as a human being.

Danielle Belton's The Black Snob - The Snob Blog - Dr. Laura Wants To Know Why She Can't Use the N-Word