Of course, what’s at stake here is significant. Would the devil like anything more than when someone challenged the truth of historic Christianity, we just sat silent while quoting to ourselves the maxim “people shouldn’t argue”?Arguing Doesn’t Do Any Good? Sure It Does! | Clay Jones
1 Pet. 3:15: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”
I think the reason why the Black Panther animated series will not be broadcasted in the United States is because it is "too controversial". Mustn't let black children think about history and culture and how empires were built in Africa and North America.You may or may not be aware of the Black Panther animated series that was supposed to be on BET in 2009 from a collaboration between Marvel Animation and BET. IT didn't happen but the show was shown in Australia (no idea why?) in 2010. What happened was that the shows were supposed to be available on iTunes. However it was pulled from there as well. So why ? Why won't they just broadcast it on TV or make it available over the Internet or DVD? I think the answer may be found in the clip below. Recall that the Black Panther is king over a fictional sovereign nation, Wakanda. This clip sets up a flashback of what happened to his father who was assassinated to gain power of Wakanda. The scene shows the Black Panther's father, King T'Chaka, interacting with other nations at an international economic summit.
Dan Wallace is one of the Textual Critics and scholars working in Biblical studies today. Brian Auten tweeted an awesome post Dr. Wallace wrote about which English translation is the best one to use.
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am ". This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " - Exodus 3:14Yahweh means "He is" or "I AM".
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" - John 8:58
Extracted from the UK Telegraph comes the faith creed of modern scientism.So let me see it I understand the argument. Although the universe is obviously designed and without a designer we have no real explanation for the laws of Physics, the author believes that the laws of physics are good enough to explain what happens after the big bang. The author even hypothesizes an advanced civilization having the ability to design the universe but doesn't explain any such evidence. So it's easier to agree to the possibility of an advance civilization designing the universe and/or all the laws of the universe snapping into place after the Big Bang (neither if which you have any evidence of) than it is to believe in God? Wow. Romans 1:18-32
“Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe. However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. The designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more. A very advanced civilisation would have the ability to set precise parameters, thereby designing the universe in detail. It would not be possible – even at the most advanced level – for the designers to interfere with baby universes once they had formed. From the moment of its own Big Bang, each universe would be on its own.”
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.They claimed to be wise | Uncommn Descent
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.
“Those who hate the doctrine of the Trinity like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims and so many others, claim that the Trinity is an invention, of Nicaea, and maybe Constantine, and it’s a political thing, and none of the church fathers before 325 ever believed in the Trinity” can you address this?,. . . “Follow the link to read Dr. White's response. You can also see the full video below:
What do many liberals/skeptics/agnostics/atheists (like Dan Brown of The DaVinci Code book and movie fame) , Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and many other people have in common as a mis-perception of Christianity? Sometimes it is just misunderstandings, but sometimes there is deliberate deception and outright lying about what happened at Nicaea. If told often enough, the mis-understanding gets embedding in people's thinking.
“I think of science and religious faith as being two eyes. Both are looking for truth. I can see with more depth and accuracy using both eyes together, like binocular vision, than if I use either eye by itself separately.”I agree with Dr. Polkinghome. I think that if you have view of creation that does not match scientific data then maybe we need to think about what we think the Bible is really saying.
“I’m a very passionate believer in the unity of knowledge. There is one world of reality - one world of our experience that we’re seeking to describe.”
“If the experience of science teaches anything, it’s that the world is very strange and surprising. The many revolutions in science have certainly shown that.”
“Quantum theory also tells us that the world is not simply objective; somehow it’s something more subtle than that. In some sense it is veiled from us, but it has a structure that we can understand.”
“Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can’t construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history.”
John Loftus (Left) has posted a very interesting post that I believe must be taken note of regarding to speaking with believers like Dr. Craig Blomberg (Right). He posted the following.I engage Christian scholars all the time and have even allowed a few of them to post something substantive here at DC, including Craig. So after having said he has read my stuff extensively and after both admitting neither one of us will likely change our minds, Craig asked me this:
John, I guess my question for you is, from your perspective, how should people who hold views like you and I, respectively, proceed in conversation, if at all? The consistent pluralist would say that we should each tolerate each other's perspectives. But you and I are apologists, and you are an evangelist ("de-evangelist?") as well. You aren't content to let Christians believe what they want; you positively want to "deconvert" them and show them how and why their views are delusional. I don't engage in much overt evangelism but I certainly want people who haven't thought about the classic reasons for Christian faith to at least give them serious thought. We can't both be right. We could both be wrong. But the more interesting question for me is how, as two persons who both want to be guided by reason but believe that reason has led us in quite opposite directions, proceed from here? LinkWell, Craig, we could always call each other names! Or, we could talk about the weather, the Colts and stuff. But most likely we'll just carry on carrying on. I still think you're deluded. I still think you believe what you prefer to believe. I still think an educated evangelical is an oxymoron, because at this point the facts will not change your mind, which is a scary thought to me.
At this point realize that I no longer write for you. You may want to read what I write since as an apologist you may want to ward off my attacks on your faith, and I may want to read what you write in order to attack a strong man rather than a straw man, but that's the way it goes I suppose.
Cheers, my deluded friend. ;-)
Wes, I forgot that I can't try a bit of humor here. Sorry you're such a sour puss.
What do you think Craig was getting at? There is no proceeding from here for us. But that doesn't mean it's a stalemate or that we should become pluralists. Nor does it mean I should change my mind about his beliefs. We've apparently hit rock bottom. But cheer up, it is not required of an argument that it must also be convincing to be good. I have plenty of good arguments. That's all anyone can expect from me.
Dear Marcus,Translation: They are going to do nothing to fix my problem. However, T-Mobile did take a step in helping me. I'm not entirely happy with the situation, but at least it is something. I will be posting on that later. Basically this is the same answer I got when I called Samsung and I kept having to bug T-Mobile to get them to do something...even half-heartedly.
We want you to know that Samsung appreciates you helping to bring this matter to our attention. Samsung is immediately releasing the following information to clear up any confusion regarding planned upgrades for the Behold II: "Samsung Mobile and T-Mobile USA are updating the Behold II to Android 1.6 which provides access to Google Maps Navigation, Google Voice Search capability and quick search box for Android. The update also supplies additional benefits including Swype, an improved Media Player, updated core Android applications and improved Bluetooth capabilities. However, the Behold II is not upgradable beyond Android 1.6."
Additionally, we are researching any previous statements made about the planned upgrades for the Behold II to rectify misstatements, if any, that may have been made. Please know we review and appreciate comments, positive and negative, made by people like you, our customer, and we take them to heart. Our goal is to always provide the best possible handsets that not only meet but exceed your expectations, both in quality and functionality.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may present.
Do you have more questions regarding your Samsung Mobile Phone? For 24 hour information and assistance, we offer our new FAQ/ARS System - Automated Response System
.
It's like having your very own personal Samsung Technician at your fingertips.
We thank you for your continued interest in Samsung products.
Sincerely,
Technical Support
