Apostasy: A Necessary Study

James White has posted a couple of videos in which he explains what Apostasy is and how its actually a blessing to the church. Good study!






Apostasy: A Necessary Study

Rick Sanchez Gets Fired Over Most Epic "Jews Sux" Stupidity Ever (Rants) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Wow, I had not heard of Rick Sanchez getting fired over his comments I blogged about yesterday. I think he was stupid for saying such things. I really enjoyed reading Danielle Belton's comments and observations. I think she summed it up best:

This sort of fearmongering Sanchez sputtered out is the worst kind. Akin to thinking all black men want to steal your purse, all Mexicans are illegal and all Muslims support al Qaeda. It dehumanizes people (which is why the Nazis said what they said), and once you take away someone's humanity it's all that much easier to take away their life. Also, Sanchez makes the mistake of assuming that just because one is from different circumstances that they are somehow "elitist." I don't know how "elitist" one can be when they're from New Jersey, like Jon Stewart, and made their way through a middling comedy acting career for decades until he finally worked his way up to his own show. But Sanchez bellyaching about not getting a promotion, blaming racism and Jewish people is the height of intellectual laziness. Sometimes you don't advance because you're JUST NOT GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO. Not because "the Jews" are keeping you down.
Also. CNN is not owned by "da Jews." But Turner Network Television, which was founded by the not Jewish Ted Turner.
Try harder, man. Try harder.

I think that Sanchez dislikes Jon Stewart for the following clips from his show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Sanchez Taser
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Rick Sanchez Gets Fired Over Most Epic "Jews Sux" Stupidity Ever (Rants) - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Big Homoousia Debate: Abdullah Al Andalusi and James White Debate The Christian Trinity.

Thegrandverbalizer posted and commented on a recent debate between Dr. James White and Abdullah Al Andalusi regarding whether or not the Bible teaches the Trinity. I decided that it would be worthwhile to work through his comments. It's amazing. After I watched the Debate myself I was left wondering if thegrandverbalizer saw the same debate videos I did. It's interesting to look at it through his eyes. I invite all who reads this to watch the video at the end and then see if their impression is similar to mine or thegrandverbalizer. I italicized his comments and mine are in regular text. Due to the fact that the post will be podcasted, I fixed some spelling and grammar. This post may be revised later.
This was a very engaging debate Abdullah Al Andalusi and James White whom debate one of the many versions of the Trinity. In this debate James White being a Christian offers a Christian model of the Trinity as opposed to a Hindu model of the Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).\
Let's be honest. We know...we all know the Trinity we are talking about. It is part of historic Christian doctrine.

I think it is important to mention this because when people talk about 'The Trinity' it makes it sound authoritative as if there is only one. This is an innocent mistake that James White is allowed due to his own ignorance of other faith traditions. To speak of the "The Trinity" is to speak of 'The Country'. For clarification sake a person may well ask which country?

Dr White is not ignorant. When you are talking about historic Christianity there is only one to talk about.
You can see from the outset 6:06 minutes into the debate James White makes a huge blunder in his attack upon the Qur'an. He claims that the Qur'an does not accurately critique or cite the doctrine of the Christian Trinity. This assumes on James White's part that there is an accurate model of the Trinity to critique. It assumes that the Trinity is a correct to begin with. So much of James White' argument can easily be dismantled when one understands this.\
There is an accurate model for the Trinity. It is in the Bible. The word isn't but the concept is - the Old and New Testaments. Even if you dismiss and disagree with the doctrine you can talk about what it teaches accurately. That is definable and James White correctly defined it. There Qur'an does not.
For example that would be like James White saying 'The Qur'an does not give us an accurate description of a three sided circle.' Well this would assume that a thee sided circle is something accurate to begin with. All that is happening is James White is presupposing a doctrine that came about only after much intra-Christian debate which he admits to be revealed only between the Old and the New Testament' to be accurate.
Bad example. The situation is more like the Bible defines a circle. And the grandverbalizer is disagreeing with the definition because he disagrees with the concept based on the idea that the Qur'an gives a different definition and that you don't agree with the definition. Also Dr White was saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed to us through both the Old and New Testament together.

It is troubling that James White would repeat this age old 'argument' first crafted by Samuel Zwelmer and re-used and re-hashed time and again after Muslims have given answer to this.

It reminds one of Dan Barker being corrected on certain points about Bible contradictions only rehashing it 'for a fresh audience'.
Truth is James White keeps using the argument because it is the consistent view of scripture.
Abdullah Kunde has incinerated White's arguments here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/quranic-doctrine-of-trinity-are-there.html You can also see reformed Christian missionary and apologist Ken Temple try and give answer in the comment section.

At 8:19 minutes into the debate James White stabs in the dark trying to give us useful and meaningful definitons of 'being' and 'person'. "Within the one being that is God there exist eternaly there co equal and co eternal persons namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"
I don't think that Abdullah Al Andalusi managed to destroy Dr White's arguments in the slightest. "Being" and "person" are not the same thing. In finite human beings we are one person in one Being. Why would be limited the same way? I never heard an answer to that question. I mean even in standard English the two are not the same thing. You would not give the same answer to the question "What are you?" that you would give to the question "Who are you?" They are not the same question. Is it strange to think of three persons sharing the same being? Yes, but given that the Bible teaches that the Father is God. The Son is God. and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there is only one God. The Trinity is the only consistent answer.
James White struggles to give meaningful definition to being and personality. I want you people to watch James presentation above and you tell me if he makes 'being' and 'personality' meaningful to you.
Yup. Dr White explained the difference well.
Things that have existence and things that have being. Some are person and some are not. "A rock has being but it is not personal. A cat has being and it might have personality but it's not truly a person in the sense of recognizing it's own existence among catkind or anything like that"

Wow! I know some biologist that would take huge exception to the idea that cats do not recognize their own existence among catkind. What a horrible example! So let me get this straight so far. With in the one God there is something akin to a rock (that has no personality but has existence) while at the same time has three personalities? However unlike the rock God is not limited in his existence.
I would like to name a single biologist that would argue that cat recognize their own existence. James White was not equating God to a rock. The rock was given as an example of what "being" means. God is not limited to being a single eternal person.
James White mentions that he is not back at home in Phoenix Arizona but neither is the rock in his example on the far side of the moon. "God's being is not limited"

I wonder if James White believes that God's being is no limited such that God can communicate his will, power and speech to created things and objects without necessarily being 'In' them?
Come'on. Thegrandverbalizer knows as a Christian James White believeds that God is not limited in anything and most definitely communicate his will, power, and speech to us that is what the Bible is for.
The Trinity (God decided it was best to avoid feminine appellations such as Mother-Daughter and to opt for Father-Son)

God's relationship is masculine relationship. God is described as Father-Son. God is not described as Father-Daughter. God is not described as Mother-Daughter. God is not described as Father-Mother-Son. God is Father-Son and Masculine Holy Spirit (John 16:13).

Difference between Unitarian Monotheist vs Trinitarian Monotheist explained.
This seems like a shallow argument. The same argument can be made about Allah in the Qur'an...unless you wanna argue that Allah is a woman. Nope. I'm sure no one would do that. It's the same regarding the Bible. Gender distinctions regarding God makes no sense. The Father-Son relationship is not a biological description.
However, do note that James White said that he personally comes to the conclusion of the Trinity based upon the belief that the 'whole of the Bible is the word of God'. Now this is important as this statement that James White makes the New Testament was also considered by him as part of God's revelation to humanity. He applies a meaningful standard of interpretation that is consistent from Genesis to Revelation ...when he does this he "comes up with three Biblical truths"

It would be interesting to understand what he means by 'meaningful standard of interpretation'.
This is a very important admission from James White. Keep in mind that he believes that the Trinity was revealed between the Old Tesament and the New Testament. This means when Jesus would have been trained as a Jew to recite "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4 the SHEMA).

Judaism does not have a trinitarian view of the creator. Judaism has a unitarian view of the creator. So one wonders the standard that would have been consistent from Genesis to Malachi.


I'm sure most people would agree that the writer of the Book of John was Jewish. In John 12 it is explicitly said that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory.  Who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6?  Yahweh! Jesus!

James conclusion on his opening is extremely weak.
1) It assumes that the Trinity is true "Allah would know what a three sided circle is"
Nope. White was arguing the Allah would know what Christians say what the Trinity is - where it was true or not, because Allah was arguing that it was not true.

2) It does not accurately define whom and what a 'true Christian' is as this is a matter of on going intra-Christian debate.
No, What does it matter if Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or Gnostics disagree? They are not Christians. And I admit during the debate I was  insulted that it kept being brought up that Christians think of Mary as co-redeemer. We don't. Not even all Roman Catholics ascribe to that. Why is it wrong to lump all Muslims into the same camp and think that they all think the same thing  but it's okay to do the same to Christians.

3) It contradictions an earlier statement by James White who says 'no doubt the Qur'an attempts to give a response to Christians'. See how easy it is for James to say this and than turn around and say that only his version of Christianity (reformed theology) is correct?
I have never heard James White argue that reformed theology is the only view one can hold and be right with God. Also the Surahs he quoted definitely seem to counter Christianity. The problem is I don't know of any major Christian church or denomination that views the Trinity as Father,Mary, and Jesus. Also why would thegrandverbalizer try to argue that the Qur'an is not responding to Christians when White's debate opponent attempts to make the point that the Qur'an rebuts the Trinity. I think the Qur'an fails but it does make an attempt.

I would be curious to know what kind of Christians does James White think the Qur'an was giving response to? Curious that James White and others do not attempt to paint a picture of what kind of Christian community existed in Arabia at the time of the Prophet (saw).
Dr. White answered this question before and in this debate. The Qur'an fails to rebut the Trinity because it mis-defines it as Father, Mother, and son. 
Abdullah Al Andalusi makes a good point about the Logos. Basically the Logos is a combination of the Platonic ideas and Stoic universal causality. So God has to create through another agent, I can see how this could be problematic as this agent itself would have to be created.
So hince the concept of John 1:1 and than to say that he (Jesus) was eternally-begotten. Eternally-regenerated. (In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God). It as if the writer has a critique of Genesis 1:1-3.
I disagreed with the discussion of Logos. White answered it. I'm wondering if thegrandverbalizer or Abdullah Al Andalusi understood White's response because Abdullah Al Andalusi didn't explain why White was wrong and neither has thegreatverbalizer.

Abdullah Al Andalusi quotes from Anthansius and Justin Martyr that borrow their views from Greek Philosophy.
White answered this. I'm wondering if thegrandverbalizer or Abdullah Al Andalusi understood White's response because Abdullah Al Andalusi didn't explain why White was wrong and neither has thegreatverbalizer.
 

Abdullah Al Andalusi shows that the Qur'an understands and refutes the concept that God needs to create 'through' the medium of others.





No one says that the Bible says  God created anything through the medium of others. We argue that Jesus is God. Therefore no one else other that God created anything.
 
(Holy Qur'an chapter 2:117 )Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! And when He decrees an affair, He says to it only, Be, and it is.

"The similitude of Jesus Before Allah is as that of Adam; He (Allah) created him (Jesus) from dust, Then said to him: Be. And he was." (Holy Qur'an chapter 3:59)

"Thy lord is the cause all causes" (Holy Qur'an)
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not say anyone else other than God created anything therefore the Qur'an agrees. Jesus is God. There is no contradiction. The Bible says that God - Yahweh - created everything. Jesus is Yahweh (John 8:58)  - again, no contradiction.

James White starts off with talking about Phillipians 2:5-7. This is his response to to infinite vs infinite. Notice that James White was quick to brush off the use of the word Kenosis that Jesus emptied himself. This gives huge problem to their theological position. That is why White says that Paul uses Kenosis in a non literal sense. Why do you think White would make this claim? You can learn more about the different Christian theological views on the Kenosis here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/phillipians-25-7-kenosis-and-alleged.html

No, Dr White didn't brush off anything. He clearly explained what Jesus emptying himself meant - setting aside some of his divine attributes and prerogatives - humbling himself and submitting himself to death and to those he created.

White says that if we said that Jesus was 50% God and 50% man it would be irrational and it would make no sense. Yet, how does saying that Jesus is 100% created (flesh and blood man) and 100% uncreated (eternal God) rational and makes complete sense? Did I miss something?
Yes, thegreatverbalizer has missed the point that having an earthly body does not make you created if you are preexistent. 

Listen to what White says at 2:58 minutes into the debate of the second video "His human nature is a true human nature so that's not infinite that's not eternal that particular individual had not existed for eternity past".
So as to the nature of Jesus he is both created and uncreated! Remember we are not speaking about two seperate Jesus that are infused. We are speaking about one Jesus. I do not know if James White holds to Nestorian view that Jesus had two natures.
Yes! One Jesus, but thegreatverbalizer is the one trying to split Jesus into created and uncreated - not James White.


Text about Jesus deity ambiguous? Espcially since the God that the Jews and Muslims worship is not shy. For example The God the Jews worship says,

Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21, 22 - ASV)

"Verily I (alone) am Allah: there is no god but I: worship (only) Me and keep up prayer for My remembrance!" Holy Qur'an (chapter 20:14)
Why do we not find a statement of Jesus where he says, "I am God?" Why is Jesus so shy to say this? Why is the Holy Spirit so shy to say this? Why are the angels so shy to say this? Why is Moses so shy to say this? Because it is painfully obvious to all who have open eyes and hearts that are not sealed who is God.

Jesus is not God.
Moses is not God.
The Angels are not God.
The Holy Spirit is not God.
Jesus did claim to be God. No human could ever say:

 ²³But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."- John 8:23-24

So notice all that James brings up is Titus (Paul) and 2 Peter (disputed author) and goes on and on about what PAUL HAS TO SAY ABOUT JESUS.......notice he very conviently does not quote Jesus.

Not true, Dr. White quoted the same passage I just quoted.
 
Titus 2:13 13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
I'd like to know why thegreatverbalizer does not think these passages tells him that Jesus is God. Both Peter and Paul tells us they knew Jesus was not just our saviour but God.
I have posted the YouTube video of the debate below. 




Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Big Homoousia Debate: Abdullah Al Andalusi and James White Debate The Christian Trinity.

Physicist Frank Tipler weighs in on Stephen Hawking’s theory « Wintery Knight

Here is another gem tweeted by Brian Auten. It's an article by Frank Tipler talking about Stephen Hawking's latest theories and why they don't prove that God exists. As a bonus there is a video of a recent taping of the Unbelievable Radio program in the UK. I've heard the radio program before and love it. In this episode we have:

Prof Alister McGrath and famed physicist, and atheist, Prof Roger Penrose discuss the following questions: Is Hawking's M-theory good science? Does Hawking's M-theory show that God did not create the universe? Is our fine-tuned universe simply one of many in a multi-verse?
Taken from Unbelievable? radio show with Justin Brierley, Saturday 25th September 2010.
For more info, visit: www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

Here is the audio program




Physicist Frank Tipler weighs in on Stephen Hawking’s theory « Wintery Knight

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Do you speak Babylonian?

Dr. Mariottini has posted a great article in which there is link to learn how the language of ancient Babylon sounds like.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Do you speak Babylonian?

Learn Assyrian

U.S. officially apologizes for giving Guatemalans gonorrhea | Nerve.com

I'm shocked. I'm surprised. The United States government officially apologizing for allowing Guatemalan to become infected with Gonorrhea.I think that Guatemala deserves an apology but there is a whole lot of apologies that need to be made. My question is how do we as a nation make up for that? Obviously America is not a Christian nation.

U.S. officially apologizes for giving Guatemalans gonorrhea | Nerve.com

ID.Plus: Glise 581g - first 'earth-like' exoplanet?

You may have heard about the discovery of a planet light years away that is the closest to being like earth than ever observed before: Gelise 581g. Some folk have been saying that its guaranteed to have life on it. However, I like this blog post because Peter Williams does a good job in explaining why breaking out the champagne because we have found another planet capable of supporting life as we know it is premature. Don't get excited yet.

Thus far we have an unconfirmed report that Gliese 581g might be rocky (since it may be too small to be a gas giant - although the mass given is a minimum figure) and that it seems to be in the right 'goldilocks' temperature zone for liquid water - that's if there is any water there and if the atmosphere is of the right composition!
Of course, the phrase 'Earth-like' is being used with some lattitude here: the gravity on Gliese 581g is higher than on earth (because its about three to four times the size of Earth). Moreover, the planet is 'tidally locked', meaning it doesn't rotate (i.e. no seasons). This probably means that there's only a narrow 'twilight zone' of the planet that's even potentially habitable; assuming, of course, that the atmosphere (if it even has one) hasn't frozen out over time to the night side of the planet!

I think we should pay Gilse 581g a visit.
ID.Plus: Glise 581g - first 'earth-like' exoplanet?

Apologetics 315: Why You Should Join the Church: by John MacArthur

Brian Auten has done posted a lecture from John MacArthur in which the pastor explains why it is important to be part of a local church congregation.

Apologetics 315: Why You Should Join the Church: by John MacArthur

A Couple of Modern Proverbs

Witness the wisdom God gave to Albert Einstien

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

And someone else said:

"Ignorance and be fixed but stupid is forever."

Who says that proverbs aren't  being given today?

Face Palm Quote of the Day #6 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Bob

I was going to let this one go, but this one so silly I had to comment. deserves FacePalm in triplicate. John Loftus quoted another person on his on his blog: whom he obviously agrees with.

What evidence would I accept for the claim that god exists? That's easy. All he would have to do is show up, once, -or- he could supernaturally change the way my brain works so that I no longer need evidence and am willing to accept as fact, wild claims that are based on ancient religious documents.

At least Loftus and Bob are honest. There is no evidence good enough to make a unbeliever give up his/her unbelief without direct intervention from God. However it's not because God changes you so that you don't need evidence to believe, God frees your mind so that you can accept the evidence that we do have instead of looking for loop holes for wiggle room so that one does not have to believe. That is why Loftus' comment makes sense - there is no evidence that will turn a man or woman to God without direct intervention from God. Consider the following passage:

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

The Bible clearly says that in our sinful state, we are unable to obey God and minds are hostile to God. Does that sound familiar? Look at the attitude of many atheists have towards the commands of God in Bible. Further another passages tells us even more

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. - John 3:19

Now look at the summary of John Loftus' logic:

Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for pointing out this graphic to me.  Very timely. I got this graphic a few minutes before I saw the quote from John Loftus' blog. What is adultery? A sin. Not just a sin but something that Loftus knew was wrong. Instead of taking the responsibility for his own actions, Lofuts says there is no God because God did not stop him or change him. Reminds me of Jesus' words about men loving their sin rather than the light they have been given. The evidence is plain. But if there is a God that means that we are accountable for the sins we commit.

I want to be clear. I'm not picking on Loftus. All of us are evil and deserve hell. This is the bottom line. Believers are saved because of God's grace and goodness not because of anything in us. I just wish people would be honest about their sin rather than just pretend that there is not enough evidence to believe in God and that he has spoken to us through the Bible.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Bob

Tabloid Prodigy » Blog Archive » Furious ex-girlfriends shave cheating ‘man-whore’s crotch!

I was amazed by this story. I think if that people take cheating far too lightly. Playing with someone's emotions and just using them is completely wrong. Two women torturing a man for doing cheating on
them? Well, two wrongs don't make a right but I think there should be legal consequences for cheating on a wife. Maybe not capital punishment...maybe too far for today's culture but if people understood just how terrible cheating is...maybe they would not be so quick to do it.

Tabloid Prodigy » Blog Archive » Furious ex-girlfriends shave cheating ‘man-whore’s crotch!

Banned Book Week: The 7 Most Ridiculous Reasons For Banning Books, 2009-2010 - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Comics Alliance has posted an article listing the 7 most silly reasons for banning books in the past year. I totally disagree. I don't think its right to censure books no matter how stupid they are or how much they suck. If you don't like something in the arts don't support it.

Banned Book Week: The 7 Most Ridiculous Reasons For Banning Books, 2009-2010 - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Free audio book: Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and other sermons | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a link to a free audio book of Jonathon Edwards' sermons. Great stuff!
 
Free audio book: Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and other sermons | True Freethinker

Related articles by Zemanta

• Christian Biographies for Kids (joshharris.com)

Chance or Purpose

Lecture by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn on Chance and purpose.


Chance or Purpose

Apologetics 315: Responses to Stephen Hawking and The Grand Design

Brian Auten has done a great favor summarizes the responses of several Christian scholars to Stephen Hawkings and Lenard Mlodinow's book The Grand Design. Check it out at the link below.

Apologetics 315: Responses to Stephen Hawking and The Grand Design

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jamal Parris, One Of Eddie Long's Accusers Speak; And I Understand And Believe Him

I don't agree with all of the blogger's views expressed on his site, but I've got to admit that this post is not just well-written but it's also heartfelt. It really bothers me that there so many people who have gone through this kind of abuse. It's horrible. I haven't personally dealt with this so I cannot and would not suggest that I know what someone in this position feels like, I don't. The things is I still really believe that Jesus can help anyone in this situation. Things like sexual abuse of others comes from not knowing who you are and misusing others.This is caused by sin. Not of the victim's but the perpetrator's sins.  God can fix this and any situation.


THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jamal Parris, One Of Eddie Long's Accusers Speak; And I Understand And Believe Him

Face Palm Quote of the Day #5 - Debunking Christianity: I Specialize in the Big Picture

Who is John Loftus? In his own words:

All scholars have a specialty, right? What's mine? As I said in my book Why I Became an Atheist, I specialize in the Big Picture. This is true and it's no joke. I gather as much of the relevant material as a mortal can possibly muster and try to make sense of it. Confound it though, all of the Big Picture specialists seem to be gone. I'm a scholar about the Big Picture (i.e., the forest) just as many other specialists are scholars about one of the trees in the forest, or a species of trees. When it comes to the Christian faith, I'm a Big Picture specialist about all things Christian. My specialty is in Countering Christian Apologetics.

What can I say? This is definitely a face palm quote. By his own admission, John Loftus is saying that he concentrates on the big picture? I think that in concentrating on the big picture points explain why he actually misses the big picture: Too many "trees" that he doesn't understand. Thinks like the Trinity and nature of God. And who God is. I've never seen anything that makes me think he knows what the Bible says or what it means. Truly a failure in scholarship.

Debunking Christianity: I Specialize in the Big Picture

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Religious Illiteracy in America

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released the results of a survey of religious knowledge in America. I don't know what is more amazing: Americans scored so low on Biblical knowledge and religion in general or that Dr. Claude Mariottini and John Loftus have both independently written about it. Dr. Mariottini is a Christian therefore he and I find it sad and I agree with him that it's the church's responsibility to make sure people know what they believe and why they should believe it. Loftus on the other hand believes its evidence against Christianity. Can't see the forest for the trees. Of the 32 questions in the articles cited there were ony examples of a few of them. None of them were hard and I'm not surprised that atheists and agnostics scored higher. I would have liked to have seen harder questions like "Did the Council of Nicea (325 AD) set the Bible canon?" Or "Did Jesus claim to be God?" Or howabout "Does the Trinity doctrine presuppose three gods?" Many of the atheists and agnostics I have spoken with would fail these."

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Religious Illiteracy in America

Pew Survey: Atheists Know the Most About Religion!

Ron Rhodes - variuos audio lectures | True Freethinker

Thanks to Mariano for posting some great lectures from Ron Rhodes.

Ron Rhodes - variuos audio lectures | True Freethinker

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Doctrinal causes of the Reformation

Here is a great article about the doctrinal causes of the Reformation. There were good reasons. Martin Luther and the other reformers didn't just wake up one day and decided they didn't want to be Roman Catholic anymore...they had good reason to do what they did.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Doctrinal causes of the Reformation

Debunking Christianity: A Visual Study Guide to COGNITIVE BIASES

John Loftus has placed the following on his blog:

This visual guide is excellent. Believers ought to study up on these biases and apply them to their faith just to help conduct an objective study of why they believe. If someone had the time to cut and paste these biases from page 9 onward, I would be grateful. Follow this link then at the bottom there are arrows to turn the page. You might want to click on "Full Screen" icon too. [Hat Tip to Luke at Common Sense Atheism].

Look very carefully at this list:

Cognitive Biases - A Visual Study Guide
I think anyone should realize that we do have biases. But just because you have a bias does not automatically make you wrong. What people like John Loftus should ask themselves what biases do they themselves have and honestly consider if their biases have blinded them to the truth. I would also say that just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they have not examined themselves. I realize that many atheists have done this exercise. The thing is how can you even hope to judge rightly without God?

Debunking Christianity: A Visual Study Guide to COGNITIVE BIASES

FacePalm Quote of the Day #4: Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) Again *Sigh*

On the face of it, John Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith is a good idea. It's true that many people don't examine their worldviews and presuppositions critically and something that we must do. The problem with the way that John Loftus employs the test ignores his own presuppositions while decrying others'. Take this quote....please. [Begin Quote]

A trial is a good example of an outsider looking in. No thumbs should be on the scales of justice. If there is a conflict of interest a judge or a lawyer should recuse themselves. The jury represents people who are uninvolved peers. None of this describes believers who examine their own faith. The OTF demands the impartiality of agnostic, which is worse on one's own religion but better on the religious faiths one rejects.
In a jury trial not everyone agrees. But that's a jury trial about an event that strictly speaking is "on the boards," that is, it's about an ordinary event rather than a supposed extraordinary miraculous event. The whole reason Christians object to the OTF is because they know their faith will not pass the OTF.
Regardless, someone on a jury should at least be able to justify his decision afterward based on the skepticism of an outsider. One cannot punt to faith when judging the case before him like believers do an every juncture. That is ONLY being fair.
SteveK asks: Why does Loftus think it a problem when rational 'outsiders' conclude that, given the evidence, Atheism is false and Christianity is true?
Those are not our only options! The options are myriad and every bit in between! Besides, a person who rejects Hinduism in India is considered an an atheist, while someone in Saudi Arabia who rejects Islam is considered an atheist, etc. That makes YOU an atheist in the same way since the definition of an atheist is a non-believer. I am simply a non-believer by virtue of the fact that your religion doesn't pass the OTF. I am an atheist just as you are a non-believer in Hinduism or Islam in other countries.
So the choice becomes one between belief and non-belief. There are billions of people on the planet on my side who do not believe in your particular Christian sect. Seems like the jury of impartial peers has spoken.

[End Quote]
This quote gets a "Face Palm" because Loftus still mischaracterizes what "faith" means. He also I think mischaracterizes the historical definition of an "atheism". It' all or nothing. There is no such thing as a relative atheist. Historically, no one has tried to argue "I"m an atheist to all gods but mine". "Atheism" means belief that there is no god. Therefore if you believe in at least one god you cannot be an atheist. Otherwise it's like being a "little" pregnant. You are or you are not.
As for the Outsider's Test of faith...does Christianity pass it? According to Lofus' definition of "faith", Christianity does not pass. According to the Biblical definition of faith Christianity passes with flying colors. Loftus denies the evidence that the Bible presents viable evidence as well as evidence from history, science, and just our five senses. He out right believes that science is the only viable way for people to gain worthwhile knowledge. If that isn't a presupposition that begs proof, then neither is asserting that the Bible is infalliably true. We have plenty of evidence explaining why the Bible is reliable. Yet people who want to take science as the only infallible source of fact about reliable have no way of satisfyingly proving that position is reasonable. Definitely, arguing in a circle.

Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) Again *Sigh*

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Repression is not Morality: The Consequences of Sexual Suppression

I read this interesting article. It makes some good points but I think some mistakes have been made in that it puts the blame for sexual moral problems at sexual repression (which is true) but it makes the claim that its because of the Bible and the Qur'an and the great patristic monotheistic religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and this I think is a mistake. The problem with sexual repression isn't ethic or moral standards. The problem is lack of them. I can't talk about Islam nor Judaism because I'm neither Muslim nor Jew. As a Christian, I blame the church for not teaching what God has said regarding sexuality. Sex was never meant to bring condemnation but joy and closeness. The only catch is that it has to be in a monogamous married relationship between a man and woman. Within these parameters we can truly be free and not repressed. If you want God's best you have to follow God and not your own way. We can trust Him.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Repression is not Morality: The Consequences of Sexual Suppression

CNN's Don Lemon Admits Being Victim of Sexual Abuse In Midst of Bishop Eddie Long Controversy - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

This article brings up some important information. I didn't know that Don Lemon has had to deal with such a thing as being victimized as a child. This crime is extremely widespread. A lot og lives have been destroyed. The cause? Simple - Sin. People behaving and acting against the standard God has for us. I'm not talking about the victims...I'm talking about the perpetrators. The victims suffer. The truth is so does the perpetrator. There is only one answer out of this - Jesus. Jesus can heal both the abuser and the victim.

In a rare, revealing moment on television, CNN's Don Lemon admitted for the first time in public that he was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. While conducting a televised discussion with a group of Bishop Eddie Long supporters Saturday, Lemon recalled abuse that started when he was six-years-old. As reported on Richard Prince's Journal-ism's blog for the Maynard Institute, Lemon said he hid the secret of his abuse until he was 30 years old because of shame.

CNN's Don Lemon Admits Being Victim of Sexual Abuse In Midst of Bishop Eddie Long Controversy - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Superhero Psychology - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Here is a video of real psychologists discussing whether or not characters like Batman are insane. They also discuss supervillians. Looking at such questions are real interesting and help in understanding psychology in such "case studies".



Crazy Sexy Geeks: Superhero Psychology Part 1 - Batman from Alan Kistler on Vimeo.

Link Ink: Chris Evans as Steve Rogers, 'Pushing Daisies' as a Comic, and Superhero Psychology - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews