Monday, October 25, 2010

High-Five of the Day #2 - Sunday Quote: Alexander Vilenkin on Cosmic Beginnings - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great quote Alexander Vilenkin. I love it. I think that this calls for a High-Five!

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
- Alexander Vilenkin

Sunday Quote: Alexander Vilenkin on Cosmic Beginnings - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fist Bump of my Life - Mistouky McElhaney



Today is my wife's birthday! I wanted to publicly say that she truly is my "good thing" - the best gift from God I have ever received, second only to my salvation. She is extremely intelligent, funny, and amazingly beautiful. She is all ever needed in wife and more than I ever thought I wanted. She is an amazing mother to our two young children. Her strength and wit and compassion never cease to astounds me. Turns out that October 25th was one of the best days that ever happened to me and I didn't know it for 19 years. I thank God for her every day!

 He who finds a wife finds what is good
       and receives favor from the LORD. - Proverbs 18:22

I'm so glad God chose favor me by allowing me to be Mitsouky's husband. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Famous "Read My Book" Debate on Calvinism: Now on MP3!

I was excited to hear that the Calvinism debate on the Bible Answer Man from Nineties between James White and George Bryson is now available on mp3. I've heard the debate...I even own it on CD, but on mp3 it will be even easier for those who have not heard it to listen in. If you have not heard it I highly recommend it!
Here is a video clip from one of their encounters


The Famous "Read My Book" Debate on Calvinism: Now on MP3!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who is Jesus?

I had the opportunity to preach about a week ago ant my church. I was one of two speakers. We preach about who Jesus is and why we can put our Faith in him. For my part I did a short powerpoint. I've posted it below. The video at the end of the powerpoint my not pay so I posted it below the slide presentation. Below that I posted a word document that lists many of the scriptures I referenced during the sermon.







I didn't quote each and every verse I referenced and the document doesn't list all of them but here are the ones the jump out at me the most.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Problem of Islam MP3 by Jay Smith - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a lecture by Jay Smith about Islam and how Christians can respond.

The Real Problem of Islam MP3 by Jay Smith - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #22 - Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?

It never ceases to amaze me how John Loftus and other atheists flee from the question of the source of morality. Instead they argue "It could not be the God of the Bible because Yahweh isn't moral." Look at some of the latest pontification from John Loftus
William Lane Craig in his debate with Peter Slezak, at 68 minutes in says: "I think that if you agree with me that there are certain things that are really right and wrong like child abuse, cruelty, and slavery then you will agree with me that we need God as a transcendent foundation for those objective moral values."
There is a problem though. The God that William Lane Craig is appealing to, Yahweh, does NOT condemn child abuse, cruelty, or slavery. So I simply cannot figure out how Craig's argument is supposed to work! Link
I would like to hear where in the Bible is slavery (as perpetrated as one person owning another because they are better), cruelty, and child abuser are not just condoned in the Bible but prescribed as appropriate human behavior? Listen. Hear that? Yeah, me too. Nothing.
The reason why Loftus does not understand Dr William Lane Craig's argument because he does not understand who God is. It seems clear to me that Yahweh has never commanded anyone to abuse their children, enslave anyone the way Africans, Native Americans, and Asians have been enslaved and imperialized by Europeans and Americans throughout history, or to be cruel anyone! If Yahweh had commanded the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of indigenous populations of Africa and the Western Hemisphere then Loftus would have a reason to be confused as to Yahweh's existence.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For 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. - Romans 1:18-20
Debunking Christianity: Can God Exist if Yahweh Doesn't?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 23, 2010

FacePalm of the Day #21 - YouTube - What's In Your Wallet?: Hoarding Wealth In The Last Days

This is one of the worst representations of Biblical Christianity I have ever seen or heard. This is today's Facepalm.





Let's look at the scriptures that were quoted in James 5:1-3 but let's look at verses 1-6 just not the first three verses.
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you. - James 5:1-6
Monica Dennington implies that God is telling Christians that they should have as little money in their bank accounts when Jesus returns for the church as possible. Is this really what James is saying? No. First, James points out how silly it is to hoard wealth because of how empty and vain it is. Instead of telling her listeners why it's bad to hoard wealth she stops short at the idea that it's wrong to be wealthy. That wasn't James' point. He was saying that those who hoard wealth (not those who have wealth) and don't pay what they owe to people who work for them are going to face bitter judgment. And people who have put their own luxury and self-indulgence over the needs of others to have health and life of their own are going to face bitter judgment. It's interesting to me that you don't have to be rich to deserve the judgment James is talking about here.
YouTube - What's In Your Wallet?: Hoarding Wealth In The Last Days
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 22, 2010

Christopher Hitchens vs Peter Hitchens: Can Civilization Survive without God | A Blogspotting Anglican Episcopalian

imageimageFrom Shroud of Turin Blog:
Can civilization survive without God? Do watch the video. It is quite good. I have a great deal of respect for Christopher even though I pretty much disagree with most of what he has to say.
Brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens squared off Tuesday in a debate over whether civilization can survive without God. Christopher, the older of the two, is a renowned atheist thinker and author. Peter, the lesser known of the two, is a practicing Christian and also a well-regarded author.


Christopher Hitchens vs Peter Hitchens: Can Civilization Survive without God | A Blogspotting Anglican Episcopalian

It's not the whole debate but it's very interesting. I disagree with a lot of what Christopher Hitchens says but at least he is consistent.
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #20 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jeffrey A. Myers

John Loftus recently posted a link and a quote from Jeffrey Myers describing "Faith". Let's look at the quote.
Faith is a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition in spite of evidence that the belief is incorrect. Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith. See his post on Faith
Juxtapose Myers' definition with how the Bible describes "Faith" in Hebrews 11:1 which says:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Notice that the author of Hebrews and Myer are not talking about the same thing. The Bible is not commending people for believing or trusting something that they have evidence that shows his/her belief false. We are not supposed to turn our minds off. Faith is about trusting what God has promised although you cannot see it. It's about being certain while we wait for the promises to be fulfilled. The other point is who says that God's will and character is unknowable, unrealized, or supported? Just because Loftus nor Myer neither realized a personal relationship with God doesn't mean no one has.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jeffrey A. Myers
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Hitchens Vs Hitchens - 2008

Here is Christopher and Peter Hitchens' first debate in America on a variety of Topics. The debate was on a various topics and worth watching. As you know Christopher Hitchens 1s an atheist - er "anti-atheist". Peter Hitchens is a Christian. What happens when two brothers (very intelligent and articulate) on opposite ends of faith collide ideologically? Something worth watching and thinking about.





Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of Day #19:- Debunking Christianity: Thomas Huxley vs. Bertrand Russell on the Definition of Agnosticism

John Loftus gave the definitions of "agnosticism" from Thomas Huxley and from Bertrand Russel.
Thomas Huxley invented the word agnostic, and by it he meant skepticism:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. Link
Bertrand Russell defined it differently:
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists. Link
Then comes this recent video telling us all how we should define it, siding with Huxley:


And now comes the FacePalm:
I object to someone defining the words I use. The people who seek to define my words for me have power over me. They basically are claiming I cannot use a word the way I want to use the word. I can use any word I want to, so long as it communicates.
Can't we all just get along here and ask the person using a word what s/he means if it's used differently than the dictionary definition? You see, dictionaries don't attempt to tell us what a word should mean. They tell us how most people use the word.
In any case, what word would you propose to describe Russellian agnostics? There are many of them. If there is no word describing them then shouldn't there be?
Excuse me? Words have meaning. You can't just redefine terms you didn't coin and change the meaning to suit yourself. I don't care even if you make it plain that you are changing the meaning. Language and their meanings must be agreed upon in order for meaningful communication. Yes, we need an objective standard and in English it is the dictionary. As for Loftus point about Russian agnostics, Russians have their own dictionary.
Debunking Christianity: Thomas Huxley vs. Bertrand Russell on the Definition of Agnosticism
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

High Five of the Day #2 - Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens God and the death bed | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a great article about the basic fallacies of anti-theism. He provides a link to a audio that "discusses a discussion between The Brothers Hitch: Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens." My favorite part of Mariano's article is where he said:
These are the fallacies of atheists demanding evidence: 1) they demand evidence without providing evidence that proves that evidence should be demanded 2) they suppose that evidence convinces 3) they assert that evidence will heal a wicked heart.
Brilliant!
Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens God and the death bed | True Freethinker

FacePalm Quote of the Day #18: Debunking Christianity: 60 Minutes On a Historic Film: Market Street 1906

Here is a recent quote from John Loftus regarding film footage that has recently been shown to have been taken just a few days before the great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.
Morley Safer reports on a mystery that was solved about a 100-year-old film that we now know was made on San Francisco's Market Street just days before the 1906 earthquake. Link
I find this story fascinating for it's a film of San Francisco days before an earthquake destroyed what we're looking at. It's like we have detailed foreknowledge of what's to take place in just a few days. We know when looking at it the people in the film will suffer, many of them will die. What would YOU do if you had that foreknowledge? What did God do? Are we better than God? I would think so. For we would warn them.
Here is the video:


Of course Loftus takes the opportunity to argue that if God was real and good God would not have allowed the Earthquake without warning the people. Loftus seems to forget that God has a purpose for everything even when we don't understand. Think of how many people and variables there are surrounding that one event in 1906. Had it not happened, some of us would not have been born, California, and the whole would not be the same as it is now. Some people would not exist at all. We can't see the whole big picture. However even in the midst of any disaster we can count on two things.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. - Romans 8:28-29
And when Jesus was asked about such matters He said the following:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."   - Luke 13:1-5
Debunking Christianity: 60 Minutes On a Historic Film: Market Street 1906
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The "Rent Is Too Damn High" Party Needs Your Vote! - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Do you remember when you were a child and adults kept saying that anything was possible in America and you could be anything you want? Yeah, I know me. I always thought "yeah, right. I can't be President." Thankfully I was wrong. Oh and remember the idea that anyone can run for public office in America? Turns out that one is true too. Just scant few minutes ago I was thinking that the one who can raise the most money wins, but after seeing a couple of posts about Jimmy McMillan who is running about for governor of New York on a single platform: reducing the rent in New York. Maybe he can come to California next!



Crying Out Loud by maxread

The "Rent Is Too Damn High" Party Needs Your Vote! - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob
Enhanced by Zemanta

Is Christianity the Only Way? MP3 by William Edgar - Apologetics 315

Here is a lecture by William Edgar about if Christianity is the only way to God. It's not that Christianity is the only way to God....Jesus is the only way to God. So if Christianity is about following and obeying Jesus Christ, then it is the only way. I am grateful to Brian Auten for posting this on Apologetics 315.

Is Christianity the Only Way? MP3 by William Edgar - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm Quote of the Day #17: Debunking Christianity: Two Important Philosophical Questions and Christian Theology

facepalm animated Pictures, Images and Photos

Introduction

I can always count on John Loftus for providing material for posts like these. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. On October 18th, Loftus posted the following:
The first question is What do you mean by that? The second one is How do you know? Now let's apply this to the statement: Jesus died for our sins. What sense can we make of it? How can anyone know it's true?
This is a horrendous failed attempt to strike down the Gospel that starts out with two fair questions and then goes no where. Let's take the statement that Jesus died for our sins and see why Loftus is wrong that it can't be understood. I think Paul and the apostles understood it and explained it very well. This is important because it's about what the Gospel is and why is it important. I also think that it's important to address some of the comments on the post because it all goes together.

What do we mean by the statement: Jesus died for our sins?

I agree with the comments that what's at issue is the concept of human depravity. The Bible does indeed teach that we are so lost...so enslaved...to sin that we can't help ourselves but to be sinners deserving the wrath of God. Did anyone have to teach you to lie? How about stealing? Did anyone have to teach you how to hate other people? Or how about selfishness? No. You have to teach children not to lie. We have to be taught that we need to respect others. Why? Simple...it's not our default setting. Each and everyone of us, if you are going to be honest, knows that we do things we ought not to do. No one is perfect.

 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. - Genesis 8:21
 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. - Psalm 14:1-3
Those 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. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
It's a bad news/good news situation. Yes, you deserve to be eternally separated from God and spend an eternity in hell. But the Gospel - good news - is that God has provided salvation through Jesus Christ. I'm amazed that many of the comments found on the post focus on the fact that the Bible teaches we are not good enough to deserve heaven, but ignore the fact that the Bible teaches that we can experience a reconciliation with God through Jesus.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. - Romans 3:21-31
I mean don't people see the good news is that although your conscience, unless you have been turned over to a "reprobate mind" - meaning that you have become so hard-hearted you no longer can feel God drawing you to Christ (John 6:44; Romans 1:28), you can be free of that guilt.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.- Romans 8:1-4

How do we know it's true that Jesus died for our sins?

I would like to deal with this part in two ways. First, we need to discuss what it means when someone embraces the Gospel. I think the best way to see it is to look at what Paul and Silas told their jailer when he asked them what he must do to be saved.
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. - Acts 16:29-33
And more importantly what did Jesus tell people?
Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I 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 8:21-24
Often we describe this as putting your faith in Jesus and believing that Jesus did indeed die for your sins and was raised from the dead for your justification.
"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! - Galatians 2:15-17
Let's be careful at this point. "Faith" is not believing something is true despite contrary evidence or no evidence. No. That's delusion.
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6
Faith is believing something you can't necessarily see but based on trusting the one making the promise. That is why we know our forgiveness of sins is true. God promised. We also have concrete proof in this life.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.- 2 Corinthians5:16-19
There should be a change in your life if you truly believe. The things contrary to God you used to do, you don't do anymore. The things you said that were contrary to God you used say you don't say anymore. The things you think that were contrary to God you don't think that way anymore. I'm not saying that you are sinless and perfect from jump but there should be some growth where you and others can see you aren't the same person anymore. When you are saved you no longer practice sin. Instead you start living Romans 12:1,2.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Roman 12:1-2
In fact you start living out and all of the scriptures - living to please God not yourself. If there is no change in your desires - you might wanna check yourself.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. - Galatians 5:16-26
So what about Apostasy? Well, the existence of apostasy actually proves that the Gospel is correct. If a person no longer continues to believe the message and turns away, he/she was never a part of the body of Christ. There is no way a person can become unborn after they have been born. There is no way a butterfly can become a caterpillar again. The transformation is so radical and one-way - just like being a born-again believer in Jesus Christ or being born naturally. Once you take the red pill, you can't go back to the "Matrix" of sin and death. Plain and simple.
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. - 1 John 2:18-27

Conclusion

Unfortunately, we make this way more complicated than it needs to be. It truly is either Holiness or Hell. There is no middle ground. No waffling. You are either on God's side or you aren't. You can only go to God on God's terms not yours. Pure and simple. Believe it or don't. Either way there are consequences - eternal consequences.
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" - John 11:25-16
If you can say you believe this you - you are saved. That's it because if you believe this everything else either falls into place or isn't an important enough issue to fight and scrap with other believers over.
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" - Romans 10:5-15
Debunking Christianity: Two Important Philosophical Questions and Christian Theology
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 18, 2010

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Brett Kunkle

I'm not sure if you've noticed the re-design of the Apologetics 315 blog, but I like it. This week Brian interviewed Brett Kunkle on his work at Stand to Reason working with young people and equipping youth ministries. A few days ago I saw an article on one of Kunkle's programs where they take High School kids and teach them about Apologetics and then go to UC Berkeley to have their beliefs challenged in discussion with speakers who disagree. I think the program is a great idea! I really enjoyed Kunkle talking about his testimony and why Apologetics is important in youth ministry. Follow the link to hear the interview.

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Brett Kunkle
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: ABC's Islam Deception: Did Muhammad Promise "Raisins" or "Virgins" in Paradise?

The logo of the American Broadcasting Company ...Image via WikipediaDavid Wood has posted a further video about how ABC has been less than truthful about Islam.


Answering Muslims: ABC's Islam Deception: Did Muhammad Promise "Raisins" or "Virgins" in Paradise?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fistbump Quote of the Day #4:Brennon's Thoughts: How to Define Atheism

Brennon has recently post a great article that takes on the way Atheists try to define atheism in such a way to put the burden of proof on the theists. They think they can hide behind semantics and not really take a position...they think they are being logically sound. I've posted on this subject myself but I loved the way Brennon wrote his response. Today's Fistbump goes to him.
So, if this is what atheism actually is, then more power to them. Atheists just lack belief in God. Great. Apparently they lack the testicular fortitude to make up their mind about whether He actually does exist as well.
I agree with Brennon. What I want to know in judgment day when people stand before God to give an account for the things they have said, done, and thought do they really think that this argument will fly? It won't.

Brennon's Thoughts: How to Define Atheism
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Intergate Bing Map with your Mobile Applications - CodeProject

Intergate Bing Map with your Mobile Applications - CodeProject



Enhanced by Zemanta

High Five of the Day #1 - Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Darrell Bock on the Bible

I came across this quote by Darrell Bock from Brian Auten's Apologetics 315 blog. Darrell Bock deserves a "High Five" and hearty "Amen" for this observation. It comes straight from God. May we all see Scripture in this way! It's too good not to share.
"The Bible is not a book like any other. It makes a claim that God spoke and speaks through its message. It argues that as his creatures, we are accountable to him for what he has revealed. The trustworthiness of Scripture points to its authority as well. Scripture is far more than a history book, as good and trustworthy as that history is. It is a book that calls us to examine our lives and relationship to God. Beyond the fascinating history, it contains vital and life-transforming truths about God and us."
- Darrell Bock
Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Darrell Bock on the Bible
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of Day #15 - Debunking Christianity: Re-formulating William Lane Craig's 4 Facts Resurrection Argument


GIFSoupI just saw this quote on John Loftus' blog:
I am going to demonstrate with completely sound reasoning why the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that Chippy the squirrel rose from the dead.
There are four historical facts which must be explained:
1. Chippy's burial
2. The discovery of the empty tomb
3. His post-mortem appearances
4. The origin of a few people's belief in his resurrection
Link.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing:
a. Loftus actually thinks this is a good argument
b. The author of the link thinks it a clever refutation.
c. Or Steven Bently's comment:
We cannot ignore the witnesses, there were at least 500 squirrels, dogs, cats, insects, worms that witnessed Chippy's resurrection, not to mention that Chippy came back and his body was eaten just as Jesus commanded his disciples to eat his body, John 6:53
The fail is just so strong...I'm not sure where to start. Ther3efore instead of further making fun of the comments, let us concentrate on what is more important. That is the "re-formulation" is nothing more than the author took William Lane Craig's arguments and replaced Jesus with an fictional squirrel - robbing Dr. Craig's formulation of any common sense. I say this because I have never heard Dr. Craig try to argue that either of these points taken on its own is enough. Second one of the main points that people's belief in Jesus' Resurrection matters is that because of that belief their lives were transformed. That is unarguable! Indisputable! Even the most liberal scholar (read "hostile to historic Christianity and the Bible") agrees that Paul was a real Jew, living in the first 70 years of the common era, was hostile to Christianity and took it upon himself to destroy it, but then became it first Apologist and most-able champions! How? Why? What would it take to make you believe your older half-brother is God made-flesh - come to take away the sins of the world? I don't blame James and Jude. It would take a lot! If one of my brothers started talking that way, I'd be sizing them up for straight-jacket. So what changed their minds? We know that before the crucifixion none of his blood brothers believed Jesus. Again: What changed their minds? Peter, John, and the other Apostles endured persecution spreading a story that they knew was true or not. Even if you won't grant that they were martyred you've got to admit they were beaten, imprisoned, and persecuted. Why? A great to deal with for something you have dreamed or halucinated just wouldn't be worth it for someone who is sane. So what is the best explanation? Simple.
1. Jesus was crucified and buried
2. His Tomb was empty
3. There were post-mortem appearances of Jesus.
4. The origin of a few people's belief in Jesus' resurrection.
Jesus was raised from the dead. As for Chippy the dead squirrel, what good is his resurrection to me? What difference did his death make and what difference does his life make to me or anyone? Nothing. Jesus on the other hand changes everything!!!!
Oh, and about Steven's comment: Transubstantiation has no Biblical merit and John 6:53 is not alluding to that at all. That was Church dogma that came centuries later. Better material please.
Debunking Christianity: Re-formulating William Lane Craig's 4 Facts Resurrection Argument
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Fistbump of the Day #3 - Morality - another well within the box atheist group think talking point de jour | True Freethinker

Today's Fistbump is going again to Mariano Grinbank. I really enjoyed his post answering fundamental talking points used as objections from Atheism regarding Morality. These objections are not new. But they sure are getting old. I love the way God has blessed Mariano with the ability to turn something worthy of a Facepalm(s) into a triumphant fist bump. It's a gift. He does it consistency. The "arguments" Mariano inoculates us from are:

a. The idea that Christians only do good because of fear of going to hell.
b. We don't need an objective standard to understand what "good" is.
c. Christians never really consider if they are wrong.

Each of Mariano's answers deserve a Fistbump but the one I will focus on will be the introduction to the clip from his debate on Morality.
Again and again I come back to my debate with an atheist on the issue of morality (which you can view at this link) and I keep going back to the following clip because I believe that it cuts to the core of any and every atheist versus Christian debate on the issue of morality: his answer is nonsensical to me and my answer is inconceivable to him:


All I could think was: "Ouch" - cuts the atheist argument to pieces and calls Believers to a higher standard.

Morality - another well within the box atheist group think talking point de jour | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: Wafa Sultan's Statement at Trial of Geert Wilders

David Wood posted the following videos and comment on the Answering Muslims blog.
Wafa Sultan was called to testify as an expert witness at the Wilders trial. The judge read her statement. These videos include English subtitles.






In case you don't know anything about the story Gert Wilders. I found the following on Wikipedia
Wilders has campaigned to stop the "Islamisation of the Netherlands". He claims that some sutras and text in the Qur'an incite violence and has campaigned to have the book banned in the Netherlands. He suggested a tax on women who wear the headscarf, advocates ending immigration from Muslim countries, and supports banning the construction of new mosques. He was a speaker at the Facing Jihad Conference held in Jerusalem in 2008, which discussed the dangers of jihad, and has called for a hard line against what he called the "street terror" exerted by minorities in Dutch cities.[8] His controversial 2008 film about his views on Islam, Fitna, received international attention.
In January 2009, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered Wilders' prosecution for "incitement to hatred and discrimination". Wilders was banned from entering the United Kingdom between 12 February 2009 and 13 October 2009, the Home Office saying his presence would be a "threat to one of the fundamental interests of society". The ban was overturned after Wilders appealed and he visited the UK in October 2009, and again in March 2010 to show his film.
Answering Muslims: Wafa Sultan's Statement at Trial of Geert Wilders
Enhanced by Zemanta