My Third Android App - WHHW_V2

As I have previously posted, I've been learning how to make Android apps using Google App Inventor. Yes, It is very powerful but not as powerful as using a full IDE (Integrated Development Environment). This is my 3rd app and the second version of the What Had Happened Was... Mobile app. Version 2 attempts to expand the first. Instead of showing the whole RSS feed, it shows them one at a time. You can scroll through them using "Previous Post" and "Next Post". A button was added that will send you to the post in a web browser. I figured out how to better parse the RSS feed so that I could get the post's url and image url. Unfortunately the images don't show up in the app. I've only tested this on the Samsung Vibrant which uses Android 2.1. You can download it and check it out free using the QR code. I plan another version will hopefully fix the images and provide more help as to what post is being displayed of the possible twenty-five. I'm going to be doing a fuller post on how this app works on my gadgets blog. I've even used the androidscreencast to record a video of the app in action.




Download

Video



Reference Links
Android Screencast – Control Android Phone from PC | Sizzled Core
Universal Feed Parser

Related articles

• Official Google Reader App for Android Now Available [Downloads] (lifehacker.com)
• Google Reader app for Android Arrives (appscout.com)
• Android quick app: Google Reader (androidcentral.com)

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 5 of 5 | True Freethinker

Mariano ends his 5-part series looking on Biblical instances where people have seen God in the Old Testament - aka "theophanies". I loved the examples he brought up and I think that he sums up the series perfectly when he wrote:

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and that He is God because you do not believe that a human to see God face to face and live your argument is not with Christianity.
Rather, it is with God, Job, Abraham, Hagar, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, Ezekiel and Isaiah.
Thus, you are not calling into question Christian doctrine, rather, you are questioning the integrity of the books Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Job.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 5 of 5 | True Freethinker

Chris/Cross: Sims vs. Haley on the 'Young Justice' Cartoon [Review] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

From time to time, I like to mix it up on this blog and add posts and reviews of television programs. I wanted to call attention to this post for two reasons. One, the debate between Chris Sims and Chris Haley on the merits of the pilot for the show Young Justice is not just funny and insightful but also show how two men can disagree and yet be friendly. Second, the show may have little cognitive value but it was fun and yet it still managed to deal with questions like: As a young person, how do you know when it's time to go on your own?  As a mentor and/or parent, how do you know when it's time to let go? Also do your origins - say a clone -  give you the same right to be free as a person who isn't a clone? (I know not a new question, but given the current advance in genetics we need to have answers quickly.) Is it ethical to clone a person without their consent or knowledge? The show does not really definitively answer these questions but it does raise the conversation. Also to weigh-in on the debate, I think Haley is right, the show was great! My only complaint is that we won't see any new episodes until January!!! IT was fun to see Robin, Aqualad, Kid Flash, and Superboy learning how to be a team without their mentors and trying to find their own way....and to see them beat a lot of bad guys.


Chris/Cross: Sims vs. Haley on the 'Young Justice' Cartoon [Review] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Slutty DNA Study Provides New Way To Guilt Parents « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

Here is a tongue-in-cheek article of some serious significance. A gene has been identified as making people more prone to infidelity and other behaviors

According to Live Science:

“A particular version of a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4 is linked to people’s tendency toward both infidelity and uncommitted one-night stands, the researchers reported Nov. 30 in the online open-access journal PloS One.

The same gene has already been linked to alcoholism and gambling addiction, as well as less destructive thrills like a love of horror films. One study linked the gene to an openness to new social situations, which in turn correlated with political liberalism.”

Hmmm. A gene that leads people into debauchery, fornication, adultery, and lust? In Biblical terms: Sin. Some people would look at this and assume that means that people who struggle with these things are programmed to do them and can't help themselves. They are trapped - victims of their own natures. The Bible agrees. And any of us are a hair's breath from falling into any one of these things, unless you are in those things already, so we can't judge ourselves better than anyone else. Fortunately, the Bible not only defines a problem - one that DNA and genetics - confirms, but also points out that our Creator has also provided a solution. The solution is Jesus Christ. If want to be made whole - you can be.

Slutty DNA Study Provides New Way To Guilt Parents « : Crushable - Crushable gives you the celebrity news, style and scoop on the stuff you care about.

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox Discuss Stephen Hawking's Ideas in the Grand Design - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a four part interview Ravi Zacharias did with John Lennox regarding Stephen Hawking and Lenard Mlodinow's book The Grand Design. Follow the link below to listen to the 4 part Podcast.



Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox Discuss Stephen Hawking's Ideas in the Grand Design - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• "[Audio] The Grand Design - Stephen Hawking (Unabridged)" and related posts (tactools.org)
• The Grand Design (kottke.org)
• "The Grand Design" and related posts (thinkingchristian.net)

FistBump of the Day #13 - Glenn Beck and Mormonism | True Freethinker

Mariano made a great post on Glenn Beck. He points out that Beck says he is a Mormon because he wanted to get a good family. He isn't concerned with the theological differences between Mormonism and Historic Christianity. However the differences are so stark and so huge they can't be ignored. I really like the way Mariano brought this out.






Glenn Beck and Mormonism | True Freethinker

High Five of the Day THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

I really respect Mike Felker and the postings on his blog. We largely agree on many matters but on how to understand Matthew 24 we don't completely agree on. I appreciate his posting this video and I really liked the introduction he wrote:

In about 13 minutes (with as much detail as possible all packed in), this video contains a summary of the preterist understanding of Matthew 24. This theological persuasion holds that all of the events in Matthew 24 find their fulfillment in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Of course, this may sound absurd to those who have never been exposed to such theology, as it did to me. But I would ask that you at least watch this video and consider some of the arguments that are made. I can't say that i'm one hundred percent on board or able to provide a thorough defense of this view, but so far its a position that i'm leaning towards

:




It caught my attention because John Loftus recently defined Preterism wrong and different than Mike did, who defined it right. Some take a view that most of Revelations was also fulfilled. Personally, I'm not sold that all of Matthew 24 and Revelations have been fulfilled yet.One view on this is debatable and can't be used as a "litmus test" for orthodoxy.

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: A short preterist commentary on the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24

Fistbump of the Day #12 - Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Common Sense Atheism's The Science of Morality

Brennon handled a failed attempt to explain the origins of Morality very well. I think he is 100% correct in his analysis. Thanks for another great post!

Brennon's Thoughts: Response to Common Sense Atheism's The Science of Morality

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 4 of 5 | True Freethinker

I am really enjoying Mariano's series! This time he includes more Rabbinic objections to the thought of Almighty God taking human form. My main issue that is that scriptures says He did on occasion in the Old Testament whenever He wanted to. Bottom line. It's true whether we understand it or not. I don't understand the confusion or objection that Jesus could not both be God and Man at the same time. Mariano bringing up light in the post is great. I mean we accept the wave/particle duality of light and no one has been able to explain it yet. Would you not expect the infinite God to most definitely defy all attempts of complete quantification even more so than light? I would.


God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 4 of 5 | True Freethinker

Do Atheists Ever Become Christians? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

William Lane Craig invited two people, Dr. Holly Ordway and Stephen Notman, to talk about how they became Christians after spending the majority of their lives as non-Christians. It was very interesting. I love hearing testimonies of how God intervenes in lives to bring people to himself. I also really enjoyed William Lane Craig's prayer and invitation to accept the Gospel at the end. All there speakers in the presentation recognize and thank God for the gift of repentance and mercy. I thank God that Brian Auten posted this and i had a chance to listen to it. Both Holly Ordway and Stephen Notman have blogs and Brian was gracious enough to have links to their sites. Follow the link to hear the lecture. The picture is from Stephen Notman's blog of Ordway and Notman with William Lane Craig.

Do Atheists Ever Become Christians? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Does God Exist? A debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe

This was a very interesting and powerful debate. I often wonder how would Sam Harris handle an able Rabbi? Answer: He can't. David Wolpe argued against atheism and not exclusively for Judaism. I don't agree with Him that all the monotheistic religions lead to God because if so, it would not matter which religion you join. They are too different and make too many contradictory truth claims for that position to hold. However Rabbi's Wolpe's worldview is better than atheism.




Does God Exist? A debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi David Wolpe

FacePalm of the Day #31 - Debunking Christianity: Why I Don’t Believe the Bible is God’s Word

John Loftus never ceases to amaze me with how much he misunderstands what Christians believe. I wonder what Bible is he reading and what church did he go to before he turned apostate. In the latest FacePalm worthy post, he tries to explain why not believing that the Bible is God's word is reasonable. I decided to annotate his post. His original text is in italics.

According to Calvinists I don’t believe because God has determined from the beginning of time that I should not believe. It’s God’s secret will for me. I cannot believe unless God wants me to believe. It doesn’t bring him as much glory if I believe, so this is what he wants. He does not want me to believe the Bible is his word. For the Calvinist this is the end of the discussion. For me, it presents an additional reason why I don’t believe, for not only do I not see the evidence to believe, I also reject the supposition that God would both call on me to believe and at the same time secretly desire that I should not believe. What does God really desire here?...that I don’t believe…that’s the bottom line. My unbelief is exactly what God desires. It brings him the most glory. Calvinists should praise God that I don't believe. But what kind of God is this? See here.

Loftus mischaracterizes and mistakes what Calvinists teach. I'm not sure where he gets his understanding of Calvinism from. Several problems right off the bat. I'm going to ignore the fact he just tries to make this a tirade against Calvinism and not try to make Arminian arguments (though that would be easy because Loftus and most atheists think we have free will). How ever let us keep it simple. No where in the entire Bible does it say that God doesn't want anyone not to believe or not come to repentance. His unbelief is not what God desires. God's glory is independent of whether he, you, or I believe. Um, that is why He is God. I know Hyper Calvinists believe in double predestination that God decrees people to either heaven or hell. I can't find any scripture to back that up. Also manymany Calvinists like James White and RC Sproul don't hold this idea.

Analogies seem to break down somewhere, but here’s one: If I was a boss and told an employee to do a particular task, but I secretly threw obstacles in his way that kept him from doing this task and then fired him for not doing the task, I would need to see a shrink. Or, I hated that employee or the company itself. But no one who knew what I did would think I was a good employer and that I worked in the best interests of the company. Even if the employee was a very poor worker and deserved to be fired in the first place, I would still be duplicitous in my dealings with him, and hence not trustworthy to deal straightforwardly and honestly with any of the other employees.

Let's suggest a more realistic analogies. God isn't a boss working for a company. God is a king with all power and authority. As employees (er..subjects) of said King...we aren't just bad employees. We are criminals deserving death for the crimes we have done. "Being fired" would just be the tip of the iceberg of what we deserve. God isn't being "duplicitous" in His dealing with us. We are. Loftus assumes that we are able to reason and understand the evidence around us in a correct manner. Why is that? If we are as hopelessly enslaved to our own sin, as the Bible says we are, how can we hope to correctly understand or reason our way to God. Simple answer: We cannot. We cannot deal straightforwardly with God or each other without God's help.

Now to just a few of the reasons why I don’t believe the Bible is God’s word.

This have been good, but it wasn't. It's train wreck.

1) I cannot stomach the whole notion of hell by conservative Christians today. Such a punishment, however conceived, does not fit the crimes (“sins”) I have done. I am not consciously rebelling against God because I sincerely do not believe he even exists. I’m following what I have come to believe to the best of my abilities as a thinking and educated person. Christians who proclaim that “the doors of hell are locked from the inside” along with C.S. Lewis, are making a ridiculous claim to me. If hell is painful to any degree, then I would want out. If hell is what I want and/or enjoyable to me in any sense, then it’s not punishment.

John Loftus does not understand how evil and bad our sins are so horrible. Hell does fit the crime. Against an infinite God, why wouldn't an infinite penalty be demanded? Every time one consciously denies the power of God and his right to command us and refuse to glorify Him one is in conscious rebellion against God. Loftus wrote "I’m following what I have come to believe to the best of my abilities as a thinking and educated person." And that is the problem. Our intellect and abilities are not enough. No one is educated enough on their own to satisfy what God has demanded of us. God has every right to make such commands and demands. He made us not the other way around.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44

2) The Bible contains too many beliefs which we reject today. Christians must scramble to reinterpret these things along the lines of modern science, psychology, and biology. I call these things the Achilles Heel of Christianity, including the the Hebrew view of the Universe. Take for instance the modern Christian view of hell, mentioned above. The standard view of hell was of everlasting punishment in a lake of fire, but with such a repugnant view in light of the knowledge of a global world of sincere people, Christians are arguing for annihilation, or a metaphorical view of hell, like C.S. Lewis. Another recent change in Christian theology is Preterism, as a way to explain why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth as it was believed in the earliest centuries of the church. Now it’s said that Jesus already returned to earth in the year 70 A.D., so that there is no longer any serious problem with a the purportedly failed promise of Jesus to return, “within this generation.”

The world is sincere alright. Sincerely sinful. No one is righteous. Our rightesousness is like filthy rags in comparison to what God requires. Loftus does not understand what Preterism is because it's not about saying that Jesus came already in 70 AD only that much of the prophecies were fulfilled then, especially Matthew 24. Jesus did not say that he would return in his disciples' generation. He provides no exegesis to prove that Jesus did. He also makes the assertion that the Bible gets modern science, psychology, and biology wrong. He's wrong. There is no where in the Bible that says the Bible is flat. I agree that trying to legitimate the Bible by reading in points from science that the authors did not intend make is stupid but likewise reading in superstition and error that isn't there is equally dumb.

3) The God of the Bible is a barbaric God . Such a view is much more indicative of ancient conceptions of a king in a cruel world than in what Christians today would expect from such a God.

Loftus continues to make arguments to debunk a God that the Bible does not present. What definition is he using to understand what "barbaric" is? Why should I accept his opinion. God is indeed King of all. He does whatever he wants. However he wants. Whenever he wants. Or allows. The Bible does not present a God that is capricious or takes joy in human suffering. I have only experienced a God that is like the God of the Bible.

4) There are so many unanswered questions in the Bible about God, his nature and his work. How is it possible for God to foreknow the future? How is it possible for a being to never learn anything, and to always and forever exist as three-in-one without ever growing incrementally into something more and more complex? How is it possible for there to exist a being who is 100% man and 100% God with every essential attribute necessary for both? Why was his death on the cross necessary before God could forgive sins? What does it mean for Jesus, as part of the Godhead, to intercede on our behalf with God the Father, another part of the Godhead?

Just because there are unanswered questions that God has chosen to not reveal the answer does not mean that there is no God. Omniscience would include knowing the future before it happen. God doesn't just know what will happen. He also directs the future. His Omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience should boggle our minds. How does the finite fully comprehend the infinite? Perfection means never having to grow or become better or complex. The Bible clearly tells us why Jesus' death was necessary. Our sins are so horrendous that it took an infinitely pure and perfect sacrifice to propitiate our sins and satisfy the wrath of God. Wrath that you and I deserve. Instead of making us pay. Jesus paid for it. As for Jesus' intercession our his people's behalf, the point of the sacrificial system, including Yom Kippur, was to be picture to help us understand what Jesus did. The Epistle to the Hebrews explains how that works. Check it out.

5) There are problems I have with the claims of miracles in the Bible. How can we judge that they ever happened when we must believe the writings of ancient superstitious people to do so?...and when there were numerous claims of miracles in that same ancient world, claims that Christians themselves will deny , including those of other faiths and cults today. This is especially true when we consider the whole nature of historical study. Anything can be doubted in history especially miraculous claims, and yet God wants us to believe based upon history? If, however, God grants us all personal experience of the Holy Spirit , then why is it so many people who were born in different times and places do not sense it, or if they do, they don’t understand it’s coming from the Christian God?

Can Loftus prove that anyone whom we traditionally believe wrote the Bible were superstitious? Nope. The Bible allows for miracles and acts to be seen from other sources that from God. There is no reason to take the idea that other religions can offer miraculous experiences from other sources! Read Deuteronomy 13 to see how we are to be able to tell if a source of miracles is from God or not.

6) Then too, the way that NT writers and persons argued leave a whole lot to be desired. Paul and Jesus argued in an ignorant fashion. Matthew claims Jesus fulfilled prophecy but his exegesis of the OT texts is flawed.

Proof? Anything? I hear crickets. I see he made links to pass articles but when you read them you see that they are just as empty as this one. If he can state his opinion and assertions about what The Bible says, I can make judgments on his statements as well.

I could go on, but that’s enough for now.

[First posted 7/12/06]

Good thing to quit while one is behind.

Debunking Christianity: Why I Don’t Believe the Bible is God’s Word.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 3 of 5 | True Freethinker

Image via Wikipedia
Here is the third part of Mariano's series about God taking human form in the Old Testament. This one brings in more Jewish sources.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 3 of 5 | True Freethinker

RIP Irvin Kershner » let the wookie win

I was also surprised to see that Irvin Kershner died over the weekend. Kershner has directed some of the best films of our times including Empire Strikes Back. Sad news, but he left behind a legacy of films.

RIP Irving Kershner » let the wookie win

Related articles

• Irvin Kershner And Leslie Nielsen Die (g4tv.com)
• 'Empire Strikes Back' Director Irvin Kershner Has Died (laist.com)
• Empire Strikes Back Director Irvin Kershner Dies at 87 (seattlepi.com)

RIP Leslie Nielsen » let the wookie win

I came across the news that actor Leslie Nielsen died. I was dumbfounded as a fan of his work. He always makes me laugh!




RIP Leslie Nielsen » let the wookie win

How Bad of an Idea Is The Marvel Digital Comics Vault? Very. - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I've been following and watching how digital comics have changed the comic book industry. One reason is because I believe that the same things affecting digital distribution of Comic book will also affect sale and distribution of other media. Comics Alliance posted an article about a move Marvel Comics is making that I believe will turn out to be a huge blunder: restricting older content to drive up it's value so people will buy it. Bad move. I got to admit that I still want to subscribe to digital comics. I also think that Marvel should follow DC and make digital content available to any device you own, paying for it only once.

How Bad of an Idea Is The Marvel Digital Comics Vault? Very. - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Calvinistic Cartoons: Self-Will

Brilliant!!!

Calvinistic Cartoons: Self-Will

Matthias and Makayla playing Rock, Paper, Scissors

Can an 18 month old win, Rock, Paper, Scissors?! I reckon so. Makayla is 4 years old and she's pretty good at it, but a couple of days ago, Matthias has started doing it. Grant it he usually does "paper" or "rock" but that is enough to win a game!

High Five of the Day - Calvinistic Cartoons: John Flavel

I have really been enjoying Eddie Eddings blog! Here is a quote he just posted from John Favel. We really need to take his points to heart.



Calvinistic Cartoons: John Flavel

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 2 of 5 | True Freethinker

Here is the second part of Mariano's essay on God taking on Human form in the Old Testament. What I like best about this one is that Mariano explains how some Jewish scholars try really hard to get around the plain text of Genesis 18 and how not all scholars in Judaism have interpreted Genesis 18 in the same way I see it today: God himself visited Abraham in human form.

Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe,

“If man should be humble, there is a sense in which God is strangely humble too: If a pupil is ill, and the teacher goes to visit him, the other pupils go before to announce the coming of the teacher. But when God went to visit Abraham in his illness, He went first, before the angels (Gen. XVIII, 1, 2). Is there anyone more humble than He? (Tanh., Wayera, 2, f. 31b.)” [emphasis added]

Paul made the same point in Philippians 2. I agree that most people who are not Christian will see the connection of God visiting Abraham in Genesis 18 with Jesus' incarnation. But if God can take human form and see Abraham while maintaining his godly attributes - omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence - enthroned in heaven. If God could do that for several minutes to interact with Abraham and Sarah, He can do it for years! Say, 33 years for example - in the person of Jesus Christ. A fundamental, theological, and logical objection to the Trinity is torpedoed.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 2 of 5 | True Freethinker

ID.Plus: Michael Behe at Charles Darwin House

I heard that Michael Behe was going on tour and I'm grateful that Peter Williams blogged one of his appearances. This one is Behe in discussion with theistic evolutionist Prof Michael Reiss at Charles Darwin House, London, on Monday 22nd November. Definitely worth checking out. Hopefully a video or and audio will be posted soon as well.

ID.Plus: Michael Behe at Charles Darwin House

Related articles

• Quiz a creationist (newhumanist.org.uk)
• Creationism's UK tour - should opponents engage or ignore? (newhumanist.org.uk)
• The futility of Intelligent Design | Andrew Brown (guardian.co.uk)
• Intelligent Design: pseudoscience or a challenge to evolution? (newhumanist.org.uk)

Philosopher Jay Richards on The Grand Design - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a great interview of Jay Richards by Michael Licona. The Interview is regarding Stephen Hawking's latest book and its problems and implications. Follow the link to listen to the interview.

Philosopher Jay Richards on The Grand Design - Apologetics 315

Makayla Feeding Matthias

When I woke up Thanksgiving morning and found the following: Makayla feeding Matthias. Hilarity ensued! I thank God for my children!

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker

Mariano has begun a series of articles showing how God has intervened in human history several times by taking human form before he did it quintessentially in Jesus the Messiah! This first article focuses on Genesis 18 where God visited Abraham and Sarah in human form. Who was it that Abraham saw and talked to? You can read Mariano 's article at the following link. I've posted on this before but I love the way Mariano writes and I hope he can reach people that I could not reach with the truth.

God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker

How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil

I was on Facebook Tuesday Night and came across a post from the Bible Answer Man with a link to an article from the Christian Research Journal called How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil by E. Calvin Beisner and Chad Meister. Beisner approaches the "Problem of Evil" from a Reformed perspective and Meister gives the Free Will perspective.They agree on the formulation and how the problem should  be posed.

Through the centuries theologians and philosophers from a wide range of backgrounds and interests have tried various responses to explain what appears to be a logical contradiction in the following five propositions:

             1.      God exists.

             2.      God is all-powerful.

             3.      God is all-knowing.

             4.      God is all-good.

             5.      Evil exists.

Both men are Christians and agree on a lot of things. Beisner wrote:

Does this mean God justifies His means by His ends? Yes. Is that wicked? No. An end-justifies-the-means ethic is fallacious and therefore wicked for finite men (who can neither control nor know all the results of their choices), but it is perfectly fitting for the infinite God (who both controls and knows all the results of His choices)–and, after all, God being supreme need not justify His choices to anyone:

So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Rom. 9:15–21).

Does the reality of evil make the existence of the Christian God impossible? No. For good reasons, God created a world that contained evil. For those same reasons, as we have seen, the Christian position does not self-contradict.

Meister wrote the following:

We have seen, then, that the atheist’s claim that there is a contradiction in believing in the coexistence of God and evil is false, and that the Christian faith does have reasonable explanations for how the God of the Bible and evil could coexist.¹⁰ For God to create a good and moral universe, He needed to make creatures with free will. Along with free will came the possibility—and, as it turned out, the reality—that these creatures freely would choose evil. God, however, is willing and able to redeem this fallen world and abolish evil. He will do it, and all will be well.

Where they disagree is regarding how to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God. I find that I agree more with Beisner than Meister. 


Beisner wrote:

A False Choice. Meister presents a false choice between libertarian freedom and “sham” freedom. That choice presupposes that for the compatibilist–that is, one who holds determinism and moral responsibility/free choice to be compatible, as I have argued–there is no difference between how a stone responds to gravity and how a child responds to his or her parent’s command. Hidden within this mistake is a deeper one: the assumption that “a real ability to choose one way or the other”—“libertarian freedom”—is the same thing as free will, that is, a will that is not predetermined. Compatibilists assert that moral agents (God, angels, and men) choose, but that choosing per se and choosing indeterminately are not synonymous.

I don't think we as human beings have libertarian free will because  we are enslaved to sin. The only one who truly had that kind of will was Adam, Eve, and Jesus. Adam and Eve were free of sin when they were created. They chose to be enslaved by sin when they chose to disobey God. Us? Not so much...like not at all. Jesus was sinless because he is God.  No one else is in their league. We were born into sin. We can't obey God, without His help,  even if we wanted to and we don't want to by default outside of God replacing our hearts of stone with a heart of flesh!

Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8

How Should Christians Approach the Problem of Evil

Related articles

• Saint Augustine - The Problem of Evil (socyberty.com)
• The Problem of Suffering (smoodock45.wordpress.com)
• The Mystery of Iniquity Times Ten (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Arguments for God's Existence MP3 by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great lecture by Peter Kreeft. The lecture is about the Arguments for the existence of God. Brian wrote:

He talks about the types of proofs, Pascal's wager, first cause arguments, cosmological arguments, arguments from design, morality, desire, and more. There is a lot of great content packed into this 76-minute lecture

Brian also was kind enough to put a link to Dr. Kreeft's website which lists 20 Arugments for the existence for God. Go visit Apologetics 315 using the link below to find the lecture and the links to Kreefts site.

Arguments for God's Existence MP3 by Peter Kreeft - Apologetics 315