Facepalm of the Day #34 - Racists Totally Freak Out Over Idris Elba Playing Norse God in 'Thor' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

I want to join Comics Alliance on their condemnation of  truly ignorant folks who want  to protest against casting a Black man as a Norse god in the upcoming Thor movie!  If any idea deserves a Facepalm this is definitely one of them. The piece is so fantastic, I want to just annotate it and add some other ideas to piggy back off a truly great post. My comments are in red.

Did you know that the totally made-up-by-medieval-drunks gods of Norse mythology were all white? Literally none of them were African. We didn't know that, but thanks to the prodigious efforts of the Council of Conservative Citizens and their friends at Boycott-Thor.com, the truth has been revealed: Heimdall, Sentry of Asgard, was white and Idris Elba, the English actor hired to portray Heimdall in Marvel Studios' Thor, is black! BLACK!

A real tragedy is that Idris Elba is a really good actor who seems to be able play many roles very different from himself. I mean in all the American roles he has done, I thought he was born and raised in the United States not the UK. The thing is recall that Anthony Hopkins was hired to play Odin, partly because of his "Englishness" (I think, given in America we think kings should have a British accent), which Idris Elba has in his real life and bearing!!!!  I am expecting him to be great in the role.

The CCC's unhappiness with Elba's appearance in Thor jibes with the material on its Statement of Principles page, where they assert that "the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people... that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character," and thus "oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind... to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." The Statement also makes plain the organization's desire for the United States to be extremely Christian, curmudgeonly, and for its citizens to appear as hobbit-like as possible. 

"Principles"? Truly sad. The really stupid part is the statement  that said the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people... that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character," and thus "oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind... to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." I have truly not heard many things more stupid than this.  Hadn't they heard: Europe is not a single nation, culture,  Besides, although Christianity is definitely true, it isn't currently the best description of America. And about "hobbit-like" appearance, the article's author has a point.

As part of its tireless efforts to those ends, the CCC -- recognized as a genuine hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- wrote on its website that Marvel has "declared war on Norse mythology" with "an insulting multi-cultural makeover." Not a fan of Marvel in general, the CCC added that the publisher already "attacks conservative values" and "now mythological gods must be re-invented with black skin."

I'm amazed that they think that all European ideas have no blackness. It has been already said that perhaps some of the knights from medieval times were black and let's not forget that all the oldest images and pictures of Jesus and his contemporaries were depicted with dark skin. 

Marvel is similarly criticized on the politically conservative Boycott-Thor.com, whose motto is "Keep social engineering out of European mythology." Apparently unaware that Marvel orchestrated an elaborate and embarrassing plotline by which Spider-Man and his wife made a deal with the devil to erase their marriage from memory rather than see the iconic superhero suffer the destructive liberal indignity of divorce, Boycott-Thor.com put forth the following indictment of the publisher:

Marvel is headed by radical left-wingers who insert their ideologies and agendas into their comic books and movies.

In February 2010, the TEA Party movement was viciously attacked in an issue of Captain America. Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Qesada publicly defended the issue.

Marvel creator and front man Stan "Lee" Lieber is a notorious left-winger and financier of left-wing political candidates.

I find the accusations truly horrendous that people really think that way, especially about the Captain America remark. These guys really seem to think censorship is a good idea.

Elsewhere on the site, the Boycott-Thor.com author submitted that the reason "movies fail" is, "according [to] the experts," because of bad word-of-mouth. A Facebook page has been set up to help spread those bad words, and boasts a shocking 155-person "Like" count, but only a few comments.

"What is needed is a school campaign to get White kids to boycott everything that comes out of Marvel Studios," wrote a human being called Annis Isbell. Another fan of the boycott, James Hick wrote, "Need to try and get black sepratists in on this to. Let them know that marvel is trying to negate and down play their racial culture & heritage and saying by default blacks are cultureless unless they imbrace the white mans culture. That would sit a black back lash," which we suppose is an almost utopian sentiment for someone whose Facebook profile pic is the Confederate flag. 

All I can say is...those are terrible thoughts!

For his part, Idris Elba has playfully acknowledged the obvious incongruity between his complexion and what is conventionally thought to be the true appearance of a made-up mythological god who never existed. Best known for his superlative performance as Stringer Bell in HBO's The Wire and for his appearances on NBC's The Office (but identified by the CCC as "Hip Hop DJ Elba"), the performer told the UK's TV Times:

"There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character?" he told TV Times. "Hang about, Thor's mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That's OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong? "I was cast in Thor and I'm cast as a Nordic god," he said. "If you know anything about the Nords, they don't look like me but there you go. I think that's a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that's good."

Kudos to Elba! Very classy attitude. Me? I don't think the information is funny. 

Obviously a fierce Googlebater, the Boycott-Thor author has kept track of his site's mentions in the media, and will no doubt read this ComicsAlliance post as well. He or she accuses our friends at Spinoff Online, who also covered this story, of "childish name-calling like 'racist,'" even though Spinoff writer Kevin Melrose's post is admirably neutral in its presentation of the facts and does not include the word "racist."

The rest of the world needs to know that there is still stupidity like theirs.I mean don't hide the stupid. We need to keep in mind that it is still with us.

Our post will not be so neutral.

Mine Neither

You people at the Council of Conservative Citizens and Boycott-Thor.com are racists. And because you believe that "racist" is a baseless term thrown out by "left-wingers" who "can't win based on the facts," I will explain precisely why you are racists, and I will do with the most relentless logic possible.

Yup, the Council of Conservative Citizens and Boycott-Thor.com are indeed racists. It's not pejorative. It is a fact.

The reason Kenneth Branagh cast Stringer Bell as Heimdall in Thor is because that is awesome. Did you see the Thor trailer? Heimdall is awesome!

Heimdall is indeed awesome. Given that Heimdall is supposed to be Asgard's first line of defense against all manners of evil force bent on its destruction, an actor portraying such a character should be huge and  look like a frost giant would think twice before challenging him. Have you seen Elba? He's not a little dude. And he can be intimidating when he wants to be. Elba is awesome. That is why he got the role.

Along similar lines, the reason Mark Millar and Byran Hitch cast Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury in The Ultimates is because that was awesome. Have you read The Ultimates? Have you seen Samuel L. Jackson in the Iron Man movies? He is awesome!

Agreed!!! And a very valid point. But it does bring up a very interesting point. Originally in the comic books, Fury was a white guy. I've heard very little commotion about the change in the comics or in most media in making Fury a black man now. Also in addition there didn't seem to be an issue that Kingpin was played by a black man in the Daredevil movie although the character is white in the comic books. However a few months ago when Beyonce' said she wanted to play Wonder Woman, people had problems with that. And when people said a black actor should play the new Spider-man there was a backlash. People disagreed, including myself. Why? For my part, Spider-man and Wonder Woman are very different from Nick Fury and the Kingpin in that they are way more iconic and our cultural identification with them is much stronger than with Fury or the Kingpin. In addition when their races were changed, their whole back stories  and backgrounds were changed almost that they were other characters - qualitatively - almost completely. From this point of view I have no problem with Heimdall being black. Marvel has greatly changed the Norse myths in so many way, why not change that too?  Honestly when you look at the Thor myths, Thor is kind of a jerk, not a hero as he is in the comic books - noble and courageous.

These are two stellar examples of demonstrable awesomeness, and, as such, they can only be refuted by the poisoned minds of hateful racists. While you are denying yourself what's sure to be a joyous popcorn epic in Thor and falling on the sword for the most socially, economically and politically dominant ethnicity in the world and their ridiculous ancient gods, we will be watching Chris Hemsworth (an Australian) and Idris Elba (an Englishman) bring to life one of the great American superheroes created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (JEWS!)

GAME SET AND MATCH!!!!! Ouch!!! QED!!!! You can stick a fork in that one! IT is done!

To adapt a quote from one of white culture's most celebrated and completely fake, totally made-up heroes, Buzz Lightyear: You are sad, strange little men, and you have our pity.

Way to put the nail in the coffin on a very silly arugment. I realize that some people might think that answering such foolishness is a waste. It isn't. First, such stupidity must be shown for what it is - stupid. We need to remember electing Obama President of the United States did not fix racism in this country Second, it bring up way more weightier issues. For example, earliest iconography of Jesus clearly show darker skin, and then since the Italian Renaisssance most people think Jesus had blond hair and blue eyes. It goes to what to do you think of the God you worship. I'm not arguing that Jesus was black.I don't know. No one knows what his skin color was but I think it's safe to bet against Jesus looking Aryan because the people who live in the Middle East do not look that way. Given that as a Christian I believe Jesus came in human flesh and lived as one of us for 33 years, it becomes a problem for non-White people if you want us to believe that white people is better than any other race of people. By-and-large, I think most American have grown past consciously thinking that and the Council of Conservative Citizens missed the memo.

[Via Spinoff Online]

Racists Totally Freak Out Over Idris Elba Playing Norse God in 'Thor' - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Peru Talk Posted

Here is Dr. James White's lecture while he was in Peru, recently. It's on the doctrine of "Justification".





Peru Talk Posted

Muhammad's Mistaken Jesus

James White discusses errors in the Islamic understanding of who Jesus is.




Muhammad's Mistaken Jesus

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Pastor James David Manning: Obama Has Neutered and Weakened the White Man

Yes, I've got to admit Eco.Soul.Intellectual has called this video correctly:

Just when you thought you have heard it all, here comes this pastor. Amen and pass the bottle of Boone's Farm, Uncle Ruckus of The Boondocks is not only real, but he has a congregation. And, has a helluva pep talk for white folks in America in this installment. No seriously, white folks, pay attention OK?

Unfortunately, this person is serious. The things he says truly scares me, ever since I heard the truly ignorant things he said about Barack Obama I first heard in 2008.

Read more: http://www.rippdemup.com/2010/12/pastor-james-david-manning-obama-has.html#ixzz18900VH8Z




THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Pastor James David Manning: Obama Has Neutered and Weakened the White Man

Answering Muslims: James White: Is Muhammad in the Bible?

I appreciate David Wood calling attention to this video. Some Islamic scholars try to claim Muhammad can be found in the Bible.What I find interesting is that they care. If our scriptures are so tainted...so inferior...then why would they want to see Muhammad in them. It's amazing the lengths they are willing to go through to prove it.




Answering Muslims: James White: Is Muhammad in the Bible?

Who Wrote Isaiah? Part 1

Image via Wikipedia
In a recent post, I critiqued a post from John Loftus in which a book by Jonathon Pearce is promoted. The book is called  Free Will?: An investigation into whether we have free will, or whether I was always going to write this book. There was a quote from the book suggesting that God only care about Israel and never intervened in the lives of anyone other people in the Old Testament. I gave several examples of how the Bible does not support this.

Ryan Anderson seems to be very interested in commenting and trying to "debunk" the things I write. I thank God for that because at least he reads what I write. Amazingly, his problem with the post isn't with my point...it's with one of the texts I referenced Isaiah 45:13. What I wrote was:

It's a bold statement to say that God did not intervene in any of the rest of the world outside of Israel during antiquity. How would you know that? God plainly says He is in control of everything - not just with what concerns Israel. A simple example: God claims that Cyrus is his agent centuries before Cyrus is even born.

"I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” - Isaiah 45:13

Cyrus was the emperor of the Persian Empire who ended the 70 year exile of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple in 586 BC. Isaiah was written in the 8th Century BC.

Ryan Anderson Wrote:

Two points on Isaiah, 1) since the earliest manuscript of Isaiah is from the 1st century BCE, that "prophecy" is less than amazing... and 2) we have three different Isaiah authors, one for 1-39, another for 40-55 and another for 56-66. You can't use the date for chapters 1-39 for the other sections and claim "prophecy".

The ensuing exchange culminated in his asking me to explain why do I reject multiple authorship theories for the book of Isaiah. I am going to reference a few outside references. I do not see any reason to believe that the prophet and priest known as Isaiah did not write all 66 Chapters of Isaiah.

What are the reasons why people advance the ideas of multiple authors of Isaiah?

The critical schools deny that Isaiah wrote the latter chapters of 40-66 for basically three reasons. First the name of Isaiah is not mentioned in these chapters, second the material does not seem to fit the time period of Isaiah and third the style of Hebrew is different from the rest of Isaiah.^a

From another source.

Advocates of this theory attempt to demonstrate that the style, theology and background of Isaiah 1–39 are unlike those of either 40–55 or 56–66.Second Isaiah—but not First—they argue, depicts God in purely monotheistic terms. Also, First Isaiah is seen as a prophet of judgment, who placed his hopes on the Davidic king, and Second Isaiah a prophet of comfort who pinned his expectations on the Lord’s suffering servant.

More substantial are the arguments focusing on the backgrounds of the respective chapters.The Old Testament prophets in general are widely understood to have written from their own unique historical situations.Even if one acknowledges that Isaiah could have predicted the Babylonian captivity, it is argued, it is unlikely that he wrote chapters 40–55,since those texts were written from within the context of captivity. Also, the Persian king Cyrus (c.539 B.C.) is mentioned by name in 44:28 and 45:1, 13, suggesting that Cyrus was a contemporary of the author of chapters 40–55.The background of Third Isaiah is posited to be different again. By this point Jerusalem had been rebuilt, its citizens no longer under threat from either Assyria or Babylon.^b

Who were the First to Advance these Ideas?

I. Period Before Modern Critical Scholarship

1. The first person to question Isaiah's authorship of chapters 40-66 was Moses ibn Gekatilla (2nd century A.D.)
   1. His views were preserved and adopted by a prominent medieval Jewish scholar, Ibn Ezra.

II. Period of Modern Scholarship

1. The German Johann Doederlein (lived in the 1700s)
   1. In 1789 he argued that chapters 40-66 were written during the exile
   2. He made this assertion because he couldn't believe that an eighth century writer could have predicted the fall of Jerusalem (587 B.C.), much less the rise of Cyrus the Great, who restored the exiles in 538 B.C.
2. Ernst Rosenmueller from Leipzig (1768-1835)
   1. He expressed doubts about chapters 13 and 14.
   2. His reasoning was, "If Isaiah could not have written chapters 40-66 because it predicts things he never saw, how could he have written a similar set of predictions in these chapters?"
      1. Rosenmueller began the process of denying Isaiah's authorship of much of chapters 1-39.
3. Bernard Duhm and K. Marti - Rise of Trito-Isaiah Theory

1. Around the turn of the last century--from 1892 to 1900) Bernard Duhm and K. Marti claimed that they had found evidence--from the text of Isaiah itself--that chapters 56-66 were written by Trito-Isaiah (and should be separated from chapters 40-55).
   1. They argued that Trito-Isaiah wrote his material in Jerusalem around the time of Ezra (450 B.C.)
   2. Duhm argued that Jewish writers inserted their own writings throughout the book of Isaiah (as late as the first century B.C.).
   3. In this view the book of Isaiah--far from being the work of one man, was a patchwork quilt of helter-skelter insertions and editings by anonymous Jews.

(See Reference c)

My Take

As I stated in my arguments in my comments in the other thread there is no reason at all to add more than one author. A change in subject from chapters 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66 do not at all mean that someone else is writing. From the first century, Jews understood that the Messiah was coming through David. There is no change in subject matter...it is all about God. Isaiah contains not just the promise of the Messiah but also the punishment and exile of Judah, and it's restoration!!! The return from Babylon and the future restoration of the world to true peace.

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. - Isaiah 2:4

Added to the fact that people supposed multiple authors because they could not understand how a man could give such details to things that he did not see or experience. I don't understand the confusion. It's simple: That is what one would expect from a true prophet of the true and living God.

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.- 2 Peter 1:21

I also came across this detailed well-crafted essay:
Authorship Analysis of the Book of Isaiah

Further references:
a. Isaiah
b. Multiple Authorship Theories of Isaiah
c.Multiple Authorship Theories of Isaiah
d. Authorship Analysis of the Book of Isaiah

Jesus Is Our Propitiation

On Sunday, December 12, 2010, I had the blessing of preaching at my church. My subject was: Jesus Is Our Propitiation. It was an amazing  day. The whole service seemed to be driven to be setup to discuss this. subject. By the time I spoke, we was ready. I've posted the powerpoint below.

Jesus Is Our Propitiation

See more presentations by mmcelhaney | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations

Related articles

• Salvation by Grace (anointedplace.wordpress.com)
• What did Jesus Do? What did Jesus' life look like? (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)

Thinking God's Thoughts: More William Lane Craig Awesomeness on the Incarnation

I thank Brennon for posting this video of William Lane Craig discussing the incarnation of Jesus on his blog. I agree with Dr. Craig. Jesus, being God, can do anything - including choosing to not know certain information while he "tabernacled among us". (John 1:14)




Thinking God's Thoughts: More William Lane Craig Awesomeness on the Incarnation

Can Muhammad Save You?

James White posted the following from his appearance on ABN. He compares Muhammad in Islamic theology with what we know of Jesus in Scripture.

...the specific hadith from Sahih Al Bukhari (Volume 6, Book 60, number 3). A vitally important discussion of the role of Muhammad in Islamic theology, contrasted with the role of Jesus in Scripture.

Can Muhammad Save You?

Answering Muslims: ABC's Islam Deception--Part Four: Muhammad and Religious Tolerance

David Wood takes on the argument that Muhammad and the Qur'an teach tolerance of other religions aired in a recent report in ABC. The verdict: Not even close!




Answering Muslims: ABC's Islam Deception--Part Four: Muhammad and Religious Tolerance

FacePalm of the Day #33 - Debunking Christianity: Jonathan Pearce's New Book on Free Will

John Loftus plugged Jonathan Pearce's new book called Free Will?: An investigation into whether we have free will, or whether I was always going to write this book. A facepalm is inevitable when atheists attempt to discuss such things. They have no point of reference. They deny that God intervenes in people's lives and history period because they deny the reality of his existence. They can't know that. As a Christian, even if one is to deny God's work in history and creation, the fact that God intervened and continues to do so in my life in a way recognizable to me is irrefutable. One might argue that they haven't seen evidence that God intervenes - making one an agnostic. Loftus was christian enough to pass on an excerpt from what Pearce sent him and I quoted from it to show what I am referring to.

I have to confess, it seems like an awful lot of interventional effort was expended by God in the direction of the Israelites, and their seemingly petty (on the scale of the history of the world) politics. The rest of the world seemed to exist perfectly well, developing their own moral and legal systems, co-operative farming techniques, civilisations and cultures, without the necessity for God to intervene. And they did this more freely, by definition of the fact that there was no influence from external agencies, from God / Jesus / the Holy Spirit.

It's a bold statement to say that God did not intervene in any of the rest of the world outside of Israel during antiquity. How would you know that? God plainly says He is in control of everything - not just with what concerns Israel. A simple example: God claims that Cyrus is his agent centuries  before Cyrus is even born.

I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.” - Isaiah 45:13

Cyrus was the emperor of the Persian Empire who ended the 70 year exile of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem and the first Temple in 586 BC. Isaiah was written in the 8th Century BC.

Another Example:

⁵ “Look at the nations and watch—
   and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
   that you would not believe,
   even if you were told.
⁶ I am raising up the Babylonians,^[a]
   that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
   to seize dwellings not their own.
⁷ They are a feared and dreaded people;
   they are a law to themselves
   and promote their own honor.
⁸ Their horses are swifter than leopards,
   fiercer than wolves at dusk.
Their cavalry gallops headlong;
   their horsemen come from afar.
They fly like an eagle swooping to devour;
 ⁹ they all come intent on violence.
Their hordes^[b] advance like a desert wind
   and gather prisoners like sand.
¹⁰ They mock kings
   and scoff at rulers.
They laugh at all fortified cities;
   by building earthen ramps they capture them.
¹¹ Then they sweep past like the wind and go on—
   guilty people, whose own strength is their god.”

Habakkuk 1:5-11

And here is one of my favorite:

 ²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
 ²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”- Acts 17: 24-31

And another one  love:

 ³⁴ At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever.
   His dominion is an eternal dominion;
   his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
³⁵ All the peoples of the earth
   are regarded as nothing.
He does as he pleases
   with the powers of heaven
   and the peoples of the earth.
No one can hold back his hand
   or say to him: “What have you done?”
 ³⁶ At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. ³⁷ Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble. - Daniel 4:34-37

Yeah, I know what the objection is:  "You can't prove the Bible is true by quoting the Bible". I'm not. I'm demonstrating that the Bible does not make the claim Pearce is making. The other thing that truly require a facepalm is one of the comments!

God giving humans free will then disavowing responsibility is like one of us giving a child dynamite to play with, waiting for him to blow himself up, then saying, "It isn't my fault! I didn't light the match!"

As coherent as I'm sure it is, it won't convince any fundies. The Arminians (if there are any left) will refuse to accept it, while the Calvinists (which is most of them) will just assume that physiology is one of the methods God uses to program us either to accept or reject him. - Cypher.

Why? If most Christians on the planet are Catholic (as so many atheists love to point out) then there is no way that most Christians are Calvinists. Most Protestants are not even Calvinists!!!! I'd like to know who this guy talks to.  exreformed suggested that Pearce get in contact and debate Matt Slick and James White. That I would like to see!!! Pearce being in the UK is not a problem!!!  Anyone can use Skype (for free) to call Dr. White's web cast Tuesdays and Thursdays 10 am and 3 pm PST respectively!!! I know he'd be more than happy to dialogue on this subject! Matt Slick also.  I'll be looking forward to that!

Debunking Christianity: Jonathan Pearce's New Book on Free Will

Calvinistic Cartoons: Who is the Seeker?

Calvinistic Cartoons: Who is the Seeker?

YouTube - Brace Yourself - Hazakim

Here is a great video based on Hazakim's song "Brace Yourself". It is one of my favorite songs. I like it!


YouTube - Brace Yourself - Hazakim

Kinect's "Minority Report" Interface - G4tv.com

I like this one! I do remember seeing Minority Report, but I think we have a better idea of what the technology could look like from Iron Man 2. The example below is very rough but could most definitely be in the near future in our homes.




Kinect's "Minority Report" Interface - G4tv.com

My Fourth Android App - WHHWappV3

Well here is the fourth version of my app for Android based on the RSS Feed of this blog. This program still doesn't show images but it does parse the feed correctly to get the images urls. Turns out that there is a bug in Google App Inventor for showing large images by url in the image control. The new thing I added to this app is button in which the post is read out loud when you press a button.
Below you can use the QR code to download the app yourself. And there is a video of the app in action alo below. I have an upcoming post on my Favorite Gadgets blog that goes into more detail on how this app was built. In the future, I want to try a version of this app that does not use App Inventor but standard development tools for Android. I'll post those results when they become available.

Three Problems of Evil by Peter S. Williams - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great lecture by Peter Williams on the "Problem of Evil". I think he answered it pretty well. There is no single answer. I think the evidential and prepositional approach are both necessary.

Three Problems of Evil by Peter S. Williams - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• A Logical Problem of Evil (omnisaffirmatioestnegatio.wordpress.com)
• Which Theologian Are You... (diglot.wordpress.com)

Advice to Christian Apologists

Here is an audio from William Lane Craig about how you can improve your apologetics ministry

Advice to Christian Apologists

Apologist Interview: Holly Ordway - Apologetics 315

Today, Brian Auten posted his interview with Dr. Holly Ordway. I really liked it! Her story of how God brought her to Himself. I like looking at why people believe what they believe. She can look back over life and see how God brought her to belief. She is clear that she first became convinced that Christianity was objectively true and that there are real good reasons to believe and seeing the Gospel lived out - then she experienced Jesus. Her story is different than a lot of people I've met. The majority of people I know personally experience God first and then as they learn more about  the reasons we know it's true outside of themselves.  I'm very analytical myself, like Dr. Ordway, but I had the experience first and then learned that my experiences have objective evidence outside of me. I praise God because this truly means that God can find you and call you in the way best for you. It also means that we can't put god in a box and make assumptions about what and who God cannot use to give people the faith they need to believe. No way is God asking anyone to believe anything without evidence.

Apologist Interview: Holly Ordway - Apologetics 315

FacePalm Quote of the Day #32 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Mark 16:9-20 False Bible Prophecies and False Miracles

Truly a post where only a FacePalm is the best comment. However, it's important to explain why this post from thegrandverbalizer calls for a FacePalm. Suggesting that the reason Jim Jones ordered his followers to take poison has a basis on a command from Jesus, given Mark 16:9-20 doesn't make any sense.

For one, in the very video it's clear that Jim Jones expected that they would all die - not miraculously live as Jesus said in the passage. Second, Jim Jones had adopted a theology that was nothing like what the Bible teaches by this point. He claimed to be God himself remember and was promoting all kinds of behaviors the Bible condemns as sin. Third, it doesn't matter if you think the passage should be canonical or not - it does not tell us that we should be drinking poison to prove that we are Jesus' followers. The suggestions made in the post and the video are fallacious and offensive. Jim Jones was not following Christ when he moved to South America and did that murder/suicide. The people were following a man - not God.




As for the Benny Hinn accusation, when you view his theology and his teachings, is there anyone who really wants to go out there and defend him and declare him a follower of Jesus Christ and that God truly works and speaks through him. C'mon, why would go after the low-lying fruit and then expect people to think that Hinn is the line of demarcation of what Christianity is and what it teaches? Really? I know of a better video that describes Benny Hinn's ministry.




Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Mark 16:9-20 False Bible Prophecies and False Miracles

Fistbump Quote of the Day #14 - Calvinistic Cartoons: Sin Avenged

Here is a quote from John Piper posted by Eddie Eddings on his blog. I like the quote and it really sums up what God is gonna do ultimately about sin!

Calvinistic Cartoons: Sin Avenged

CrossExamined Blog » Blog Archive » Is the New Testament Reliable? Even Bart Ehrman Says Yes

Here is a great article analyzing exactly what Bart Ehrman's contentions against the reliability of the New Testament are.

So why does Ehrman give one impression to the general public and the opposite to the academic world? Could it be because he can get away with casting doubt on the New Testament to an uninformed public, but not to his academic peers? Does selling books have anything to do with it? I don’t know. I just find the contradiction here quite telling– the man who gets all the attention for casting doubt on the text of the Bible, upon further review, doesn’t really doubt it himself.

CrossExamined Blog » Blog Archive » Is the New Testament Reliable? Even Bart Ehrman Says Yes

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "Jesus' Disciples were Uneducated and Illiterate."

Over on his blog, Truthbomb Apologetics, Chad has done a great post about the educational level of Jesus' followers and the authors of the Gospels in particular. It's a direct reply to the claims of Bart Ehrman.

Truthbomb Apologetics: Common Objection #14- "Jesus' Disciples were Uneducated and Illiterate."

Atheists claim that “the Old Testament still applies” | True Freethinker

Mariano has written a very great post. Here is his introduction:

You may or may not be surprised that many atheists attempt to talk Christians, and other atheists, into believing that the Old Testament still applies (they are unsuccessful with Christians but very successful with other atheists). Three examples of this follow and all such claims seem to focus, or lack focus, upon one text…to which we shall come.
So does the Old Testament still apply? Did it require savvy 21st century atheists to figure out that 2,000 years of Christian have been mistaken about the Old Testament and therefore the New?

The arrogance of atheist who use arguments like this seem to think that the arguments are new and no one has every given good credible answers to them. Mariano's answer is not new but it is powerful. I have never read and heard a good rebuttal to it.

Atheists claim that “the Old Testament still applies” | True Freethinker