FacePalm of the Day -#52 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?

Thegrandverbalizer has posted two posts that deal with how women are regarded in Islam contrasted with how Women are valued in Christianity. This discussion started from a post titled In Islam, the Majority in Hell are Women. Thegrandverbalizer commented on the post. He also posted his interactions with Sam Shaumoun on that very point about women and Hell. Having failed to rebutt Shamoun, thegrandverbalizer attempted to show that the the Bible does not say women go to heaven. I was highly offended. This does not make sense. This is where I will focus my response. My comments are in italics.

I was recently thinking sincerely about this very issue. It seems that Christianity is a bit ambigous over who 'the elect are'. Many people will say that Jesus died for 'all'. However as Calvinist are quick to point out that this is not the case. Jesus only died for a few 'elect' whom they believe God capriciously chosen before the foundations of the world.

No Bible-believing Christian thinks that God does anything capriciously. Let us look at what "capriciously" means "Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior". This doesn't describe the eternal unchangeable character of  God described in the New Testament. Maybe it does describe the Allah of the Qur'an but not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who sent Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins. The elect were chosen by God through nothing they have done of their own or in their own power. Everyone is shaped in iniquity and deserving of hell and on our way there. How can God choosing to save some of us, without rejecting anyone, be an example capriciousness while that election is predestined, eternal, and cannot be undone? Simple: it's not capricious,  

With that said text in the New Testament that tend to generalize salvation or promises of heaven to all can no longer be taken at face value or for granted.

The New Testament promises salvation to all who believes in Christ. No one can come to the son unless they are drawn by the Father (John 6:44).

The very sad thing one quickly realizes about Christian concepts of God as well as Christian concepts of salvation is that they are all very male oriented and male dominated.

Let's see if he can substantiate that.

For example within the Trinity itself God's self-love is only expressed in an eternal relationship of Masculine self-love. God -The Father, whom loves God-The Son. God -the Holy Spirit is a conduit of this love.

God the Father and the God the Holy Spirit are not Masculine. It's a category mistake to mix these things. It's amazing to me the way thegrandverbalizer mixes these things up and then wonders why it doesn't make sense. 

Now it is interesting within the Trinity there is no concept of Feminine self-love expressed any where. There is no Mother and no Daughter in the Trinity.

There isn't any  real concept of  "masuline self-love" in the Trinity either.

Now we can understand that God not necessarily need be masculine, yet how unfortunate that the concept of God dwelling in community of eternal self-love includes only manifestations of the masculine.

Huh?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.(John 16:13)-The Holy Spirit is expressed here in terms of the masculine.

The word translated "he" in this text, transliterated Ekeinos, means "he, she it, etc." This means that thinking of the Holy Spirit in a masculine way misses the meaning of the text. Often times in old English "he" did not now just refer to just men.

What about heaven is there a place for Christian women?

Alongside men. 

Do keep in mind that there are some very negative sentiments towards women in general in the Bible.

This ought to be good.

"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

Context please. Is the text referring to all women? Notice he didn't give the entire passage.

²⁶ I find more bitter than death
   the woman who is a snare,
whose heart is a trap
   and whose hands are chains.
The man who pleases God will escape her,
   but the sinner she will ensnare.
 ²⁷ “Look,” says the Teacher,^[a] “this is what I have discovered:
   “Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things—
 ²⁸ while I was still searching
   but not finding—
I found one upright man among a thousand,
   but not one upright woman among them all. 

Why think this passage is saying that there are no upright women? Keep in mind that the Bible also tells us of the righteousness of many women by name. It's impossible to honestly make the argument that the Bible teaches that men are more righteous than women.

No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

Ecclesiasticus is not even part of the cannon and I can't find any compelling reason to think of Ecclesiasticus as inspired scripture. The ,majority of Christians don't either. I don't even know why thegrandverbalizer would bring it up.

St. Tertullian is reported to have said,

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die." (The Gospel According to Woman, London: Elm Tree Books, 1986, pp. 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists Philadelphia: Westminster Press pp.28-30)

St. Tertullian was not speaking under the inspiration of God. He doesn't speak of what I believe nor does scripture substantiate his words.

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)  we have no record of Jesus calling Mary, Mother.

I've written an article about 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 and about what it means for women's rights using a parallel passage in 1 Timothy 2:11. What does pointing out no quotes of Jesus calling Mary "Mother" prove? Nothing.

John 2:1-5 [1] And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: [2] And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. [3] And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. [4] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. [5] His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

How beautiful, loving and intimate it would have used the word 'mother' instead of just 'woman'.

So is thegrandverbalizer saying that the same Jesus in the Qur'an said and acted this way in John 2:1-5? If so then is he saying that Jesus behaved in an unloving way to his own mother? I hope not. Because I see nothing in the text or in the Qur'an denigrating Mary.

Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Now the above passage is simply talking about status in the mystical union Christians have in Christ).

Not just about our union with Christ it's talking about our equality with one another in God's sight. It's saying that both men and women are heirs to God's promises.

There is still rank in the Earth. Notice the Holy Spirit informs us that women rank below men.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

The ranking is in terms of role and not a statement of ontological value. It's not saying that women are less valuable than men. If the verse says that men being the head makes women inferior than it is also saying that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. This interpretation supports Islam not Christianity and does not correspond to what what the text says. This passage is pack with substantive thoughts. Being the "head" is not about being served its about serving those who follow you. Jesus came to us as a servant ministering to our needs and this is the picture given to the relationship between a husband and his wife.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.(Ephesians 6:5)

The command was not just binding on slaves but also on masters. The context is missing.

 ⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶ Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷ Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, ⁸ because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
 ⁹ And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.- Ephesians 6:5-9

What do we have here? This passage far from tells people that slaves are less than their masters.  It not only admonishes slaves but their masters also treat each other as equals serving one another as if they are serving God.

We (believers) shall be like Him (Jesus): All Christians transformed into Sons of God.

1Jn:3:2. Beloved, now we are now the sons of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

1Jn:3:3: And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Comments: One thing you will learn very quickly is that this 'we' quickly becomes a reference to men only. Notice it says that 'we' shall be like him. When it says 'everyone' this again is a reference only to men. It says who purifies 'himself' just as he is pure.

There is nothing in the text excludes women. None of the pronouns or adjectives in the passage that refers to believers exclude women. Go to this link and check out the Greek words referring to believers in this passage yourself and see that none of them are exclusively masculine nor needs to be understood that way.

What is the proof that the children of God are not daughters but sons? The New Testament is replete with evidence of it.

Let's see if thegrandverbalizer can deliver proof of this conclusion.

Eph:1:4-5. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...

He (God) chose 'us' as adoption as sons...not daughters!

I'm not sure what translation thegrandverbalizer is using but I see the KJV rendering this as 

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Not only does this verse clearly teaches predestined election, but it is also clearly not excluding women. In old English, mixed gender groups were often referred to collectively using masculine personal pronouns.  This is all this is. No proof that women are not included in salvation here. 

John 1:12- 13. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Again this verse can't be used to prove thegrandverbalizer conclusion because the "sons of God" cannot be restricted to men only. Check out the Greek word for yourself under "sons" at this link.

1 John 3:1. Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God ! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

Looking up "sons of God" here give you the same results as for John 1:12,13. Check out this link.


Rom:8:15: For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father.

Rom:8:14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.


Hosea 1:10 "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Comments: Now some may muse that 'Israelites' here would be a reference to both men and women. However it is not women who were created to become the sons of God. Women were simply created for the good pleasure of men.

No where does the Bible say women were created for the good pleasure of men. Also Romans 8:13-14 does not restrict believers to only men. Just look up the Greek and see that there is nothing in the language excluding women. As for Hosea 1:10 the Hebrew word translated "sons" is obviously plural and in that form both men and women are included.

The New Testament affirms this when it says,
"neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:9)

"A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
(1 Corinthians 11:7)

These passages are not describing the only purpose of women to be serving men. 1st Corinthians 11 is talking about the order of creation - showing how the roles of men and women are symbolic of Jesus and the Church. This isn't a discussion of ontological value in the slightest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus was sent only to save men!

Huh?

John 1:7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

Paul says quite clearly about who God wants saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.


"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

There is nothing in these verses that exclude women. Look up the word translated "men".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The children of God are never 'daughters of God' they are always 'sons of God'.


Romans 8:14-19


14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.

Comments: All the men will be able to share in the glory of God and Christ. The glory of God and Christ both of whom are masculine presence. In the passage above 'God's children'and 'sons of God' are used interchangeably. God's children are his sons. They are never his daughters!

No verse in the Bible says that God's Children are never daughters. The Greek and Hebrew languages don't bear this out.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

Again "sons" does not exclude women. It's not the Bible's fault that we don't have such a pronoun in English that grammatically fits that verse including both genders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

So I guess thegrandverbalizer thinks that Christians believe they have to love their brothers but hate their sisters? I hope not. That would be stupid. Obviously the verse is not excluding women although thegrandverbalizer is trying to twist it into a pretzel to get that conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1)

No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins(parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)

Not one of the 144,000 is a woman! No women are ever mentioned to be in the kingdom of heaven! In Christianity as explained above women are created for men not for the glory of God.

Remember it says "who did not defile themselves with women" -This also means sex in marriage. Men are created for heaven as they reflect ultimately the glory of God. Women however only reflect the glory of the men as the Bible tells us...

Hold up. The Bible does not say that only 144,000 people are going to heaven. That's Jehovah Witness dogma not Bible teaching.

9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. - Revelation 7:9.

Who says that sex with your wife defiles you in God's eyes? No where in the Bible does it say that. The number of men and women in heaven will be great and a lot more than 144,000.

"A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
(1 Corinthians 11:7)

There you have it folks! Jesus was sent to save the men. Those men who accept Jesus will be accepted as God's sons. They will become the sons of God.

There wasn't a single Biblical passage thegrandverbalizer used that substantiated that claim. Women are not excluded from Salvation.

Some modern translations of the Bible have tried to say 'children of God' or they even have gender sensitive Bibles now! They do this to cover up the facts and the truth. That Christianity does not have a heaven for women! In Christianity the ideal scenario is virgin men in mystical union with (The Son (masculine), The Father (masculine) and the Holy Spirit (masculine).

No where does the Bible paint such a picture as this "ideal" in thegrandverbalizer's imagination. As for his charge regarding translations hiding male centeredness, the Greek texts from which the translation come don't exclude women. Therefore at times "children of God" is a more accurate translation.


This is unlike heaven as Allah mentioned in the Qur'an. It is for every one. Men and women! Notice the ambiguous nature in the New Testament as to the salvation and status of women in the hereafter and contrast that with the very crystal clear teachings of the Holy Qur'an!

What ambiguity. Lots of smoke and mirrors were introduced to suggest that either the Bible is not clear about women's salvation but just opening up the Bible and reading it show that this is not true.

"Women shall derive benefit from what they aquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything." (Holy Qur'an chapter 4 verse 32)

I'm glad that the Qur'an makes such a statement. I agree. However the Bible does not conflict with the Qur'an on that point. I always find it interesting what verses and passages people use when they are trying to prove a point. I would have like to have seen thegrandverbalizer explain how the following passages support his conclusion that the salvation of women is not a part of Christianity.

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. - 1 Peter 3:7

Realize that husbands are called to look after their wives and treat them with dignity not because they are weaker or of lesser value but because they are to submit to and obey their husbands. This passage says that women are heirs with men (they go to heaven too) and if a husband fails to treat his wife considerately, God will ignore his prayers! That is indeed high esteem from God for women.

What about this passage:

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? - 1 Cor 7:15,16

This passage definitely teaches that a man or a woman can be saved. And thegrandverbalizer admitted that Christians believe that if you are saved you go to heaven. He refutes himself.

Additionally if woman can't be saved or have a value then why were there female deacons and teachers in the early church? Why did Jesus spend his time directly ministering to the needs of women (ie John 4)? The more you look at thegrandverbalizer's thesis the more impressively wrong it is.

I did look at thegrandverbalizer's attempt to get around the Islamic text about the majority of the population of hell are women, but I don't think he managed to prove that wrong than he did trying to shift the discussion to the salvation of women in the Bible. How do you get around this?

Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women." - Sahih Al Bukhari: Vol. 1:28, 301

Thegrandverbalizer has not managed to explain why would understand that passage any differently.



Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

Signature in the Cell is an awesome book. One of the things I like about the book is how Stephen C. Meyer explains how DNA works as digital code and gives a lot of background about information theory as well as a history of how the DNA was discovered and studied! There is an accompanying website that includes links to debates in which Dr. Meyer defends his book and research. The site also includes a really nice video showing how DNA is read and used by cells in Animation. I love this stuff! It really is a lot like how computers encode information. Check out the website.

Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelley Williams-Bolar Released By Judge Patricia Cosgrove

Finally, some good news on a news story that has not been in mainstream news.

Kelley Williams-Bolar was released from the Summit County Jail Wednesday morning after serving all but one day of a 10-day jail sentence for improperly enrolling her children in Copley-Fairlawn schools.

A jail official confirmed Williams-Bolar was released at about 10 a.m.

Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove gave Williams-Bolar credit for one day of time served when she was arrested and jailed on multiple felony charges in November 2009, court records show.

On Jan. 18, Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail after a jury convicted her of two felony counts of tampering with records.

The offenses involved several instances of signed or sworn school registration forms, applications for reduced or free school lunches and other official documents authorized by Williams-Bolar when she enrolled her two girls in Copley-Fairlawn schools in August 2006.

In other developments in the case, Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville said he planned to meet with Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh at 2 p.m. Wednesday to discuss the issue of why the case could not have been resolved without the filing of felony charges.

Williams-Bolar, a single mother who was going to college and working as a teaching assistant at Buchtel High School, had no previous record.

Within hours of the sentencing hearing, Cosgrove spoke out after becoming the target of public outcry over the case, which threatens the mother's job and her hopes to become a school teacher.

Cosgrove said the prosecutor's office refused to consider reducing the charges to misdemeanors during numerous closed-door talks to resolve the case outside of court. (source)

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelley Williams-Bolar Released By Judge Patricia Cosgrove

Related articles

• Kelley Williams-Bolar: Mom jailed for wanting to give kids a better life (salon.com)
• Ohio Woman Double Felon For Sending Kids To Good School (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Mom Convicted of Felony, Jailed for Fraudulently Sending Kids to Safer School [Ohio] (gawker.com)
• Why Is Kelley Williams-Bolar In Jail For Sending Her Kids To A Suburban School? (education.change.org)

FacePalm of the Day #51 -Debunking Christianity: Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations

John Loftus recently responded a really great question about natural explanations vs "Faith-based" explanations. As usual, his response leads to multiple Facepalms. My comments will be in italics. First here is the quote Loftus is referring to in his comments.

I'm quite aware of the differences between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I have not misinterpreted John's view of science. Rather, I have questioned why he would state that science assumes natural explanations for all phenomena on the one hand, then ask believers to corroborate supernatural explanations through science. -cl

I must admit this is a great question. The objection is that if I demand that supernatural explanations must abide by the rules of science which only admit natural explanations, then supernatural explanations by definition don't have a chance. This is definitely a quandary of sorts. Let me respond.

It's nice to see John Loftus responding to an objection that I think his position must logically be able to answer. Unfortunately, it goes down quickly from here.

We should note first of all that science qua science must look for natural explanations because that's what science does. It cannot do otherwise lest it be subservient to different kinds of supernatural explanations. If that's the case then there would be separate scientific methods resulting in a Mormon science, a Muslim science, a Christian science and so forth. Alvin Plantinga actually recommends that there should be a distinctively Christian science, something which Michael Martin strongly objects to.

Okay so far?

Not by a long shot. In no way does allowing supernatural explanations mean subservience to different kinds of supernatural explanations nor scientific methods resulting in different sciences. FacePalm number 1. If this was true then that would lead to thinking that there are multiple gods. If so then Judaism, Islam, and Christianity would all be ruled out. Mormonism allows for multiple gods so they'd still be okay. What is worse is that they conflict with one another in fundamental ways. You can't starts from either place and consistently arrive to the same conclusions. Observing the natural world shows that this doesn't make sense. Science is not possible without presupposing that the natural world is understandable, repeatable, and predictable. If you had to view the world from conflicting religious points of view science would not possible.

Granted there are probably a lot of things the sciences cannot explain, from the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and consciousness (or at least, they have difficulties in doing so). That's where there is room for faith. Until such time as the sciences can explain everything believers can still have faith. But that doesn't seem within reach, and may never happen, so there will always be room for faith.

I still don't like Loftus' definition of faith. Biblical faith is built on the trust from evidence of past experience and relationship with God. It is not leaping in the dark or wishful thinking in the absence or contradiction of verifiable facts. Facepalm #2.

That's the way it has to be. A believer should ask for no more than this. The sciences must look for natural explanations. There is no other alternative.

The way Loftus has defined faith forces these conclusions. I ask for a more accurate definition of faith.

So, am I being hypocritical or inconsistent when I demand that believers should corroborate supernatural explanations through the sciences?

No, for a few good reasons.

Yes it is hypocritical but given the way Loftus defines faith it is consistent. However any argument starting with erroneous presuppositions is always going to be wrong - especially if is consistent.

1) Theistic explanations have failed miserably in every generation as science has shown these explanations unnecessary. It's this overwhelming success that leads me to think science offers much better explanations than theistic ones. So it's based on the success of science that I make my claim. I have been persuaded that supernatural explanations are a dime a dozen and debunked so many times before that I have no reason to think any additional moving of the goal posts will succeed. For once science explains something then theists move the goal posts to a different problem because science opens up new questions to be solved as it solves previous ones. So in one sense I have concluded something from science and then turned around and demanded that supernatural explanations cannot succeed by demanding they adhere to the standards of science. Theists not already persuaded as I am, will claim I'm hypocritical or inconsistent because they do not already think as I do about the sciences. In fact, believers regularly denigrate science to believe, and I find that appalling given it's success rate.

So believers will not appreciate my demand until they appreciate what the sciences do for us. I'm merely saying that science works. Belief does not, which is my next point.

Science is trial and error. It comes up with multiple wrong answers before it comes up with good ones that explain reality. Nothing wrong with that. I don't know of a single theistic explanation for the physical world that is taught in the Bible that has been disproved in science. People who make such assertions seem to conflate what religious people have said and done in God's name with what God has really said. The truth is that they are not always the same thing. The church said that Galileo was wrong and that the sun went around the earth. The Bible does not say that. Some religious people argued that the earth was flat, the Bible doesn't. Some religious folks believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old but the Bible does not. Some people have made such beliefs a test of orthodoxy and the Bible does not.

2) What else is there but the sciences? Faith-based reasoning is best defined as "belief in search of data." There are too many different and contradictory religious claims being made. How can we settle these disputes? We cannot do so with faith-based reasoning because it only confirms what was believed in the first place. Such a method (if we can call it that) fails miserably time and again. This is best shown faulty when we see that it cannot help us decide between these different faith claims. Furthermore, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical for believers to use the sciences to debunk other religious claims who fail to use the sciences against what they themselves believe. If believers admit a science-based reasoning to debunk other religious claims then they tacitly admit doing so is fruitful and effective to examine their own religious claims. For believers to object that I'm demanding something unreasonable they must explain why they apply the sciences to the religious claims they reject.

How does Loftus show that science disproves all religions and none of the stand up to scientific tests? Not being able to scientifically confirm a miracle does not mean it didn't happen. A miracle is not necessarily open to scientific experimentation. FacePalm #3. How do the contradictions among religion have anything to do with scientific investigation? It doesn't. No amount of experimentation is going to prove or disprove that Jesus was Resurrected or as Islam claims that he was not crucified at all. Science can show us that a man who is under the conditions and loads caused by being crucified could not have survived. We can scientifically discuss and autopsy a crucified person given the level of knowledge we have of human bodies. This negates the swoon theory.

3) Finally, I find nothing about my demand that should in principle lead to a rejection of theistic claims. I think supernatural explanations could be the best explanations of certain phenomena, even granting that the sciences look for natural explanations. The fact that so far supernatural explanations don't succeed is not the fault of the sciences. It's the fault of supernatural explanations. It's because there are no supernatural forces or beings. If they existed then science should be able to detect them since science is based on the five senses. There is no sixth sense. It would find it duplicitous for a god to create us with our five senses and not also provide the sensory evidence to believe if he wants us to believe.

There was no example given of failed supernatural explanations from the Bible. FacePalm #4. We aren't supposed to know God because of our five senses. We know God when He chooses to reveal Himself to us. We don't call Him. He calls us. I agree with many atheist who think that "God did it" is an unsatisfactory explanation for most things. It's not even needed most of the time because I view science as studying what God did and how He did it. We have physical laws that we can understand and use to describe reality as it is despite the biases we may have given our senses that can't give us a complete picture of the world. Without Faith it impossible to understand those things that our science fails to give us answers for. Like for example: why do we suffer? Why is there evil? God isn't hiding and wants us to know Him but it is not on our terms. The relationship is on God's terms.

Debunking Christianity: Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations

My Common Sense Is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jesse Bering

John Loftus posted the following quote by Jesse Bering and I don't understand something:

Does all this disprove God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible. If philosophy rules the day, God can never be ruled out entirely, because one could argue that human cognitive evolution was directly and intentionally inspired by God, so we alone, of all species, can perceive Him (and reality in general) using our naturally evolved theory of mind. But if scientific parsimony prevails, and I think it should, such philosophical positioning becomes embarrassingly like grasping at straws. (The Belief Instinct, p. 195-

Given my confusion may be because I haven't read this in context of the entire book but I want to know how is it grasping at straws? Bering agrees that God cannot be ruled out. God created everything including how we think then He has made a relationship with Him dependent on revelation by Him. In effect we don't have the tools to independently confirm God's existence without Him. Considering there is nothing at all for which we have complete independence, this shouldn't be a surprise. I also don't know why this is problematic.

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. - John 6:43-59

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Jesse Bering

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelly Williams-Bolar Exclusive Interview From Jail [VIDEO]

Yesterday, I read an article about Kelly Williams-Bolar who is spending time in jail (ten days) because she sent her daughters to a school in the suburbs instead of the inner city. All she did was say that her children lived with their father instead of with her in the projects. To make it worse, they are going to make her pay the suburban school district more than $30K back to the school district to make up for educating her children for 2 years. They look at it like she stole money from them. That really sucks, in my opinion. It's like they are saying that children can't be considered as belonging to the same household as their father as well as their mother. In California, if parents have joint-custody, some liberties are taken and their situation is taking into account. In this woman's case, I don't know how involved in the children's lives the father is involved but I think that the punishment is unwarranted and the attitude is racist. Beyond question, the school they children were supposed to go to is horrible. Why shouldn't they have a better opportunity because their father lives outside the community. And how is educating a child stealing from any community? Oh yeah, that's right the children are black and poor. Can't have that.





Single Black Mother Jailed for Sending Her Kids to "Better" School District [UPDATE]

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Jailed Akron Mom, Kelly Williams-Bolar Exclusive Interview From Jail [VIDEO]

CSLewis Case for Christ.pps

Here is a great powerpoint that explains and lays out an introduction to CS Lewis, his theology, and his apologetic (defense) of Christianity. This powerpoint is really great for learning about Apologetics and from a historical viewpoint. I didn't create this powerpoint but it's too awesome not to share.

CSLewis Case for Christ

More PowerPoint presentations from Marcus McElhaney

Thinking God's Thoughts: Is Christianity 7 Times Incoherent?

I thought that this post from Brennon is awesome. In a relatively short post he managed to demolish seven objections to Christianity based around the charge against Christianity that is inconsistent and coherent. Brennon makes really good points and I would tend to think that if one honestly considers them, one must come to the conclusion that they are unassailable.

Thinking God's Thoughts: Is Christianity 7 Times Incoherent?

Related articles

• A neutral worldview? (barefootbum.blogspot.com)
• Why do some religions worship idols (wiki.answers.com)

The Ehrman Project: Resources Answering Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has brought attention to a project that I didn't know about - a cache of resources that answer the claims and arguments of Dr. Bart Ehrman. Many people have taken Ehrman as an authority that the Bible, especially the New Testament, is unreliable and you can't know what it really says. Further they seem to think that all experts in Biblical Studies agree with him. That's not true and this particular web site makes this abundantly clear. Here is a quote from the introduction to the project.

Welcome to the Ehrman Project.
Dr. Bart Ehrman is raising significant questions about the reliability of the Bible. In an engaging way, he is questioning the credibility of Christianity. His arguments are not new, which he readily admits. Numerous Biblical scholars profoundly disagree with his findings. This site provides responses to Dr. Ehrman's provocative conclusions.

The Ehrman Project: Resources Answering Bart Ehrman - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• For what purpose was the Bible written? (beinghuman.blogs.fi)
• The Ehrman project - critically engaging the work of Bart Ehrman (westernthm.wordpress.com)

Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases

My Common Sense is tingling again. John Loftus recently posted the following:

Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. Link

Why do I keep writing about this? Because we know humans are prone to these biases. We know this. So we should all become skeptics. We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true. We should adopt a science-based reasoning rather than a faith-based reasoning. Dr. James Alcock defined faith-based reasoning as "belief in search of data." Given the cognitive biases this is simply a wrong-headed approach if we want to know the truth.

Unless John Loftus is not human (I'm assuming he is and I hope that is not a cognitive bias),  isn't he also prone to cognitive bias? How does he know he has eliminated his biases against the Bible and God? I'm skeptical that he can or has. I don't even think he can see his perceptual distortions, inaccurate judgments, or illogical interpretations. Why shouldn't science-based reasoning also have the same level of skepticism as faith? There are things about reality that we all agree are true yet can't be substantiated or examined using the scientific method.  They can't be weighed, counted, or measured. John Loftus seems to draw the line to stop his skepticism, entrenching his own biases, at the points he is capable and not just unwilling to change but also unable to change.


Debunking Christianity: A Listing of Cognitive Biases

The ‘Black Panther’ Animated Series Arrives On DVD - Check Out An Exclusive Clip & Interview!

I am so going to buy a copy of this DVD. I do want more episodes made. In this article there is a short interview with Reginald Hudlin. He answered some questions about the production that I had wanted to know. He even revealed that the show was made in the United States and not animated in Taiwan, China, or Japan like most animated series these days. If you missed the series you have the chance to go get a copy and do your part to get more episodes of this series made.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

The ‘Black Panther’ Animated Series Arrives On DVD - Check Out An Exclusive Clip & Interview!

The Theistic Experience: Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? David Helfand and Ken Miller@Columbia University

Here is a debate between David Helfand and Ken Miller about how what we know beyond science.


Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.

The Theistic Experience: Knowledge Beyond Science: How Can We Know the Truth Outside the Material Realm? David Helfand and Ken Miller@Columbia University

YouTube - Hamas imam says "KIll all the Jews"

Image via Wikipedia
Aren't you glad that not all Muslims think like them. Unfortunately those who do think this way are more than will to carry out such things.




YouTube - Hamas imam says "KIll all the Jews"

Science Can Make the Princess Leia Hologram (Really, Really Poorly) - Topless Robot

Imagine using this thing to make a phone call! I don't think it looks that bad. To think it uses current technology shows how close we really are in using 3D holograms for communication.




Science Can Make the Princess Leia Hologram (Really, Really Poorly) - Topless Robot

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Has the Qur'an been perfectly preserved: Debate

Here is a debate between Bassam Zawadi vs Nabeel Qureshi on the reliability of the transmission of the Qur'an.







Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Has the Qur'an been perfectly preserved: Debate

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: David Wood: Uncommon Calling?

I have not seen a better example of ad hominem attack on a person than I saw on this article from thegrandverbalizer against David Wood. I'm not surprised. When you can't refute a man's theology or arguments, attacking his character and personal likes and dislikes is the tactic of next resort. For example, thegrandverbalizer tries to use mistakes David Wood made as a young person before he was saved as proof that he should not be trusted. I notice a great deal of the story is not described that David Wood has been on record referencing. Thegrandverbalizer really does not like David Wood. I thought that his misplaced indignation was only directed to Dr James White. I was wrong about the scope of his dislike. Thegrandverbalizer wrote:

Than there comes the mentally unstable Christian with very erratic behavior. It is not just simply having an issue with Islam, but it's finding cause to join with anyone or anything that is simply Anti-Islamic just for the sake of being Anti-Islamic .....even if it is crude, sinister and down right dark.... So this brings me to David Wood. A man who was arrested for attempted murder for bludgeoning his own father with a ball penn hammer!

Now later, it is stated that Wood later became a Christian, but the critique leaves out an important point. David Wood explains (the time I'm thinking of is when he debated John Loftus) that he was a raised an atheist and that his father used to tell David that he was God. He didn't give very much detail then and it has little bearing on how reliable the man is now. We all have sinned...especially before we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. In addition thegrandverbalizer tries insinuate that David Wood is a homosexual. Why? Simple, he can't really refute him. He can't win in a debate so he tries to throw David's character under the bus. Thegrandverbalizer even goes as far as trying to cast David Wood as being immoral and untrustworthy because of the movies and books he likes. These are really pathetic arguments that I think are being made to try to get other Muslims to ignore the arguments and work David Wood does.

Just why is he hated so much? Look at the commentary and video David Wood posted regarding the discovery of a terrorist training camp in the United States.

I find this video both racist and Islamophobic. Everyone knows that if Muslims are preparing to wage Jihad in your country, the "tolerant" thing to do is ignore it. Then, once they have carried out the terrorist attack, the "tolerant" thing to do is to deny that it had anything to do with Muhammad's clear commands to wage Jihad.

His comments are insightful and uses sarcasm and humor to make his point about how stupid our policies are towards people (not all Muslims) who because of how they read their scriptures are mandated to kill us. To make it worse, David Wood and his partners in ministry are really good in showing that those Muslims we label as extreme are really the ones correctly following the Historical Islam and those who are preaching tolerance and love are re-interpreting their scriptures out of their context. Is it any wonder that David Wood, James White, and the others ministering to Muslims are hated by some people? Hatred is the only response they have.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: David Wood: Uncommon Calling?

Related articles

• She wants to enter Islam; do her two children have to say the Shahaadah too? (xeniagreekmuslimah.wordpress.com)
• Not too much Islam, too little Christianity (geneveith.com)

Answering Muslims: WomanForTruth101 on "Laughable Reinterpretations" of the Qur'an

David Wood posted a response to a person called WomanForTruth1o1. I think David Wood responded very well and it's worth reading and comparing how he consistently treats the Qur'an and the gymnastics Muslims must go through to get around what the Qur'an clearly says to reconcile the Qur'an to what they know is reality - especially when it comes to how one should live today. I think what Wood wrote at the end of the article is worth quoting:

On a different note, if WomenForTruth101 is correct, I don't see how she can call people to Islam. If the Qur'an frequently means the exact opposite of what it says, then perhaps when it commands people to reject the Deity of Christ, it actually means that they should accept the Deity of Christ. Maybe when the Qur'an says that Jesus didn't die, it actually means that he did die. When the Qur'an denies the Trinity, it could be affirming the Trinity. Once Muslims have destroyed the clear meaning of the Qur'an, aren't all interpretations equal?

Follow the link to read the post.

Answering Muslims: WomanForTruth101 on "Laughable Reinterpretations" of the Qur'an

Isaiah 10 and God's Kingship

Here is a recent sermon from James White talking about how Isaiah 10 frames how we should think of the Kingship of God over our lives.




Isaiah 10 and God's Kingship

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

Dr Mariottini has posted another article continuing his study of Amos. This time he looks at the word from God about a objective moral and social values - His standards - represented by a plumb line.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Amos’ Third Vision and the Plumb Line

Related articles

• Plumb lines (jennydavidson.blogspot.com)

Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day

Here is a quote from John Loftus that must be rejected on the grounds of common sense.

The bottom line is that the odds of a resurrection from my experience are at 0%. No Bayesian analysis can multiply 0 with any other number and get any more than 0. That's what the probabilities are. So I am skeptical of the extraordinary claim that Jesus resurrected since I cannot dismiss my present experience. I must judge the past from my present. I cannot do otherwise! Coupled with the fact that when I read the NT it provides its own demise there is no reason to believe such a claim EVEN IF IT IS TRUE! --John W. Loftus

How does Loftus know that the odds of a resurrection are 0%? He says it is because of his experience. Does that mean truth can only be determined by your experience? I hope not. No one, not even Loftus, applies this idea to every area of life. Think about it. I didn't experience the moon landing. I don't personally know anyone who went to the moon or worked on the projects. Footage can be faked. Most of the evidence I have is second hand or further from the actual events. Should I throw away all the evidence I do have and conclude the moon landings were all lies? I don't think so. Neither do most people think that there isn't enough evidence to believe men walked on the moon.

Please note, I know that some folks will balk at comparing the Resurrection with the moon landing but i think the analogy works.  Just like the moon landing there were eye witnesses to the events of the Resurrection who testified to it being true . And from my point of view (being only 35 years old) they are similar because I didn't personally witness either one.

Think about what Loftus is saying. He thinks because he has never seen or observed a resurrection there never could have been one. Miracles are often not repeatable. That is why they are called "miracles".It seems simply silly to conclude that there is no reason to believe Jesus rose from the dead just because there isn't evidence you will accept and then admit that it could still be true. Does anyone really think that when you stand before Jesus to give an account for your life that will be the bottom line. Could you look Jesus in the face and say "I would have believed if you had given me the evidence that would have convinced me." We already know what His answer will be.

 ²⁷ “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, ²⁸ for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

   ²⁹ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

   ³⁰ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

   ³¹ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” - Luke 16: 27-31

You might not like the answers and evidences God has given us, but I wouldn't try to tell Him he is wrong.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day

Lessons in God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility: Joseph

James White recently gave a sermon at his home church explaining how Genesis 50 shows how Joseph could look over his roller coaster life full of all kinds of unwelcomed drama and come to the conclusions he reached and forgave his brothers when it was them selling him into slavery was the start of his problems. But it also led to the result of him becoming the number two man in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself. It cemented Egypt's place as one of the world's first superpowers. And saved Egypt, Canaan, and all the surrounding nations from a 7 year famine! Dr. White explains in his presentation how and why Joseph could tell his brothers:

But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. - Genesis 50:19-21

Please note that the image on this article depicts the only reasonable and logical response created creatures such as ourselves should give to the one who made us and is sovereign over all reality - prostrating ourselves at the throne of God.

Lessons in God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility: Joseph

Apologist Interview: Jay Richards - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted his interview with Jay Richards. I really enjoy Jay Richards work and I think he's made significant contributions to science and philosophy. The work he has done that was showcased in the video Privileged Planet is really interesting. The thought that the earth just isn't in the best
relative position that we can measure and that all the physical constants are fine-tuned for life to exist on earth as we know it, but to top all of that we live in the best possible place to be able to do scientific measurement and investigation. It is also exciting to take note of that we are also at the right time and have developed the right technology to be able to detect evidence of the Big Bang. It is also interesting to recognize that in the future the universe would have expanded too far and will have cooled down too much to detect that there ever was a Big Bang by our current technology. I don't have enough faith (defined the way the world defines it now) or evidence to conclude it is just coincidence. You can follow the link below to listen to the interview.


Apologist Interview: Jay Richards - Apologetics 315

Second MCTS Podcast with Richard Barcellos: Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura

The 2nd Podcast interview of James White by Richard Barcellos has been posted.

 White and Barcellos | Interview 2 from MCTS on Vimeo.

Second MCTS Podcast with Richard Barcellos:Sola Scriptura vs. Solo Scriptura

Is the New Testament Evil?

Is the New Testament Evil?

Is There a God?: William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger - apologetics - blip.tv

Here is a debate on the existence of God by William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger




Is There a God?: William Lane Craig vs Victor Stenger - apologetics - blip.tv

FacePalm of the Day #50 - exMinister1's Top Ten Grieviances Against Christians

You might ask why FacePalm one of the comments and not the article. I don't know if LadyAtheist just doesn't know that her objections have answers and God lovers her or if she has already heard the message, understands the message, and rejects it. As for exMinister1, if he really was a minister of the gospel he should know better. That is FacePalm. He only presented 5 objections, but here are my answers in italics.

Top Ten against Christians might be entertaining.

My top 1 would be how do these guys believe all this B.S? They really twist logic into a heavily used telephone cord to make everything fit.

This is a bold assertion sure would like to see him back that up to show twisted logic and why it's twisted. This is an assumption with nothing back it up. 

The second would be they claim the bible can be taken literally and yet doing so they cannot agree with each other.

The idea that people disagree with what taking the Bible literally means does not mean that the Bible is wrong. That mean some or our all the interpretations are wrong. When we stand before God to give account it won't be based on what others believe but on what you personally believed. 

Third - they all understand science better than scientist.

What about believers who are also scientists. Do they stop being credible scientists because they agree with what the Bible says? Nope. The thought behind this point does not take into account that a person can be a Christian and a Scientist.

Fourth - They are offended if you doubt their word.

Why are atheists offended by a Christian's faith? I'm not personally offended by doubt. What I find offensive is that many Atheists think that they not only do they know that the Bible is wrong about God's existence but that they know that there is nothing more than the material world. They would argue that a person is no more than the sum of his/her parts. They reject the concepts of the soul, mind, and spirit. They make many presuppositions that they can't possibly prove in the name of it making sense to them.

Fifth - even though the Bible clearly tells them this world is a lost cause and they should focus only on the church they need to change the law of the land and be one nation under god. Nation building. The OT shows the failure of that. I ask them where did Jesus say his chosen should get involved in Roman politics.

Let's talk about what Jesus commanded his followers to do:

¹⁶ Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ¹⁷¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matthew 28:16-20

Let's use common sense here: How are you supposed to go out and make disciples without standing against the evil of society?  It's was no different in the first century. This is why so many Christians were martyred and executed - standing up for what they knew to be true. It isn't about nation building. It's all about kingdom building. It is far from a lost cause because Jesus already won this thing.

Can't think of any others at the moment but I am sure it wouldn't be hard to flesh that out. What do you think?

Christians are people. Repentant sinners? Yes. Sinless perfection? No. We are still working on it. God is still working on us. Christians will continue to make mistakes but real Christians will not continue to practice sin and make excuses for their sins. Can I come up with a list of things Christians do that I don't like? Easy to do, but pointless. However we should be living our lives to fulfill the purpose of our creator - not to make anyone else happy.

Lady Atheist: My Top Ten Grievances Against the Bible

Related articles

• Preach The Gospel!!!!!!!!!!! (nytegod45.wordpress.com)
• (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 2) (war-on-error.xanga.com)
• Presuppositional Apologetics: Why Avoid The Quetions?.....Unless You Don't Like The Answers... (outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com)

A Fine-Tuned Universe: Science, Theology and the Quest for Meaning by Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted links to a lecture series by Dr. Alister McGrath in which he discusses the ramifications of of what a fine-tuned universe means to the origin of life and several other issues. Follow the link to Apologetics 315 to get the lectures.


A Fine-Tuned Universe: Science, Theology and the Quest for Meaning by Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315

Calvinistic Cartoons: Humility Demands

Calvinistic Cartoons: Humility Demands