Saturday, February 12, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #57 - Debunking Christianity: Failure by Divine Design (A Christian Construction of Unbelief)

John Loftus posted a video recently in which the video's author tries to explain why believers believe.

He first sets up the argument that faith is mis-defined from Bible basically that Faith is believing the Bible and the Resurrection even if we have contradictory evidence. FacePalm number 1: This is not how God defines faith and the video presents no contradictory evidence but instead says that believers wouldn't stop believing even given contradictory evidence. I would say that I believe and I cannot find contradictory evidence. I agree that someone would raise the objection that presenting contradictory evidence was not the point of the video but it assumes that there is contradictory evidence without proof.

He then tries to say that unbelievers are a threat to believers and that we need theological reasons to explain why they don't believe. The fact that such videos and books as this one exists tells me that unbelievers are feeling just as threatened by believers (if not more). The question must be asked by both sides: There are intelligent people who disagree with me about my religion being true - why am I right and they are wrong? Of course the first Christians had to answer this just like we do today. The video's author does recognize that the Bible gives answers to this question - regarding Jews rejecting Christianity and people in general. He admits that the Bible teaches that a person who turns away from God was never really a Christian. Of course instead of taking the Bible's words as true he attempts to suggest that it's PR stunts that Paul and the Apostles used that people should be too smart to fall for today.

When the video turned to speak of reaffirmation, I was struck at the tone. Does this guy really think that atheist don't experience or seek reaffirmation in their disbelief? Some people are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their atheism. FacePalm #2: There is so much evidence against atheism that some people find it hard to accept and yet the author takes atheism as the default truth.

FacePalm #3: Aside from mis-defining "faith" (which is trusting God based on the relationship with Him you are building on) and a few other things, the author's exegesis of scripture is better than most atheists I have read and spoken to. The Bible does indeed tells us that people who fail to believe fail because God has hardened their hearts and minds but it also states that the minds of men are already hostile to God (he conveniently leaves out Romans 8). Without God's intervention no one would believe.

FacePalm #4: The author of the video misses asking the fundamental question. It's not why do people not believe or believe for a time and then fall away? The question that needs to be asked is why do believers believe? The author does not answer this question but instead contends that believers are reaffirmed.

FacePalm #5: The author contends that the Biblical answers to why unbelievers do not believe are not reasonable. I don't understand that conclusion. The Bible never actually says that God's purpose is to save every single human being for hell. Therefore why is it not reasonable to just say we don't fully understand why God has set these thing up the way He has? You don't know who is chosen and who isn't outside of what God has done in you, personally. You can't believe on your own or keep yourself. God does it and gets all the credit. All we deserve is the blame because our sins are really that bad and without his intervention - and under most circumstances - hell is the only place you can expect to go!

This video is an exercise in reaffirming and encouraging atheists that they are truly okay and not missing anything - how is that any different that what the video's author accuses Christians and the Bible of doing in pointing out that people who don't believer are incapable of believing? It's not.





Debunking Christianity: Failure by Divine Design (A Christian Construction of Unbelief)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 11, 2011

Molinism in a Nutshell: God Makes Do the Best He Can

Turretinfan did a great job discussing Molinism. He explained why he rejects it as a viable understanding of how to reconcile God's Sovereignty with Human responsibility and free will. Added to the recent post from Jamin Hubner on Molinism, I think it's very evident how you can't substantiate Molinism from scripture. Turrentinfan wrote:


As you can see, ultimately it comes down to a question of whether a will - in order to be free - must have an ability that it never, ever uses - the ability to do the contrary. This rationale seems to be what drives the engine of Molinism, and while many people accept this rationale, you'll never find it in Scripture.


Agreed.

Molinism in a Nutshell: God Makes Do the Best He Can
Enhanced by Zemanta

Conan O'Brien's The Flaming C Meets Superboy [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews




Conan O'Brien's The Flaming C Meets Superboy [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

Great Message From Focus on the Family

God is love, and He dwells in loving intimacy

Christians have a beautiful story to tell about the glorious nature of human sexuality. And we shouldn't be shy about telling it:
  • We tell it to the world when we make decisions to protect our sexual health and wholeness from the ravaging wolves of premarital and extramarital sex.
  • We tell it to our spouses when we give our total selves exclusively to them.
  • We tell it to our spouses and children when we honor our spouses with our fidelity. read more

Collide Magazine | A Biblical Definition of Ministry in a Technological Age

My wife suggested I read an article by Stephen Presley in which he brings up what is the definition of ministry in an a technological age of streaming media and social networks. I like the definition for Christian ministry he gave:


Drawing these aspects together, a biblical definition of “ministry” might be defined as: a personal commission from God that labors toward the reconciliation of others to Christ through the gospel.

This is not a far cry from the definition in Fahlbusch’s (et al) Encyclopedia of Christianity: “Ministry, carrying forth Christ’s mission in the world, is fundamentally the task of the Church, the whole people of God, and is conferred on each Christian in baptism” (Eerdmans, 3.540). Most of the essential components listed above are evident: ministry is personal, interpersonal, and centered upon the person and work
of Christ.

I agree. Then he asks the question of most importance: Can you carry out ministry using the technology we have? He seemed to think that we can't.  I agree that we cannot exclusively use blogs, streaming media, and the internet to minister to the need s of people. They are just tools in doing that. Here is the point: Apostle Paul wrote letters to churches he never visited. Does that mean he was not ministering to them because he was not physically there. The writers of the Bible have long been dead, but the words they were inspired to write still minister to me although I never met them. Ministry does need to be personal and sometime in many contexts physical. Sometimes we have to minister even why physical contact is not possible. Most of this technology are just aids in communicating. Had Apostle Paul had access to the technology we do, I believe he wold shame us in the way he would use it better than us. He'd reach more people more effectively and still manage to personally travel all over the planet spreading the Gospel through cyberspace as well as on the ground.  Better believe his Facebook page would be better than yours and mine and his tweets would genuinely be interesting.

Collide Magazine | A Biblical Definition of Ministry in a Technological Age

Black History Month - Felicia D. Henderson

During Black History Month one does not need to be dead to have their contributions to American arts recognized. Felicia Henderson is a teacher and an artist. She's been writing and producing movies and television since the mid-1990s! Major series like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Sister Sister, Soul Food, Moesha, Everybody Hates Chris, Fringe, and many others! She came to my attention because I found out that she will be writing the upcoming Static comic book series and that she is the current writer on the Teen Titans comic.Part of this is the question of why hadn't I noticed her before? I've been enjoying her work for 20 years. Even in 2011, there aren't many women, let alone black people, making a living doing the kind of creative work she does. Not everyone has the kind of talents she has nor the opportunity to share them. Thankfully, she has a couple of interviews I found that tell you a lot about her as a person and her career in Hollywood and Comics.

Felicia D. Henderson - Fringe Wiki

Talking Teen Titans with Felicia D. Henderson

Henderson On "Titans," "Static" & "Girl Genius"

Felicia D. Henderson - IMD

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible and Sex

I have found that people are constantly misrepresenting what God says about our sexuality. Part of that is the Church's fault making people ashamed of the gifts that God has given us to be expressed in the context of marriage. I really enjoyed this post by Dr. Mariottini. In a very short amount of space he takes three arguments made by Jennifer Wright Knust in her book Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2011). He pointed out that:

Knust, who is an ordained American Baptist minister and Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University has written the most radical, revisionist book on what the Bible says and teaches about sex.


Mariottini explained in really good detail why she is mistaken in the conclusion she draws that premarital sex, prostitution, and homosexuality were all okay in certain contexts in the Bible. What I really liked about how Dr. Mariottini answered this was his total honesty and concreteness. Many times Christians beat around the bush and try not to be very direct. Mariottin as really direct and clear!

Jennifer Knust offers a radical revisionist interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the matters of sex and sexuality. Her interpretation departs, not only from the traditional ways those texts are interpreted, but also from the true meaning of what the texts actually say.

In her interview with Prothero, Knust concluded: “Some biblical passages can support my point of view. Others do not. So, as firmly as I believe that ‘love your neighbor’ can capture God’s point of view, I cannot be certain that I am right.”

Ms. Knust, I can help you: you are not right.

AMEN!!


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Bible and Sex
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dangers of the Lazy Apologist: MP3 by John Lennox - Apologetics 315

Here is a short interview of John Lennox discussing how to communicate effectively in Apologetics. He brings up some great points. Lennox suggest that we study and work out things and get feedback. Thanks to Brian Auten for pointing this one out. You can follow the link to Brian's blog to get at the interview.

Dangers of the Lazy Apologist: MP3 by John Lennox - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Heart of Molinism

Jamin Hubner has posted a great article summarizing Molinism. I like the way he explains it well and why it does not work really. He wrote:

In case you didn't know, there is a growing trend in Christian apologetics, philosophy, and theology circles that teaches that God is sovereign and God excercises that sovereignty to accomplish His purposes over every area of creation.

Except over the heart of man.


And with that he continued explaining what it is. Hubner also wrote:

And has God actually behaved in history according to the Molinist model, avoiding every chance to infringe on man's will? Or does He sometimes (perhaps often) "violate" and "infringe" upon the freewill of man in order to bring glory to Himself? Because if there is even one instance of God directly and absolutely changing the will of an otherwise unwilling human creature, then Molinism is a poor theory and should not be given as much attention as the better, more Scriptural alternatives (e.g. historic Reformed theology and compatibilism).


Let us face facts: if God does not "violate" and "infringe" upon our "free will", we could not be saved! Given our depravity and utter hopelessness and dis fellowship with God, how else can we even begin to accept Christ? We can't. Read all of Jamin Hubner's argument at the following link.

The Heart of Molinism
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books"

Here is a really good article about thinking through the following statement by Dr. R.C. Sproul:

“Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.”[Source: R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, 58].

I think that Sproul brings a very important point and James Swan does a great job unpacking the statement and explaining it.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books"
Enhanced by Zemanta

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Recovered Black History: Arturo Schomburg

Here is a very important article about Arturo Schomburg. I am grateful for this article because I've never heard of him before now and I owe him a great deal for all the work he has contributed to education and documenting history of black people. Truth is that in proving that there are heroes throughout history from the African Diaspora, he became one of those heroes. Read the article by going to the link below.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Recovered Black History: Arturo Schomburg
Enhanced by Zemanta

Calvinistic Cartoons: Christian School

Now this is the kind of Christian school I want my kids to go to.

Calvinistic Cartoons: Christian School
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Application of the Mosaic Law to the Life of the Christian « Psalm Trees

Stephen Notman has written a really good article about how the Mosaic Law fits into the life of Christians. I liked how he does such a good job in explaining this important subject. You can read his article at the link below. He wrote:

We must recall that the Law was God’s gracious gift to His people, which provided a constitution for a nation in covenant with Yahweh’s guaranteed presence and opportunities for blessings. They were to be a treasure among men by living a life guided by laws that would make them grow in holiness. Thus, the law reveals to us much about the character of God and reminds us of our inherent sinfulness. We are now living, as Paul said, “not under law, but under grace” and must interpret God’s moral law through the lens of Christ’s love, living lives that strive to honour the law whilst rejoicing in Christ’s total forgiveness for when we fall short.


I agree!

The Application of the Mosaic Law to the Life of the Christian « Psalm Trees
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Manifestation of God in the Old Testament

I really liked this article by Dr. Mariottini. It contains some very important truths - articulately expressed. Please use the link at the end of this post to read the article in its entirety.

Dr. Mariottini wrote:

One of the greatest teachings of the Old Testament is that the God of Israel desires to have a personal relationship with his people. In his desire to establish a relationship with humanity, God does not always wait for people to come to him.

Rather, God takes the initiative and reveals himself to humanity. This manifestation of God is commonly known as a theophany. The Old Testament contains many stories demonstrating God’s immense love for his creation and the extent to which he is willing to go in order to bring human beings into fellowship with himself.


This article does an awesome job in explaining the over-arching theme of the Bible.


Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: The Manifestation of God in the Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Richard Carrier Blogs: Debating J.P. Holding

Now this is definitely one to watch. J.P. Holding versus Richard Carrier. I might like to attend this one. The subject is great and important - Do we have what the original audience had in terms of the text? This is of course a different question as to if the text is true. I'd like to see if they get into that.


You heard that right. On Saturday, 9 April 2011, at 5pm, I will be debating my "nemesis" J.P. Holding on the textual reliability of the New Testament ("Do We Have What They Had?"). It is being sponsored by the Christian congregation of Pastor Cameron English and will be held at the Amador Christian Center (see their events page; right now it's a little ways down the page).

Richard Carrier Blogs: Debating J.P. Holding
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sermons from Ireland

James White has recently been preaching and debating in Great Britain. Here is a link to sermons he gave in Ireland at the Arann Conference 2011.

Sermons from Ireland
Enhanced by Zemanta

William Lane Craig vs. George Williamson Debate Audio - Apologetics 315

William Lane Craig debated George Williamson on the Existence of God. Thanks to Brian Auten for posting the audio. Use the link below to listen to the debate.

William Lane Craig vs. George Williamson Debate Audio - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Marvel's Digital Comics Strategy: Making Sense of the 5 Ways to Buy - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Comics Alliance has posted a great article about Marvel Comics' strategy for digitally distributing their comic books. This article discusses a lot of repercussions for digital distribution for a lot of different types of media. They pointed out some things about Marvel's strategy.

Rather than embracing something like Amazon's "Buy Once, Read Everywhere" approach for Kindle books, Marvel has instead turned to "Buy Once, Read on One Specific Device." Marvel desperately needs to put those user accounts to good use and begin behaving like Amazon. What they have now is a confusing mishmash of apps and libraries, like a fistful of puzzle pieces that don't fit together.

Going with "Buy Once, Read Everywhere" would make Marvel's digital comics program much more attractive. Instead, we're stuck with varying price points, varying libraries, and varying user experiences. Something's got to give.

I agree with Comics Alliance. I agree with them that Marvel is making a mistake and I wish they would follow DC Comics' and Amazon's Kindle strategy of buying content once and being able to read it on any hardware you own.

Marvel's Digital Comics Strategy: Making Sense of the 5 Ways to Buy - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

Responding to Ames Tribune > Archives > Ames Tribune > Opinion > Douglass a secular humanist?

Dr. Hector Avalos has written an argue where he argues that one of the heroes of American history should be considered a secularist - Frederick Douglass. Given that it's Black History month I'm sure that many of today's atheists would love to find proof of African-American heroes who were also atheists - given that as a culture that African Diaspora in so many of it forms is highly theistic - even given that Europeans have used religion to oppress us. Avalos' argument is based on some correspondence with atheist abolitionist Ottilie Assing (1819-84). He uses words she wrote about him to assert that he gave up on religion and embraced the same ideas as Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72)and Robert G. Ingersoll. I've actually read Frederick Douglass' autobiography and one of my professors at UC Berkeley, Waldo E. Martin Jr. - that I took a class from, is an expert on Frederick Douglass. He wrote the book The Mind of Frederick Douglass. And given these sources, I find no reason to think that Frederick Douglass was an atheist. Did he believe in separation of Church and State? Yes. Did he think that American Christianity is hypocritical? Yes. Was he right? I think he was. Truth be told some of American Christianity is still unbiblical and hypocritical. Was Frederick Douglass anti-religion? No. But read Avalos' article and see how he tries to leave the impression that Douglas was an atheist without saying it because he knows that a secularist and an atheist are not the the same thing, yet he wants to claim them anyway.

Avalos even tries to use quotes from Frederick Douglass himself to prove his point. Let's take a look at just what Douglass said and see if it proves that he rejected religion.

A good example of this shift is a speech titled “It Moves,” delivered on Nov. 20, 1883, in Washington, D.C.

In the speech, Douglass expresses his sympathy with the historical criticism of the Bible and new scientific discoveries that cast doubt on the Bible’s reliability. Douglass remarks: “Men are compelled to admit that the Genesis by Moses is less trustworthy as to the time of creating the heavens and the earth than are the rocks and the stars.”

Near the end of “It Moves,” Douglass becomes more emphatic that humans must rely on themselves, not on gods, in the quest for equality:

“It may not be a useless speculation to inquire when(ce) comes the disposition or suggestion of reform; whence that irresistible power that impels men to brave all the hardships and dangers involved in pioneering an unpopular cause? Has it a natural or a celestial origin? Is it human or is it divine, or is it both? I have no hesitation in stating where I stand in respect to these questions.

“It seems to me that the true philosophy of reform is not found in the clouds, or in the stars, or any where else outside of humanity itself. So far as the laws of the universe have been discovered and understood, they seem to each that the mission of man’s improvement and perfection has been wholly committed to man himself. So is he to be his own savior or his own destroyer. He has neither angels to help him nor devils to hinder him.”


Think about the people Frederick Douglass was talking to. Douglass was attempting to rouse people out of their complacency. He wanted to remind people who claimed to be Christians that they were responsible for their own actions as to whether or not they were going to continue their bigotry against Negros and Women or were they going to reform and improve. I don't see this as denying the existence of God. I see Douglass reminding his audience that they can't just sit back and wait on someone else - human or divine - to do the right thing when they can do it themselves. This message resonates today.

Avalos also wrote:

Indeed, Douglass was one of the first to question the oft-stated claim that reliance on biblical authority was a main factor in the abolition of slavery.


Really? Where? He offered no documentation.

Avalos also wrote the following. I've continued to quote his words.

Douglass explicitly exalted the racial ethics of Robert G. Ingersoll, the famed agnostic, over those of Dwight L. Moody, the celebrated fundamentalist leader.


Is Avalos pointing out that some Christians of the time were racist and there were no racist atheists? I hope not because this isn't true. There were were Christians who had a consistent and Biblical Christianity and still happened to be White. There were also Black Christians who didn't have a Christianity consistent with the Bible. Let's be honest the only black person who would completely agree with the racial ethics of Dwight L. Moody (or many of the leading white Christians of their time) would be someone like Uncle Ruckus from the show The Boondocks. I mean, "Duh!" So what is the point being made here

The history of blacks is diverse, with both Christians and non-Christians participating in the heroic struggle for the abolition of slavery.


No argument there. And I appreciate all of their efforts. I have directly benefited from God working through all of them!

Given the new information about Douglass, some will now place him among the secular humanist luminaries who fought for equality and abolition in the 19th century.


Sure would like to see someone defend that. There are several quotes that Avalos did not bring out that give a much better view of Frederick Douglass' views on religion. Let us see what the man has to say for himself.

I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.


Is Douglass really saying that there is reason to pray? No. I have found the much the same thing in my own life. In waiting on something miraculous things to happen, sometimes we don't see that God has already answered our prayers. We expect God to do something over-the-top like he did when he took the Hebrews from the Egyptians when instead He is dealing with us like He did with Israel when he helped them conquer and occupy Canaan. They had to fight for it and God helped them. Douglass used the legs and opportunities God blessed him with. And God protected him and blessed him in the things he had no control over.

I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, the grossest of all libels. [Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself]


I totally agree. You can't claim to mistreat and oppress people like my people were treated, claim to do it in the name of God, and then expect God to let it go. It's in effect lying on God.

I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the South is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes-- a justifier of the most appalling barbarity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds, and a dark shelter under which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection. Where I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me...I...hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. [Frederick Douglass, "After the Escape"]


This is an indictment against the hollow religion practiced in the United States - not against the Bible or God. And I agree with him.

We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the relgious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go hand in hand. [Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself]


Again Douglass was not talking about Biblical Christianity - but the dross practiced by those who enslaved our people.

Ames Tribune > Archives > Ames Tribune > Opinion > Douglass a secular humanist?

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_FDouglass.htm
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, February 7, 2011

YouTube - Volkswagen Commercial: The Force







YouTube - Volkswagen Commercial: The Force

Answering Muslims: Geert Wilders: "The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe"

You may have heard of Dutch MP Geert Wilders who is on trial in Europe for standing against Islam as "hate speech". He thinks that Muslims are attempting to take over control of European Nations and replacing their governments with Islamic governments. David Wood has posted a speech Wilders gave during his trial.

Answering Muslims: Geert Wilders: "The Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe"
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Power of Christ's Resurrection

Mike has a great quote from George Whitefeld

This then is what the apostle means by the "Power of Christ's resurrection," and this is what we are as much concerned experimentally to know, as that He rose at all.

Without this, though we may be moralists, though we may be civilized, good-natured people, yet we are no Christians. For he is not a true Christian, who is only one outwardly; nor have we therefore a right, because we daily profess to believe that Christ rose again the third day from the dead. But he is a true Christian who is one inwardly; and then only can we be stiled true believers, when we not only profess to believe, but have felt the power of our blessed Lord's rising from the dead, by being quickened and raised by his Spirit, when dead in trespasses and sins, to a thorough newness both of heart and life.

The devils themselves cannot but believe the doctrine of the resurrection, and tremble; but yet they continue devils, because the benefits of this resurrection have not been applied to them, nor have they received a renovating power from it, to change and put off their diabolical nature. And so, unless we not only profess to know, but also feel that Christ is risen indeed, by being born again from above, we shall be as far from the kingdom of God as they: our faith will be as ineffectual as the faith of devils.

- George Whitefield



The Power of Christ's Resurrection
Enhanced by Zemanta

5 Challenges to Christianity Apologetics Can’t Answer Part 3 | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Anthony has posted his final article in his series of exploring things that Christian Apologetics cannot answer.

This is the third and final installment of a series listing 5 challenges to Christianity that apologetics, traditionally understood, is virtually powerless to counter.
The previous parts:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Now begins the third part. It’s long. Sorry. (I really am)

5. The failure within the Church to live out the Biblical model of marriage and the family.

I think Anthony shows why these objections don't make sense. What does the fact that some who claim to be Christians fail to live out the Biblical model of marriage and family have to do if that model is good or the best way to live? It doesn't. Read Anthony's article to see how he deals with this.



5 Challenges to Christianity Apologetics Can’t Answer Part 3 | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry
Enhanced by Zemanta

THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism

The King James BibleImage by Ben Sutherland via Flickr
Here is a debate that covers an important topic: Is the King James translation of the Bible the only Bible we should read? In a word: No!!! Watch James White explain why.




THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: James White vs. Jack Moorman on King James Onlyism
Enhanced by Zemanta

Pro-Life Interview: Scott Klusendorf - Apologetics 315

I seem to remember that in the 1980s and 1990s that Abortion seemed like a much greater issue to debate and discuss than it is now. It is still an important issue. It's nice to hear the interview Brian Auten just posted with Scott Klusendorf who is the president of the Pro-Life organization Life Training Institute. They discuss many important issues in this interview and well worth listening to. I think the reason why we have fewer people it seems standing against abortion is because more people have bought the hype that the unborn are not human until a certain point in gestation that science can't reach a consensus on at what point that is. And I think its also because of the economic woes and issues facing everyone that this issue has been placed on the back burner on a lot of people's minds. I appreciate Brian and Mr. Klusendorf for bringing it back up! Follow the link to hear the interview.

Pro-Life Interview: Scott Klusendorf - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Professor Matt McCormick Proposes "The Defeasibility Test"

Jesus resurrected and Mary MagdaleneImage via Wikipedia
John Loftus posted the following quote from Matt McCormick.

So in the spirit of John Loftus’ Outside Test for Faith, I propose a test. Before I or any other doubter, atheist, skeptic, or non-believer engages in a discussion about the reasons for and against God, the believer must look deep into his heart and mind and ask this question: Are there any considerations, arguments, evidence, or reasons, even hypothetically that could possibly lead me to change my mind about God? Is it even a remotely possible outcome that in carefully and thoughtfully reflecting on the broadest and most even body of evidence that I can grasp, that I would come to think that my current view about God is mistaken? That is to say, is my belief defeasible?

If the answer is no, then we’re done. There is nothing informative, constructive, or interesting to be found in your contribution to dialogue. Anything you have to say amounts to sophistry. We can’t take your input any more seriously than the lawyer who is a master of casuistry and who can provide rhetorically masterful defenses of every side of an issue. She’s not interested in the truth, only is scoring debate points or the construction of elaborate rhetorical castles (that float on air). Read more.

So basically, Dr. McCormick suggests that unless there is some possibility that I, as a believer, must be willing to doubt. I ran into this when he commented on my blog a few months ago based on a lecture he gave regarding faith. Instead of asking if I am willing to consider if my views on God is correct then I must ask is he willing to consider if his atheism is defeasible? IS he willing to entertain even hypothetically that God is real and that the Bible is the Word of God? Is he willing to consider the ramifications if such propositions are true? I don't think so. I've been a Christian for a long time - most of my life. During that time I have searched and looked at many other religions and considered if any of them offer more truth or better explains reality than Christianity. I have had access to everything one needs to make such conclusions. This is what I have found: I have searched all over - high and low - over and under - through and around - and I have found none greater that the God who has revealed Himself through the Bible, nature, and revelation.

Debunking Christianity: Professor Matt McCormick Proposes "The Defeasibility Test"
Enhanced by Zemanta