Saturday, February 19, 2011

FacePalm of the Day #63 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Justice of God Equal Ultimacy and Re-packaged Cheerios

I've always wanted to know what would happen if a Muslim attempted to comment on Calvinism and the God of the Bible. thegrandverbalizer posted an attempt today. The word "trainwreck" comes to mind as a description. His comments are in bold and mine are in regular font.

Why was I not surprised when I read this little gem recently? Can anyone tell me why I was not surprised? This is what happens when Calvinist are cornered on a very uncomfortable theological position within Calvinism.

I'm always amazed when Muslims and unbelievers think that Christians are uncomfortable in our theological positions. I think it's more correct to say that they uncomfortable because if  we Christians were uncomfortable we would most likely abandon our positions. 

When confronted with the Cruel Calvinist deity we are dealing with a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation.

Describing God, as Christians describe God, as "a sadomasochistic entity that is capricious and whimsical when dealing with his creation." is rather inflamatory. And can't be substantiated whether you are a Calvinist or not. 

I already dealt with an interview in which R.C Sproul really dropped the ball and gave the most horrible explanation ever on "Does God DESIRE all people to be saved" You can also see the com boxes where Ken Temple (an advocate of this kind of sickening theology) took quite a brow beating.


You can see that entry here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html


thegrandverbalizer sure likes to toot his own horn, doesn't he.

Now in trying to save face for his hero R.C Sproul (who's son is a real gem too!) Ken Temple said this was that God's grace is the difference between the Islamic system and the Christian system,


"God's grace is the difference in the Christian system so that all the glory goes to Him; whereas in the Islamic system the difference is the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way, so practically, man can boast in the Islamic system. But in the Christian system, man cannot boast. Ephesians 2:1-10; I Corinthians 1:26-31"


That is fine and well but what we are talking about is ultimately where is God's justice in Christianity? Do Christians even believe in a God who is fair and just?

I agree with Temple. Where in the Bible does God say he is fair? For that matter where in the Qur'an does it say that God is fair? "Fair" and "Just" is not the same thing. Mercy trumps fairness. By definition if God was completely fair he would send everyone to hell. It's not fair for him to save some of us and not all of us. "Fairness" isn't even a concept brought up regarding God's character. God is just. God is merciful. While justice demands we all go to hell, God in his mercy has decided to save some of us. I stand by scripture that says he desires all men to be saved and come to repentance. Just because I can't understand why he doesn't make everyone believe and only reveals himself to some of us doesn't mean it's a problem with Christian theology. I don't even have to like it. The Bible tells us what God said, does, and our opinion means very little. He is the potter. We are the clay.

It is true that there are Muslims who boast of their good deeds, their achievements, their awards, their wives, their husbands, their children, but this is also true of Christians as well. The question is does the Qur'an encourage us to be boastful?


"And the servants of the Merciful are those who walk on the earth in humility...." (Qur'an 25:63) The answer is no!

The Bible says the same thing. Ephesians 2:8-10


Now notice that Ken Temple did say one thing in his statement above,
"the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way"


That is right! Every human being has been created with the innate power and ability given to them by God!

That's wrong. No humsn being is born with the innate power and ability to choose the right way. Remember "T" in the acrostistic TULIP that sums up the Calvinistic theology is "Total Depravity." We do not have the ability to please God. Read Romans 8: 5-8

 5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.  

This is all of us before we get saved through Jesus Christ.


" Say (O Muhammed): "If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." (Qur'an 3:31)


In Islam humanity has loved instilled in them! In Islam Love is a dynamic relationship between God and humanity. We have love instilled in us, we are not born without love. We human beings develop very deep bonds with our siblings and our children and parents.


"But ask forgiveness of your Lord, and turn unto Him (in repentance): For my Lord is indeed full of mercy and loving-tender kindness."
(Waistaghfiroo rabbakum thumma toobooilayhi inna rabbee raheemun wadoodun) (Holy Qur'an chapter 11:90)

However, in Christianity we are all God's enemies! Every human baby born is an enemy of God! What a twisted doctrine! It is only when God forces you (reprograms you from an enemy to a friend) that you become this automaton that loves him.

The logic here makes me cringe. Human sin does not mean we can't love our parents, children, siblings, or even strangers. It means that we can't love our enemies. God is calling on us to more than just love those we want to love. Jesus commanded:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, - Matthew 5:43-44


If any Christian (Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Methodist) comes up to a Calvinist basking and glowing and talking about how they love Jesus Christ and filled with the love of Jesus the Calvinist will give them a very cold look and a very stern stare. Who are these pathetic human beings who think that they are capable of love?

The Calvinist shivers and withers at the thought of it!

A crazy Hyper Calvinist maybe. Who does thegrandverbalizer talk to? An Arminian or any non-Calvinist is saved and filled with the love of Jesus just like any Calvinist who puts their faith in Jesus and believes he died as our propitiation and was raised from the dead. That is the Gospel - nothing else.

For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Romans 5:10)


Basically your an enemy of God and your on a collision course with death (if you think I am over exaggerating this example all you have to do is once again click on the following link: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html


http://hereiblog.com/divine-rape-and-forced-love/


I wonder why is the troublesome if God has indeed saved you?

"Now, Mark Driscoll had a good point on this argument. He likened irresistible grace to a time his daughter was running towards the road about to get hit by a truck. He snatched her out of the way. He did not respect her will. That’s a better analogy."



Another reason why this argument is good is because the child is unable to get off the road to avoid the truck themselves. Who wants to get hit by that truck?

Basically right now you have free will. Your will in this world view is to always choose evil and rebellion. That's right! No matter how many times you donate to charity, or you have given your blood or kidney to save someone. No matter how many times you are disgusted with the violence and agony and suffering of the world you are just rotten to the very core! Your fundamentally evil in nature! If you don't like it that's just tough! The reason you don't like it is because of your rebellion against a sovereign God!

The point that is being ignored is that for every good thing we do there is plenty of sinning. Think about it. No one is saying that people don't do good things. Its not those things that are going to count against us - its the sin. It's not one-to-one. One good deed does not cancel a bad one. All the good we do should be credited to God's grace and mercy.  We deserve the judgment. Most of the time the objections I see about this are rooted in the desire to avoid the fact that we deserve hell and no amount of good we do apart from Jesus will balance the debt we owe God.

So what does this sovereign, cruel, capricious deity of Calvinism do? He "does not respect your will" as the Christian above so eloquently puts it.

Why should he? You are unable to fix it yourself. You are trapped in your own depravity and sin. If he doesn't interfere in your will you would be lost. Sovereign? Yes. Capricious? How? God is doing you the favor of saving you. 

God forces you to love him, he changes you, generates you, smashes your will, spiritually rapes you, reconciles you. No matter how you want to put it folks Special K or Cheerios or Brand X your still eating the same cereal!

That doesn't describe what happens at all. It's not rape. It's more like drowning in the sea and being too stupid to realize it or even to ask for help, and God reaches out and snag you out of raging sea so you don't die.  Sounds loving to me. 

So no.1 The difference between God's relationship in Islam and Christianity (Calvin's flavor)


We human beings have the ability (given to us by God each and everyone of us with the mental capacity and faculty) to be love God. We can reach out to God. In fact I bet there is someone reading this article right now because you have something beautiful inside of you. That is right! I said it something beautiful and amazing and something that needs to be harnessed, trained, and nurtured so it becomes even more beautiful. Right now out of the thousands of web sites you could be looking at , the million and one things you could be doing you are here.

Thegrandvebalizer just showed that the Bible does not agree that all humans have the ability to freely love God. I would also like to point out Romans 5 and 6 and 7 really drives this point home. Face it, it's more attractive to think that there is a goodness and qualities about you that allows you to choose to follow God on your own and unaided. But isn't that boasting? I think it is.

In Islam you have the ability to reach out to God, and God will reach out to you.
In Christianity you are on the road to hell unless the capricious deity of Calvin randomly chooses to love you, and than he will make you love him!


Huge difference!

Why? Because you have a longing for God!

The other difference is how thegrandverbalizer describes Calvinistic Theology and what it actually says. God's choice is not capricious or random. We are incapable of loving God without His aid. Of course we have a longing for God. Longing and love are not the same thing. It's that longing that forces people into drugs, alcohol, embracing all manner of evil and sin, and other religions - in a vain attempt to fill that hole in our hearts.

No.2 The difference between God's relationship in Islam and Christianity is justice!


In Islam God is just and as Christian Ken Temple pointed out that God is actually more just in Islam than in Christianity! That's right! Where did Ken make that statement? He made it above where he said,
"the innate power and merit of the human that has the ability to choose the right way"


Right on!


However in Christianity (Calvin's version) God is very unjust and unfair. God does not give everyone an equal chance. Oh no!

Again with misrepresentation. God is not unjust and how mercy be equally applied in all circumstances? If everyone gets it...it's not mercy. Obtaining mercy is avoiding punishment that you deserve. Is there mercy in Islam? I'm not so sure.

Remember the favorite proof text of the Calvinist? Remember it well because it will come into play when we re-visit another example of R.C Sproul trying to Re-package a box of Cheerios and sale it to you under a different brand name.

So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rest Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinist!


10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’h 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
So here is the crux upon which their devious and vile doctrine rest Romans 9:10-21 You would do well to know this text when dealing with Calvinist!


Notice something about the above text highlighted in red. God had a purpose for the children before they had done anything good or bad the text says.


Notice that the author of the text also recognizes that there are arguments against the position. Why does God blame us for who resist his will?

Basically it comes down to a problem of JUSTICE!!! Where is God's justice when he God in his "positive will" actively regenerates some and in his "negative will" he passes over the non-elect?

Not so fast. How is that injustice? We are the clay. God is the potter. What right does the clay have to tell the potter what to with his clay? Last I checked: none.

Christians go on and on about where is the justice of God in Islam! That's rich! That is very rich coming from people who believe in doctrines like this!


Where is the justice of God in not giving everyone the same chance and ability to be saved? It would be fine if God wanted to bring some people into some supposed secret knowledge and make them part of his 'inner-circle' but for those he doesn't do this to the stakes are way to high!
 
Why is this not just? It's not about secret knowledge. Back to Driscoll's analogy and upgrade it a bit. Instead of a child running in the road about to get hit by a truck, think of  bank robbers who just killed and raped your family and as they are running away they are shooting guns at you, cursing you, and laughing and don't see the the 4 or 5 semi trucks bearing down on them. We are those people. And you push some of them out of the way and let the truck hit you. That's what Jesus did. Given that, I think the one doing the saving has the right to choose who he is going to push out of the way.

Only a person who has a very dark heart, or has the intellectual capacity of a walnut could even fathom that such a doctrine is even remotely a modicum of God's justice!

Obviously, thegrandverbalizer does not understand the theology.

So what do the Calvinist do? What do the Reformed Baptist do when they are confronted by this monstrosity of a doctrine?

 Tell the truth.

Write books of course! Coin phrases and theological terminology. That they feel will help "explain" (read: dress up) the utter ugliness and darkness that this doctrine really is.

I wonder who is it that thegrandverbalizer talks to and reads to come up with such parody of what Calvinists believe.

In fact if truth be told in this system Jesus blood is absolutely meaningless. It is a veiled gnostic attack upon the very heart of Christian teachings of atonement.

What???!!!

It is not the blood of Jesus who saves , it is the Holy Spirit that regenerates. The blood of Jesus was not for anyone except for God. It was his own stage show, his own circus act for himself! To satisfy his own wrath for people he was already determined to save!

Um, No. The Holy Spirit does regenerate but the blood of  Jesus expiates sin. Again I think thegrandverbalizer should revisit what Christians believe.

Talk about beyond weird and sadomasochistic does not even come close to the type of perversity that this doctrine is.

Still waiting for the perverse part.


Subhan'Allah! Praise be to Allah who has given humanity Islam! Praise be to Allah who by the tongues of Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham and Muhammed have come to teach us that this is not the way!

Christ Jesus the son of Mary, Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham  all testify that we are saved by faith and not ourselves.

So this brings me to another of R.C Sproul's theological dress up. James White (the guy with the unaccredited "DR" degree from a cracker jack box) also loves to use the terminology of .... drum roll please...


EQUAL ULTIMACY ERROR (dun dun dun....)


http://prisonerofjoy-kirk.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-equal-ultimacy.html

Just when I thought that the trainwreck could get any worse.....

"R.C. Sproul in his book Chosen by God pg. 142-43 gives tells us what Equal Ultimacy is and how it does not fit in the Reformed view of Double Predestination:"


"There are different views of double predestination. One of these is so frightening that many shun the term altogether, lest their view of the doctrine be confused with the scary one. This is called the equal ultimacy view.
Equal ultimacy is based on a concept of symmetry. It seeks a complete balance between election and reprobation. The key idea is this: Just as God intervenes in the lives of the elect to create faith in their hearts, so God equally intervenes in the lives of the reprobate to create or work unbelief in their hearts. is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts. The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate
Equal ultimacy is not the Reformed or Calvinist view of predestination. Some have called it 'hyper-Calvinism.' I prefer to call it 'sub-Calvinism' or, better yet, 'anti-Calvinism.' Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination, the double predestination it embraces is not one of equal ultimacy.
To understand the Reformed view of the matter we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect.
The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts. That unbelief is already there. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. In the Calvinist view the decree of election is positive; the decree of reprobation is negative.
Hyper-Calvinism's view of double predestination may be called positive-positive predestination. Orthodox Calvinism's view may be called positive-negative predestination"
So what has R.C Sproul done? R.C Sproul has taken toasted oats cereal and repackaged it under the label of Honey Nut Cheerios. Now R.C Sproul is supposed to be a person who understand theology.

RC Sproul is correct. It's not the same thing that the Hyper-Calvinists say. 

According to his biology the following is said about him:


He is the author of more than seventy books and scores of articles for national evangelical publications. Dr. Sproul has produced more than 300 lecture series and has recorded more than 80 video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms the traditional view of biblical inerrancy, and he wrote a commentary on that document titled Explaining Inerrancy.
Dr. Sproul holds degrees from Westminster College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free University of Amsterdam, and he has had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and Jackson, Mississippi.


So I guess we can all assume that R.C Sproul should understand that words convey meaning and if we are going to speak English we should assume that he means what he says.

I smell more misrepresentation forthcoming.

Remember that Sproul says above, " To understand the Reformed view of the matter we must pay close attention to the crucial distinction between positive and negative decrees of God. Positive has to do with God's active intervention in the hearts of the elect. Negative has to do with God's passing over the non-elect."

Definition of DECREE
1
: an order usually having the force of law
2
a : a religious ordinance enacted by council or titular head b : a foreordaining will
3
a : a judicial decision of the Roman emperor b : a judicial decision especially in an equity or probate court


So God has decreed that he will act to save some.
God has also decreed that he will not act to save the rest.

No where in the Bible does it say God decreed not to save anyone. It says that he decreed to save some of us. 


Notice that R.C Sproul says, "The idea of God's actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements about God hardening people's hearts."

Well would you imagine that! The whole idea of God actively working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate is drawn from biblical statements! Who would have guessed! However, what R.C Sproul also conveniently leaves out is the fact that Calvinist believe that God creates all souls! If all souls by their very nature sin than God creates souls that sin. The amount of sin that they do and all that will germinate is from God! In fact rather than saying that God actively is working to create unbelief in people's hearts the truth of the matter is that in Christian theology God has created human beings who from the outset from the very beginning of their creations are unbelievers!

It is only by his capricious tyrannical whim that he smashes their will and makes them friends rather than keeping them as enemies whom he created to be enemies.

Some Calvinist Christians will read this and scoff and say! Rubbish! Nonsense! Blasphemy!

And I simply raise an eye brow at them put my hand to my mouth give a slight cough and say...."Ever heard of the doctrine of original sin?"

Anyone?

So what kind of nature is man born with? What kind of nature did we inherit from Adam? What kind of flesh by default mode is supposedly a loving God going to send a soul into?

A soul that by default mode is on a trajectory to hell!


What A Calvinist would scoff at is the idea that God created us to be enemies. The Bible states that we are God's enemies from the start but that is not how humanity was created. Adam was perfect remember?  Unless God allowed everything to take place as it has we would not be born. God is not the author of sin, but he use our sinful choices and acts to bring about his will to bring about the people he wants to live. 

Remember the above text in Romans 9 says,
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

There you have it!





And again, what's wrong that that. Creating someone, He knows will never be saved doesn't make God bad. It's his right.
 

Or let us use the more flowery language of the New Living Translation.

New Living Translation (©2007)

When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into

So we know that it is his will that one will be made for decoration and one for garbage!
No matter how bad you try and make Toasted Oats into Honey Nut Cheerios it's still the same thing!

thegrandverbalizer has still failed to explain how James White and RC Sproul are wrong. Rather proud of himself though. Too bad.

Notice too that R.C Sproul (probably taking a nip of Whiskey whilst writing this piece who knows) says the following,


Though Calvinism certainly has a view of double predestination

So what part of pre-destination needs to be explained here? If it is double predestination and God has a positive decree and a negative decree than there you have it!


Nice to know he doesn't just pick on James White with personal attacks but Sproul explained the difference between positive and negative decrees but thegrandverbalizer seems to still be confused. 

There is no justice in such a doctrine! None! It makes God out to be a tyrannical overlord who only makes people love him. The love does not come from the human being. The human being does not respond to God. The human being is made into an automaton.

He still hasn't been able to prove that the charge that the doctrine makes God tyrannical or us into automatons. We never loose our own will or desires. God changes them. Turns us from being sick to being well.

Those who are unfortunate enough to become automatons are destined to an eternal life in hell fire for ever lasting Glory to God the Father! Amen!

I think he meant "unfortunate enough not to become". Again more misrepresentation against Christianity. Again with the "automaton". 

All this from a creator who willfully places human souls into a machine that is on a trajectory for hell!

A machine in which he entered and redeemed people with his own blood. Tyrannical indeed.


In Calvinism God is not just. God is the Most Unjust. God's justice is arbitrary. Contrary to those theologians today who know you will be troubled by this idea why don't they do what the Apostle Paul did?

God is just. The thing is "just" is whatever God says just is.


It is not sufficient for R.C Sproul, John Piper and other's to allow God's Holy Spirit to speak when supposedly he inspired Paul to respond by saying,
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’


Instead they prefer to write whole books that try and explain away what obviously was not very clear to the masses! Trying to make Toasted Oats into Honey Nut Cheerio's is like putting icing on top of cow dung. At the end of the day it's still cow dung even with the icing on top.

Thegrandverbalizer has not explained how RC Sproul, John Piper, or James White have said anything contrary to to what Paul wrote. 

You people need to act like you know! Time to pick up the Holy Qur'an and stop listening to the hype and lies about Islam!

So people can read thegrandverbalizer lie about what Christians believe and what the Bible says. Trainwreck indeed.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: The Justice of God Equal Ultimacy and Re-packaged Cheerios
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 18, 2011

My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: Evidence of Delusion?

John Loftus has posted an statement that frankly shocked me.

I am personally attacked almost every day on the web for something I've written. If I don't respond then it's taken to mean I can't (WTF?). These Christians think all skeptical arguments are utterly lame, including mine. Who in their right mind would think this? Just once I'd like to hear a devout Christian say something like: "Hey, that's something I haven't thought of before," or, "This is a serious problem for my faith." It's just that these things are almost never said. No, they have the answers. And they laugh at all skeptical arguments, many of which derive from David Hume, who is thought to be the greatest English speaking philosopher who ever lived.

Now it's one thing to disagree with the skeptics. It's another thing entirely to think our arguments have no force at all. The fact that most Christians think they have no force at all simply means these Christians are delusional.


I agree that it's silly to just assume that John Loftus can't respond to criticism of his arguments. I find it telling that he almost never does, but be that as it may, aside from dismissive insults. I have not heard of a single objection or argument from John Loftus that has not previously been used or refuted. I don't think there are any serious problems with the Bible that a nonbeliever can raise that has not been diffused. That's not to say that people like Loftus accept those answers but it also does not mean that they are bad arguments. I really don't think people who reject the Bible have any good reason aside from the delusions caused by sin. David Hume is often quoted and his skepticism taken as an authority, and it amazes me because they ignore the many scientists and philosophers and experts who believe the Bible is trustworthy? Are they delusional? If one says, yes, I would really like to see someone prove it. Human skepticism, knowledge,and wisdom just can't hold a candle to God and His Word.

Debunking Christianity: Evidence of Delusion?
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #62 - Debunking Christianity: A Former Believer On Why He Once Believed and Then Left the Fold

John Loftus has posted a quote from Jerry Wilson and an article by Mr. Wilson to explain why he left Christianity and became an atheist.


See a parallel here with the Outsider Test for Faith coming from Jerry Wilson?
I realized that all religions are bubbles. People see the other bubbles, but only from a perspective within their own bubble...I realize that, from a vantage point outside of all bubbles, all bubbles are equal. So all religions are equal and, therefore, all religions are equally wrong. Link
Someday in the future ardent Christians who visit us at DC will go through a similar deconversion just as he did, and just as I did.


Let's look at the quote first. It's interesting to me that Wilson talks about being a believer in a religion as being in a bubble. The Bible describes being outside of Christ as being in the bubble. I like the bubble analogy because you can't see reality clearly outside the bubble because of the refracted and reflected light inside the bubble. Things will look distorted when you look outside the bubble. In effect "deconversion" is a misnomer because an apostate was never converted.

When people explain the reasons behind their apostasy, it becomes apparent. There is no born-again experience or relationship with the risen Lord. I hate to say it but there are people who never leave Church yet haven't been converted. You can't truly be converted without born-again. With all due respect to Jerry Wilson and John Loftus, the Bible is correct. When you leave Christianity, never have been born-again, you merely trade one bubble for another.

Let us look further at Wilson's understanding of why he used to be a Christian.

First of all, I was never a fundamentalist. I accepted the bible as a good spiritual guide and not as ancient history. I knew that the stories in the Old Testament were allegories and that they never really happened, or were at least heavily embellished. I did believe most of the New Testament stories, but I took with a grain of salt the stories concerning miracles. After all, those were superstitious people back then and what they were reporting was based as much on their emotional state as it was on real circumstances. But I still believed in Jesus and in God and in the Resurrection. I was, after all, a Christian. I was raised that way.


So, by his own admission he did not believe in the Bible as infallible word of God. I wonder how did he reconcile the miracle of the Resurrection with the other miracles. I mean all of the other miracles seem so small compared to the Resurrection. I mean if you believe the Resurrection why would any miracle in the Bible be incredulous? This makes me wonder if he ever really believed the Resurrection or thought through it. My parents are also Christians and raised me that way. But that is not why I am a Christian. I'm a Christian because God changed my heart and changed me. Doesn't seem like Wilson's heart was ever changed.

I remember debating a teacher friend of mine back in the ‘80s. He was an atheist. I placed the old Pascal’s Wager in his lap, even though at the time I did not know of the arguments against it. I asked him, “What if you’re wrong?” He said that if there is a god, he would like to believe that he is a forgiving god and one that will forgive him for not believing. I thought in my head, “He obviously doesn’t know his bible because it doesn’t work that way.”
You were right, he didn't understand what the Bible says. A better question is do you understand what the Bible says?

But how did I know it didn’t work that way? How did I know that I was right and he was wrong?

The fact is, I didn’t. I only assumed I did because I believed the bible. I knew there were other religions in the world and I knew they had their own holy books. But I also knew, or believed, that these were the “heathen religions” the bible speaks of. I knew that Christian missionaries were busy trying to convert them to the true religion

The Bible says that things do not work this way. The things is no one is going to hell because the don't believe. On our own we can't believe. Again hell is the default destination. You are condemned already. It is through Christ we are declared "Not Guilty". It's not that the Christian is right and the Atheist is wrong. The issue is that God is right and we all are wrong. God would be in his rights to destroy us all, but God in his mercy has chosen to save those who believe and trust him through Jesus Christ. Arguing about whether it is fair or not that God would allow those who choose to reject him to go to hell is silly because it is not the point the Bible is making.

But why did I assume Christianity was the true religion, other than the fact that it was what I was taught as a kid? I was an intelligent science teacher with a master’s degree for goodness sake. Could I not see the fallacy of my beliefs?


Assuming wasn't necessary. If one would be born-again and circumcised in heart you can no that Jesus is real and the Bible is true beyond doubt. You can't see that from inside your bubble. And you can only get outside the bubble if God takes you out the Bubble.

Though down deep I was riddled with doubt, I justified my faith in Christianity and my dismissal of other religions because Christianity seemed to have an answer for all objections. You can find a bible verse that seems to dismiss almost any objection you want to throw at a Christian. What about other religions? They are mentioned and dismissed in the bible as being “heathen.” What about all our vast knowledge? The Old Testament warns against thought processes that would tend to lead you away from God. The New Testament seems to understand that there are rational arguments against believing, so it hammers the faith angle. Faith is all that matters; knowledge may be bogus.


Wilson seems to think that "faith" is at odds with rational arguments. Knowledge is nothing without understanding and wisdom. No where in the Bible are we asked to have faith in absence of evidence. Faith is an extension. You trust and obey God without having all the answers but it does not mean you have no evidence or contradicting evidence. For example, when you sit in a chair you don't really know it will support your weight. You believe it will based on past experience and what you see and you don't think the laws of Physics are going to change. But how do you know? We operate on faith daily! What or who are you going to put your faith in?

Wilson further wrote:

But the only evidence I was using to justify my belief was that the bible seemed to know my objections and handled them all. It didn’t register until much later in my life that these answers were bogus and one-dimensional. When people brought up the fact that other religions and their holy books also had answers to the same objections and when I started to realize that the only thing really special about Christianity was that it had more members than other religions, only then did I start looking at religion, all religion, from a truly skeptical position.

This is how I know Wilson was not born-again. If you really experienced the peace of God - the Joy - something was missing: Salvation. One can't truly say there is nothing special about Christianity had they really met and experienced what God promised those who love him. Skepticism is fine. However, God tells us to try Him out by obeying Him and you will see he keeps his promises.

Debunking Christianity: A Former Believer On Why He Once Believed and Then Left the Fold
Enhanced by Zemanta

“The Fatima Crusader” : True vs. Counterfeit Miracles | True Freethinker

Mariano Grinbank has posted a great article regarding Fr. Nicholas Gruner's contention that the miracle at Fatima was predicted by Jesus in Matthew 16. In short, I don't think we can say that. Mariano does a great job in explaining why Matthew 16 does not support Father Gruner.

“The Fatima Crusader” : True vs. Counterfeit Miracles | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe (Debunked)



Answering Muslims: The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe (Debunked)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Lift Every Voice and Sing


Watson May Have Won Jeopardy, But Ken Jennings Scores the Moral Victory - Topless Robot

What??!!! Jen Jennings lost Jeopardy?! Good thing that computer named Watson is not conscious!






Watson May Have Won Jeopardy, But Ken Jennings Scores the Moral Victory - Topless Robot
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

I cam across this debate between Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed. The debated the question: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Sam said "No." and Ahmed said "yes". Watch the videos in which they try to prove their point of view. The commentary on the debate is also very useful. Not new, but useful!










Answering Muslims: Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Answering Muslims: CBN: Civil War in France

This video disturbed me. Especially when the store owner in France was reporting such horrific crimes against her by Muslim men who want her to leave. I was wondering "what are the authorities doing?" France was once a superpower. Has France sunk so low enough that it can't protect its citizens - both Muslim and non-Muslim? I think all of Europe is going that way and so could the United States. "Christians" who think we should force convert everyone against their will are just as wrong as those Muslims seeking to impose Sharia anywhere. We need to be praying, folks.




Answering Muslims: CBN: Civil War in France
Enhanced by Zemanta

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Enlightened Agnostic Jew: Lesley Hazleton on reading the Qur'an

Thegrandverbalizer posted the following video yesterday. It's interesting. Lesley Hazleton was interesting to listen to - she is articulate, thoughtful and witty. She makes valid points that people throw the Qur'an under the bus out of ignorance and never really bother to research it for themselves. The problem is that when I've checked out the statements Sam Shamoun, David Wood, or James White and see if they are taking the Qur'an or Hadiths out of context I find that they are telling the truth. I admit that I am far less knowledgeable about the Qur'an than i am about the Bible but when I look at the arguments against the Bible of people who think the at we should all be Muslim, I can easily see where they are wrong. I don't know if they are lying or truly don't know but I'll assume ignorance instead of malevolence. As for Hazleton, her testimony does not carry much weight for me because she is an agnostic which means she has not made a commitment to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or anything. thegrandverbalizer seemed to me to try to suggest that she was leaning toward to Islam but I didn't get the sense of that at all. When I hear some of the statements she had to say about the 72 virgins in heaven and killing infidels she didn't really answer any of the objections I know that have been raised that I don't think have been adequately answered. The fact that seems unaware that women are not excluded in the Bible raises a flag for me that she doesn't understand Islam any better than she understands the Bible. When I hear women extol Islam, I just don't understand it. I mean are they reading the same translation I am? Did Hazleton not read about the violence and commands regarding how to treat infidels when Muslims have the majority and military and economic control? How does she reconcile that with the context she gave when Muhammad conquered Mecca? How does she feel about how women are treated in Islam controlled countries? Rape and brutality have always been used to keep people in line, but at least in Christianity the perpetrators acted against what it means to be Christians.





Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Enlightened Agnostic Jew: Lesley Hazleton on reading the Qur'an
Enhanced by Zemanta

Has Science Made Belief in God Unreasonable? MP3 Audio by J.P. Moreland - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted a lecture by philosopher J.P. Moreland discussing the question: does science make it unreasonable to believe God? The short answer: no. Listen to his longer answer at the following link.

Has Science Made Belief in God Unreasonable? MP3 Audio by J.P. Moreland - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #61 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christianity in Chaos: Turn The Cheek vs. The Just War

thegrandverbalizer has posted an artcle bringing up a supposed contradiction in the concepts of "just war" and "turning the other cheek". He attempts to make a difference between the Old Testament teachings, Jesus' words in the Gospels and how Jesus is portrayed in Revelations. In this post I will take the majority of his post and respond - skipping the discussion of CS Lewis because what Jesus has to say ismore important than what me or CS Lewis thinks. I have bolded text from thegrandverbalizer's article and I will respond from the point of view that what he wrote in the comments section is true: I am seriously trying to understand how the various Christians understand these specific passages.

The very unfortunate situation that Christians have found themselves in. It must be very hard to throw the man you claim to follow under the bus.

Let's see if thegrandverbalizer can make this charge stick.

I cannot imagine the internal conflict, the pain and confusion that goes on in the sincere Christian's heart and mind when they are forced to recognize that the teaches attributed to Jesus are not practical for them to follow in today's world.

Let's see if he can prove this one too.

Namely the issue of 'turning the other cheek'. Verses the 'Just War'.

So thegrandverbalizer is arguing that Christians are in conflict over turning the other cheek or defending themselves from harm.

There only a small fraction of Christians to my knowledge that follow Jesus 2.0 (The Jesus of the New Testament)

What:? Let's wait to see if he can make this duck fly.

However, the vast majority of Christians follow or prefer Jesus 1.0 (Prior to incarnation) and Jesus 3.0 (His return when he annihilates all life forms that oppose him)

The difference?

The minority of Christians such as Mennonites, Amish and Quakers (or society of friends) truly believe in the power of God to wage peace and not wage war. They believe in Jesus 2.0

Although I am not sure of their eschatology surrounding end time events.

For example what a beautiful and amazing piece this is written by a Christian:

http://lambswar.blogspot.com/2010/10/missional-quaker-faith-introduction.html

I'm not a Mennonites, Amish or a Quaker but I don't see how recognizing that waging war is sometimes necessary is at odds with any Jesus taught.

So you can see at least two Christians were not in favor of 'just war' and one tried to make a case for it using C.S Lewis own fictional works.

I respect C.S. Lewis, but it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks except what scripture says about this.

Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Now some Christians (Mennonites, Amish, Quakers , Jehovah's Witness) see in this as a statement true for all times and applications.

For example does anyone remember this very horrific incident that happened to the Amish community in Pennsylvania last year?

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/four-girls-killed-executed-at-us-amish-school/xkcuqep

Now how did the Amish respond? Did they use is an opportunity to advance a ban on assault weapons? Did they attack the liberals? Did they blame a decadent television culture? Did they seek revenge? Did they use it to promote their local grown agriculture that could surely bring them needed revenue?

NO! They did not! They held funerals as was routine in their community and said prayers. They had complete faith that we belong to God and to God is our return!

For this they are stand up people and always have my admiration and respect.

These Christians have a deeper esoteric understanding of the following text of the New Testament than I could fathom.

Let's really look at what the scripture says in this context.


38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. - Matthew 5:38-42

Jesus quotes the Old Testament law and one must remember that the law was not designed to say that evil must be responded to in kind but to limit the amount of vengeance people should expect from one another. For example, if you stepped on my toe, my response would be wrong if I killed your whole family. Jesus is not . The context Jesus is speaking of is the case where your personal safety, honor, or ego are at stake. We know this because being slapped in the face in the context of the 1st Century was the highest insult one could receive - especially being slapped with the back of the right hand. on the right side. If you turn the other cheek, the person cannot strike you with the back of their right-hand and probably wouldn't because slapping you with the left or with the front of the right-hand  and admit that you are equal to them. It's actually a way of protecting yourself. And as for the tunic and going the extra mile, Jesus is not just teaching that we should be humble and help others but even if it is unappreciated or inconvenient for us personal.

Romans 12:19
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

I find it interesting that thegrandverbalizer would quote Paul as an authority although he has gone on record repeatedly that he thinks Paul is wrong.  God uses Paul to make the promise to take vengeance for evils done against us.

Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Now for me this passage in Matthew if taken literally in all context and times is not practical. If I saw my sister being raped or molested by my father I certainly would not 'turn the other cheek' or run away. I also certainly would not distance myself from her in the future and label her an unstable individual. This is an unloving thing to do!

I would defend my sister, or my children from such an aggressor and I would do what was necessary to stop the violation!

Now notice this is in the context of self defense and not pre-emptive. It is not aggressive or offensive war.

Jesus is not telling us not to protect our families from harm. The Books of Esther, Joshua, and  Kings all show that God tells his people to defend themselves. and their families. Unfortunately there are times for war.

1 There is a time for everything,
   and a season for every activity under the heavens:
 2 a time to be born and a time to die,
   a time to plant and a time to uproot,
 3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
   a time to tear down and a time to build,
 4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
   a time to mourn and a time to dance,
 5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
   a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
 6 a time to search and a time to give up,
   a time to keep and a time to throw away,
 7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
   a time to be silent and a time to speak,
 8 a time to love and a time to hate,
   a time for war and a time for peace.- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Nothing Jesus said sets this aside.

Move over Jesus 2.0 here comes Jesus 3.0!

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." Luke 19:27

This verse seems to be a favorite of Muslim apologist to try to show that the Bible casts Jesus as violent. The context of the verse is that Jesus is telling a parable and saying what the king in the story said - not issuing a direct command.

However, most Christians will say that when Jesus returns in his 3.0 version he will be a slayer! A great slayer! It is such Christians today like Dominionist and those who believe in Dominon Theology like Sarah Palin's Church. Those Christians like Pat Robertson who believe we should just go and 'assassinate political leaders in Venezuela' are the one's who have no use for Jesus 2.0!

Christians are not called to dominate the world. Jesus said this world is not ours. We are not told in Revelation or anywhere in the Bible to assassinate anyone. Instead of looking to Sarah Palin or Pat Robertson for what Christians ought to do, we should look to what the Bible actually says. There is no Bible stand on. However, Muslims who thinks Muslims should run the world through force seems to have the Qur'an's backing, I'd be more worried about them that Pat Robertson.

For them Jesus 2.0 came and did what he was supposed to do for them in regards to their personal salvation. However they love and utilize Jesus 1.0 of the Old Testament,

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)
Mmmm Sinister!



Contrast this with Jesus 2.0
But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:16)

and Contrast this with Jesus 3.0

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searches the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." Luke 19:27

When Jesus returns to judge the world, what other outcome could people who reject Jesus Christ should expect? Given that there is no other way to be saved, there is no other outcome other than death.

So the vast majority of Christians who are warlike are only kept in check by secularism. If Christianity was allowed to co-exist as a state recognized religion we would expect much the same as in the past.

Actually, I think that these two sentences apply to Islam very much more than Christianity.

I want to know any Christian regime in Europe in which a single Mosque was allowed to exist? Contrast that to the hundreds of Churches that exist today and have existed in the middle east even at the Zenith of Islamic military power!

I'm not sure what he means here because today there are Mosques all over Europe and America. Does he mean in the Middle Ages? And what about all the persecution of Christians in Europe, Africa and the Middle East happening today? When was the last news reports of Muslims being raped, robbed, and killed just for being Muslim in Christian countries? We see the reverse daily.

So unfortunately the majority of the Christians see the Jehovah's Witness, the Amish, the Mennonites , the Quakers etc as seriously 'out of touch'. This also includes other main stream denominations such as Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist etc who will not accept the 'Just War' doctrine.

Failing to protecting those who can't protect themselves is not Godly. God empowers us to do good. Protecting people is good. thegrandverbalizer fails in this post to define "Just War",  I'd be hard pressed to try to justify the wars America is involved in now, but I think we can all agree that the Axis powers had to be stopped in World War II making it a just war as I would define it.


In fact I have as of yet found any Christian who was willing to defend the 'Just War' theory by citing passages from the New Testament! They pick and choose.

Romans 12 tells Christians that we must follow the governments that God has placed over us. When our nation calls a just war and does not conflict with Jesus taught and instead protects others, why would we not follow? There is nothing in the New Testament telling us not to defend or protect our families. We are told to stand up for what is right no matter the personal cost.

In fact many of the so called Christians today are very deceptive in that they decry what is being done in the name of Islam but they themselves say that the freedoms we have in the West are because of Christan. This is laughable at best!

Can he prove that?

If Americans, or Englishmen and women were given a choice between John Calvin's Geneva and 21 century America the choice is obvious! No one wants to live under a tyrant who was a misogynist and a prune!

Guess not. I'd like to see poof that Geneva was ran by a tyrant who hated women and was a prune. I can't come to that conclusion based on history. His logic does not follow.

The freedoms that the west enjoy today is because of the enlightenment period. The 'shackles' of religion were thrown off and the realization that Christians would continue to slaughter themselves to settle their disputes led us to the separation of Church and State.


A real distorted view of history. There aren't any Muslim states that enjoy all of the same freedoms that we have in the West and we have those freedoms, not because people stopped being religious,  but because they finally started living out out what the Bible said about freedom. Our constitutional right is to worship God in our own way - not to worship just any god.

Those Christians today who distance themselves from Dominonist or Rousas J Rushdoony, or Christian Reconstructionist are simply bleeding heart liberals to the core! They are not at all consistent in their world view. They are apologist and their game is smoke and mirrors.


What Muslims who argue that Islam is about tolerance and peace? Are they inconsistent? Are they reading the Qur'an correctly? The Bible does not say anything about Christians taking over this world, but we are also not to just stand by and not speak up for what is right either. In the West, it is easy to do.  Could you do that in Iran? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon? Egypt? Pakistan?  No.

I respect and absolutely admire those Christians who are consistent with their world view. Any Christian who believes in Jesus 2.0 gets my full respects. These Christians believe in the power of God to deliver them from evil. They are willing to get eaten by lions, and go like a sheep to the slaughter!

I think thegrandverbalizer is mixing categories and reasons. Christians should be willing to go like sheep to the slaughter rather than deny Jesus. That says nothing about allowing dictators to destroy lives or hurt our families. God provides protection sometimes by giving us the means to defend ourselves. In the West, most of that defense is in the freedoms we have been blessed with. Could you say the same in an Islamic state?

What the so called Christians are blind to see is that it is only those Christians who do not resist that God is moved to defend.

Tell that to the Jews in Persia who fought to protect their lives when Esther was queen. Or to Joshua. Or Abraham when he had rescue Lot. Or many of the other instances in the Bible. God always moves to defend his people, but it's not always obviously supernatural.

God is not at all moved to defend and aid those who still seek earthly power, dominion and station. Unfortunately there are too many Christians today who put the Red, White and Blue on par with God! Nay above God!

I agree, we should not seek earthly power but it's like medication. Some people (idiots) think that taking medication is doubting God but it's not. If God blesses you to have medication than he has provided for your needs. Same thing in war and self-defense. You are done and without help with God's intervention from the start, therefore if you have the means to defend yourself you should and trust and depend on God to make up all the places where you fall short..

For them the only thing that will advance the cause of Christ are ICBM tactical nuclear weapons, T1 Abrams Tanks, Sea-wolf submarines, sonic weapons and stealth bombers! Sure the gospel has it's place but these weapons can do much to advance the cause of Christianity!

Unfortunately, there are people who think this way. They need to read their Bible.

I hope that sanity and compassion find their way back in the Christian discourse. I think that interpretation is a very powerful thing. Who and what interprets the Christians is just as important as the text themselves.

Again another point of agreement. The Bible promises that following God will mean avoiding destructive extremes.

I think that there is room for a peaceful Christianity. A Christianity does not believe in Dominion and Theonomy. A Christianity that does not believe in the 'Just War' but that believes that God meets out justice. That the matter belongs to God.

I am confused on this point. Qur'an tells Muslims to fight and subjugate people who deny Islam. Where does Islam teach that God will meet out Justice without the Muslim doing anything? thegrandverbalizer said that "If Americans, or Englishmen and women were given a choice between John Calvin's Geneva and 21 century America the choice is obvious!" I want to ask would one rather live in an Islamic nation under Sharia instead of 21st Century America? I don't. 


Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Christianity in Chaos: Turn The Cheek vs. The Just War
Enhanced by Zemanta

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Paula Kirby in the Washington Post

John Loftus posted the following quote


Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles. Link




I think the quote is very timely and perfectly shows what the Bible says about humanity is true: We truly don't know why we stumble. The quote clearly shows the understanding that we are incomplete and not free. The problem is that Paula Kirby thinks its because of religion we are enslaved and misses the point that our jailer is not our desire to find God and relate to God. Our jailer is our own fallen, sin-sick human nature. There can be no true freedom without God. What is religion? It's our feeble attempts to approach God on our terms - as if what we can say or do can free us from our separation and make us complete. It can't - even "Christianity" lived on any terms outside of what the Bible says can fix our situation and release our shackles. Only Jesus can can do that.


Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by Paula Kirby in the Washington Post
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Debunking Christianity: “The Human Faces of God” by Thom Stark, Should be Required Reading in Every Evangelical Seminary, Bar None

John Loftus posted a review of Thom Stark's book: The Human Faces of God. According to the review, I disagree with much in the book, but that wouldn't stop me from reading it. Loftus and Stark actually agree on a lot of things and disagree on a lot of things. One point Loftus and Stark wrote about came to my attention in a big way:

Stark claims he is a Christian because he was born into that faith by Christian parents. And although he knows his parent’s flaws he is still their son and embraces them. “I am a Christian,” he writes, “because I chose to be a Christian. I am a Christian because I am a white male living in the West…Because I am a Christian, this book we call the ‘Holy Bible’ is uniquely my own. Whether I want it or not, I am stuck with it. Even if I were never to pick it up again, I could never put it down. It has shaped me in irrevocable ways.” (p. 242).

I really don't think Starks think that the only people can be Christian are white men who live in the west. That would be silly. How every I think it's a pretty bad reason to be Christian just because your parents raised you that way and you live in a nominal Christian culture. That's not a good enough reason to be a committed Christian. What struck me is how different Stark's definition of a Christian is verses what the Biblical description of a Christian.The Bible clearly describes what a Christian believes. Here is an example:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirita]" of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Does anyone see Christianity defined by race, culture, or geography? Nope.

Given that Stark denies the infallibility of the Bible - it's veracity and consistency - and the essential doctrines that characterizes who God is and what He has done, I don't know how Stark can consider himself a Christian.

Debunking Christianity: “The Human Faces of God” by Thom Stark, Should be Required Reading in Every Evangelical Seminary, Bar None
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Dunamis Word: The Difference Between Happiness & Joy

Elder Harvey Burnett has posted an awesome article based on a recent article from Essence magazine. The Magazine contains a list 0f 25 things you can do to bring yourself happiness. However it flies against what the Bible says in a few ways. Elder Burnett explains that the God promises us more than Happiness. God promises Joy. He goes on to show a true Biblical worldview.

The Dunamis Word: The Difference Between Happiness & Joy
Enhanced by Zemanta

Calvinistic Cartoons: Old Movie Poster Discovered

Hilarious!!!!


Calvinistic Cartoons: Old Movie Poster Discovered
Enhanced by Zemanta

Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: Bible Software for Android

I am always on the look out for good software for my Android devices. In looking for good digital lexicons and Hebrew/Greek texts for Android I came across a blog that is dedicated to biblical studies and technological tools. On it, I found a great post about Bible Studies software on Android! I'm familiar and happy with Olive Tree Software on my phone and tablet but it was nice to see what someone else thought about it. As per the recommendation I will also be installing Cadre's version. Sometimes to get all the features we need we have to use multiple apps/programs - nothing new there. Here are a couple of excerpts explaining why I'm making this decision.


OliveTree
  • Free BibleReader app with assortment of free Bibles: KJV, ASV, HCSB, JPS1917, NET (w/ limited notes)
  • Most developed, most resources
  • Study Bibles (e.g., ESV, HarperCollins, HCSB, NET w/ full notes: most in $10-30 range)
  • Greek and Hebrew Bibles (SBLGNT for free; BHS, LXX, NA27 also available in morphological versions w/ lexicons: $30-75 range)
  • Commentaries, dictionaries, devotionals, eBooks, maps, Strong's resources available
  • Josephus and Philo (English) are free
  • Android development lags behind iPhone/iPod Touch and earlier PalmOS and WinMobile, but they are busy expanding capabilities for Androi
  • Many non-English Bibles available
  • I have been a long time user of OliveTree, and I appreciate the ability to move my library from one platform to the next. (Palm > Axim > DroidX) I'm using versions I purchased previously like the NRSV and BHS, and the new SBL GNT is also on my DroidX. I have Philo and Josephus there too. The only problem is that I had purchased the Gramcord NT with its morphological analysis and dictionary, but this is not available on Android. They now offer a new morphologically tagged GNT (the Greek New Testament (NA27) with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology and UBS Dictionary), but it's still rather expensive, even with an upgrade path they offer. Given all the work OliveTree has done, their longevity in the business, and the wide collection of resources they offer, this one comes highly recommended.

CadreBible



  • "Over 60 Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries and Books available for offline reading"



  • Free versions include: ASV, KJV, NA26 GNT, Westcott-Hort NA26/UBS3 GNT, Scrivener GNT,



  • NET (w/ limited notes), Tanach (public domain Hebrew), LXX, Vulgate,



  • Search, bookmarks, notes, sharing, highlighting, reading plans



  • Parallel view (translations and/or commentaries; e.g., I have Gen 1:1 on screen showing NET, LXX, Hebrew, Vulgate!)



  • Can synchronize with Evernote



  • Non-English Bibles available



  • I am keeping this one on my DroidX because, as far as I have found, it's the only one to have a free LXX and Hebrew text. What's more, the Parallel view feature is extremely helpful to have Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English versions of a verse all on screen together


  • Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: Bible Software for Android
    Enhanced by Zemanta