Saturday, June 25, 2011

Faithful Thinkers: Video: Free Choice and Hell

Here is an interesting video of Norman Geisler from an episode of the John Ankerberg show. In the clip, Dr. Geisler talks about how people end up in hell.




I find myself in sharp disagree. Notice what he says: God tries to save as many people who let God save them. What? The argument put forth here is pretty much the same as what he wrote in his book on the same subject,Chosen But Free. Rather than rehash all the ways this view just doesn't stand up from Scripture as Geisler contends, I want anyone who wants to delve into this to read Chosen But Free and then read Dr. James White's response The Potter's Freedom. In the meantime, check out this video it sums up the other side perfectly!




Faithful Thinkers: Video: Free Choice and Hell
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #94 - Debunking Christianity: For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality

It's been a while since TGBaker has posted on Debunking Christianity. Today, I was reminded of why that is a good thing.  He again makes some serious errors that make me think that he does not understand what the Bible says.

I developed this ditty from a Facebook spat with a friend of mine who is a Christian Philosopher, Dr. James F. Sennett. I had never really thought about this area before. But I think it produces another problem with the omni-attributes of a proposed god.



I sure hope the TGBaker keeps corresponding with Dr. Sennett because God may use the discussions to bring TGBaker into right relationship with God. It would be an answered prayer.

Does God love something because it is good? Or is it good because God loves it? If God does or loves something because it is good, then the good looks to something that is more sovereign than God to which he must conform to be good. If God were to oppose these standards called good then God would not be god since he lacks omni-benevolence. So God's omniscience is limited by the good. If on the other hand what is good is simply what God loves and commands ( the Divine Command Theory), then the good is simply whatever is the whim of God (such as killing all the babies in the Canaanite genocide). If there are no standards apart from God other than what he wants or commands then apart from him there is no good.

The Bible clearly says that God love us. It says that we are evil. Therefore the line of reasoning is flawed from the beginning.  There is no standard that is apart from God and there is no good apart from Him. If we do anything "good" it is because of God's grace and God's restraining of our evil. 

The former idea that there is a good apart from god means that humanity should follow that standard and obey God only if he is compliant to that standard. The latter view which state that the good is simply God's whim is obeyed only because of the threat of punishment or damnation. This dilemma is called the Euthyphro dilemma and has been left to us by Socrates.

Who said that there is good apart from God. TGBaker presupposes this and offers no proof for it being true. On the other hand, morality is not based on God's whim. God's nature does not change. Basing our morality on God is truly objective because God is perfect and unchanging. God's standard is not a moving target.

Sam Harris has offered us a beginning means whereby to ground well-being in empirical science. I would like to call his tool Hell. Harris asks us to imagine a world with as much suffering, as intense suffering as possible, with as many people suffering and all of that for as long as can be imagined. Let's call this "Hell." It sounds like the Christian tradition and might be a good thing to rescue from them. Harris present the empirically based obvious. we would all agree that any movement from that designated measurement is a movement toward well-being, less suffering and more contentment. Obviously there are comparisons and considerations along the way to the antithesis of our Hell but our path will by that of human improvement. Our goal will be that of a paradise or heaven where well-being like physical health will be maximized.

Here is the problem with Harris' ideas: Hell is not just a plane of existence of maximum and intense suffering!  Hell is torment because of total separation from God. We were created to be in relationship with God. That is what the goal of religion is. That is what we search our lives for. People try to fill that void in their lives, often unconsciously. It doesn't matter how much pain is avoided in life because without that fulfillment in God, one can never be whole.

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
 26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.- Romans 8:18-30

With the removal of god from the mix the Euthypho dilemma becomes manageable. The idea of a transcendent good which God (much less any other being) is removed. An empirically based "landscape" of evidence and information for reasoning humanity to a better course is opened up as a field of promise. The fear of compliance of a tyrant that threatens eternal suffering is dethroned and replaced with a view toward paradise.

Removing God from the mix, make the dilemma unanswerable. Humanity is unable to reason adequately about what is right and wrong. And who can perfectly keep the standard that they know is right let alone what they don't understand? Jesus was clear. Entertaining the thought of sins like lust, coveting, and hatred are just as bad as adultery, stealing, and murder. This is because entertaining the thought may lead to actually performing the act. Be honest. Our hearts are filled with lusts and greed - sometimes beyond our control. Even when we seek to do good, as we understand it, evil is always present. How do you expect to get free?  Can you free yourself? Nope. God isn't a tyrant that threatens eternal suffering. God is a liberator from sin and death to which you are enslaved. Hell is not a possible destination - it is a foregone conclusion without Jesus.

Debunking Christianity: For the Love of God: Or Hell as a Tool for Secular Morality
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, June 24, 2011

Yesterday on the Dividing Line: The Dumbest Thing Ever Said about Islam, and Calls

Dr James White talked about the following video and discussed important information about Islam. Follow the link after the video




Yesterday on the Dividing Line: The Dumbest Thing Ever Said about Islam, and Calls
Enhanced by Zemanta

How To Avoid Getting Hit By A Train - G4tv.com




How To Avoid Getting Hit By A Train - G4tv.com

Psalm 23 – A Video Presentation | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

A valuable bog post from Dr Mariottini. Just what do Shepherds do? Understanding this give huge more meaning to Psalms 23!


Psalm 23 from SourceFlix on Vimeo.

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the darkest valley,[a]
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever. - Psalm 23

Jesus said:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. - John 10:1

Psalm 23 – A Video Presentation | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

CNN's Take On Mormonism

Colin Smith has posted a video from CNN about what Mormonism is. He wrote:

CNN posted a "religion" spot called "Explain It to Me: Mormonism" in which their religion editor explains Mormonism. Undoubtedly the fact that Mitt Romney is running for president again has ignited some interest in this "quintessential American religion." However, anyone who has done any research into Mormonism, or truly understands the doctrinal differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity, will recognize CNN's attempt here as an effort to portray the LDS church according to the image they currently wish to have, not according to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Indeed, if you take this video at face value, the Mormons are just another Christian denomination, albeit with a few quirky things that make them different. What you won't find in this video are such things as: Adam-God doctrine, polytheism, progression to godhood, and Joseph Smith's repudiation of all Christian denominations. To name a few.


What blows my mind is that many Mormons don't seem to know what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. I wonder if some most Mormons are ignorant of their heresies or if in fact they repudiate them. I have to wonder, if you reject them, how are you still a "Mormon"?




CNN's Take On Mormonism
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #93 - Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test: Pretend You're Hearing the Gospel for the First Time

John Loftus hss called attention to the following video because it supposedly gives a good example of how his methodology for evaluating Religion is practiced. He coins the approach as "The Outsider Test of Faith" (OTF). It boils down to evaluating a religions claims from the point of view of an outsider - pretending you are hearing it for the first time. I don't have any problem with the method per se because it's actually not a bad idea if you can truly objective weigh the claims a religion is making and don't mischaracterize what those beliefs are and are not. I agree with Loftus that this video is indeed instructive. It perfectly demonstrates how you should not performed an OTF of Christianity. In this we can see that an awful misunderstanding of theology leads to a conflicted and confused mess.




Look at how the Gospel is presented there are terrible presuppositions such as:

1. Jesus' resurrection has no value to anyone before Christ.
2. God has condemned most of humanity.
3. People are Christians because of the culture they are.
4. No one is a sinner
5. God realized that sin keeps souls coming from going to heaven.
6. God had to appeal to someone else for the need of a sacrifice for sin.
7. There is something wrong with the way the messages has been sent
8. It took a long time for the message to spread beyond a small geographic area.

Why are these failed presuppositions? Simple. Christians don't believe this. The Bible does not support these presuppositions. If you are going to evaluate Christianity then you should at least use theology and arguments Christians actually use and the Bible teaches.

1. Christians believe that all of those who were born and lived before us, since Adam will share in the same inheritance as us. Jesus said

31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” - Matthew 22:31-32

God would not just abandon folks He chose just because they didn't understand all of the plan of salvation in it's fullness. Jesus' sacrifice covers you, me, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, David, Josiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Paul, Jude, Peter, and everyone in between who put their faith in Christ.

 32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. - Hebrews 11:32-40
2. No, hell is the default. destination for all of us. God knows what He is doing and has chosen to save those who believe in the provisions He has given us. No one has an excuse because God has given each one of us enough evidence and information for us to make an informed decision about Jesus. God only expects us to respond to what He has revealed to us. Abraham did not know about crucifixions or what the name of Messiah would be, yet he was justified by his faith in what he did know of the promises of God.

  1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” - Romans 4:1-3

Don't make the mistake of missing the fact that if you know of the details of that plan, and yet reject that revelation the standard God will hold you to are higher than for those who lived under the Old Covenant because you had more revealed to you than they.

22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” - Matthew 11:22-24

3. It's not true that the only people who are Christians are people who are born into a "Christian" culture. It cracks me up when atheist make such a charge and then out of the other side of their mouths deny that Christianity had anything to do with the founding of America.. I make a difference between being truly born-again and just being a nominal Christian because you were raised in Church. If the Holy Spirit is not in you, you can't be a Christian in the way the Bible means it. Also if they were right than no would convert to religions outside of the one they grew up in. And people would not be able to become atheists either. This point is also tied to the previous one about condemning the majority of humanity. If you believe the Bible then you must immediately drop point 2 and 3 because the Bible contradicts them. God puts all of in the best possible place we can find Him. For some of us that means being raised in atheist homes. Sometimes it means growing up Buddhist, or Mormon, or Muslim, or only God knows what else.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ - Acts 17:24-28
4. We are so hopelessly enslaved to sin, it makes no sense to argue that just because we try to do right and be kind that it even kind of balances out the evil that we do. In the sermon on the mount in Matthew 6, Jesus spelled out what Christians believe about this point. If you entertain thought of lusts, it is no different to God than if you fornicated or committed adultery. If you covet, you might as well steal. If you hate someone, you might as well murdered them. According to this standard every single one of us stands condemned before a holy God.

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.- Isaiah 64:6

We have so totally missed the mark we can't even see or understand it without God's intervention.

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.- Romans :5-8

So do you need a savior because of your sins? Yup.

5. God did not just look at Adam eating the fruit and rebelling against Him and say "Oh Crap!!! What am I going to do now?" Jesus' redemption of God's chosen people and the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus were already set before the universe was brought into existence.

8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. - Revelations 13:8

 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. - Romans 5:6


  22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. - Acts 2:22-24
6. To whom is it that Christians believe that the debt of sin is owed? If you were going to pay for your own sin who collects? The Bible teaches us that it is God who we owe.

4Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.- Ezekiel 18:4

The wages of sin is death. It the logical consequence of sin. It's what we have earned because we sin in thought, word, and deed. Because of our sin, we deserve to be eternally separated from God in Hell. The debt is to God. Jesus sacrifice is propitiatory. A propitiation means that the debt we owed was satisfied because Jesus took our place on the cross and stood in our place. He took the wrath of God on Himself so we wouldn't have to. A fundamental aspect of God's character that is loss on someone who would make point 6 a contention is that God' characteristic  holiness and justness demands that sin be paid for and punished.

7. It's always amazing to me when someone walks up to something and decides critique it's design and not have a clue as to what the spec were. Does it make sense to pick up John Loftus'  books and start complaining about his punctuation? This is what we do when we complain about the design choices that God has chosen to implement in the world around us. We can't possibly know all things and reasons that went into those decisions. All we got is an opinion and no idea what we are talking about. As Christians, we accept the methods that God has chosen to spread the Gospel (which whoever made the video doesn't understand what the Gospel is).

 5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” - Romans 10:5-15

I can't argue with the results it worked on me and on many, many others for centuries.

8. The point that Christianity began in a small geographic area around the Mediterranean sea is misleading. The church began in the very city  Jesus was crucified about 50 days later with many of the same people who was present for all the events leading up to it. It is incomprehensible that a movement would get started around a man executed as shameful criminal in the same city he was executed without something miraculous happening - the Resurrection. Let's also not forget the fact that this movement spread so quickly that we are not just talking about a small geographical area. By the 60's AD around just 30 years after the crucifixion there were Christians in the farthest reaches of the Roman empire and in Rome itself! I'd call that phenomenal growth that continues even today! Nothing wrong with the way God does things.

The OTF is a good idea, but this video fails because it doesn't correctly represent what Christians believe And if you were going to apply OTF, it would not be a  monologue of hashing ideas and concepts Christians do not hold. It would be back and forth - questions and answers - and facts outside of the Bible from Archaeology, History, science, and whatever else we can test.

20 Don't treat prophecies as if they amount to nothing. 21 Put everything to the test. Hold on to what is good. 22 Stay away from every kind of evil.- 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22

This video fails the test of objective truth. Even if you don't agree with what the Bible says you still have to take into account what it says and what it doesn't say if you are really interested in fairly using OTF.

Debunking Christianity: The Outsider Test: Pretend You're Hearing the Gospel for the First Time
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Quote of the Week: Westminster Shorter Catechism | Reflections

“What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), Q&A #1.


Quote of the Week: Westminster Shorter Catechism | Reflections
Enhanced by Zemanta

Geeks vs Nerds vs Dorks [Cartoon]

Which are you?

Geeks vs Nerds vs Dorks [Cartoon]

The BOBA Digest: Dan Barker and the Confusing Author | True Freethinker

Dan BarkerImage by Matti Á. via FlickrSome of my favorite posts from Mariano Grinbank is when he addresses the nonsense of Dan Barker. Mariano is addressing the following argument:

His latest talking point is to best expressed via a syllogism:
1) The Bible states that “God is not the author of confusion.”
2) The Bible has caused a lot of confusion.
3) Therefore, God is not the Bible’s author.
As much as on the surface this syllogism appears airtight; there are various fallacies packages within.
Mariano then goes through and systematically deconstructs Barker's argument. It is a thing of beauty. Follow the link to read Mariano's post.

The BOBA Digest: Dan Barker and the Confusing Author | True Freethinker
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Can Atheists Live Without God? by Norman Geisler MP3 - Apologetics 315

This week Brian Auten posted a lecture about Athesism by Dr. Norman Geisler. Definitely worth listening to.


Can Atheists Live Without God? by Norman Geisler MP3 - Apologetics 315

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Killed Goliath? – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Here is the second part of an essay in which Dr Claude Mariottini gives us his thought processes of stepping through the various ways people have answered the question: "Who Killed Goliath?" This really cool. I can't wait for the next part. Read the post at the following link:

Who Killed Goliath? – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Uninsured Man Robs Bank for $1 to Get Access to Medical Care via Prison

Okay, when a man is so desperate for health care coverage that he can only get coverage by being convicted for bank robbery, our society is sliding towards rock bottom!! This is a wake up call. Rock bottom is staring us in the face, America.

STON, N.C -- A North Carolina man suffering from an undiagnosed growth on his chest and two ruptured disks walked into an RBC bank and handed a note to a teller demanding $1. He then sat by the door and waited for police to arrive.

Richard James Verone says he needs medical attention and hoped that by getting arrested, he would have access to health care in prison.

"I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic, what I came up with," Verone told WCNC. "If it is called manipulation, then out of necessity because I need medical care, then I guess I am manipulating the courts to get medical care."

Three years ago, Verone was laid off from Coca-Cola after 17 years on the job. He says he has had part-time work since then, but nothing with health insurance.

He is hoping for a three-year sentence, enough time to collect social security and obtain the medical help he requires, Verone says.

"If you don't have your health, you don't have anything," he says.

The 59-year-old was unarmed at the time of the incident.

He is being charged with larceny and is held on a $2,000 bond. He will appear in court June 28. (source)




THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Uninsured Man Robs Bank for $1 to Get Access to Medical Care via Prison
Enhanced by Zemanta

Stark Wars | MandM

I've often posted articles in relation to Paul Copan's theodicy found in his book Is God a Moral Monster. It's been endorsed by both Dr William Lane Craig and the Flannagans. I have yet to really make up my mind about whether I agree with them or not, but Madeleine Flannagan has posted a really good summary article linking to the back and forth conversation between Thom Stark, Copan, and many others. When one has the time to start looking into the issue of where or not the conquest of Canaan involved suicide, this article linked below is where you wanna start.

Stark Wars | MandM
Enhanced by Zemanta

Former Congressman Uses Famous 'Green Lantern' Scene to Attack Political Enemies - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Anyone who uses a vintage Green Lantern comic book story to make a political point does deserve some props. Alan Grayson, former U.S. Representative for Florida's 8th district between 2009 and 2011, posted the following:

The movie Green Lantern opened on Friday, to mixed reviews. Maybe the reviews would have been better if the movie had included this powerful exchange, from Green Lantern #76:

I may never have the chance to talk to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or any of the other Masters of the Universe who led and misled our country for eight long years. Nor may I ever have the chance to speak to Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other savage right-wing loons who want to finish the job that Bush et al. started. But if I could, I might say:

Me: I've been readin' about you . . . How you work for multinational corporations like Big Oil. . . . And how you say you built all those roads and schools and bridges in some country in Asia. And in some other country in the Middle East someplace you got rid of some dictator. Only there's one country you never bother with -- America! I want to know . . . how come?! Answer me that, Mr. Flag-Waiving Patriot!

Them: I . . . can't . . . .

Well, I can answer that. For a generation now, we have seen the heartless, callous erosion and destruction of all the things that make you a member of the middle class in America:

A job.

A home.

A car.

The chance to see a doctor when you are sick.

A pension or retirement account.

Social Security and Medicare.

And we've seen them replaced by endless war, falling home values, no pensions, lower wages, and now what Karl Marx called a "reserve army of the unemployed" -- to keep wages down forever.

Even after only two years in office, as one out of 435 in the House, I can point to a lot of things that I did to preserve, protect and expand the middle class in America, and to help those of us who were falling through the cracks.

I look at our so-called leaders on the other side of the aisle, and I see nothing like that. Only a perverse delight in eliminating programs that help my fellow Americans in need. They'll lead us, all right -- they'll lead us straight to ruin.

The next time you see one of them -- at a town hall meeting, in their plush offices, or just on the street -- ask them this: "What have you done to help the people? Answer me that!"

If they're honest, they'll say what Green Lantern said: "I can't."

Courage,

Alan Grayson

In brightest day,
In blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might,
Beware my power: Green Lantern's Light.
Too many of our people in society are serving evil rather than good.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/06/21/congressman-alan-grayson-green-lantern/#ixzz1Py89wcjW


Former Congressman Uses Famous 'Green Lantern' Scene to Attack Political Enemies - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science | Reflections

Kenneth Samples has posted an essay he wrote about how science and Christianity are related to one another. He wrote:

Conflicts between scientific theories and the Christian faith have arisen through the centuries, to be sure. However, the level of conflict has often been exaggerated, and Christianity’s positive influence on scientific progress is seldom acknowledged.2 I would like to turn the tables by arguing for Christianity’s compatibility with and furtherance of scientific endeavors and by arguing against the compatibility of naturalism and science.

Read his essay using the following the link.

The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science | Reflections
Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama and Video Games

I've made no secret that I don't agree with President Obama on everything and video games and their value appears to be one of those things. He has recently been quoted as saying:

"We know that every father has a personal responsibility to do right by their kids – to encourage them to turn off the video games and pick up a book; to teach them the difference between right and wrong; to show them through our own example the value in treating one another as we wish to be treated. And most of all, to play an active and engaged role in their lives."


I disagree but it could be because of my age verses his. I? know quite a few people his age. My older siblings are his age and my sister (in particualar) is only one month younger than President Obama. One things I've noticed about their demographic is that they don't see video games, comic books, or other digital entertainment as art or worthwhile intellectual endeavors like any other art. I know that there is a lot of disagreement on this but I think that video games can be as engaing and intellectually stimulating as books. I'm going to teach my children it's important to read, reat to them, read in front of them, and teach them to play videogames. I think a great way to combine the two is to read books on tablets and computers.

Obama: Kids Should Pick Up Books, Put Down Games - G4tv.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fiber Optic Cables: How They Work [Video]

The Internet is a wonderful new world. When I was in College, I had a few classes in college covering optic cables technology but this would have really helped me then! I love this stuff.




Fiber Optic Cables: How They Work [Video]
Enhanced by Zemanta

U.S. Soldier Isaias Hernandez Re-Grows Leg Muscle Using Pig Bladder Hormones (VIDEO)


Quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with science such as this. IT is just a matter of understanding the creation and harnessing it a good way. All healing comes from God. It's just an impressive use of medication. It's a gift from our creator!







U.S. Soldier Isaias Hernandez Re-Grows Leg Muscle Using Pig Bladder Hormones (VIDEO)
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, June 20, 2011

Dr Ben Witheringing III on "Who Wrote 2 Peter"

The key as symbol of St. PeterImage via WikipediaYou may or may not be aware of  a comment thread a few weeks ago between myself and Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson argued that Peter could not have written the epistle and because it says he did, the letter is a lie and unreliable. He quoted Dr. Ben Witherington III as a source and an example of a scholar who is a Christian who does not believe 2 Peter was written by the apostle. He later backed off it a little bit and conceded that Wirtherington actually believes the Peter wrote the first part of the letter. I decided to see if I could get in contact with Dr Witherington himself and see what he thought. I sent him to the following e-mail:

Hello, Dr Witherington.

I am a great fan of your work regarding Jesus and your apologetic material. Thank you!!!

A few weeks ago I responded to a blog post that asserted that Jesus told his disciples that he would return in their lifetimes and because he didn't Jesus is no better than Harold Camping.  You can see my post on that here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/05/facepalm-of-day-81-debunking.html


Of course I disagreed and an atheist kept the conversation going in the comments. To make the story shorter, one of the arguments  I gave was that Peter in 2nd Peter explains what Jesus meant by "soon" and that he didn't understand Jesus to be saying what the atheists were saying Jesus said. The atheist argued against me by saying that most Biblical scholars, including you, don't believe that the Apostle Peter wrote most if not all of the epistles attributed to him. He then concluded that who ever wrote the letters lied and both epistles should by tossed because the author was a liar.  Of course I disagree. I was wondering if you could point out any papers/books you have written about 1 & 2 Peter's authorship, reliability, and if you consider these letters scripture every bit as much as the rest the New Testament?

On another blog, there was a good article about why some Biblical scholars think that there is good evidence that Apostle Peter wrote the epistles written for them: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/good-evidence-for-2-peter-as-written-by.html
  I was wondering what your take on that is? Thanks for your time and I thank God for how God has used you. You have been a blessing to me and many, many others!
Marcus McElhaney
Thankfully, Dr Witherington was gracious enough to respond.

Hi Marcus:

Thanks for this.   You can always read my Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Volume 2 on 1-2 Peter for more info.  The short answer is that 2 Peter is a composite book.  It contains a large chunk of Jude in it, it contains Pauline traditions in chapter three, and it contains some authentic Petrine material in Chapter One.  It follows the tradition of attributing a document to its first and most famous source, in this case Peter.  I think the story of the Transfiguration does go back to Peter himself.  I would say this document was assembled at the end of the first century when there was actually a collection of Paul's letters circulating in the church (see 2 Peter 3).    If you want to see my rebuttal to Ehrman's Forged, I posted a whole series of blog posts on this on my blog back in the spring.   A composite document attributed to one of its genuine sources is no forgery.  But the ancient concept of what counted as authorship is different from ours.

Blessings

Ben W.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore Ky.
Doctoral Faculty St. Mary's College, St. Andrews University, Scotland
I've heard of much the same argument made for authorship of Isaiah and other Old Testament texts. I think that this explanation is viable, buyt I believe I need to do more research into this. Witherington is not by any means saying toss out 2 Peter or calling it worthless as Andrerson seemed like he was trying suggest. If anyone else is interested in Dr Witherington's rebuttal of  Dr. Ehrman's "Forged" use the link below.


http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture?s=forged

Thank you, Dr. Ben Witherington III.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama impersonator crosses the line - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Did comedian Reggie Brown cross the line?




This is a wake up call for me. Had a white republican said such things, I'd be incensed. However when George Bush was President the jokes were coming fast and furious.  I think there is a double standard.  Just like black people can call each other the "N-Word" but white people can't use it. Fair? No. I think the best way to handle this just like the. N-Word, no one should use it. You can criticize another person's policies and opinions, and decisions without personally attacking their race and character. It seems like our society has forgotten how to do that.

Obama impersonator crosses the line - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #93 - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig: "This is a Delightful Brainteaser"

FACEPALM Dean WinchesterSo what is the confusion here? Okay, before I get ahead of myself read John Loftus' post

Craig agrees with and "wholeheartedly endorses the bizarre...conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist.” What is this delightful brainteaser?

In his weekly Q & A is this question he seeks to answer:
The Law of Contradiction states that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. The statements "God exists and the universe does not exist" and "God exists and the universe exists" are mutually exclusive statements and do not differ in respect. The only way to avoid a contradiction, if both are to be asserted, is to assert that each is true at a different time. But if we take the word "universe" to mean both space and time, and affirm that time itself had a beginning, then time only exists provided that the statement "God exists and the universe exists" is true, and time does not exist provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true. And if time does not exist, provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true, then there is no time at which that statement is true. But if that is the case, then must we not conclude that each of these statements cannot be true at different times, and so that to maintain that God existed at a time before the universe existed is self-contradictory? Would it not also lead to the conclusion that if God is the cause of the universe, the universe must co-exist eternally with Him and therefore has no beginning? Or would that only lead one to the bizarre but not necessarily self-contradictory conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist?

Travis
USA

Link.
Here is the confusion. Of course there was no time at which the Universe did not exist because Time itself has a beginning. Space and Time came into being simultaneously. God is not subject to Time. How can you be subject to that which you created? Remembering this will avoid such mistakes in the future.


Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig: "This is a Delightful Brainteaser"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Killed Goliath? | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr. Mariottini has begun a discussion on who was it that killed Goliath. He discusses multiple theories to explain the Biblical texts. This is part 1. I can't wait for part 2!

Who Killed Goliath? | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

Same Sex Marriage Is Destroying Marriage…… | The Angry Black Woman


I agree that Charlie Sheen, Kelsey Grammer, Larry King, Britney Spears, Jesse Jams, and Tiger Woods profane and denigrate marriage. They and all who fail to live up to the responsibilities of their marriages should be forced to give an account and held responsible. They certainly fail to meet the standard. However, just because we, as a society, have failed does that mean we should lower the bar? Is the standard so high that people can't stay committed to their spouses? I don't think so. So for what reason, and I have never seen a good reason for doing it, is there for changing the definition of a "marriage"? And further where do we stop? Is it okay to marry a sibling? Multiple people simultaneously? Pets? Children? If not why not? What is to keep "marriage" to be redefined by who ever has enough money and political power? Nothing.
 
Same Sex Marriage Is Destroying Marriage…… | The Angry Black Woman
Enhanced by Zemanta