Generation Text: Teens and Their Texting Habits [Infographic]
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
FacePalm of the Day - #99 - Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded
Several weeks ago, John Loftus recently posted the following quote from Harry McCall. McCall makes quite a few claims. It doesn't hold up.
The belief that either Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that it predates the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy – II Kings) is unfounded by the Biblical facts themselves:I'm going to grant that Deuteronomistic History as a fact because most scholars seem to agree to it even though I'm not completely sold on it. Instead let's look at McCall's claims that Moses did not write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers.
I'm glad that McCall is willing to grant the John 7:19 accurately recounts Jesus' words. It's nice to have a point of agreement to start with. I don't agree with the modern view but this post is about McCalls' alleged contradiction which he says show that Moses did not write those first books of the New Testament.
(Yet it is clear that Jesus thought Moses gave Israel the Law: “Did not Moses give you the Law,…” John 7: 19). Thus, if the modern critical view of the Bible is correct, then Jesus himself is subject to error.)
Point A: Why do latter books of the Bible totally ignore early Mosaic Laws - such as when Elijah is commanded by God to eat what unclean ravens brought (1 Kings 17:6) - especially when the Law clearly forbids eating that which has been torn by beasts?
The latter books of the Bible do not ignore the Mosaic Laws. Now a few important points:
1. Who said that the ravens brought Elijah brought meat that had been torn by beasts?
2. Does McCall really think that no one else has thought of this question?
3. There is a long tradition offering alternatives other that what McCall suggests. For Example.
1. "You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs." Exodus 22: 31
2. "Also the fat of an animal which dies and the fat of an animal torn by beasts may be put to any other use, but you must certainly not eat it." Lev. 7: 24
3. "He shall not eat an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, becoming unclean by it; I am the LORD." Lev 22: 8)
These three examples actually misrepresents what the Bible says.
1. Doesn't conflict with the raven because the Bible does not say that the meat came from torn animals.
2. Fat and Meat are not necessarily the same thing. The Hebrew words used for "flesh" in Exodus 22:31 and "fat" in Lev 7:24; 22:8 are not the same words at all. Again, it doesn't conflict with ravens bringing Elijah food wither.
3. Leviticus 22:8 is in context of the Levitcal priesthood. Which would have applied to Elijah. But not in context with the raven because of the aforementioned reasons. Let's see if McCall's arguments improve.
Some more Biblcial[sic] proofs of the LATE creation of the “Mosaic Law” (Pentateuch) is listed below:
No improvement here. We just agreed that Deuteronomy may not have been written by Moses. I'll save that for another post. The passage is clear for why Samuel did not think there should be a king.
Point B: Why did Samuel hesitate to anoint a king over Israel (1 Samuel 8) when Samuel already had Deuteronomy 17: 15?
Point C: Why did Elijah build an altar to Yahweh away from the legitimate central sanctuary?
Where does the Torah say that it's wrong to build an altar away from the central sanctuary. A reference would have been nice. At the time the Torah came down there was only the Tabernacle and no Temple. There is a tradition that was certainly around in Jesus' time that Jerusalem was the only legitimate place to worship God, but Jerusalem did not come under Jewish control until David's time and we know they were worshiping Yahweh way before that. And Jesus shot down this idea in John 4.
Point D: Why can Hezekiah quote no “Mosaic Law” for his reform, whereas Josiah does (2 Chronicles 31 to 2 Kings 23)?
Who said Hezekiah couldn't? Hezekiah's reforms were in line with the Mosaic Law, just because the passages does not quote the Law doesn't mean they didn't have it.Also keep in mind that a lost book was found in the temple during Josiah reign. If the Law had not been written down, what were they reading? See
8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the LORD for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” - 2 Kings 22:8-13
Again, after McCall says he's dealing with the books before Deuteronomy, he brings up another conflict between Deuteronomy and Leviticus. So again his further arguments deteriorate.
Point E: Why does Deuteronomy permit Levites to come to the altar where as Leviticus does not? Link.
Harry McCall even further posted the following anecdote.
I found this anecdote extremely sad. McCall seems to be willing to think that Dr Archer calling him a "nut" and not even dignifying his silly ideas with a rebuttal is the same as not being able to offer counter arguments. Further it's interesting how atheists are more than willing to see Richard Dawkins' dismissal of Christians as a "win" but think that if a Christian scholar does the same of arguments that they think are not worth their time equates to the Christian "loosing". Why would McCall think that Archer was stumped. I think Archer just didn't want to waste his time. I mean he couldn't just let McCall think he had worthy arguments.I mean that is what Dawkins says. Total fail here.
Twenty-three years ago (while I was president of our humanistic discussion group here in Greenville The Lion‘s Den) I debated a young ministerial student over the truth of the Bible (one of a number of debates I did back in the 80’s). This nice young ministerial student published very well written a monthly apologetic newspaper he entitled: The Bible Trumpet.
With regard to our debate, he asked me if his wife could help in defending his conservative position on Biblical truth... one point being that Moses wrote Pentateuch. I told him I would welcome her input, however the debate did not fare well for them and they left disappointed.
A year later, he excitedly told me that he was going to attend an Apologetic Bible conference where the famed Late Gleason Archer, PhD; ThD; the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar and the editor of “The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” along with the conservative Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser would be leading a major conference on the defense of the Bible.
Dr. Archer's topic was: What Proof Do We have That Moses Wrote the
Pentateuch?
Dr. Walter Kaiser’s topic was: The J E D P Documentary Hypothesis Exploded
(I still have the audio tape somewhere in my library.)
After both apologetic lectures, Drs. Archer and Kaiser would then debate several Moslem scholars in order to exposed the Qu’ran as a false historical record (A debate I thought was like the pot calling the kettle black!).
My young friend told me he had been in touch with Dr. Archer who challenged him to have me write down any facts which I felt proved Moses did not write the Pentateuch. My friend said he would personally give them to Dr. Archer at the conference and claimed that Dr. Archer “…would put me in my place”.
My young ministerial friend told me that he was very excited about Dr. Archer’s challenge to me and he could not wait to give me my irrefutable apologetic proofs that Moses did write the Pentateuch. So I wrote down five hard facts which I felt proved Moses did, in fact, not write the Pentateuch.
A week later my ministerial friend returned, but seemed very disappointed. After all, he had used his short vacation time off from his night job (as he was a full time college Bible student during the day), plus he paid all his expenses to and at the conference with his credit card.
When I asked him what irrefutable evidence Dr. Archer provided so as to prove my facts wrong, he told me he didn’t know what had happened.
He said he gave Dr. Archer my questions, who studied them for a short time, then Archer threw them on the conference table and exclaimed: “Whose this nut?” before walking off.
That’s right! Yours truly has been declared an official declared a “nut” by the editor / author of The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (sounds a lot like JP Holding).
However, I had the last laugh since (the funny thing is) it only took a “nut” to stump the great Gleason Archer!
Debunking Christianity: Harry McCall: Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is Unfounded
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models
Faithful Thinkers: Audio: Major Creation/Evolution Models
Facepalm of the Day #99 - Debunking Christianity: Only Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Can Set the Record Straight
Gee, I guess Dr Matthew Flannagan and Dr Paul Copan really got under John Loftus' skin. I'm not going to comment on every single red herring and mistake Loftus and Dr Avalos have made, I'll leave that to Dr Copan and Dr Flannagan if they'd like. I doubt it'll make a difference, Loftus and Avalos have already made up their minds and don't really want discussion and understanding. There are several points that I think need to be pointed out. I get comments and emails from skeptics who think Christian apologists do not really believe what they defend. They think the case is so bad that apologists must be lying for ulterior motives, that they are liars for Jesus. Here is a case in point for two apologists, Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, and Matthew Flannagan. I'm not accusing these two apologists of lying for Jesus. But it sure makes it appear that way when they won't or can't answer some simple questions both Hector Avalos and I have posed to them.
Notice in this above paragraph, Loftus claims not to be calling either Copan or Flannagan liars. However, I have never seen anyone prove that Christianity has no merits worthy of believing it. Loftus and others are overstating the case.
Here is the post Dr. Avalos wrote, Underhanded Biblical Interpretation: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 in Context, where he asked his simple questions:
QUESTIONS FOR DR. COPANMatthew Flannagan entered the fray right here, upon which Hector asked him:
In case Dr. Copan wishes to respond, here are a few questions for him:
A. Why did you ignore the evidence of the Septuagint in your attempt to understand the meaning of Deut. 25:11-12?
B. Can you show us another clear instance where QATSATS + KAPH means “shaving pubic hair”?
C. Do you regard uniqueness of law as a reason to interpret it non-literally?
D.Where else do you find the expression "your eye shall not have pity" when someone endures punitive shaving?
E. Would you accept non-literal interpretations of the Near Eastern texts you regard as more brutal than the Bible?
But to be clear: Do you believe Westbrook takes Lev. 24:17-22 literally?In the comments section Flannagan has a useful idiot named BenYachov who helps the cover-up by diverting attention away from Flannagan answering such a simple question.
Yes or No?
Please do give us a Yes or No, even if you wish to elaborate later. It will make our discussion more efficient.
What does BenYachov being an idiot have anything to do with if he's right or not? Further, the only proof Loftus gives for BenYachov being an idiot is the Loftus disagrees with him. If anything that is a point in BeYachov's favor. Also I see no reason for assuming anything negative on Flannagan or BenYachov's parts. Sad. It's like Loftus didn't understand anything Flannagan or Copan has written. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification or for more information but don't ignore what has already been said without response.
No wonder many skeptics think apologists lie for Jesus in defense of their faith. Do they? Only Copan and Flannagan can set the record straight.
I thought that there was no accusation of Copan or Flannagan being liars? Well, may be suggesting it isn't the same as merely asserting it?
---------------
In my case, Matthew Flannagan wrote a comment saying: "As to the OTF you'll see I have pointed out that argument is incoherent." I don't take kindly to such hand waving and I certainly don't want him going around claiming such a thing elsewhere, so I challenged him about his understanding of the OTF, and asked him five sets of questions:
I personally don't have a problem with the OTF. I think God gave us a gift with it. Unfortunately, Loftus is unable to correctly apply it because he doesn't know what Christians believe. Everytime I see a posting in which he attempts to apply it he never correctly evaluates what Christianity claims.
1) Do you or do you not assume other religions shoulder the burden of proof? When you examine Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, Mormonism, Shintoism, Jainism, Haitian Voodoo, the John Frum Cargo Cult, Satanism, or the many African or Chinese tribal religions, do you think approaching them with faith is the way to test these religions, or would you agree with the OTF that a much fairer method is by assuming they all have the burden of proof, including your own?Do you know what his response has been?
This is all a well and good question, but Loftus doesn't know what faith is. I'm not sure how he can evaluate what he does not understand.
2) Do you or do you not think that a consistent standard invoking fairness is the best way to objectively come to know the correct religious faith, if there is one? If not, why the double standard?
3) Do you or do you not think that if Christianity is true it should be detectably known and supported by the sciences to the exclusion of other false religious faiths?
4) Do you or do you not admit that if you reject the OTF then your God did not make Christianity such that it would lead reasonable people who were born as outsiders to come to believe it, and as such, will be condemned to hell by virtue of where they were born? If not, and if outsiders can reasonably come to believe, then why is it that you think the OTF is incoherent?
5) Do you or do you not have a better method for us to reasonably settle which religious faith is true, if there is one? If so, what is it?
*crickets chirping*
The OTF is not a problem. I think it's a good idea. I just doubt Loftus' ability to look past his own blinding presuppositions to accurately apply it. The one thing that is missing is a test for revelation.
If Flannagan ever does any more of this hand waving about the OTF and he has not answered my questions, then he is indeed a liar for Jesus!
Yes, indeed let us contemplate what handwaving looks like. Loftus throws out personal insults and suggest mental defficiency and hope no one realizes that he has no idea what Christians believe or what the Bible teaches about salvation, the nature of God, or what saving faith is. That's Lofus' M.O. Too late. We see it. Notice Loftus writes that if Flannagan does not answer his questions (he doesn't like his answers) that Flannagan is a liar. But I thought that he wasn't calling either Flannagan nor Copan a liar? Oh, they aren't liars as long as they do what Loftus thinks they should do. I see.
Please help us guys, show them you don't lie for Jesus. You don't, do you?
Another accusation. I don't fault Loftus. I mean without Jesus, it's all he has.
Debunking Christianity: Only Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan Can Set the Record Straight
Monday, July 4, 2011
Aurora Borealis Explained [Video]
Image by Billy Idle via FlickrAurora Borealis Explained [Video]
Best Line from Captain America Ever!
Dialogue
Surrender?
Surrender?!!!
[pointing to the "A" on his helmet]Do you think this "A" on my head stands for FRANCE?!!!!
Faithful Thinkers: A Quote For Independence Day
Image via WikipediaA lot of American atheists hold Abraham Lincoln and high regard. I don't think that this is a bad thing in the slightest. However, I wonder why the following quote Luke Nix posted is ignored."We have been preserved this many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown but we have forgotten the gracious hand that has preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming grace, too proud to pray to the God Who has made us"- Abraham Lincoln
Things haven't gotten any better in our nation. I find it amazing that a man who dies 146 years ago could so accurately describe our culture today.
Faithful Thinkers: A Quote For Independence Day
Apologist Interview: David Wood - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: David Wood - Apologetics 315
YouTube - The Three Musketeers 3D (2011) - Official Trailer [HD]
The 3 Musketeers return in 3D - and this time a great line-up of actors.
The hot-headed young D'Artagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.
Coming to theatres on October 14, 2011
Starring: Orlando Bloom, Luke Evans, Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Milla Jovovich, Christoph Waltz, Mads Mikkelsen, Til Schweiger, Juno Temple, Ray Stevenson
YouTube - The Three Musketeers 3D (2011) - Official Trailer [HD]
FacePalm of the Day #98 - Debunking Christianity: More Straw Man Arguments, This Time by David Marshall
Christianity can only be defended by blind ignorance involving so many informal fallacies it can make one's head spin. Case in point today is David Marshall, a nice guy and budding scholar who has written a few books. I guess he was feeling left out since I have been highlighting these things with other Christian scholars. Now it's time to turn my attention to him. ;-)
Funny, how Loftus starts a post against using straw men arguments with a straw man argument. No where in the post does he explain how Marshall or anyone else is blindly ignorant or even what Marshall is blindly ignorant about. Maybe this will get better,
When Christian apologists argue against us they are so blinded by their delusion they must argue against Straw Man versions of our arguments. You would think that someone who has read a lot of what I've written about the OTF wouldn't misread it so badly, but he did, when he said:
But the OTF asks us to adopt a perspective outside of Western culture.Guess not. I wonder if this means that Loftus is backing off of his often asserted and blindly ignorant concept that where you are born determines your religious belief - even in the face of many counter examples! I have heard Loftus in debate and on this blog say that the only reason one is a christian if because one is raised up in it and if anyone of us were raised Muslims we would be Muslims. Also a citation for when and where Marshall said this would be nice.
Based on this false understanding he goes one to say
But all outside perspectives are also biased in different ways. It's a useful suggestion on John's part, but one shouldn't talk about an "outsider" perspective in the abstract, and then just ignore what's actually out there. For instance, John talks about the fact that almost everyone in Saudi Arabia is a Muslim. Yeah, well, if you convert, you might get drowned in your uncles swimming pool! Or tortured by the police! So generally, John can debunk Christianity all he likes; but when the talks about outside tests, we need to look outside.He still doesn't get it and it cannot be my fault. The OTF is not asking a believer to step outside of his or her particular culture. This should be quite obvious unless he actually thinks that those of us who are no longer believers have entered into a different culture. We are still westerners because we were raised as westerners. The only thing we rejected were our culturally inherited religious beliefs. I submit to you that one can stay a westerner with the same values other westerners share, like using the English language, the love of family, a materialistic mentality, the importance of democracy, embracing the due process of a secular law, and so forth, and leave his or her faith behind. Ex-Christians who leave their faith are doing this on a daily basis.
I don't think that Marshall is making that argument at all. If he was, then Loftus should have picked a better citation. I don't think Marshall is trying to say that Westerners who give up being Christians give up being Westerners. But I guess that means that Loftus no longer thinks that religious affiliation is always determined by culture. I would argue that without Christianity, a Westerner has no basis or grounding for the values and morals we like to associate with Western culture, but that they can still inconsistently hold them. I also find it interesting that Loftus chose to list "using the English language, the love of family, a materialistic mentality, the importance of democracy, embracing the due process of a secular law, and so forth," as values that define Western morality as if no one from non-western traditions would hold these.
The OTF merely asks believers to examine their own religious faith with the same standard used when examining the other faiths they reject.
Sure would actually like to see Loftus demonstrate this. He hasn't. One of those standards is to accurately examine what a Christian believes and not something made up. Just look at what he thinks faith is for an example. Definitive straw man argumentation.
So it is false, utterly false, to suggest that Muslims inside a totalitarian state with a thought police that punishes thought crimes is a relevant criticism of the OTF. Just because it is politically impossible to declare oneself a non-believer in one of these cultures does not render the OTF false or minimize the need for it. He's surely right that it would make it very difficult, but he's merely pointing to political realities as if they have a bearing on epistemological ones. They don't, not at all, not a chance.
Considering how badly John Loftus butchers what the Bible says, I don't trust his reading of what Marshall has said or what Marsahll meant. References and citations go a long way to understand what Loftus is talking about. I think one problem with Loftus' approach is again that you can't evaluate a religion from outside of it if you don't know what the religion holds.
Debunking Christianity: More Straw Man Arguments, This Time by David Marshall
Sunday, July 3, 2011
High Five of the Day - An Answer from the Grave
Read and respond to two similar stories, one by Antony Flew, and the other by Carl Sagan. They both have to do with the OTF:
Antony Flew, in his classic Parable of the Invisible Gardener, asks this question:
At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"...What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?Carl Sagan wrote about The Dragon In My Garage and asked:
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?
Well, what of it?
Debunking Christianity: Two Questions From the Grave, by Antony Flew and Carl Sagan
Before, I provide the link to Dr. Mariottini, I feel the need to point out that both Sagan and Flew have died and now know beyond any shadow of doubt if God exists or not. How do you think it worked out for them? Second, I fail to see how their statements relate to OTF given that the God of the Bible is neither elusive nor imperceptible. The God of the Bible has gone out of His way to provide a means of relating to us! As for Mariottini's answer, I think it's genius. Not only does he focus on Flew's work, and cites what he references, (because the answer simultaneously works for Sagan), but he points out the Flew himself answered his own question before he died! Take a look at Dr. Mariottini's post!
An Answer from the Grave
Answering Muslims: Muslim Clerics Condemn Law That Would Protect Women from Domestic Violence and Marital Rape
The Qur'an allows men to beat women into submission:
Qur'an 4:34--Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.It also declares that women are the sexual property of their husbands:
Qur'an 2:223--Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.
David Wood gives the references before he posts the news article. In this case that a law in Lebanon that would have simply protected women from domestic violence was opposed by Muslim clergy.
Dar al-Fatwa also slammed as "heresy" a clause in the bill that criminalises marital rape, accusing those behind the draft law of "inventing new types of crimes."
"This will have a negative impact on Muslim children... who will see their mother threatening their father with prison, in defiance of patriarchal authority, which will in turn undermine the moral authority" of fathers, it said.
If your wife say, "Not Tonight." or "No" then a husband has no right to force her. It's sick to think otherwise. A husband's authority does not allow him to abuse his wife. We do not have that right.
Answering Muslims: Muslim Clerics Condemn Law That Would Protect Women from Domestic Violence and Marital Rape
Intelligent Design vs. evolution: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” | True Freethinker
The key is the reference to the movie being “reality-based.” Here is the issue: in the official trailer the word “evolution” makes a front and center appearance (at least the version shown at the local theater). This brings, at least, two issues to the foreground: 1) confusing evolution and Intelligent Design and 2) the importance of scientific artists. We will consider 1) in this segment and 2) in the next.
Read his essays at the following link.
Intelligent Design vs. evolution: “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” | True Freethinker
Faithful Thinkers: Book Review: Chosen But Free
Luke Nix has written a really good review of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. I read the book and I think it has problems. I think one of the problems is that Jesus' sacrifice does not make us saveable. Jesus truly saved us - turning away the wrath of God and taking it upon himself.
I'd suggest that anyone who reads Chosen But Free should read Potter's Freedom by James White. And take a listen to James White's webcast from June 30, 2011
to hear Dr White talk about his personal experience in this on-going debate with Norman Geisler. See also James Swan's Reflections on Geisler's Chosen But Free.
.
Here is Luke Nix's review
Faithful Thinkers: Book Review: Chosen But Free
I'd suggest that anyone who reads Chosen But Free should read Potter's Freedom by James White. And take a listen to James White's webcast from June 30, 2011
to hear Dr White talk about his personal experience in this on-going debate with Norman Geisler. See also James Swan's Reflections on Geisler's Chosen But Free.
.
Here is Luke Nix's review
Faithful Thinkers: Book Review: Chosen But Free
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Does Vincent Bugliosi even understand the God whom he rejects? | True Freethinker
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeIn a word, "NO!" But thankfully, Mariano has done a masterful job refuting his tired assumption.Death is dirty and rotten, horrifying, monstrous, vile, disgusting, grotesque, despicable, indescribably ugly, and if there is a God, evil. When our loved ones die before our eyes, when we die before our loved ones' eyes, who is responsible for this horrible, ghastly event?I refer to it as "tired" because it's born of the point that the man, and no atheist, truly understand the god they think they reject. If they did, they could not reject Him.
Does Vincent Bugliosi even understand the God whom he rejects? | True Freethinker
Israel’s Mission in the World | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.- Romans 10:25-32
Israel’s Mission in the World | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Friday, July 1, 2011
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Is Eternal Punishment Overkill?
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Is Eternal Punishment Overkill?
Atheism and Rape - Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Elucidates | True Freethinker
What makes rape immoral is that rape harms the victim in terrible ways. The victim feels pain, loses freedom, feels subordinated, and so on. These harms are not justified by any benefits to anyone.
My thing is that rape is objectively wrong because it's wrong. I've read that many men rationalize rape by thinking that their sexual prowess is so great that although a woman is initially resistant and in fact says "no", he can change her mind. Such men don't think they are causing women to suffer. In their twisted imaginations they think they are doing a woman a favor. How do you convince such a person that what they are doing is wrong?
Biblically, in ancient Israel, that is why rapists were executed. I don't think that executing rapists is what we need to do now, but I think just assuming that people know that its wrong to cause pain and suffering for others isn't going to work.
Atheism and Rape - Walter Sinnott-Armstrong Elucidates | True Freethinker
Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Facing Imminent Execution in Iran for Apostasy and Evangelism
While CAIR complains about Islamophobia (in a country where Muslims are free to proclaim their faith from the rooftops), a Christian pastor is about to be executed by the Iranian government for leaving Islam and preaching to Muslims.
A news article is also posted, along with the following video explaining how Islam views apostasy and apostates
Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Facing Imminent Execution in Iran for Apostasy and Evangelism
FacePalm of the Day #98 - Debunking Christianity: What Is Faith?
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Atheists don't understand how the Bible defines "Faith".
Faith is pure wishful thinking, nothing more and nothing less. It offers a person a leap beyond what the probabilities actually lead us to think. For if something can be known to be the case we wouldn't need faith. Faith therefore is not a virtue when it comes to knowing the truth about anything. Skepticism isThere are two very important things to keep in mind. No one in all of the Bible was expected to just blindly follow something they couldn't hope to understand to any depth. That's not to say that we get to understand everything exhaustively. How can skepticism be virtuous when it comes to knowing the truth of anything? By definition skepticism is built on ignorance. One has no need for skepticism about something if you know something is true. The faith illustrated in the Bible is definitely wishful thinking or leaping in the dark. Biblical faith is built on past relationship with God. It is based on what God had really revealed. Does anyone really think that the first time Abraham heard God speak to him was Genesis 12? Nope. Same thing with each every righteous man or woman in the Bible. It's the same for us today. Faith is a trust in God built on past experiences and working knowledge. If you don't know God, how could you have any faith? You can't. Explains John Loftus' total misconception of faith.
Debunking Christianity: What Is Faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)