Tesla Vs. Edison - G4tv.com
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Comics Fans React Angrily To Batman's Reboot... In 1987 - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Chris Sims has written an amazing article that puts the recent protestations against the new DC reboot by pointing out that there were plenty of hate letters written against Batman: Year One. Ironically, today that storyline is considered one of the best comic book stories...ever! The article even reprints some of those letters. The story has affected each and every Batman (and influenced the genre) story since. Back then, few people thought that it would ever be adapted into high quality movie due out in a few weeks. Take a look.
Comics Fans React Angrily To Batman's Reboot... In 1987 - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Brazilians Protesting Political Corruption Don 'V for Vendetta' Guy Fawkes Masks - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
"Hello Comics Alliance, let me share with you some news from Brazil. Yesterday we celebrated our Independence Day and we had a lot of street protests against corruption. The Activists wore masks of Guy Fawkes, like the character V, from the legendary Alan Moore's graphic novel. These protests came out on the main newspapers in Brazil and we believe that the world should know that we are fighting for a better country... We would be grateful if you could show the world our actions."
Brazilians Protesting Political Corruption Don 'V for Vendetta' Guy Fawkes Masks - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Slavery in the Bible: Articles & Audio - Apologetics 315
Slavery in the Bible: Articles & Audio - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day #121 - Debunking Christianity: Objective Morality vs. Christianity, by Non-Stamp Collector
John Loftus has posted the following new video from YouTuber Nonstampcollector regarding Christianity and objective morality. He takes an interesting Atheist viewpoint on the debate. His conclusions are fully warranting a FacePalm but his starting premise has several important points. Here's the video.Nonstampcollector starts out making it clear that he doesn't agree with the Moral arguments for the existence of God, but he also clearly puts his finger on the problem atheists have with defeating Dr William Lane Craig. As long as one can demonstrate the rationality of believing that a god(s) exist, atheism by definition is on shaky ground. Dr Craig usually keeps his debates right there putting his opponents on the defensive and trying to disprove the Bible to show that the God of Christianity does not exist - which is usually not the topic of the debate. It's undeniable and gives Dr. Craig the option of not defending the Bible because his arguments are not dependent on it. Unfortunately, this means that Dr Craig can only argue for general theism and his savvy opponents like Christopher Hitchens are able to point this out. Most of his opponents don't seem able to press him on that, but there have been a few Christians and Atheists alike whom have pointed this out.
Nonstampcollector, to his credit and Dr Sam Harris' detriment, also points this out. Even if you grant the premises that Dr. Craig enumerated in Nonstampcollector's video (and I do), you can't just whiz-bam-come-up-with the God of the Bible. You still have to explain how the Bible reveals God's character and ultimate moral law-giver. Dr Harris, during his debate with Dr Craig, unsuccessfully tries to raise this objection given his skill in interpreting the Bible but Dr Craig did not go for it because it was out of bounds of the debate. Nonstampcollector and atheists who are sophisticated enough to make such objections try to paint theists who don't defend the validity of Bible as not doing so because the Bible is undefendable. I think that this is where the Facepalm comes in.
One of Nonstampcollector's objections is that it's wrong to tell unbelievers that without God they don't know what is moral and what isn't. However I think we need to ask "What does objective morality mean?" Here is the definition I will be using: Objective Morality is a thought or action that is correct or wrong irregardless of what people think or feel about it. Nonstampcollector presents several scriptures and then quotes Dr Craig that God's commandments must reflect his character and that they must be "holy" and "Loving". Nonstampcollector thinks that we can just ignore the "holy" part because it means nothing outside of made-up religion. But before we go on, we have to define what these terms mean. I'm not content with just ignoring what "holy". Given that "holy" means nothing to an atheist, let me help him out. Holy means pure, just, perfect, set apart, and special. It speaks to a standard of perfection that cannot coexist with impurity. Also "Love" is not milk-toast, touchy, feel-ly, emotional lip service our society gives lip service to. No. "Love" is the courage to decide to do what's best for others despite it being inconvenient. It's giving what is needed not just what is desired. Without the holiness of God, the love has no foundation or context. It's because of Love that the standard of holiness is set and upheld. Without that, none of the Bible makes sense.
Rather than respond to each of the scriptures that Nonstampcollector raises, I'm just going to generally respond to his overall argument. Do the scriptures that he raised illustrate objective moral values that we should embrace as ethical today? YES! Whenever, most Christians point out that application of those ethics is dependent on circumstances the objection is raised that it makes Biblical morality relativistic. Not at all. Why should everyone of the laws binding on an Israelite living 4000 years ago be binding on me today in the same way? Do all the traffic laws apply to me when I am a pedestrian as when I am driving in my car? No. If anyone would like to discuss specific scriptures and ask how they apply to us today, I'd be happy to but for now let's get to the meat of the argument. I already hear the objection: When it comes to the Bible the stakes are much higher because those who disobey are going to hell if Christians are right! The Bible is really clear, no one can keep the law perfectly and without Jesus Christ you are going to hell no matter which commandments you fail to keep or succeed in keeping. That is where Holy and loving comes in. Sin must be punished. Good works don't save you. Jesus saved us so that we can perform good works. Yes, atheists do good things but that's not apart from God on their own. Credit goes to God for all the good we do. Honestly, deep down, we all know we do more bad than good, according to the standards set in the Bible. Why should you get away with that? The only way we can escape that is set up our own standard for morality. That is what Sam Harris and Nonstampcollector and all people do if you don't submit yourself to God.
I was listening to what Nonstampcollector probably isn't even aware what he's saying. I hear it all the time from everyone: "I'm not really that bad. I haven't done anything worthy of being sent to hell for. There are other people far more deserving of hell than I." Most Americans would agree that Osama Bin Laden deserves to go to hell. They think Anders Behring Breivik should burn there too. And they just know that men who piloted the planes into the World Trade towers and the Pentagon ten years ago. They also think rapist and child molesters are so evil they couldn't possibly go anywhere else. And we just know Hitler's got a spot there if such a place exist. In my mind this begs a question: why? Why do they deserve to go hell and you don't? I know what some people would say: "I'm a good person. I try to help others and I haven't killed anyone." Here's the problem with the Bible: It says that if you lust after another person, its no different than having done the act. If you bad-mouthed someone, it's no better than having killed them. In short the Bible very clearly tells us that none of are less deserving of hell than anyone else.
Nonstampcollector has a problem with many of the punishments given in the Bible for what he thinks are minor infraction or not wrong in the first place. This demonstrates that without God we wouldn't know what is right and wrong. I agree that pre-marital sex does not seem like it should be considered a capital offense, but the fact that it was to God in Ancient Israel shows me how wrong I am and how bad the offense is. Witchcraft is the same. There are many other examples. Is being a false prophet really that bad - deserving death? Yes! Just because we don't understand or agree that an act is immoral or evil does not matter. Is something right or wrong just because God said so? Yup. Yes, that's right. I said it. Equating actions throughout time and epochs is dangerous and misses key points. For example, is it wrong to kill a man who is doing nothing to harm you? Yes, that is murder. Is it wrong to kill a man who trying to kill you? No. Morality is objective but again application of those values are not.
Here is why the video deserves a Facepalm: Nonstampcollector fails to understand the standards by which he judges whether or not the God of the Bible is moral. He doesn't know what "Holy and loving" are and none of us do apart from God revealing it to us in relationship with Him. If anyone has specific scriptures they would like to discuss, even the ones that Nonstampcollector raised, to see why they are loving, I'd be happy to discuss it. The only way to be in right relationship with our creator who's character is the basis of objective moral value is through the one sent to redeem us from sin and death - Jesus Christ - and then you can make the leap from bald theism to personally knowing the one who exists.
Debunking Christianity: Objective Morality vs. Christianity, by Non-Stamp Collector
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Author Interview: Douglas Groothuis - Apologetics 315
Author Interview: Douglas Groothuis - Apologetics 315
Online Bibles | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
The Scholarly Biblical Portal of the German Bible Society is making available online Bibles that scholars use in their academic research.
The following online Bibles are currently available:
1. Hebrew Old Testament following the text of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.
2. Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 27. Edition.
3. Greek Old Testament following the text of the Septuagint (ed. Rahlfs/Hanhart).
4. Latin Bible following the text of the Vulgate (ed. Weber/Gryson).
You must register to use these online Bibles. As a registered user you can search any biblical text in these editions. Registration is free of charge.
I'm signing up now!
Online Bibles | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Monday, September 5, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Answering Muslims: Michael Coren on Islam and Obama
Answering Muslims: Michael Coren on Islam and Obama
Bill Gates saves up for a Lamborghini [Pic]
How long does it take for Bill Gates to save up for Lamborghini? About this long!
Bill Gates saves up for a Lamborghini [Pic]
Bill Gates saves up for a Lamborghini [Pic]
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Source of Evil
I don't really believe that Dr Norman Geisler is fully correct. He believes that people have free will and God allows us to make choices about our eternal futures without interference. I however, don't see how God does that if we are enslaved to sin and incapable of coming to God without God's drawing and power. If God draws everyone to the same degree, then how is it that some say "Yes" while others say "No." Is there something "Better" about those who say "Yes"? I don't think so. Not in the slightest. That's why I don't think we can set the origin of evil on "Libertarian Free Will". We can't even learn to tie our shoelaces without help, I wonder why some people think we can find God without Him.
Faithful Thinkers: Video: Source of Evil
Genetic Algorithm - A 'Walt Disney' Introduction - CodeProject
Introduction to Article
Genetic Algorithms(G.A.) are a way of solving problems by mimicking the same processes mother nature uses. They use the same combination of selection, recombination and mutation to evolve a solution to a problem.
G.A falls in the family of Heuristics (O my God... another big word… :D). Heuristics differ from “traditional” algorithms in that you don’t specify how exactly to derive the answer, rather you specify where to search for it. Here is an illustration/explanation by Faisal Sikder:
Here is an algorithm for driving to someone’s house:
"Take Highway 167 south to Puyallup. Take the South Hill Mall exit and drive 4.5 miles up the hill. Turn right at the light by the grocery store, and then take the first left. Turn into the driveway of the large tan house on the left, at 714 North Cedar."
Here’s a heuristic for getting to someone’s house:
"Find the last letter we mailed you. Drive to the town in the return address. When you get to town, ask someone where our house is. Everyone knows us—someone will be glad to help you. If you can’t find anyone, call us from a public phone, and we’ll come get you!"
Genetic Algorithm - A 'Walt Disney' Introduction - CodeProject
ID.Plus: British Humanists (Toynbee, Dawkins, Grayling) Run from William Lane Craig
Dawkins is not the only culprit in shying away from Craig's October 2011 UK Tour. He is but one of a Humanist Trinity who have all, in their own way, run away from William Lane Craig's willingness for open dialogue. Based on the press release from BeThinking.org. The example these BHA leaders are setting is disappointing, to say the least.
In case anyone is confused about why I am posting this, let me be clear: I think that most of these atheists are refusing to debate Dr William Lane Craig out of cowardice because they know they don't really have good arguments to stand on. In order to win, you'd have to really attack what Christianity is about: Jesus and Inerrancy of Scripture. Dr Craig wins because he really argues in favor of theism in his debates and then points to the God of Christianity. This makes it nearly impossible for Atheists because essentially, Dr Craig stays in Romans 1 and 2 and I think they unassailable. Romans 3 continues the argument but it's even more unassailable, but due to the limitations of an unregenerate heart, most atheists can't go farther in the discussion nor understand Dr. Craig's theological weaknesses.
ID.Plus: British Humanists (Toynbee, Dawkins, Grayling) Run from William Lane Craig
Friday, September 2, 2011
Git yer Joseph Stalin t-shirts! | True Freethinker
Mariano has posted an article about meeting a young man with a Stalin T-Shirt. He posted the following image but I'm not sure if this was the image on the T-Shirt
My question is: Is the following image what we want which was the result of Stalin's imagination without God?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I don't want that.
Git yer Joseph Stalin t-shirts! | True Freethinker
My question is: Is the following image what we want which was the result of Stalin's imagination without God?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I don't want that.
Git yer Joseph Stalin t-shirts! | True Freethinker
Him that Pisseth against the Wall – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Dr Mariottini has posted part 2 of his article on the controversial Biblical phrase, "Him that pisseth against the Wall". Take a look!
Him that Pisseth against the Wall – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Him that Pisseth against the Wall – Part 2 | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Bank of America fires Dr. Frank Turek for his religious and political views « Wintery Knight
I learned of this article from Brian Auten on the Wintery Knight blog. Yes, standing for what you believe in may cost you something in tangible ways. Dr Turek is a scholar and a debater. He's written and spoken all over the world. It's kind of amazing to me how he could be hired for a job and no one knew what he believed. I don't think his views would make him unable to his job. It's real sad. I don't agree with Dr. Turek on everything but he does show how Christians should stand by what we believe.
Bank of America fires Dr. Frank Turek for his religious and political views « Wintery Knight
Bank of America fires Dr. Frank Turek for his religious and political views « Wintery Knight
Dan Barker’s FANG Turn Out to Be a Milk Tooth | True Freethinker
Dan Barker’s FANG Turn Out to Be a Milk Tooth | True Freethinker
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Batman: The Redeemer Gotham Deserves - G4tv.com
These folks would be classified as Born Again Christian (Bale.)Something to consider that while Batman is indeed fictional Gotham's "Messiah". Jesus is the Messiah and Redeemer we don't deserve but can't live without. And by life, I mean the fully-expressed and abundant life the Bible promises us.
He doesn't die for your sins. Instead, he grabs your sins, shouts at them in an intimidating, albeit comically grizzled voice, and proceeds to beat the crap out of them.
Batman: The Redeemer Gotham Deserves - G4tv.com
“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
John Boehner’s “Obama Diss”: Obstructionism, Racism, Or One In The Same?
Here is a really good article reflecting on how the Republicans are treating the President. House Speaker, John Boehner, has shown profound disrespect. If you can't respect the man, at least respect his elected position. It's one thing to dislike a man because of his opinions and policies but I think it goes deeper than that. John Boehner’s “Obama Diss”: Obstructionism, Racism, Or One In The Same?
Quote of the Week: Alister McGrath | Reflections
The doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner.–Alister McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1997), 193.
Quote of the Week: Alister McGrath | Reflections
Dr McGrath is correct!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Never Throw Rocks at Scholars in Ivory Towers
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Never Throw Rocks at Scholars in Ivory Towers
Apologist Interview: Brian Auten - Apologetics 315
This is an awesome interview . If you missed it, you really missed something great!
Apologist Interview: Brian Auten - Apologetics 315
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #121: The Bible Teaches That The Earth Is Flat
Not sure how this doesn't equally apply to the Hebrew Bible (Isaiah 40:22 and 44:24-28*, 1st Samuel 2:8, Proverbs 8:27 and Luke 4:5).So why is this FacePalm worthy? Simple: If you examine each of the scriptures Ryan cites, you can see how you assuming that the Bible is teaching a flat earth is unwarranted.
Sure, you can cite Job 26, but that just demonstrates that it's a hodge podge mess.
*probably the inspiration for the very Koranic verse in question.
Isaiah 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
a. Above the circle of earth
b. People like grasshoppers
c. Heavens like a canopy
d. Heavens spread out like a tent
Why would you take a single description out of four and claim it's a truth claim while the others are figurative and all are making a point. Anyone who thinks this is the Bible saying the earth is flat, is missing the point.
Isaiah 44:24-28
24 “This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,
25 who foils the signs of false prophets
and makes fools of diviners,
who overthrows the learning of the wise
and turns it into nonsense,
26 who carries out the words of his servants
and fulfills the predictions of his messengers,
who says of Jerusalem, ‘It shall be inhabited,’
of the towns of Judah, ‘They shall be rebuilt,’
and of their ruins, ‘I will restore them,’
27 who says to the watery deep, ‘Be dry,
and I will dry up your streams,’
28 who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd
and will accomplish all that I please;
he will say of Jerusalem, “Let it be rebuilt,”
and of the temple, “Let its foundations be laid.”’
Here Ryan cites 4 verses. In verse 24, how do "stretches" and "spreads" mean that the earth and heavens are flat? If you are going to think that it's saying the earth is flat then why assume that it is not saying that the heavens are flat too? Most people who misinterpret the Bible think it's teaching that the earth is flat capped by a sky dome. Obviously God is being poetic and not expecting you to literally imagine the image on the right. Perhaps if one understood verses 25-28, one would not make such a big mistake.
1st Samuel 2:8
8 He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.
“For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s;
on them he has set the world.
More figurative language. "Foundations" at this point means the underlying rules and source on which creation is based. This does not imply that the earth is flat.
Proverbs 8:27
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
This is in the middle of a discourse spoken by Wisdom personified as a woman. . Setting the "heavens in place" does apply to the earth or heavens being flat. Why make that assumption? It's merely stating that God put everything where it is. As for the horizon, a poetic description of the horizon is used and not a statement of science. The point is showing how much in control God is on everything.
Luke 4:5
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
I'd assume that Ryan and others look at this and think that what is being explained is that the Devil took Jesus to a mountain somewhere and showed him all the land that could be seen from the mountain. The problem is the text does not say that. The text states that the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in an instant. No one thought at the time that one could naturally go to a mountain anywhere and see all the kingdoms of the world. No one thinks that now, either - even if the earth was flat. Therefore I'd take it as a miraculous thing that happened - to see all the kingdoms of the world in a short time. Why not? The New Testament is full of miracles.
Nice try. But these verse fail to show the Bible teaching that the earth is flat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)