Debunking Christianity: Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?

John Loftus, posted some uncharacteristically insightful thoughts about Whitney Houston's Funeral.

Kevin Costner gave a wonderful eulogy at Whitney's funeral today. He and others all claim Whitney Houston is in heaven. Is she? Whitney was a wonderful singer and actress. I loved her. I listened to her songs all of the time. But why is it that people we like are all going to heaven? Jesus said the road is narrow and few find it (Matthew 7:13-14). I understand about eulogies. Who in their right mind would question whether someone is in heaven in front of believing loved ones? Not me that's for sure, and I did funerals for people I doubted were in heaven as a former minister. That would be insensitive to the max. But again, why is it believers think they're all going to heaven? Why is it that any deceased person associated with the church is believed to have gone to heaven? According to Jesus even believers should not have this hope. According to him most people who have this hope are deluded.

While I disagree with his conclusions, Loftus has a point. Telling people that their recently died loved ones are in hell doesn't help anyone. In my experience when pastors and ministers find themselves preaching at a funeral for someone that, at worst, reject Christ, or at best, no one knows whether they were believers or no, they don't focus on whether or not the person went to heaven or hell, but instead use the occasion to make a plea to those who are not believers so that they would know who Jesus is. Loftus said: According to him most people who have this hope are deluded. Jesus never said anything of the kind. When Jesus gave the parable about turning away people who think that they were working for Him, he wasn't talking about people who really believe. He was talking about people who only outwardly act like they believe and love Him.

Instead I offer two scriptures that show what Jesus actually said about why we should believe that we will be with Him when this life is over. There are more, but let's look at these"

¹⁰ “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? ¹¹ Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. ¹² I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? ¹³ No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. ¹⁴ Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, ¹⁵ that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
 ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ¹⁹ This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. ²¹ But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.- John 3:10

And

 ²¹ Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
 ²² This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
 ²³ But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
 ²⁵ “Who are you?” they asked.

   “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. ²⁶ “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.” - John 8: 21-25

Believing in God's existence is not enough.

¹⁸ But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. ¹⁹ You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
 ²⁰ You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?- James 2:18-20

Debunking Christianity: Is Whitney Houston in Heaven?

A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design | Sententias

Twitter is a wonderful thing. Thanks to Brian Auten for this Tweet

A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design sententias.org/2012/02/15/id-…
— Apologetics 315 (@Apologetics315) February 15, 2012

This is a list of over 80 such articles. There was one objection that should be noted from the comments and rebutted:

Kevin

February 15, 2012 at 12:59

Hi Roger,
You wrote “It’s no help to the ID cause that ID journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-ID* journals. ”
Would the same be true of Evolution?
“It’s no help to the Evolution cause that Evolution journals are published in peer-reviewed *pro-Evolution* journals.”
Kev

A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design | Sententias

Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to a discussion between Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bart Ehrman regarding the Bible and whether or not the original New Testament is lost to us and unavailable. follow the link at the end of the video to get the audio and other links to resources!





Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Dr Wallace also wrote a blog post about the debate. You can read that here Ehrman vs Wallace: Round Three

Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

I've posted a link to the audio of this discussion in the past, but since I just saw that there was a YouTube version, I'd embed it in a post also. I really like to hear Dr Bock speak and it is very useful to hear how he discusses these issues with a scholar like Dr Bart Ehrman.




Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

Related articles

• Forged: Writing In The Name Of God (kcbrownstone.wordpress.com)
• RPP's further challenge to Darrell Bock (roshpinaproject.com)
• "Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?": Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans Debate (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)

The Insider Movement: Unbiblical And...It Just Doesn't Work Anyway!

Dr James White has posted a video from YouTube about "the Insider Movement".

Western missionaries are removing "Son of God" from Bible translations produced for Insider Movements. Hear Asians talk about the impact, in their own words.

FYI, the makers of the video are bring a new documentary on the creation of born-again Islam and the death of the church. More more information, check out the following:

Website: http://www.halfdevilhalfchild.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Half-Devil-Half-Child/321082407911665

Definitely a bad idea!




The Insider Movement: Unbiblical And...It Just Doesn't Work Anyway!

FacePalm of the Day - Private Subjective Experience is No Evidence At All: Against William Lane Craig's Inner Witness of the Spirit

pics on Sodahead John Loftus recently posted a blog post summarizing his arguments against Dr. William Lane Craig's appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in convincing him that Christianity is true. Follow the link at the end of this post to read the whole argument. I want to focus on one of paragraphs to see where Loftus really goes off the reservation.

Listen up, God spoke to Moses privately, and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Mohammed, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately? Why do most people claim to know God in a private way? A private subjective experience has no more evidence for it than none at all. Given that most people are delusional when they make such claims it's extremely probable Craig is too. The ONLY reason evangelicals buy into this is because they need to believe. They would never entertain Craig's claim if they were a Mormon, or Muslim, Catholic, or Jew.

Loftus writes as if we don't know what God revealed to Moses, Paul, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, David Koresh, or anyone else because they were private and subjective experiences. I disagree. It stays private if no one speaks publicly about what as revealed. And in the cases Loftus points to we know what they said they got from God and we can lay them beside each other and compare. Interesting enough the Bible writers agree but contradict Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Koresh and many people today. This means at the very least they can't all have heard from God. Someone's wrong. As long as someone's experience does not contradict what has been revealed before there is no reason to assume they are wrong, however if there is contradiction then you know for sure someone is lying or has been lied to. The Standard. The Bible - Old and New Testaments. That's not an arbitrary standard. It is the best attested and stands up to scrutiny. If you disagree with that standard, you either have to point to a better one and/or show how the Bible is not a good standard. Loftus has failed to do either.


Debunking Christianity: Private Subjective Experience is No Evidence At All: Against William Lane Craig's Inner Witness of the Spirit

RE Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Why I Believe Jesus Never Existed.....however

thegrandverbalizer has posted another blog post that I think fails to demonstrate what he thinks he was trying to verbalize.  His words are in black font. Mine are in red font.

I want to say that the only reason that I believe that I believe that Jesus (Esau) existed is because of my presuppositional belief that the Qur'an is the word of God.

If I did not believe that the Qur'an is the word of God I would not even believe that a person named Jesus (Esau) was a historical person.

For me personally I would be right in the same category as George A Wells, a man who wrote the book 'Did Jesus Exist'.

I find it amazing. It's just like Dr James White points out often: some Muslims, like thegrandverablizer, are so focused on disproving Christianity that they use sources and works of people who would also throw the Qur'an and Islam under the bus as well. I mean anyone who would deny that Jesus existed would also deny the virgin birth which the Qur'an does uphold as well as Jesus' sinlessness. Would thegrandverbalizer agree with Wells on these points as well? If so then does that mean that the Qur'an is only partly right?

I want to say I thank David Waltz, an amazing man who is a treasury trove of information for the introduction to the said book above. I think that Robert E Van Voorst and Craig Evans do the best job they can do for trying to provide evidence for the 'historical' Jesus.

I don't really get this paragraph. Is it that Dr Craig Evans and Dr  Van Voorst agree with Waltz and Wells?  What is it that thegrandverbalizer is commending them for?

It may seem strange that since the Qur'an comes hundreds of years after the New Testament manuscripts that my belief in the 'historical' Jesus would hinge upon a revelation that comes 700 years after the supposed time in which Jesus is said to have 'existed' and in fact hundreds of years after the collation of fragments that become the basis for today's New Testament text.

" in fact hundreds of years after the collation of fragments that become the basis for today's New Testament text."?  Really? There is historical evidence and fragments of the New Testament less than 100 years older than when we think the autographs were written. I'd like to know why thegrandverbalizer is saying otherwise.

I would absolutely agree that it is very strange indeed. However, as I mentioned in my opening my belief in Jesus being a historical person hinges upon my belief that the Qur'an is the word of God. As the Qur'an mentions Jesus (Esau) and as I believe the Qur'an to be the word of God, I therefore believe that Jesus must have existed.

Wells would disagree with you about the Qur'an. Why would you believe him about the New Testament?

After reading the book 'Jesus outside of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence' I am absolutely convinced that without my presuppositional belief in the Qur'an I would have no evidence upon which to believe that Jesus (Esau) even existed!

I'd like to know how thegrandverbalizer could ignore the evidence outside the Bible and the Qur'an showing that Jesus did exist? 

Allah-willing I will begin a series that looks more closely at the claims and evidences put forth by the Author of the book. I will also show why after examining point by point all the claims put forward why I find all of them incredulous.

I'll be waiting to see if he can substantiate these bold claims.  I guess all the anti-Christian scholars who agree that Jesus did live and was crucified are also wrong? What about Wells, who would deny that the Qur'an is the Word of God? Is he wrong?

If I no longer were to believe in the Qur'an, Christianity would be absolutely out of the question. The reason being is because I have absolutely no basis upon which to believe that Jesus even existed other than my presuppostional belief that the Qur'an is the word of God; and that the Qur'an mentions Jesus (Esau).

So it doesn't matter what the evidence is, thegrandverbalizer has decided that Christianity is false even if the Qur'an is false.

"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3)

Yes, indeed. how can thegrandverbalizer take Wells' arguments against the Bible concerning Jesus' existence and not apply it against the Qur'an. "Presuppositional approaches" are not a license for ignoring logic and consistency.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Why I Believe Jesus Never Existed.....however

Apologist Interview: Holly Ordway on Literary Apologetics - Apologetics 315

This week Brian Auten posted his second interview with Dr Holly Ordway. This one is very interesting because the discuss a branch of Apologetics that is hardly ever discussed or considered: Literary Apologetics. I had not really thought of how CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia or JRR Tolken's Lord of the Rings could be considered works of apologetics. It was interesting hearing her talk about how poetry and fiction can be used to communicate truth. She spoke about how important it is for us to remember that imagination is important and just because something can't be weighed, counted, or measured does not mean that it's useless. Follow the link to hear the interview.

Apologist Interview: Holly Ordway on Literary Apologetics - Apologetics 315

Debunking Christianity: The OTF for Mormonism

John Loftus posted the following few paragraphs on his blog. It's obvious that it's directed against mainstream Christians who reject Mormonism.  I  don't have a problem with OTF as a concept. I think its a good idea. I just haven't seen it demonstrated that mainstream Christianity fails it. Look at what what Loftus posted before comment is made:

Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.

They do this when rejecting other faiths. So the OTF (Outsider Test for Faith) simply asks them to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent.

The OTF asks why Mormons operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume their own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to their holy book(s) and see what they get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption.

So the OTF uses the exact same standard that Mormons use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how Mormons assess truth claims. For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if Mormonism is true then their God wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, and since that's the case their own religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

If Mormons want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths--one for their own faith and a different one for others--or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case, all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.

This is the argument that Thomas Riskas offers in his book "Deconstructing Mormonism."

Non-Mormonist believers, do see anything to object to here? ;-)

There is much to object - but let's keep it three objections.  John Loftus doesn't explain how he knows Mormonism fails the OTF. I agree that it does and it's quite easy to demonstrate that it does. However he insinuates that if Mormonism fails then all religions fail - yet he doesn't explain why.  

Second  these three objections: Loftus wrote -

For it should only take a moment’s thought to realize that if Mormonism is true then their God wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, and since that's the case their own religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF.

The Bible says that God puts everyone in the best possible place for them to best find Him - but like a person groping around in the darkness. He call us out of where we are - all of us if we are going to be with Him. Loftus appears to think that that it doesn't make sense for people to be born in other cultures if God wants everyone to be saved.

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.’
 ²⁹ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. ³⁰ In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹ For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” - 
Acts 17:24-31

And lastly, Lofus doesn't understand what Biblical faith is.


Debunking Christianity: The OTF for Mormonism

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!

pics on Sodahead I always find the argument that God does not exist because he's hidden to be such a failure, I'm surprised unbelievers can raise it with a straight face. It seems to take try to make two points: 1. God is hidden because Atheists don't detect him. or 2. Too many people have different ideas of who God is so they can't possibly experiencing anything real.  Let's examine one of John Loftus' recent posts to see just how bad this fails.

One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?

Is it that God is silent or is it that Loftus and others are not listening?  I'd like to know why the fault has to lie either in God or in everyone else and not themselves? Why are we deluded and he isn't?

John:

Marshall, do you mean that we cannot PROVE God is silent? Is that the standard here? Such a standard is utterly unreasonable. That Which Disconfirms UFOs From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence.

Oh okay, John Lofus admits that he can't prove that God is silent. 

David:

John: It's not a matter of proving it, it's a matter of knowing it. You can't even know it. And given that the language of nature is "read" similiarly by so many billions, and given the other ways that God speaks, you should be more skeptical of your own, perhaps unduly biased, intuitions.

David Marshall makes a point that seems obvious. He's not saying that he knows God is not silent he is saying that Loftus and Carrier can't demonstrate that God have never spoken to anyone. Again we find Loftus skeptical of everything and everyone but himself -- that is what being truly deluded is. 

John:

David, seriously, what are you talking about? Are you saying there is objective evidence coming from the subjective experiences of people around the world that all point to YOUR particular God concept or theology? If so, then tell us what all of them agree about after having these experiences. The lowest common denominator is that there is a supernatural force out there. But even then you must explain the numbers of people who have not had any such experiences, such as atheists and agnostics. To see some atheist demographics check this out.

So an Atheist or Agnostics lack of experiencing a relationship with God is not a subjective experience? Hint: Yes it is. 

Do atheists count? If so, there is no common denominator at all.

Yes, they do. The fact that they do not experience God is explained in the Bible itself. Ever read:

You also have to explain why you thin4k a majority of people in any given time period are correct. Popular opinions of one time period have given way to the advances of science. Just think the geocentric universe as but one of many examples. You would probably be the first person on some issues to say the majority opinion is not necessarily correct.

Geocentricism is a horrible example because the Bible does not tell us that the earth the center of the Universe. That was something people did. It did not come from God. 

And you also need to explain why religious people disagree about the content of said experiences. Your theory must be able to explain any disagreements. My theory is that religious experiences are subjective and therefore all in the brain, and that religious people interpret their experiences through the lens of their religious culture. Religious people have experiences and the brain interprets them within the confines of what categories they have been taught in their respective religious cultures.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ³² Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.- Romans 1:28-32

There is no need to posit a God who provides these experiences, especially the one you believe in, since your concept of God is a very specific one unlike other concepts. Your God is sending mixed messages to religious people around the world, some of which are misogynist, warlike, extremely ascetic, hateful, homophobic, racist, and so forth.

I extremely disagree. The Bible is no where near that convoluted or unclear that we can't know what God is like or what He expects from us. The reason why people come to different conclusions is because we don't always just obey the Bible. We try to tack on our own spins. When we do that of course there is going to be disagreement and confusion. We need to get self out of the way and just listen to God. Jesus tells us how to answer the question for why people seem to be getting mixed messages.

¹ “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. ² The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. ³ The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. ⁴ When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. ⁵ But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” ⁶ Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
 ⁷ Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. ⁸ All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. ⁹ I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.^[a] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. ¹⁰ The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
   ¹¹ “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. ¹² The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. ¹³ The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
   ¹⁴ “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— ¹⁵ just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. ¹⁶ I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ¹⁷ The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. ¹⁸ No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
 ¹⁹ The Jews who heard these words were again divided. ²⁰ Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”
 ²¹ But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” - John 10:1-21

If you are getting mixed messages - you are not one of His Sheep.

Think he'll have more to say? ;-)





I think so. I mean it's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's been answered 2000 years ago!



Debunking Christianity: David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: First Trailer Hits - G4tv.com

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a 2012 American 3D supernatural horror film based on the 2010 mashup novel Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. The film is directed by Timur Bekmambetov and is produced by Bekmambetov and Tim Burton. The novel’s author, Seth Grahame-Smith, wrote the adapted screenplay. The real-life figure Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States (1861–1865), is fictionally portrayed in the novel and the film as having a secret identity as a vampire hunter. Benjamin Walker stars as Lincoln. Filming began in Louisiana in March 2011, and the film is being produced in 3D. It is scheduled to be released on June 22, 2012.

I have no words. I'm probably going to see this one.





Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: First Trailer Hits - G4tv.com

Why God Allows Himself To Lose | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted the 3rd part of his series about Jacob's theophany when he wrestled God. Check out the link to read the article!

Why God Allows Himself To Lose | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Related articles

• Theophany (jmibullfrog.wordpress.com)
• The Knowability of God (theologiansinc.wordpress.com)
• The NT and OT (bartlescrivener.wordpress.com)

Read a Real Book! [Pic]

Read a Real Book! [Pic]

Nightwitches

And I thought the RedTails had gotten a raw deal in WWII, but the fact that I have never heard of these ladies until now is truly criminal!!!!!! I'm gonna have to do more research!

For those not in the know, night witches were Russian lady bombers who bombed the German lines in WW2. Thing is though, they had the oldest, noisiest, crappest planes in the entire world. The engines used to conk out halfway through their missions, so they had to climb out on the wings mid flight to restart the props. the planes were also so noisy that to stop germans from hearing them combing and starting up their anti aircraft guns, they’d climb up to a certain height, coast down to German positions, drop their bombs, restart their engines in midair, and get out of dodge.
Their leader flew over 200 missions and was never captured.

Nightwitches

Truthbomb Apologetics: 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John

Chad has posted a good list to consider: 59 things that the Gospel of John gets right.

Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel examines John's Gospel verse by verse and identifies an abundance of historical details and facts.

Check out the list at the following link

Truthbomb Apologetics: 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John

Desposyni: C.H. Spurgeon-The People's Preacher

Desposyni: C.H. Spurgeon-The People's Preacher

Just A Quick Note to Atheists (From an Atheist) | Machine Gun Bras

I originally came across this particular post on Tumblr. I think it is really insightful, but NSFW language is contained. I think the author makes good points and I wonder what do other atheists think of what she has to say. I've got my own opinions. First here is what the author wrote:

1. Being an atheist does not erase privilege.
   1. This includes white privilege.
   2. This also includes cis privilege, CNDP privilege, and het privilege.
   3. Seriously, being an atheist does not erase your white privilege.
2. Criticizing exclusively (majority) non-white religions is racist.
   1. This includes Islam.
   2. The existence of white Muslims does not invalidate this point.
3. Black Christianity is not always hetereosexist.
   1. Black people are not the most heterosexist heterosexists that ever heterosexisted.
   2. Black queer/gay/lesbian/non-straight/pansexual/asexual people exist too.
4. Mestiz@s are not the root cause of sexism.
   1. Neither is Latin American Christianity.
   2. You do realize Christianity was imported, right?
5. Atheists are not the only oppressed religious group.
   1. Muslims are oppressed too.
   2. Often by white atheists.
6. Islam is not evil.
   1. Neither are hijabs or niqabs.
   2. Neither is Vodun/voodoo/hoodoo.
   3. Neither is any other religion…
   4. …unless it’s World Church of the Creator / The Creativity Movement…
      1. Which is white supremacist.
   5. …or the Westboro Baptist Church.
      1. Who even the KKK hates.
7. Evolutionary psychology is sexist, racist, cissexist, ableist, and heterosexist.
   1. This includes evolutionary psychology that (supposedly) supports atheism.
   2. Supporting evo-psych means
      1. You have not done your homework, or
      2. You are prejudiced.
8. Other people’s clothing is not your business.
   1. Including religious articles of clothing.
   2. Including hijabs, headwraps, niqabs, burkas, crosses, crucifixes, pentacles, and other symbols.
   3. Even if you really don’t like it.
   4. Even if it’s really religious.
9. Acknowledge other people’s identities.
   1. Even if you’re uncomfortable with them.
      1. Especially if you’re uncomfortable,
         • Because they have racial, sexual, cultural, or disabled identity
10. Paganism is not ‘atheism-lite’.
    1. Neither is agnosticism.
    2. Neither are indigenous religions.
11. There is no such thing as ‘ironic’ bigotry.
    1. Unless it’s atheists whining about Christmas.
       1. Seriously, I thought only evangelicals did that.
12. Trans people are not your special little puzzles.
    1. Neither are autistic / disabled people.
       1. I don’t care if you’re a scientist. We’re still not your Rubik’s Cubes.
13. Not everything should be about science.
    1. There. I said it.
14. PoC are not the reason why a lot of people are wary of atheists.
    1. It’s because of white/het/cis/CND atheists.
       1. Yes, including you.
15. Demanding people educate you is oppressive.
    1. Even if you’re ‘being really nice about it’.
       1. Nice =/= good.
16. Religions are not inherently oppressive.
    1. Did you know that hijabs and niqabs are cultural?
       1. And that many women find them liberating?
17. Using emotion in writing, reasoning, the internet, or decision-making does not mean one is stupid/dumb/monkey-like/less-evolved/other ableist, racist, eugenicist terms.
    1. It means one is a fucking human being.
18. Disability is not a flaw in evolution.
    1. Disabled people will not die out with evolution.
    2. Fuck you.
19. Being atheist does not mean you are automatically not allistic.
    1. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
       1. You can use Google.
20. Being a queer atheist does not make you white.
    1. Seriously, enough with this racist bullshit.
21. Cultural appropriation is also done by atheists.
    1. Deal with it.
22. There are no purple people.
    1. You should know this.
23. Making fun of ‘them crazy darkies doin’ their ridick voodoo’ is racist, ableist, and the reason why a LOT of black atheists will not have anything to do with you.
    1. Satire is a tool that works when aimed upwards, at the most powerful people.
       1. Black people are not the most powerful people.
          • Especially black people practicing voodoo.
24. No religion is more ridiculous than any other.
    1. Including Mormonism.
    2. …but some have more power, and are therefore better to make fun of.
       1. Like Mormonism.
25. Being colorblind is only okay if you literally cannot see or distinguish colors.
    1. Otherwise, it’s racist.
26. Religions derive strength and power from the social power of their followers.
    1. Which is why evangelical Christianity is a better target than Black Christianity.
27. Being an agnostic (or bisexual) is not ‘taking the easy way out’.
    1. Really, now?
28. Monosexism is real.
    1. How do I know?
       1. You’re doing it right now.
    2. And yes, queer can be a term for polysexual.
29. If you think black people are mean to you,
    1. You’re probably white,
       1. And won’t say you are
          • Because white people never say they’re white.
30. The terms ‘hermophradite’ ‘third sex’ and ‘biological gender’ are
    1. Essentialist,
    2. Bigoted,
    3. Cissexist,
    4. Anti-intersex
    5. And not up for debate.
31. If you refuse to identify your privileged identities,
    1. I’m going to assume you just think you’re ‘normal’
       1. And moderate you.
32. Refusing to acknowledge the power of environment and social structure
    1. Is bigoted
    2. And means you’re a biological essentialist.
33. Intersex people exist.
    1. Deal with it.
    2. And no, they are not ‘miracles of evolution’.
       1. I thought you didn’t believe in miracles.
34. Freedom does not just mean ‘freedom to be an atheist and make the choices I would make’. It means freedom to make even choices I don’t like.
    1. Including religious choices.
35. Social justice / social uprooting / anti-oppression is not about you and your feelings.
    1. Nobody cares about white guilt.
    2. Making everything about your feelings is oppressive.
36. If you’re offended,
    1. Get over it.
    2. Realize that being offended is much better than being oppressed.

Find the original post here:
Just A Quick Note to Atheists (From an Atheist) | Machine Gun Bras

Here is my take (if I don't say otherwise, I'd have to agree).. 

2.      I think that it's short sighted to say white people can't criticize non-white religions because if a religion 

         is true, race does not matter.

7.      Amen!!!

17.1   I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't write it like that.

18.2   I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't write it like that. 

Ultimate Diva Whitney Houston Dies At 48

Whitney Houston (Image via RottenTomatoes.com)

Wow...just...wow. She was so young. I was really rooting for her to get her life together and stage a comeback. Not everyone gets multiple chances or even one.

Ultimate Diva Whitney Houston Dies At 48

Related articles

• A Bloody Whitney Houston Looking Worse For Wear In Hollywood [PHOTOS] (socialitelife.com)
• PHOTOS: Whitney Houston Caught with Slit Wrist and Blood Everywhere! (997now.radio.com)
• Whitney Houston & Kelly Price Take The Stage Together! (hellobeautiful.com)
• Is Whitney Houston Trying To Kill Herself? (hellobeautiful.com)

Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

Dr Daniel Wallace has posted news of his debate with Dr Bart Ehrman that was held February 1st....but that's not the best part:

On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered—six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These manuscripts now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts (all fragmentary, more or less) from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 40% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

Now this is exciting news, but like Dr James White said about it on last Thursday's Dividing Line, I do think that we should wait for the more information before we hang arguments and debates on it. However, Dr Wallace seems pretty excited but he is also cautious. Wallace explained why this is important:

But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the original followers of Jesus! Not only this, but this manuscript would have been written before the New Testament was completed. 

My favorite things about this is that if it pans out that the fragment is from the mid first century, it takes away one more excuse people raise to accepting that the Gospel of Mark is historical and written by one who would have had first-hand knowledge.

Wallace even gives a link for purchase of the debate with Ehrman from February 1st:
Purchase U.S. DVDs of the second debate or international DVDs


Home Page - Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

Related articles

• Earliest manuscript of the New Testament discovered? (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• First-Century Gospel Fragment? (str.typepad.com)
• Update: First-Century Manuscript of the Gospel of Mark (xcntrik.wordpress.com)
• First-Century Manuscript of the Gospel of Mark (xcntrik.wordpress.com)
• The Earliest Manuscript of Mark's Gospel? (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)

The History of Thomas Edison [Video]

Today is Thomas Edison's birthday!




The History of Thomas Edison [Video]

Related articles

• A Short History Of Thomas Edison (buzzfeed.com)
• T-Shirt of the Day in Honor of Thomas Edison's Birthday! (lol-teez.com)
• Thomas Alva Edison: 10 quotes on his birthday (csmonitor.com)
• Thomas Edison's 'Todo' List (business-opportunities.biz)
• Thomas Edison: Most Iconic Inventor (business-opportunities.biz)

What Happens to a Fire in Space?

What Happens to a Fire in Space?

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, With Examples

John Loftus posted posted the following stream of consciousness thoughts on his blog today. I'm kind of amazed how he keeps trotting out these objections when they have been answered time-and-time-again with no acknowledgment of their existence or rebuttal.

If the same kind of reasoning produces support for two different conclusions then the reasoning is delusional. By your host here, John W. Loftus ;-)

Let's ask ourselves: Is this true? On the surface it reminds me of the definition of insanity that doing the same thing but expecting a different result. It seems like Loftus' whole argument hinges on the idea that all religious people reason the same way in establishing the existence of a god - leading to different god. He offers "examples" supposedly pointing to evidence of the correctness of this statement. He's asserting that the examples show that these different religions utilize the same reasoning to different conclusions. Let's see if he can deliver. 

--Example 1) Ontological argumentation for God's existence equally supports the Oriental conception of God, or a trickster god.

--Example 2) The same kind of arguments exonerating God from being evil also work in reverse to exonerate an evil God from being good.

Both of these :"examples" are based on the same idea. Stephen Law tried this line of reasoning. I think he failed to make it stick and Loftus doesn't even try to demonstrate it's true. I've posted some links to this particular subject, check them out  and see for yourself if this is persuasive. This failure counts twice.

William Lane Craig vs. Stephen Law: Does God Exist? - Apologetics 315 

Faithful Thinkers: Stephen Law's "Evil God" Argument 

Say Hello to my Little Friend » Blog Archiv » Episode 045: What if God Were Really Bad?

--Example 3) Arguments deflecting the problem of divine hiddenness for the Christian God also work to deflect the problem of divine hiddenness for Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo, and Artemis.

 I realize in philosophy, :"hiddenness" of God is an idea that has much traction. The problem is that in my experience, God is far from hidden. I think coming to redeem humanity from sin and death in the person of Jesus Christ, is the tantamount rebuttal to example 3, but there is other Biblical evidence. The entire Bible is about how God has created humanity and redeems His chosen people - glorifying Himself and declaring His Character to all of us. The Bible is a record of how God has  been building a relationship with humanity. If you look at the stories about Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo,  Artemis, or anyone else you can name you won't find the same example of the love and relationship building we get from YHWH - from Genesis to Revelation. Paul had words regarding the "hiddenness:" of God.

 ¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
 ²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:19-24

Failure number 3. When people complain that God has not made Himself plain to them, what they are really whining about is that God will not allow them to come to Him on their own terms. We must relate to God on God's terms.

--Example 4) Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in the Christian God also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos.

More elaboration here would help (but not much), but I'm sure any attempt would lead to more failure.  If I remember Egyptian mythology, Set was only seen as Satan's counterpart after being mixed with Christianity. Also the Greek Gods  don't really fit as an example. How did believing and trusting in these deities promise improve their adherent's prospects in life and in the after-life? It did not. In order for Pascal's wager to be analagous for them, you would have to be able to show how believing in Greco-Roman or Egyptian deities would be better (in their system) than eing an atheist or believing in other deities. Since Loftus did not explain this, this is another failure.

--Example 5) Arguments supporting the proper basically of belief in the Christian God also work to support the proper basically of belief in Allah. Somebody stop me!

When most Christians and other theists use such basic arguments they don't assume that it's enough to prove the existence of any particular deity only establishes that there must be such a real things as a god. If you want to know who that God is it takes that God revealing God to you. Paul used this very same reasoning in the first and chapter of Romans. If you want to find the God of Christianity you have go deeper than the Cosmological, Ontological, and Moral arguments. These indeed don't distinguish between Islam and Christianity, but I think it says a lot about atheism in that these basic arguments are really only necessary to prove that atheism - the belief in no God - is nonsensical.  I also have to say that the charge that without knowing who that God is merely accepting that a god exists is not enough is true.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.- James 2:19

However, today, people are so out of touch...deceived...lost.....corrupt....that you have to start there before you can move on to who God is and what He has commanded.  Fail all around.  "Somebody stop you", Loftus?. Already done, before you were even born.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, With Examples

What Happens to Your Digital Life When You Die? [Video Infographic]

The world has surely changed. Ever thought about what happens to your social media presence or blog or YouTube Channel after if you died?

Imagine if one of your best friends kept a trunk of of their personality… Their likes, dislikes, photos, home videos, conversations, feelings and secrets. Then out of no-where, when your friend is hit by an airplane, Google comes knocking at your door with the legal right to take, use, and recreate whatever they’d like using what’s in your friend’s trunk. Seems wrong doesn’t it? This is already happening. The biggest culprit has to be facebook. I know I’ve uploaded years worth of data and personality traits to my facebook account that even if I was dead, a stranger could get a sense of who I was and I’m not even a good facebooker.

It brings up some very important issues. Added to that, this week I have found out about the trend to doing infographics as videos instead of just an image.




What Happens to Your Digital Life When You Die? [Video Infographic]

George Lucas Is Now Officially Lying to Himself - Topless Robot

I don't know if you have heard this before but there is a controversy among fans of the Star Wars movies. Do you remember that scene after Luke and Ben meet Han Solo for the first time and a bounty hunter, Greedo, confronts Solo and only one of them walks away? The controversy: who shot first? The controversy started after the 1997 re-release in which Lucas makes it plain that Greedo shot first. I tend to go with 1977 version in which Solo shot first. George Lucas has apparently commented, finally!

The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.

I don't buy it. Here is the original cut in 1977:




Now this is what it was after 1997 compared to 1977:




Sorry, Folks. Greedo shot first!

George Lucas Is Now Officially Lying to Himself - Topless Robot