Google The Right Way [Infographic]

Created by: HackCollege
[Via How-To Geek]


Google The Right Way [Infographic]

Leap Years Explained [Video]

Here is a great video about Leap Years




Leap Years Explained [Video]

Is Your Job Killing You? [infographic]

Is Your Job Killing You? [infographic]

Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb

Dr James White has posted a video responding to Sam Gipp's "defense" of the King James Only doctrine. Hint: Gipp's arguments are still bad. Here is Gipp's video:






And Here is part 1 of Dr White's reply:



Responding to the Same Old Falsehoods Packaged in New Garb

The Navy's Electromagnetic Railgun - G4tv.com

Does this remind anyone else of the rail gun used in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? I wonder how long this has been in development? And what else is on the drawing board?






Here is link to the scene from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7RpLQ8pZo

The Navy's Electromagnetic Railgun - G4tv.com

Debunking Christianity: On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It

You may be aware that John Loftus has been posting a lot about what "faith" is. It's amazing that he has still failed to have correctly define it. Here is a list of definitions has has used put together from two recent blog posts.  Loftus wrote:

Skeptics define "faith" differently than believers. It's hard to find a middle ground between us because we see faith differently. Here are a few skeptical definitions of faith:

Yup, I think it is impossible to believers and non-believers are not capable to agree on this. Here are some of those quotes.

Mark Twain defined faith as “believing what you know ain’t true.”

Sam Harris: "Faith is the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail."

In the documentary Religulous, Bill Maher said “Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking.”

Richard Dawkins: “The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices.”

John Loftus: "Faith is an attitude or feeling whereby someone attributes a higher degree of probability to the evidence than what the evidence calls for."

And from Dr Matt McCormick

-To take something on faith or to believe by faith is to believe it despite contrary or inadequate evidence. It is to believe anyway when there's not enough support from evidence and reason to clear the way.

-The overcoming of doubts or counter-evidence is the essential feature of faith.

-If someone's reaction to my arguments against the resurrection and other religious beliefs is that she has faith, then she is conceding the central point. In effect, she is acknowledging that in order to believe those religious doctrines, one must ignore the inefficiencies in the evidence and believe anyway.

-If there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion, then faith isn't needed. So to suggest that faith and evidence jointly justify is acknowledging that the evidence by itself isn't enough, and I will ignore that gap and believe anyway.

-In fact, the need to invoke faith to bridge the gap affirms the inadequacy of the evidence.

-In effect, the faith response amounts to, "I'm going to believe anyway, despite those objections." That's just dogmatic irrationality, not a serious consideration that the critic must give some further objection to.

Debunking Christianity: On Definitions of Faith and Arguments Against It

Professor Matt McCormick's Definition of Faith

In the latest post, Loftus said something in the comments that I think bears scrutiny:

FTFDad, it doesn't matter how they define it. This is an argument over how it is best defined.

My response: Who are you to tell me what I mean when I use the word "faith"? There have been few arguments I have seen about how to define a single word in English. My vote is to go with the Biblical definition, but people like Loftus and McCormick would never agree to that. I say that because none of them have seem to argue that the Bible defines it the way they do. Baring that...why don't we just decide the way we do all other English words: Etymology. Where does this word come from? I came up with a couple of links that one can look at that shows what the word originally meant:

Origin and Etymology of the word FAITH.  

Online Entymology Dictionary

And you would notice that in no way did it mean to believe or trust in something without proof or contrary to evidence. In today's vernacular we do use "faith" that way, but that is not how the people who first translated the Bible into English would have thought of what "faith" means. And for sure the Bible writers did not think that was what :"pistas:" means - the word that is often translated to "faith" in English Bibles.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen .- Hebrews 11:1

Crosswalk.com is very handy. The Biblical text is hyperlinked to Strong's Concordance. One could click on the words and look up some lexical aids to see what words mean. Can we find anything in the Greek words that lends credibility to idea that when we believe, we should just turn our brains off and ignore and contrary facts or evidence? I don't mind if you check yourself. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Nope, nothing about believing despite "counterfactuals". Sorry, but Atheists have no leg to stand on in mis-defining "Faith" as they often do. It doesn't matter what  "faith" means now in the English vernacular when you are trying  to understand what the the Gospel writers were saying 2000 years ago. Where they using your definition? If you think "Faith" is believing something even if you can prove its false, then you are not using the same concepts that the writers of the Bible were using.and you should repent of the error.

Sugarcoating the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted some comments about an article by Steven James, writing a post for CNN Belief Blog, in which he argued for Christians to stop "sugarcoating" the Bible. I agree. Dr Mariottini wrote:

In previous posts I have argued for translating the biblical text as literally as possible and as readable as necessary. I rather prefer that the reader struggle with the text as it is than to offer a reading that is more of an interpretation than a translation of the text.

I could not agree more!!


Sugarcoating the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Peregrinations: The Crux of Cosmic History

Rick Gerhardt recently gave an important sermon at his home church. Thankfully, he posted it on his blog.


Rick Gerhardt :: The Crux of Cosmic History from Antioch Church on Vimeo.

Peregrinations: The Crux of Cosmic History

ID.Plus: 'Understanding the Trinity' - bethinking publish new paper on Trintiy

Dr Peter S Williams has posted a link to a paper he has written on the Trinity. Take a look.

ID.Plus: 'Understanding the Trinity' - bethinking publish new paper on Trintiy

Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

pics on SodaheadMariano pointed out this great video to me. It's Dr William Lane Craig answering the question about if there really is a parallel between Osirus and Horus to Jesus. Worth looking at, so you don't become deceived by such a silly thought.






Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - YouTube

John Lennox on DNA and Design - Apologetics 315

Image via Wikipedia

Brian Auten posted the following quote on his blog from Dr John Lennox. It's an awesome quote and must be considered

 "We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters' - the longest 'word' yet discovered?”

- John Lennox
God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?, p. 75.


John Lennox on DNA and Design - Apologetics 315

John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen - YouTube

John MacArthur makes very important observations regarding Joel Osteen's ministry. He's right. It is another gospel...one different than what is in Bible. Osteen wants to be considered part of the "household of faith" (Galatians 6:10) and therefore it's perfectly proper and correct for John MacArthur to call him to the carper on his teachings because "judgement begins at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:7).




John MacArthur Rebukes Joel Osteen - YouTube

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

I realize that atheists and Christians are just not going to see eye-to-eye on the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, and the accountability that goes with that.  We can't.. It's not going to be possible to come to terms but both  positions can't be true simultaneously.  John Loftus posted the following quote from one of his collaborators and I think it's important because it demonstrates more than I think the author thought she was saying.

It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.



I would say that the problem isn't with "science". The thing is that scientists can indeed be wrong. Just like one would make a distinction between science and scientists, we need to make a distinction between religion and those who practice it. For example, just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they really believe and follow what the Bible says. For example, if someone denies the Resurrection, can they be a Christan? Nope,

I don't think any evil things have been done "in the name of science" (nor do I even know what that means); although scientific advancements have caused suffering of others along with giving us longer healthier lives and computers and air travel and so cell phones-- things that would make us gods to your bible writers. It's also brought us knowledge that even the smartest people could not know during biblical times-- see DNA and atoms and germ theory, for example.

I find this telling. Does she mean that she does not know what evil is? She seems to be making a distinction between "suffering" and evil and I agree there should be a distinction made. However I would point to the way some "scientist" use science to make money driven by greed despite the suffering it causes. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind as an example.Not everyone in it is driven by greed but decisions like what gets researched, funded, and released are influenced by finances and greed.

What do you think is the probability that the 3-in-1 god of the bible who became his own son is the "uncaused cause" of the universe? What is the probability that an omnibenevolent omnipotent being would make a place of infinite torture? What for? Why should anyone believe such a thing?

I'd like to know what is the probability that an atheist would phrase the trinitarian doctrine in such a way that it shows that they they understand what it is? I also would like to know if an atheist can understand what the Bible says when it explains the existence of hell? I also would like to know  why Atheists think it's okay to deny the Bible but butcher its teachings - demonstrating that they don't even seem to know what they are denying. I mean they would get upset and want to be correctly represented if some one said that they believed that human beings were descended from monkey.  I agree. If you are going to deny something then at least correctly state what it is you are denying.

Religious people are forced to fit the scientific facts into their religion or to ignore them. They imagine some god will punish them forever if they don't. Science cannot afford to be handicapped by such vested interests. Science doesn't work unless you are on the right track. Any track involved invisible beings (gods, ghosts, demons, angels, fairies, etc.) is the track of magical thinkers. It never leads anywhere and is not a useful guide for those who are interested in what is true.

No where in the Bible are Christians commanded to turn their brains off and ignore evidence. We are supposed to think and reason. I would say that it is the Atheist that  is handicapped because when one chooses to ignore/deny possibilities just because you think they are improbable you can't also pretend to be open-minded. There are many scientific discoveries that seemed completely improbable at first, like the earth revolving around the sun, or a complete accident like the discovery of penicillin.

You pray for John; we'll THINK for you.

Link.

Again God expects us to think and reason...he gave us our minds in the first place. Without God was have no minds.

¹⁸Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities

I can't decide whether or not  its amusing or pathetic whenever John Loftus posts a blog post attempting to explain why faith is irrational. I think it's pathetic because it doesn't matter how many times he is corrected he seems to ignore it. Better people than me have pointed out his errors but he continues in them.

You can quote me on this. Probability is all that matters. Faith is irrational. I want to drive this point into the ground once and for all.


Let's see if he can prove this.



The problem is that practically nothing is certain. So the word "faith" is used to describe any conclusion of ours that leaves room for doubt. Is it possible I'm dreaming right now? I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a material world does not exist? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility. Is it possible a good omnipotent God exists given the world-wide massive and ubiquitous suffering in it? Again, I suppose that's an extremely remote possibility too.

The way John Loftus describes "faith" is not the way the Bible uses the word. "Pistas" does not mean that room is left for doubt. The way that  "Faith"/"Pistas" is used in the Bible there is no room for doubt. Loftus starts his whole discussion by mis-defining "faith". Is he using it the way 21st Century Americans use the word "faith"? Yes. But that is not the way the writers of the New Testament use it. That is why he fails. I realize that many people would use Hebrews 11:1 to illustrate what the Bible means by "faith", and it is sufficient but I want to use another of the New Testament writers to show what I mean. Let's look at what it says about doubt:

² Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, ³ because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. ⁴ Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. ⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. ⁶ But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. ⁷ That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. ⁸ Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.  - James 1:2-8

James is talking about faith and what it isn't. And you can't fit Loftus' definition into it. As a matter of fact the Bible contradicts him.


So what? Probability is all that matters. Accepting some conclusion because it's merely possible is irrational. We should never ever do that.

Just because something is probable, does not mean that is real.  It's just potentially true. It does not mean that it's real.What we should never accept is something that is not a part of reality. This may not have anything to do with whether a conclusion or event is probable.

I suppose its possible someone can jump off a building and fly, right? After all, he could instantaneously grow wings, or a huge burst of air could keep him afloat, or a supernatural force could propel him around in the air. It's even possible that such a person is dreaming, and in that dream he can fly, or that there isn't a material world and in the world of his mind he can fly. Okay, I understand all this. All of these scenarios are remotely possible I suppose, so much so, that I consider them "virtually impossible," like one in 1 million (and that's being very very generous).

Get the point?

Nope. Given that we know enough about gravity and physics we can exclude some of the possibilities. But considering possibilities is putting the cart in front of the horse. You must first answer the question: Did the dude fly? Then you can try to figure out how. And flying in the mind doesn't count. Given that physics tells us people can't fly under their own power, if it happens it must be a miracle - which is one of the options Loftus gives. This does not mean you can't  immediately conclude that it didn't happen without examining the evidence. And here is something else to consider: what if the man did? What effect would that have on you today? I'd posit that if a man did such a thing it would mean nothing to me one way or the other.

By contrast, consider the opposite scenario. It's probable that if someone jumps off a building he will fall to the ground. How probable is this? Well, since it's possible he won't fall (per our examples above) then we cannot say we are certain he will fall. But it's "virtually certain" he will, like a 99.9999% chance (and I think that's being very very generous).

With the change of scenario the stakes are a little higher - especially if the man says he flew and I can do it too. Here is where careful examination of evidence would be helpful. I'd ask the man to show me he could fly.  I wouldn't just take him at his word and jump off a building myself

In between these two extremes there are a lot of different odds for something, stretching from extremely improbable, to very improbable, to improbable, to even odds, to slightly probable, to probable, to very probable, and to extremely probable.

Again I think the Loftus is confusing probable with possible. Something can be extremely improbable and still be possible. But it's a contradiction to think something to be impossible and probable  simultaneously. Also in order to conclude that something is improbable sometimes requires omniscience because a  human being you can't know all the possibilities.  One can say that it is impossible for a circle to have 3 sides and 3 angles. But you cannot say Jesus' miracles and Resurrection are impossible.

We don't have a word to differentiate between the odds on that continuum stretching from virtually impossible to virtually certain. But does anyone really want to suggest the word "faith" applies to all of these different probabilities, that there is the same amount of faith required to accept any one of them? If so, that is being irrational.

Get the point?

No. Back up. Loftus only successfully demonstrates that his misunderstanding of Biblical faith is irrational. I agree. Good Job!!!!

If believers want to say that more faith is required to accept something that is "virtually impossible" and less faith is required to accept something that is "virtually certain," then what can they possibly mean? What is faith at that point? Faith adds nothing to the actual probabilities at all. Having more of it or less of it does not change anything. If it's possible to accept a "virtually impossible" conclusion by having more faith, then that's irrational. And if we have a "virtually certain" conclusion we don't need faith at all.

If you define faith the way Loftus has defined it then you don't need faith at all. But his :logic also comes up useless because there is such things as things we can know for sure are impossible - like a circular square and other logical contradictions. There are basis and things we can build on. You can't even think without those foundations.

What about something that is only slightly probable, one might ask. What if we accept something that only has a 60% chance of being true? I still don't see where faith can change the actual probabilities. Faith cannot change a thing, you see. Faith adds nothing. It's irrational.

Christians don't believe that faith changes things. We believe that the God whom our faith is in changes things. And yes, Loftus' faith is indeed irrational. Fortunately it has nothing to do with what the Bible says "faith" is.

Who in their right mind would fill in the probability gap with anything more than what the probabilities actually show us?

Not me.

Actually when you conclude that Bible is wrong and that there is no God based on your imperfect understanding of those probabilities filling "in the probability gap" is exactly what one is doing. 

The ONLY sense I can make of the way believers use the word "faith" is that it's an irrational leap over the probabilities. They fill in what the actual probabilities are with faith to move an "extremely improbable" or "improbable" conclusion to reach a "very probable" or an "extremely probable" or even a "virtually certain" conclusion, and that is quite simply irrational.

Well, since that is all Loftus is capable of understanding it makes sense. The Bible tells us that not everyone is going to understand it and that God himself gives that understanding if you do see it. Such Wisdom only comes from God.  Back to James chapter 1. If you want to understand, ask God for the Wisdom. He will give it you. Biblical faith is trusting God based on what you know of God and I know He keeps His promises because He has kept his promises to me. 

Faith cannot go "beyond reason" because that means it's going beyond the probabilities. There is no rational way faith can trump reason, or go beyond it, or be based on it.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum that reason needs faith. All of modern science is based on the idea that we live in a comprehendable universe based on rules and laws that we can understand if we study them. That's an example of Biblical faith - not ignoring the apparent probability that it was pointless to look.

A probability is a probability is a probability. There are nothing but probabilities.

Sure keep saying that and it might come true...sounds like blind faith to me.

Debunking Christianity: Faith is an Irrational Leap Over the Probabilities

Answering Muslims: Kira Davis Apologizes to President Karzai over Quran Burnings

You may have heard that there are Muslims in Afghanistan who want some Americans to be tried for burning Qur'ans on an American base in Afghanistan. I appreciate David Wood for pointing out this video. I am also thankful that Kira Davis apologized to President Karzai on our behalf!




Answering Muslims: Kira Davis Apologizes to President Karzai over Quran Burnings

Related articles

• Obama apologises over Qur'an burning (vanguardngr.com)
• Obama apologizes for Qur'an burning - CANOE (cnews.canoe.ca)
• Qur'an burning protests rage as death toll reaches 23 in Afghanistan (guardian.co.uk)
• Fisher: Qur'an blunder has made Afghan mission more dangerous (vancouversun.com)
• Eight dead because four Qur'ans burned (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious

John Loftus made the following  comment:

Christianity has always changed like a chameleon to its culture and times. It's emphatically NOT the case that the Christianity of the 1st or 2nd centuries has survived. The heresy of a previous generation just becomes the orthodoxy of the next one. Subsequent generations develop an amnesia about what Christianity used to be. That's it. The conservatives in one generation become the moderates in the next one who become the liberals in the following one. In each of these subsequent generations conservatives who object to this trend start their own churches, publishing houses and seminaries. Then these new churches, publishing houses and seminaries follow the same trend. And as they do, conservatives break off again and the trend starts all over. Do you want to know the Christianity of the future in America? I suspect it might look more like the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen. 

Debunking Christianity: The Christianity of the Future is Innoxious

I disagree. I've heard many an assertion that Christianity has changed since the first and second centuries Anno Domini  but there is very little discussion of how. Only a moron would walk into church today and think that church services were the same during the time of the Apostles. And Loftus is most likely correct that many people will continue to follow "the inclusivist/universalism of Rob Bell along with the pop-psychology gospel of Joel Olsteen." Loftus is also correct that this isn't the Gospel of the Bible. Here is the fail: If it's so hopeless to understand what the first Christians believed then how does Loftus know that Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen is preaching somethings different?   I agree that they are but I disagree that there no living people today who are attempting to live what the Bible teaches - following Jesus Christ. This week Dr Kenneth Samples posted a quote from Dr  Alister McGrath that shows what I mean:

Christianity is a strongly ethical faith. This does not, however, mean that Christianity is about a set of rules, in which Christians mechanically conform to a set of instructions. Rather, it is about a set of values which arises from being redeemed.

– Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1997), xix–xx.

Quote of the Week: Alister McGrath, 2

Answering Muslims: Sharia Alert: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Charges against Muslim Who Assaulted Atheist

Remember the case of the Muslem in Pennsylvania who assaulted an atheist who was dressed as "zombie" Muhammad? Well "justice" has been served. The Muslim will not be punished.
David Wood observed:

Judge Mark Martin dismissed charges against a Muslim named Talaag Elbayomy, who physically attacked an atheist dressed as Muhammad. In ruling against the atheist, Judge Martin sent a double message: (1) criticism of Muhammad will not be tolerated, and (2) assaulting critics of Muhammad will be tolerate.

I think that this is sad and truly a step backward. This is America. You have the right to say almost anything you want - even if it's offensive and stupid. If religious people have the right to express their beliefs than so should atheists have the same right - despite them being wrong.

Answering Muslims: Sharia Alert: Pennsylvania Judge Dismisses Charges against Muslim Who Assaulted Atheist

How Should We Understand the Resurrection Narratives? - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to both video and audio of a debate from May 2010, where William Lane Craig and Michael Licona debated Sakkie Spangenberg and Hansie Wolmarans on the resurrection of Jesus at the University of Petoria in South Africa. The topic: How Should We Understand the Resurrection Narratives? I'm glad Brian Posted this. Follow the link to get the debate!


How Should We Understand the Resurrection Narratives? - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman debate the resurrection of Jesus (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• Michael Licona and Shane Puckett debate the resurrection of Jesus (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• The case for the historicity of the empty tomb narrative (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
• 20120219 Rising Fear (emilfeng.wordpress.com)
• Christians Do Have a Reasonable Faith (withalliamgod.wordpress.com)

Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Sentenced to Death for Apostasy in Iran

Well, I was hoping that things would have turned out differently but Iran has sentenced Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani to death because he converted from Islam to Christianity. Technically, he most likely would have been condemned to death no matter what he had converted to from Islam. And given the information that David Wood shares in the following video, I really should not be that surprised:





Follow the link below for more information about Iran's ruling on Pastor Nadarkhani's life.

Answering Muslims: Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani Sentenced to Death for Apostasy in Iran

The Power of Google [infographic]

The Power of Google [infographic]

Apologist Interview: Ken Boa - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted his latest interview. This one was with Dr Ken Boa. He offered some very interesting advice about research, study, reading, and how it should be related to your Christian life. I really enjoyed it. Listen to the interview at the following link. 

Apologist Interview: Ken Boa - Apologetics 315

Nor the Son: Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 - YouTube

Today on the Dividing Line, Dr James White discussed many things. He videoed his discussion on how Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and other abuse Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 in an attempt to deny the deity of Christ and the trinity. Doesn't work, but they continue to try to use it.




Nor the Son: Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 - YouTube

Deposyni, Thanks!!!

On his blog, Matthew Dowling has posted links to a couple of lectures by a couple of great scholars from the Lanier Theological Library

Dr Alister McGrath

Lecture with Dr. Alister McGrath from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.


Alister McGrath on Christianity and the Discipleship of the Mind

Dr James K. Hoffmeier

Lecture with Dr. James Hoffmeier from Lanier Theological Library on Vimeo.


Desposyni: Archaeology and the Exodus from Egypt

Geek vs. Hipster: The Infographic

From: Become Career
Hilarious


Geek vs. Hipster: The Infographic

The Rape of Bilhah | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Dr Claude Mariottini has posted a great post today about the story of Reuben raping his step mother in Genesis and people tend to skip this part. Dr Mariottini however takes it on head on. I was aware of the account in Genesis and agreed that Ruben lost his rights as first-born son among Jacob's sons but I had never looked at it the way Dr Mariottini presents it. This is definitely worth reading and thinking about how this shapes Biblical history.

The Rape of Bilhah | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

John Cleese Responds Hilariously To Your Monty Python Questions On YouTube [Video]

John Cleese - an international treasure!!!



John Cleese Responds Hilariously To Your Monty Python Questions On YouTube [Video]

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