Wednesday, March 7, 2012

A Tribute To my Sister - Chauming


My sister, Chauming was born September 18, 1961 in California to Clarence and Barbara Allen McElhaney Sr. She was one of the most generous, loving, kind, intelligent people I have ever known in my life. She was educated in the Oakland Public Schools, graduating from Oakland  High School in 1979, but despite that she earned a Bachelors of Science degree in Nursing from California State University Hayward (now called Cal State East Bay) in 1984. Chaum was a registered nurse for many years. She endured many challenges and grew as a woman and professionally throughout her life. Much of her career was spent at Kaiser Permanente Hospitals working as a Maternity Nurse  or an Advice Nurse  and several other departments.  Chauming wasn’t just an intellectual. She was an artist and a musician and and a singer.
Unfortunately, after fighting pancreatic cancer for several months courageously with the support of family and friends, she died peacefully March 1st 2012. She leaves behind her parents, 4 brothers and their wives, three children – Shekhiynah, Pardes, and Gregory, and more family and friends that have been blessed beyond measure with having had known her and loved her and been loved by her.
There is so much that should be said. Chaum will never be forgotten. She has sown good seed in so many lives and God blessed her to be able to see and feel  the results of the service she had so fully rendered to others. There is not a single person that knew her that did not benefit from selflessness.  She was blessed during the last few months of her life with family and friends coming to see her, some from all over the country, so that they could tell her face-to-face how much she means to them. 
All of us who knew her have stories of her .  You can tell yours, here are some of mine. I couldn’t begin to express all that I am grateful for that God has given me through Charm, but there are a few that just come to my mind when I think of her.  I am her little brother and I love her very much. She was accused often of spoiling me. And she would admit that she did. I’ll be honest , she did. And I wouldn’t trade her  for anything. 
Chaum already had an older brother , Clarence Jr, and a younger brother, Vincent, and when Chaum was a young teenager she ached for a little sister, but instead she got two knuckle-headed brothers .  I was the first of these new brothers she was stuck with.  To make up for us not being a girls, my mother allowed Chaum to pick our first names.  She was so good at picking names.  She named me  “Marcus” and our youngest brother “Maurice”.  I love my name and I told her that as often as I could. When I was a baby , our mother found her crushing pomegranate seeds into paste so she could spoon feed it to me. When our mother asked her why she was doing it, Chaum replied, “But Mommy, he likes it.” Chaum always made me feel wanted and helped our parents in my upbringing.  My parents never made my older siblings take care of me or watch me when they didn’t want to.  She used to even take me with her when she went to get her hair done sometimes.  I didn’t mind because I was with her.  When my older siblings took me with them  to see the first Star Trek movie, it was Chaum’s lap I was sitting in. One of her first jobs while she was in High School  was working in a toy store at Eastmont Mall and she brought me home a new toy almost every day.  Another thing that comes to mind is when I was in the 2nd grade,  Chaum used to sometimes pick me up from school. One day another student stole my homework, erased my name and put his on it. I was punished for not doing my homework, but by the end of the day  they realized the mistake but didn’t do anything to correct it. I was very upset and when Chaum came to get me I told my big Sister. She had me wait in in her car, she went and…handled the situation. Did she spoil me? Yes.  Don’t be mad, just because she loved me.
Chaum also taught me so much. It was through her, I learned to read and not just learning the skill but learned to love to read and to learn.  She, like my other older siblings and parents,  used to read books to me. She once  read the entire first 2 books of the Bible to  me and Maurice over a few weeks time while we sat in her lap. I watched her and learned from her how important God is.  I saw God working through her life  and blessing her and guiding her. She was the first person I personally knew show interest in the original languages of the Bible and not  just English Translations.  I can literally remember Chaum typing her college papers on typewriter and working so hard. She even worked at a bank and other jobs while she was in college.  She and my elder brothers made college not only seem possible but inevitable. I could reason: Chaum made it , I can too. I hope she knew just how motivating and helpful that was to me.  Chaum would always encourage and show me so much love, even when I made mistakes and messed up.  I’ve seen her give to the poor  and help others in need when ever she had the opportunity. It’s this God-given gift for service that I believe drove her to become a nurse. She not only wanted to help others but she wanted to glorify God with her life. And she did.
Starting in 1986, Chauming moved to Southern California. I remember the year, because Chaum left home the day after my 11th Birthday party.  I thought I was going to be sick. But as always she went out her way to show me how much she loved me.   She not only stayed for the party but helped our Mom and  played games and entertained the guests.  Chaum continued her career down there in Southern California.  I confess I was a child during most of that time and I don’t  know everything that happened  I do remember she’d call home to talk to me and she did come home to visit from time-to-time. The one thing that comes to mind that I know that happened to her once was a patient, whom was racist, was in distress but would not let Chaum touch him. ME, I would’ve probably let him die.  I think most people would have.  But Chaum was better than most of us.  She got other nurses and doctors to help and just stood by in case she was needed.
In 1990, Chauming returned to Oakland.  She faced one of the greatest challenges of her life. God saw her through a health scare. She was diagnosed with a hyper thyroid and the medical field told her that she had to undergo radiation therapy or she would die. She realized that God had directed her to use a holistic treatment and diet change. She recovered. I saw the power God. We all did. Chaum used that experience along with medical training and experience to help everyone who would listen to her and what she learned about eating and living more healthy.
In 1997, Chaum became a mother for the first time. Her three children were not just a blessing to her but to everyone who knows them.  They are just like their mother: intelligent, awesome, and beautiful.  There is so much that can be said, I can’t tell it all but I want to make it clear that Chaum’s life from beginning to end, is nothing but a gift from God. In Vietmanese “Chauming” means “precious” and she was precious to everyone who’s life she touched. If you thought Chaum spoiled me when I was child you should know some of the things she did that blessed me even after I grew up. One of Chaum’s customs was to run interference for anyone she knew needed an advocate in a medical setting. For example she came all the way from Oakland to Vallejo so she could be present at the births of both of my children being familiar with Kaiser maternity policies. She could ask the questions I couldn’t and made sure my Wife, Mitsouky, and our babies got the best care possible.  She didn’t just do that me . She was there at many a cousin’s birth, or her neices or nephews.  She was always quick to point out when someone was not getting the care they deserved as a patient – strangers included. 
In Chaum’s final days, she experienced so much pain and suffering, but despite that she kept being more concerned for her parents, children,  siblings, family, and friends. She made sure we were okay. I can’t express how much I appreciate all the people – her friends and family – who helped my parents care for Chaum.  People helped her  by bringing food for her and family, cleaning the house,  sitting with her, gave her  medication,  and so many other things. God blessed her so much that I am certain that she knew she was loved just as much we all know she loved us. She would lay in bed and use everything she had to try to get well. She did the best she could and prayed. But she had the correct attitude: She  knew our God was able to heal her, but she would serve him even if he does not. She taught me throughout my life to trust God no matter what happens. She not only taught me that in word, she modeled that for me in deed.  She desired to hear a song often during those days: It Is Well With My Soul. That was her testimony. When all things were shaken.  When she was at death’s door – that was her testimony. She died peacefully in our mother's arms with this song playing in the background.

What will we say to this? The most important thing to Chaum in life was to lead people to Christ. There are many people God used to bring me to Himself. Chaum is one of those.  She trusted God and watching God take of Her, taught me to desire the same kind of relationship with God from a young age.  This faith, these facts, help me and comfort me even in this time. A time in which I had hoped to never really see, a world without Chauming in it.  I can hold to the same hope she held to. Scripture comforts me and sustains me as it did her.

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. - 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

 

 23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
   that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
   or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
   and that in the end he will stand on the earth

 26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
   yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
   with my own eyes—I, and not another.
   How my heart yearns within me! – Job 19:23-27

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Does Morality Come From God?

Today John Loftus posted an article by J.M. Green that attempts to destroy the idea of Biblical morality as an objective standard. for human morality. As one who knows anything about this, he fails, but it's worth some time to carefully work through the arguments he raises for giggles.

Written by J. M. Green for DC:
Since becoming an atheist, one of things that I hear over and over from Christians is that I now have no basis for morality because morality only comes from their god and their Bible. They claim ownership of true, unchanging morality and yet the Bible they revere sends conflicting messages.
Let's take a look at this his examples and see if he can substantiate  the charge of Biblical contradiction.
Consider these examples:
Murder is wrong… if God orders it however, then murder is right, and failing to murder is a sin.

Exodus 20:13 versus 1 Samuel 15:1, 7-11
 13 “You shall not murder.- Exodus 20:!3


 7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
 10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.- 1 Samuel 15:7-11

Here is the question you have to ask yourself was Samuel commanded to murder anyone? Does a soldier in an army commit murder in Acts of  war? If you think that the passage from 1 Samuel 15 is recording murders, then you must think that war is equivalent to murder. I hope no one is that silly. Failure number 1.
Lying is wrong... but, if God orders or sanctions it, then it is right.

Numbers 23:19 versus Ezekiel 14:9
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
   not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
   Does he promise and not fulfill? - Numbers 23:19


6 “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!
 7 “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer them myself. 8 I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD.
 9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the LORD have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”- Ezekiel 14:6-11

Reading is Fundamental 101: If there seems to be a contradictions, find the context. Yes, the Bible  does teach that lying is a sin. God does not lie. Ezekiel 14:9 does not tell us that God lies. It says that God will allow the prophet to think that they are giving a good prophet and it would cause that false prophet to be cut off because being a false prophet would a capital offense in Ancient Israel because it amounted to lying on God. God is promising to expose liars not condoning lying. Fail number 2.
 
Proverbs 12:22 versus Genesis 12:10-20
 22 The LORD detests lying lips,
   but he delights in people who are trustworthy.  - Proverbs 12:22


10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.”
 14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that Sarai was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, male and female servants, and camels.
 17 But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.- Genesis 12:10-20

Okay. So because Abram lied about his wife being his sister,  Green thinks that the Bible contradicts itself about lying being bad. No where is Abram's actions in this condones or prescribed as what God desires from us to do. Get real. That passage reports what Abram did and why, showing us that Abram is just as fallible as the rest of us - not that it's okay to lie. Failure number 3.
Children must honor their mother and father… but not according to Jesus.

Exodus 20:12 versus Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 14:26, John 2:1-5
Link to the scriptures

Seriously? None of these scriptures say Do not honor mother and father. Let's look at the one of them cited that might be mistaken by Green.

26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

Do you think that God expects you to hate your life? No. So why think that Jesus is saying to hate your spouse, siblings, children, or parents? Nope that's stupid. Jesus is talking about making following him our highest priority and not use your responsibilities as an excuse for not obeying Him. I'll be generous and count this as one fail and not 4 because he misrepresented 4 scriptures.
Human sacrifice is wrong… however, if God orders or sanctions it, it is right.

Leviticus 18:21 versus Genesis 22:1-15; Judges 11:29-38; 2 Samuel 21:1-14; Numbers 25:3-4
There is no contradiction.  Genesis 22 is not about Abraham sacrificing his Son to appease an idol It was symbolic of how God would really go through sacrificing His son. Abraham didn't need to go through with it.  As for Jephthah in Judges11, God didn't tell him to make a human sacrifice. Now is there any condoning of his rash vow. He stands as an example that no one should make rash vows. As for 2nd Samuel 21 and Numbers 25, neither of these cases involved sacrificing people to some deity. They are both examples of  a public execution to expatiate crimes. Failure number 5
Stealing other people’s property is wrong… unless if God orders it.

Exodus 20:15 versus Exodus 3:22
 Link

So according to Green, asking someone for valuable things and they give them to you is the same as stealing. It's not. Failure number 6
Breaking the Sabbath is a sin punishable by death… but, if Jesus or his disciples decide to break the Sabbath, then it is OK.

Exodus 31:13-15 versus Matthew 12:1-8
Link

I find it amazing that Green makes the same mistake as the Jews had accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath.I think Jesus answered this charge best. He said:

7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” - Matthew 12:7
Hmmmm. No where did he say to Jews  "Go ahead and break the Sabbath". Failure number 7


Killing an unborn child or a baby is wrong… unless God orders it.

Hosea 13:16; Isaiah 15:9,16-18; Ezekiel 9:6; Deuteronomy 2:33-34; 1 Samuel 15:3
Link

None of these passages are commands to kill unborn children or babies - for the reasons that people abort children today. In these cases, entire cities were destroyed in Acts of war and in judgment for sin. There was no pronouncement that it was okay to murder babies and children. That's what clinical abortion is for if you want that. Failure number 8.
Taking another man’s wife is wrong… unless God decrees it.

Exodus 20:17 versus Isaiah 13:16;  2 Samuel 12:7,11
 Link

Green makes another mistake.  No where do these verses say that Adultery is good. The Bible reports and condemns David's adultery. No where does the Bible condone  rapes but it does tells us that it's consequence of sin. We are never told, that it's pleasing and honorable to God. No contradiction. Failure number 9.
Making a graven image is wrong… unless God orders it.

Deuteronomy 4:15-18; Exodus 20:4 versus Numbers 21:6-9; Exodus 25:18; 1 Kings 7:29; 1 Kings 6:27-28
Link

Is all images that people make "graven"?  No. A graven image is something made by people specifically for the purpose of  worshiping it. None of the things commanded to be made in  Numbers 21:6-9; Exodus 25:18; 1 Kings 7:29; and 1 Kings 6:27-28 had anything to do with worshiping them. Failure number 10.

Cannibalism is wrong… unless God decides to inflict it on people.

Deuteronomy 28:53; Jeremiah 19:9; Ezekiel 5:8-10
Link

Judgment is usually not pretty.  God does not enjoy punishing us. However when we suffer for our sins, it's not that God causes the suffering. Instead he just doesn't prevent the harm that is coming. Israel is a good example. They were always on the edge of being conquered. Just like today, the only way they stayed a recognizable nation is because of God. protecting them. Failure number 11.
Punishing an innocent party for the sins of another is wrong… unless God decrees it.

2 Kings 14:6 versus Exodus 20:5; 2 Samuel 12:7-15; Genesis 12 (Abram lies, but Pharaoh is punished)
Link

No one is good and innocent to the point that they deserve no punishment. These scriptures that are raised to provoke thoughts of a contradiction is truly sad. For example: Do you really think that the Pharaoh in Genesis 12 had never taken another man's wife and killed him? I mean do you really think that Abram's fear of being killed and his wife taken was for no reason? I doubt it was the first time. Pharaoah deserved the punishment. Failure number 12
Rape is wrong… unless God commands it.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 versus Numbers 31:15-18; Isaiah 13:16; Zechariah 14:2
Link

No. God does not command or condone rape. It's a lie.  It's not in the Bible. Read the passages for yourself. It's not okay to rape.  I've posted on Rape in the Bible before. Rather than rehash it, here is a linke for more  on rape: here. 

Clearly, the Bible does not show objective morality. ‘Biblical morality’ is situational, based on the arbitrary whims of Yahweh. According to the stories found in the Bible, God may command us to do things we would consider morally wrong. If he commands such things, then the fact that he commands them makes them right (according to the Christian belief system). If we fail to carry out his commands, then we are sinning and rebelling against God.

Here is where we find out where Green really goes off the rails. YHWH's commands are far from arbitrary or whimsical and he fails to demonstrate that it is.  What Green further fails to understand is that God will not just command anything.He does not command people to sin.

Ultimately, determining what God wants is based on the subjective thoughts, and emotions of fallible human beings. If someone thinks that God is telling her/him to do something and there are biblical examples of God ordering people to do similar actions, then what Christian can tell them they are wrong? The Bible shows us that at any moment, for some mysterious hidden purpose, God may overturn our instinctive moral knowledge, and even contradict things that he has previously said.

This is not even true. Green failed to show that God contradicts himself in the Bible. You can know if you are really hearing from God or not by just comparing what you think you are hearing with the Bible. If there is a conflict than you know it's not God. This means you have to  know the Bible. Green demonstrates that he does not.

‘Objective’ biblical morality is nothing more than each believer determining what they think God wants in a given situation, based on their own thoughts, and their understanding of the Bible and how God may be ‘leading’ them, through signs, inner impressions, and voices.

There is only one God. God won't tell me something and then tell someone else the exact opposite. If you think you cannot find out God's will for your life then you might as well throw the whole thing out...like Green does.  People like to pretend that the Bible is unreliable or not understandable to a strong enough degree to know anything about God but that's not true.

In light of the biblical story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in response to God’s horrific command, no Christian can ever be certain that God would not require them to take a course of action which to them seems immoral, in order to demonstrate their faith.

Was Abraham required to go through with it? No. Is there a single case in the Bible of anyone having to do that because God told them to do that? No. Therefore we know that God would never tell someone do that. On top of that, Abraham's experience was not so that God could know if Abraham would obey, but that Isaac symbolized Christ.

For example, if a pregnant woman is suddenly under the strong impression that God wants her to get an abortion, the only way she can demonstrate her faith and trust in God is by proceeding to have an abortion. There is no arguing with the ‘inner leading’ or ‘voice’. Whatever Yahweh wants must be obeyed, even when it flies in the face of reason and morality. Unfortunately, people have acted upon such ‘divine guidance’ impulses, with horrific and deadly results.

There is no reason to think that God would ever ask a woman to get an abortion. If someone told me that God told them to have an abortion, I would ask them how can they support that in the Bible and because they can't the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are either mistaken or lying on God. 

Consider the following chilling examples:

Yeah, lets:

Mom: God Told Me To Kill My Baby
August 17, 2001|By Gabriel Margasak
PALM CITY — "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones ...

Those were the words of a 21-year-old mother charged with murdering her 8-month-old son.

Jennifer Cisowski's statements, along with prosecutors' statements and court documents released this week, tell the story of a morning fraught with biblical references, feared demonic possession and pleas for exorcism that ended in death…

In the days before the baby's death... Jennifer and Christopher were "completely normal and doting parents" to their only child.

But something happened at 2 a.m. Tuesday: Awake in the deepest of night, Jennifer and Christopher began a conversation about faith and how she believed God spoke to her.

"Essentially at some point in time, she becomes convinced that he [the father] is possessed by some demonic spirit and wants Tabitha to exorcise the demons," prosecutor Tom Bakkedahl said. "She believed only her sister could exorcise the demons from him."
In the Bible, a believer cannot be possessed by a demon. Demons can be exorcised by prayer and fasting. The Bible does not teach that only certain people can cast out a demon. The power is God's and not the exorcist.
Jennifer told investigators a "spirit" voice told her to harm the baby as a test of faith, according to court documents. "She said she knew that it was wrong to harm the baby, but that the `spirit' voice assured her that the baby would be returned from the dead," the documents state. "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool," she told investigators.

 So....the Bible says that there are other spirits and when you hear one of them, test it by the word of God. Jesus was tempted by satan and satan tried to use scripture by twisting it and taking it out of context. It's the same thing that this woman experienced, however she listened instead of resisting the devil. God would not ask someone to do that today. We ain't Abram.

"She is told allegedly by these voices to throw her baby down on the ground and he will be healed," Bakkedahl said. "She was of the opinion it was God speaking to her."

Agreed that just because you think God is talking to you, doesn't mean He is. However God knows that we can be lead astray by ourselves. That is what Church is for. Church keeps you accountable and allows you to talk to other Christians to see if you are making sense. They should not  be getting contradictory. You can check yourself especailly if you are getting terrible thoughts that you think are wrong.

"At first the child cried, but then became silent," Jennifer told detectives…
We have no excuse. 

Obeying The Law of God
On July 1, 1999, brothers Matthew and Tyler Williams murdered a gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, in their home near Sacramento, California.

“In his account of the murders, Tyler Williams said that his brother did not consider the killing of Matson and Mowder to be murder, but a "judgement" instead.[15]

In November 1999 Matthew Williams began giving interviews to various media outlets. In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, he admitted to the murders and said that when he killed Matson and Mowder he was "obeying the law of God." Williams said that he committed the murders because he believed their homosexuality violated God's laws, and he hoped his actions would incite more killings. [16]

Williams insisted that his actions did not constitute murder. Because the Bible holds that homosexuality is a sin that must be punished by death, he claimed, the responsibility lies with the victims. Williams expressed regret that more "people who claim to be Christians" didn't "have the guts" to act as he had. Facing the possibility of execution, he said he hoped to become a "Christian martyr" whose death would inspire others to lash out against Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities.
Dumb. Dumb. Know how we can tell Williams was lying on God? He wants to inspire violence against Jews. The Jews are God's chosen people. Why would God want us to hate Jews or anyone? Simple: He doesn't. 

God Told Me To Kill Boys, Says Mother
By David Usborne
Saturday, 3 April 2004
A Texas woman who stoned two of her children to death and seriously injured a third on Mother's Day last year told psychiatrists she was driven to kill by a message from God and that she was sure they would rise again from the dead.

Jurors in the trial of 39-year-old Deanna Laney watched a gruelling video-tape made just days after the murders in which she told a prison psychologist, Phillip Resnick, that she felt she had no choice but to bludgeon her children.

"I felt like I obeyed God and I believe there will be good out of this," she explained in the interview, looking wide-eyed and sometimes smiling. "I feel like he will reveal his power and they will be raised up. They will become alive again."
In this last example, Deanna Laney’s lawyer makes some insightful observations which have bearing on the whole question of ‘biblical morality’.

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"

Files said he would present witnesses who would corroborate Laney's love of her children as well as her belief "that the word of God was infallible."

"It destroyed her ability to discern the wrongness of her act," he said.

When you serve a god who must be obeyed unquestioningly, and follow a morality which is based on the momentary whims of this god, then you must prove your faith and loyalty by acting on your subjective impressions of what your god wants. There is a diagnosis for this condition. We call it mental illness. In the case of religion, it is an artificially-induced mental illness.

The Bible does not destroy our ability to discern the wrongness or rightness of an action.  It's basically wrong to kill your children. We all agree with that and the Bible teaches that. You don't need "subjective impressions"  to figure out what God wants. The Bible is clear enough without looking for things no one else believes.  I find that most cults and heresies start with people having subjective and private revelations that contradict the Bible. All three examples Green raises demonstrate this. God would not a person to kill their children and make them go through with it. There is no example in the Bible nothing one can appeal to.

By J. M. Green

Mr Green is definitely on my prayer list. Either he doesn't understand what the Bible says or he resorted that often used tactic of raising false facts about what the Bible says and listing a bunch of scriptures that say the exact opposite of what you say they mean. I sure would like to see an opponent of Christ actually try something  based in truth. OF course if they did, they might be truly converted.

Debunking Christianity: Does Morality Come From God?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Answering Muslims: U.S. Department of Defense Unveils New Quran Sensitivity Training Program

David Wood has posted the slides the Department of Defense may be using new Quran Sensitivity training. David observes:

Hmmm. "We will hold sacred the beliefs held sacred by others." And here I thought the First Amendment guaranteed our right to freedom of religion. Now we find out that we MUST hold Islamic beliefs "sacred." Sharia is sacred to Muslims. The belief that Muhammad is a prophet is sacred to Muslims. The superiority of Islam is sacred to Muslims. It seems that if Muslims hold slaughtering unbelievers, killing apostates, beating wives, raping women, and sex with prepubescent girls "sacred," we must do the same.

I see his point. there is indeed a inconsistency. 


Follow the link to see the rest of the slides.

 Answering Muslims: U.S. Department of Defense Unveils New Quran Sensitivity Training Program

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Daily WTF: Academic Papers Accept Twitter Citations Now

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase
Here is a shock! Tweets can be used for citations in some academic papers! I mean...wow. Just wow.

They’re good about adapting to the times. A few days ago, The Atlantic posted a fascinating tidbit informing us that the MLA had drawn up rules for citing tweets. That’s right, they actually approved the use of Twitter in academic papers. And it’s pretty simple:



The Daily WTF: Academic Papers Accept Twitter Citations Now
Enhanced by Zemanta

DARPA's Cheetah Robot Breaks Speed Record - G4tv.com

English: This was the most up-to-date DARPA lo...
Image via Wikipedia
Boston Dynamics's "Cheetah" robot can run up to 18 mph.




DARPA's Cheetah Robot Breaks Speed Record - G4tv.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Susan Cain: The power of introverts - YouTube




Susan Cain: The power of introverts - YouTube

Monday, March 5, 2012

Android: How to communicate with .NET application via TCP - CodeProject®

Simple example showing how to communicate between Android and .NET application.


Android: How to communicate with .NET application via TCP - CodeProject®
Enhanced by Zemanta

Eat Ramen Without Guilt!

We Love Ramen Infographic
Created by: Hack College


Eat Ramen Without Guilt!

Concluding Segment of Response to Sam Gipp (Part 5)

Here is the is fifth part of Dr James White's response to Sam Gipp




Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Concluding Segment of Response to Sam Gipp (Part 5)

Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten posted a great quotation from Dr Dinesh D'Souza.

“Do you believe in the existence of Socrates? Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? If historicity is established by written records in multiple copies that date originally from near contemporaneous sources, there is far more proof for Christ’s existence than for any of theirs.”

- Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity, p. 296.


Dinesh D'Souza on the Existence of Jesus - Apologetics 315

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

Today, John Loftus has posted another quote from articulett about how improbable Christianity is. I'm still convinced that neither of them know what Christians believe.

The bible is history? So a snake really talked? And god turned a woman into a pillar of salt? And appeared as a burning bush? And carved commandments on breakable stones? And sent "she-bears" to maul 42 kids for calling a guy bald? (defying the laws of the physical universe)

Which Part defies the laws of the physical universe and where did these laws come from?

And this god magically impregnated a virgin to become his own son?

No. What does magic have to do with it? And why is sex implied? There was no sex.. If Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, there was no sex. Why is that hard to believe if you accept that God called all space and time - the very fabric of reality - out of nothing. Even if you find this hard to believe that doesn't mean it did not happen.

And temporarily died? And then became a sort of zombie?

Oh great....the "zombie" charge. I wrote about this already. Zombies and the Bible According to Askeg

And then whisked off to heaven? And now sits in judgement of everyone in trinity fashion (whatever that means)? Really? Who knew? Or is just some of that historical? How do you know which magic is the "true woo"? If you don't believe that the bible is history does the god of the bible punish you for all eternity?

I don't know what "trinity fashion" means because no where does the Bible use such language. There is no magic in the Bible, so the question is meaningless. Supernatural miracles are not the same as magic. And people don't go to hell because they reject the Bible as history. People go to hell because of their sin. Hell is your default ultimate destination without Jesus' intervention.

Do you consider the Greek Myths historically accurate? The Book of Mormon? The miracle claims in the Quran? Mother Goose?

You have to consider a miracle claim on its own merits. You can't just dismiss something because you don't think it makes sense. As a Christian you can't rule out the miracle claims of another just because they are not a Christian. No where in the Bible are we told that only Christian believers experience miracles.


1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. - Deuteronomy 13:1-4


How do you decided which far fetched or supernatural claims really happened? Inner knowingness? I hear that if you read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true, god will give you a personal "testimony"!

No. You look at evidence and consider the sources. For example Mormon theology assumes an eternal universe and God just rearranged stuff that already existed. We know from science that isn't true - thereby falsifying Mormon theology. See how easy that is?

If someone told you they saw a chupacabra... do you believe they actually saw one... or do you assume they saw something that THEY thought must be a chupacabra because they believe in chupacabras?

Unless you can show that the person is prone to lying or that chupacabra do not exist, then I would say that you don't know if the person is wrong or not. New animal species are constantly being discovered. Maybe some get missed. But the analogy is flawed because a chupacabra's existence does not have much of a bearing on your eternal destination or how you will choose to live your life. It's also disingenuous because it pretends that the evidences for the existence of God and the validity of the Bible are just as good as evidence for the chupacabra.

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

Avengers Movie Trailer (1960′s Marvel Animation)

This is pretty cool. Someone re-created the Avengers Movie Trailer by editing together clips from Vintage Marvel Animation. Here is the mashup







Here is the Movie Trailer



Avengers Movie Trailer (1960′s Marvel Animation)

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Supervillain Secrets [Comic]

Yes! This is hilarious!

Supervillain Secrets [Comic]

Fistbump of the Day - The OTF and Mocking Christ

Does John Loftus' Outsider Test For Faith (OTF) mocks Christ? No, not directory. But I want to point out that Mariano Grinbank has managed to point out a discontinuity between how the OTF is premised as a fact and how some Atheists actually function. Recently John Loftus posted "very well-written comment EricRC, a Ph.D. student in philosophy,:" in which the OTF's fundamental premise is stated and endorsed by Loftus himself:

(1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and shared cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis (RDVT).

Source

And then I saw a post by Mariano that explores why in Western Culture it is okay to denigrate and mock Jesus but not okay to mock and denigrate Muhammad.  Mariano observed:

Wait a moment, just when the New celebrity Atheists are attempting to get us to believe that Christianity is promulgated via nationality/ethnicity along comes Thompson claiming that Christianity has fewer ties to ethnicity. Suppose that one will let them fight it out.

That flies completely in the opposite direction and biases any directions or conclusions you might draw from the OTF. EricRC said himself and Loftus agree that the rest of the OTF follows from this disputed premise.  Mariano further observed:

Secularists understand very, very well what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief. That is the very reason that they besmirch, condemn, manipulate the media as the BBC does, and blaspheme. In fact, many secularists (atheists by any other name) have made a living by exploiting this knowledge and encouraging their adherents to do likewise.
Mariano makes a lot of valid points!

Marijuana and your Brain [infographic]



http://dailyinfographic.com/marijuana-and-your-brain-infographic

Response to Sam Gipp: Part 4

Here is Dr James White's fourth video responding to Sam Gipp's Video.






Response to Sam Gipp: Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Friday, March 2, 2012

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by gooddogbaddog01

John Loftus has posted a quote he sees fond of on his blog.  Look at it below.

Christians think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their faith based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is "possible", and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely "posslble". Short of providing real evidence for the existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the necessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.
John Loftus immediately commented:

johnwloftus
Boy, this sounds a lot like me. ;-)

I don't think this person really understand what Christianity is. I mean if you switch out his words and use opposite words, you get the following:

[Atheists] think they are being rational and logical. But when they try to rationalize their [doubts] based on evidence, they tend to resort to what is ["probable"], and then claim that they have won the argument because something is merely ["probable"]. Short of providing real evidence for the [non]existence of the Christian God, they dive into philosophy, in order to somehow logically prove the unnecessity of the existence of god. To me, however this is no different than mental gymnastics, resulting in endless rabbit trails around epistemology, metaphysics and ontology. It is, simply, making stuff up.

 Yes, indeed it does sound a lot like John Loftus. The fact that the same thing can be said, invalidates the statement against Christianity.

Should Batman Kill the Joker? Perspectives from Five Famous Philosophers

Comics Alliance has posted a great article discussing a deeply philosophical question: Should Batman Kill the Joker? It's based on a post by Tauriq Moosa, an ethicist writing for the site Big Think. In it, he argued against Batman's famed "no killing" policy. He says that Batman has a moral obligation to rid the world of the Joker. I totally disagree. Batman is a man. He has not obligation to choose who deserves to die. The article in Comics Alliance does not bring this up but I've got to wonder why is Batman obligated to do anything? But setting that aside, the Comics Alliance article does take the question Moosa asks and answers and imagines how 5 of the greatest Western philosophers might answer the same question.

1. Immanuel Kant
2. John Stuart Mill
3. Thomas Hobbes
4. John Rawls
5. Friedrich Nietzsche

This is a fun thought experiment. I think one of the defining things about Batman, one of the things that makes him a hero, is that he will not take a human life.  He refuses to cross the line that would make him not better than the evil that he fights. The article is well worth your time if you like discussing and thinking of morality.

Read More: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/03/02/batman-kill-joker-philosophy/#ixzz1nzjX2T5
Enhanced by Zemanta

Old Errors in New Garb: Response Part 3

Here is Dr James White's third response to a video by Sam Gipp which advanced the "King James Only" ideology.




Old Errors in New Garb: Response PartThree

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Apologist Interview: Ravi Zacharias - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted his awesome interview with Ravi Zacharias. It's really great to hear. Take a look at the following link to hear the interview!

Apologist Interview: Ravi Zacharias - Apologetics 315

Debunking Christianity: Articulett on the OTF

John Loftus posted some comments from Articulett on the Debunking Christianity blog.While there is much that could be considered, I'd like to raise a single point that I'm driven to raise. She is quoted as having written:


So, naturally, as an outsider to your faith (most of us are former believers) you look as brainwashed to us as they do to you. You all look like you are leaping over probabilities to confirm your respective biases. How do you imagine you are different? You would need to give us the kind of evidence you'd require to take their supernatural beliefs seriously if you wanted us to do the same for yours. And you haven't. No theist has. It's all word games.

MY question is how does the atheists know that in order to reach the conclusion that there is no God, that he/she is not "leaping over probabilities" and possiblilities "to confirm their respective biases"? For example, the notion that a good God would not create hell or send people there is a bias based on subjective opinion about what one's concept of God. Would not want to know God as God truly is and not what you think God should be?

Debunking Christianity: Articulett on the OTF
Enhanced by Zemanta

A Bronze Helmet from the Time of Neco | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

I'm always fascinated to find out about archeological finds that corroborate the Bible. Dr Mariottini always posts great content that sometimes includes such information. Dr Mariottini wrote the following.
Archaeologists have found a Greek bronze helmet covered with gold leaf that is 2,600-year-old. The bronze helmet probably belonged to a Greek mercenary who fought with Neco, a pharaoh of Egypt. The helmet was discovered in the waters of Haifa Bay, in Israel.
Neco (his name also appears as Necho in some translations of the Bible), was a pharaoh of the 26th Dynasty (Saite). He ruled from 609 to 595 B.C. Neco appears in the Hebrew Bible as the one who caused the death of Josiah, king of Judah, at Megiddo in 609 (see 2 Kgs. 23:28–30; 2 Chr. 35:20–27).

Read the whole article at the following link:

A Bronze Helmet from the Time of Neco | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Google The Right Way [Infographic]

Get more out of Google
Created by: HackCollege
[Via How-To Geek]


Google The Right Way [Infographic]
Enhanced by Zemanta

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
Enhanced by Zemanta

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

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:


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
Enhanced by Zemanta

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