FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Here is a sad little article that attempts to explain how Christian see the laws of the Old Testament. The article alleges that there is contradiction between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught and that Christians have a corrupt ethical code. 

Most Christians believe they have no laws to follow, since according to Paul, Jesus died to save them from the laws--so where does their "ethical code" come from then? Not the 10 commandments, because they were part and parcel of the "laws" that Jesus died to revoke. (It was MEN that separated them into categories later.) Jesus however, said "ALL the laws, and ALL the prophets MUST be followed until heaven and earth disappear." (Matt 5:18) So do Christians even have a moral code, and if so, where does it come from? Do Christians follow Jesus, or do they follow Paul? The answer is--Paul. Let me explain.

I'd like to clearly state that there people who call themselves Christians who would agree with the way the above paragraph. They would agree that Paul and Jesus are in conflict and some would also agree that the laws in the Old Testament are not binding on us today. Jesus is quoted so let's look at that passage for a moment.

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20

Take some time and really reflect on what Jesus said. Is Jesus talking about dietary laws? What about the law about picking up sticks on the sabbath?  Or what about the ceremonial laws no one can follow now that there is no Temple nor Tabernacle? No, no, and no. Jesus tells us what he's referring to and what does it mean to be more righteous that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in verses 21-48. See how everything He talks about can be traced to the words in the law but Jesus takes them a step farther so it's not just about doing the right thing. It is also about desiring and thinking the right things.

The belief that Christians do not have to follow the laws came from Paul. According to Paul, Christians are in essence, "lawless." This makes "sin" something of a paradox because a sin is defined as a transgression against God's laws--but there are no laws!

Paul never said that. Funny how in the 21st Century the same charge is being brought up as was tried against him when he was alive. 

⁷ Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” ⁸ Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! ⁹ What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. - Romans 3:7-9

This was evident when Paul first began preaching, as his followers began having orgies, and participating in all sorts of debauchery--because they believed they had no laws--so he had to backtrack a bit and tell the Corinthinas that well, you can do anything, but not everything will be good for you. (1Cor. 10:23)

The Corinthian church was not a Jewish church - they were primarily gentiles who would not have known about the Laws of Moses. I mean they weren't having orgies and abusing the laws because they didn't think they were free of them - the just went one doing what they were doing before they became Christians. This really gets into the point at which the church stopped being culturally Jewish and became open to everyone.  Re-Read Galatians and Acts 15 for more about this and pay attention to who it is the leader in the church....it ain't Paul or Peter.

Hmmm..... Unfortunately, even if there were "laws" to break, they would be redundant anyway, when anything can be forgiven as long as a believer sincerely "repents." There is no punishment for the "sinner" (as long as they don't get caught by the "secular" police!!) and no compensation for the victims under the Christian system either--making "sins" virtually meaningless. This is why Christianiy in and of itself is immoral and unjust.

Let's apply some honesty here. The Bible is very clear that God punishes sin. Saying "I'm sorry" is neither repentance nor a Free-Get-Out-of-Hell-Free card. Anyone who thinks this way does not understand what Biblical Christianity is. True Repentance means agreeing with God that He is right and We are wrong. It means doing a 180 degree turn away from the offending thought and practice we are sorry for. We are sorry for what what we did and not just sorry about being caught doing it.  If you truly repent then you do all you can to never do it again - trusting God to forgive you. That's not saying that there are no consequences or repercussions - only that hell is off the table as one of them. God may choose to give you mercy so that don't suffer here and now but there is no guarantee of that. The guarantee is that God will be with you.

Unfortunately, today we live in a society full of these "born sinners"--people who believe they were born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things--which explains the chaos. However, if Christians cannot help but to sin, do they really have "free will??" Not according to the Bible--but that is for another post. To explain the insidiousness of Christianity and their lack of real ethics and morality, take into consideration this wee bit of Socratic dialogue. In a conversation between a Christian and Jesus--according to Paul's version of Christianity:

I have to ask...who said you have free-will? It's not just Christians who cannot help but sin - everyone does. Romans 8:5-8 lays out the fact that we are unable to be anything but hostile to God on our own and cannot choose to do differently. IF you truly had free will then you would be able to choose to never sin and always do the right thing 100% of the time in all circumstances - without God.  Good luck with that.  In the following Socratic dialogue, is where the article truly goes off the rails. 

Sinner: "Jesus, I know I shouldn't, but I really want to have sex with my neighbor's daughter. She's only 6, but I want her so bad."

Jesus: "You know that would be wrong, but we both know you are a born sinner. So we both know it would be wrong to rape that little girl, but your sinful nature will compel you to rape her anyway, so go ahead. I have your back. When you are done with her, just come back and see me. Explain to me what you have done, and tell me how sorry you are for doing it, and I will forgive you. It will be like nothing happened at all, and you will still get to live with me in paradise forever."

Sinner: "Thanks Jesus! I'll be coming back to talk to you in a few hours! I gotta go, she'll be getting out of school right away, and I don't want to miss her!"

Yes people, THIS is Christian ethics and morality. I don't even have words to explain how sick this philosophy is.....

No, people, THIS is not the Jesus of the Bible. Consider that Jesus talked more about Hell than He did about Heaven and said that if a man calls his brother a "fool" he is in danger of going to Hell. Or that lusting after a woman in your mind is just as bad as Adultery. I find it really hard to think that Jesus would just say "Oh sure, molest a six-year-old girl, I'll forgive you." when just lusting after one who is not your spouse of the opposite sex is enough to send you to hell.. A little honesty would be nice. 

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Matthew 5:22

I often wonder what society would be like if people were taught they could be "perfect" in their choices, and that yes, they CAN make the right choices. What if they did not have a "fall guy" to take the blame for them? What if they had to take responsibility for their OWN actions? I doubt I will find out within my lifetime, but maybe someday...........

Who really thinks they are perfect in their choices and they do make the right choices. Most people don't make the wrong choices on purpose. They do what they think is best for them. The problem is that we don't know better than God does about what is best for us. We are flawed. Broken. That's not saying that we never do anything god. But when we do, that was God, even if we don't know it or recognize it coming from Him. We are responsible or our sin because that is what we want to do. It's hard to accept that we are so messed up it took so much to redeem us, but that is the good news: God loves us that much. So how do we sum up ethical Christianity:

¹³ You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh^[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. ¹⁴ For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”^{[b] 15} If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. - Galatians 5:13,14

Cathy Cooper

Debunking Christianity: The Non-Ethics of Christianity

Facebook vs. Google [infographic]

Facebook vs. Google [infographic]

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

Here is my denominations official statement on Same-Sex marriage:

Official Statement
of the
Church of God in Christ, Inc.

Regarding Same Sex Marriages and Civil Unions

 

The President’s position regarding “same-sex marriage” has set off a “firestorm,” unlike any other debate in our civil society, perhaps, since the civil rights unrest of the mid-20^th century.   The advocacy for same-sex marriage, while in conflict with our nation’s long-standing moral posture, has indeed, created opportunity for the Church to communicate our unequivocal position about God’s design and foundation for humanity, the biblical mandate for heterosexuality through the bonds of matrimony and, the centuries-old understanding of the only acceptable means of procreation, habitation, and the establishment of the family.

The President suggests same sex relationships and male-female relationships committed to by oath before God and/or witnesses, where formal documents are signed before a civil or ecclesiastical figure.  It further implies that both are equally good and valuable.  In addition to this, it suggests that both equally contribute to the good and advancement of a society.  From a fundamental view of scripture, the same word should not be used to describe both same sex and heterosexual relationships.

Fundamentally, traditionally, and historically, marriage has functioned to unite a man and women together in facing the challenges of life, to sanctify sexual involvement, to authorize the conception of children, provide an environment for the protection and development of offspring and to strengthen and sustain the family unit.  Historically, the sexual coming together of husband and wife produces children who are the fruit of both their bodies and are united by blood to their brothers and sisters.  This coming together of husband and wife is the means by which the world has been populated, and the human race sustained.

A husband, wife and children are the bedrock of a society which also mirrors the universal Church as a microcosm, or domestic church, out of which God’s values are modeled, nurtured, and disciplined.  This divinely-inspired family framework, pronounced in Old and New Testament scripture, is without compromise.  To tamper with the foundation is to disrupt the order God intended.  This order is the intended structure by which all humanity is expected to govern their lives.

The human body is designed by God as male and female to anatomically accommodate individuals of the opposite sex in the conception, bearing, and nurture of children; the human body is unquestionably designed to accommodate individuals of the opposite sex, not of the same sex.

The Holy Bible, which is the authoritative Word of God, clearly prohibits sexual relations between members of the same sex.  Though it does not isolate intercourse between individuals of the same sex as the only sin, it designates this and a series of other activities as sinful behavior from which the Christian is to abstain

1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. NKJV (See also: Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:8).

The Bible indicates that there is nothing that can excuse or eliminate the sinfulness of sexual involvement between individuals of the same sex.  Neither so called “marriage vows”, civil unions, nor homosexual drives or passions are recognized by the Bible as justifications or acceptable excuses or rationale for sexual acts between individuals of the same sex.  Sinful desires and inclinations must be resisted and overcome by the power of God in Christ Jesus, and by power of the Holy Spirit who strengthens our minds and our wills.

Our vocabularies are made up of thousands of words because there are so many distinctive entities and concepts to be referred to.  Each word designates a category of entities which are unique to that word.  Specific words are most useful when they reflect identical images, and when they do not create conflicting or unclear images in the mind of the speaker and the hearer.  The Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).  To define marriage otherwise is to dilute and destroy its usefulness as a word which denotes what is highest and best about human society.

While we are committed to proclaim and support the tenants of the Bible, and also to persuade others to do so, we recognize that in a free and democratic society morality cannot be legislated.  We oppose violence and discrimination against individuals or groups because of sexual orientation. We do not feel that it is necessary to legalize same sex marriage to provide the civil benefits and civil rights to all regardless of sexual orientation.

 

We proclaim the value and worth of every human being regardless of sexual orientation.

But, we passionately and unapologetically, defend the right of faith communities to maintain the integrity of their message, mission and identity.  We welcome to the church all people who seek to serve and know God and His Word.

I agree.

COGIC Presiding Bishop and General Board Elaborate on Existing Same Sex Policy | CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST

Bring it On: Debunking Christianity: Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

John Loftus is now saying that he's tired of talking to Christians and frustrated in talking to us. 

I have no more desire to engage Christians. They are deluded, all of them. I have never been more convinced of this than I am now. I have better things to do. I spent 39+ years of my adult life on a delusion. If I add the years of my childhood that's almost my entire life. Yet this is the only life I will ever have. It's time to move on, or at a minimum take a very long hiatus. I just finished what may be my last book, on The Outsider Test for Faith, to be published by Prometheus Books early next year. How many times do I need to kick the dead horse of Christianity? I don't think I need to say anything more. If what I have written isn't good enough then nothing is good enough for some Christians. What I intend to do is turn this blog over to a few qualified people. I'll still be a part of it and I suppose I'll post something from time to time. But I see no reason to waste large chunks of my time on this delusion anymore.

Why is he so frustrated? He has said in several posts that Atheism is winning and Christianity is loosing ground. If this is true, then why quit? I am detecting crocodile tears. If you are really winning why quit or take a hiatus, why not press the attack? Simple...he is not winning.  Personally, I'm disappointed. I mean the more Loftus tries to debunk Christianity, the more he helps us. The more he opines, the more the gospel is preached.

⁷ Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong—not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸ For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. ⁹ We are glad whenever we are weak but you are strong; and our prayer is that you may be fully restored. - 2 Corinthians 13:7-9

Thanks, John Loftus. Say it ain't so?!!! We'd miss you! One comment on the post that I thought was telling was this one:

Jonathan MS Pearce Collapse

Wow. I suppose I'll need time to digest this. Although i utterly understand your frustration, I would imagine you might start seeing it as a job, rather than a calling, or something. The problem is it doesn't pay enough, admittedly. Is there any way of making it pay financially?

Calling? By whom? For what? How does a non-Christian even begin to answer questions like this one. 

Debunking Christianity: Okay, The Time Has Come, I'm Done

FacePalm of the Day: Debunking Christianity: The OTF is the Solution to Religious Diversity

John Loftus has again provided a summary of the Outsider Test of Faith (OTF). Let us work through his "logic".

I want people to see the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) as the solution to an incredible amount of religious diversity. This is a problem that needs a solution. No other methods have worked before. If people cannot find solutions to problems within a business they hire solution specialists who offer ways to solve it. Mediators find ways to bring people together by offering ways they can see their differences in a better light. That’s what the OTF does. The goal is to offer a fair test to find out which religion is true if there is one.

I don't really think that the OTF is a bad idea, initially. I think that it has never been fairly applied on Debunking Christianity. Let us see if this post shows any more fairness.

The OTF grants that a religious faith can be reasonable and asks believers to test their faith with it, just as it grants that non-belief is reasonable and asks non-believers to consider the religious options available.

How can a belief that there exist one god or several gods be consistent or simultaneously reasonable with the belief in no gods? Hint: it isn't.

It grants the possibility that one particular religious faith could pass the test, just as it grants the possibility that none of them do. To be a fair and objective test it must allow that any conclusion could result from taking the test, and the OTF does just that. If someone disagrees he or she will not only need to find fault with it, but also propose a better test. What’s the alternative?

I have no problem with the test but the issue is how do you make such a test? How do you run the test? How do you measure success or failure?

The skepticism required by the OTF is expressed as follows: 1) It assumes one's own religious faith has the burden of proof; 2) It adopts the methodological naturalist viewpoint where we assume there is a natural explanation for the origins of that religion, its holy books, and it’s extraordinary claims of miracles;

Why is number 2, reasonable? If a religion does not agree that there is a natural explanation for the origins of that  religion, its holy books, and it's extraordinary claims of miracles it believes in then it's not a fair test unless you can show that naturalism does indeed explain these things. I thought the whole point of OTF was to show that the the methodological naturalist viewpoint where we assume there is a natural explanation for the origins of that religion, its holy books, and it’s extraordinary claims of miracles not to assume them from the beginning.

3)  It demands sufficient evidence, scientific evidence, before concluding a religion is true; and most importantly,

Is something only true if it can be weighed, counted, or measured? Can science be used to substantiate everything?! I don't think so. Somethings we all agree are true, but  have no scientific basis for believing it. Well, I guess fair tests aren't really what Loftus is looking for.

4) It disallows any faith in the religion under investigation since it cannot leap over the lack of evidence by punting to faith.

In order to apply number 4, you would need to correctly define what faith means. Something Loftus consistently fails to do. 

Believers may object that if they assume the skepticism of the OTF it will automatically cause them to reject their religious faith, and as such, doing so unfairly presumes its own conclusion.

You cannot rationally grant that Christianity or Islam may be true and then say that everything about testing them can only be explained by naturalistic evidence. That is assuming failure without really weighing the evidence.  Fortunately for Christianity there are naturalistic evidence, but there is much that is considered from such a myopic viewpoint.  

But I think not, not if there is objective evidence, sufficient evidence, for one’s religious faith. For if it exists then even a skeptic should come to accept it.

But there have been many who began as skeptics and upon examining the evidence from the outside, became born-again Christians. If Loftus is correct, then everyone who examines the evidence would be staunch atheist and never Christians.

Many people are convinced every day about issues when the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created us as reasonable people then the correct religious faith should have sufficient evidence for it since that’s what reasonable people require.

This one always gets me. Observation and the Bible always bear out that no one - not one of us - is reasonable enough or understanding enough to figure this out. We are all broken and fallen. Why should you assume that your intellect is enough to even know what sufficient evidence is?

Otherwise, if this evidence doesn’t exist in sufficient quantities then God counter-productively created us as reasonable people who would reject the correct faith.

We reject Christ not because of a lack of sufficient evidence but because of our own sin and hatred of God. And even if you are saved now, you once were a hater of God and God's ways.

It also means that people born as outsiders in different geographical locations will be condemned to hell (however conceived) by God merely because of when and where they were born.

Hogwash. Everyone is born in the time and place where we can best find God. Re-read Acts 17.

This doesn’t bode well for an omniscient omnibenelovent but wrathful kind of God. Even apart from such a God concept the only way to settle which religious faith is true is to rely on sufficient evidence.

Again, I don't think any one of us is capable of deciding what sufficient evidence is and what it is not. If you cannot see God as God is (or even  as the religion you are testing sees God), how can you correctly apply OTF. Loftus does not know the God of the Bible. His god indeed fails the OTF because his god does not exist. His god is a concept not a being. A god that knows everything but how to apply justice and mercy. A god that has much of the same limitations we do. This is not the God of the Bible - not the God of Christianity. Utter failure.

Debunking Christianity: The OTF is the Solution to Religious Diversity

Marvel Girls on Film: Are These Your Female Avengers? - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

You probably already know this, but I loved the Avengers movie.  The thing is I would have liked to have seen more characters including female ones. With the big reveal at the end of the movie, it's obvious that the Avengers are going to need more recruits to deal with what is coming - why not add some women?! Comics Alliance has posted a real good article regarding who should make the cut from the comics. Take a look.

Marvel Girls on Film: Are These Your Female Avengers? - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Avengers Assemble!!! At Nighthawks? [Art]

Photoshopped by  John P. Glynn

Betcha they having Shawarma!

The Avengers Enjoy Shawarma Inside An Iconic Painting [Art]

Friends Hack 'Scott Pilgrim' Game to Animate the Best Wedding Gift Ever [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Some friends of a recently married couple gave them this following gift: a video with the couple cast as the main protagonists in Scott Pilgrim vs the World. Pretty cool to have friends like that.





Friends Hack 'Scott Pilgrim' Game to Animate the Best Wedding Gift Ever [Video] - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Has marriage evolved? | True Freethinker

Check out Mariano Grinbank's analysis of this graphic:

Has marriage evolved? | True Freethinker

What Kind of Geek are You: The Sacred Order of Geeks

If you could put yourself in one of these categories, which one would it be?

Share this infographic on your site!

What Kind of Geek are You: The Sacred Order of Geeks

Fistbump of the day - What had happen' was.....: My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

I thank God for my brother-in-Christ Mariano Grinbank. He sent me the following e-mail.

Dear brother,

I am preparing a series on that preposterous “Marriage =” graphic and noticed that you wrote, “the Bible does mandate that if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her.”

I would urge you to reconsider as this is simply not the case. The Biblical punishment for rape is the death penalty.

I will run it down very quickly and then give you a link to the details.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 pertains to different litigious, judicial scenarios and so ch. 22 envisages various scenarios from adultery and rape to un-married consensual sex. Verses 28-29 deal with consensual sex between two unmarried people:

If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.

The Hebrew “taphas” refers to catching, handling, taking hold, grasping, etc. and “shakab” refers to laying down. He comes across her and they come together in consensual sexual relations, this is clear from the context of all of the scenarios within the chapter. In fact, verses 25-27 deal with an actual rape and so “taphas” is not used but rather, “chazaq” which is to force.

Verses 28-29 are basically about what we would call a shotgun wedding.

Here is a rundown of all of the relevant portions of the chapter.

Deu 22:22 "If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die--the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. 

This is adultery.

Deu 22:23-24 "If a young woman [who is] a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 

A betrothed woman who had consensual unmarried sex. That “she did not cry out in the city” means that if she had been attacked by a rapist she would have cried out and would have been heard within the close quarters of the city.

Deu 22:25-27 "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; [there is] in the young woman no sin [deserving] of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so [is] this matter. For he found her in the countryside, [and] the betrothed young woman cried out, but [there was] no one to save her. 

This is rape. He accosted her outside the city “in the countryside” where she could not be heard when she cried for help “cried out, but [there was] no one to save her.” Thus, only the rapist is executed.

Deu 22:28-29 "If a man finds a young woman [who is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. 

We think that the particular translation of “seizes her” is force but it is not as noted above in the Hebrew differences.

Here are some of the details:

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheism-bible-rape-and-evilbiblecom-part-4-6

 

The post-in-question is:

What had happen' was.....: My Common Sense is Tingling: Marriage Equals… | The Angry Black Woman

I didn't even realize that I had made this mistake.  I thank God for laying it on Mariano's heart to help me out. In retrospect and in light of Mariano's explanation I wish I had written:

"...the Bible mandate that if a man has consensual sex with a virgin girl, he has to marry her and not divorce her." Mariano has been much clearer than I was in this sentence and has managed to help me see the scripture even clearer. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 can't be referring to rape.

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: God is Love (But He Is Also Just)

John Loftus posted the following video and makes a statement without any resource or proof.  Added to the fact that the video is really an inept attempt at humor, the post exemplifies a faceplant. 

Biblical scholars have looked at the Hebrew word for justice (mishpat) and concluded that it is basically equivalent to mercy. Nonetheless see what you think:

Let's side step the really bad twisting and misrepresentation of what God has done and why and instead focus on the really underlying misunderstanding both Loftus and this video have about what "Love" is. You can tell that anyone who says that "God is love (but He is also just)" does not know what they are talking about. Justice and love are not mutually exclusive. Our society messes this up. According to the Bible, we see that God is Love and Just (not "but"). Not just this, God is merciful. So the problem is that today without God we can not truly understand what Love, Justice, and Mercy truly are. 

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

People today think that unconditional love means that you let other people do what ever they want and be what ever they want to be as long as they don't hurt themselves and others.  This is stupid because none of us is qualified or able  to determine what is best for ourselves let alone anyone else. I'd rather know what our creator says is best for us than what I or anyone else thinks. 

My own Biblical research has shown me that the Hebrew word "hesed" is most often translated "mercy" in the KJV and "love" in NIV. What does "hesed" mean? The meaning of "Hesed" as well as the rest of "Hebrew" must depend on context. You won't find a meaning that equated Hesed with denying the authority of God and "following your own heart".

What about the New Testament? Well, look at 1st Corinthians 13. It defines what the Bible means by the word "Love" and describes not just how we should act but the Character of God. The Greek word is: "Agape" Read more about what it is at this link.




Debunking Christianity: God is Love (But He Is Also Just)

'Avengers Assemble' damage estimated at $160 billion | Film & TV News | NME.COM

Just for giggles, ever wondered how much it would cost to repair New York after such a catastrophe shown in The Avengers movie? Of course you have!

And now, the Hollywood Reporter has called in the experts to estimate the financial cost of the catastrophe.

Reaching out to the Kinetic Analysis Corp, they have predicted that the physical damage to the city would cost $60-70 billion (£37-43 billion). Clean-up costs would amount to $90 billion (£55 billion), and the loss of thousands of lives would take the figure up to the $160 billion total in payouts.

However, they predict that SHIELD, the secretive military law-enforcement agency that assembles the heroes, would in all likelihood be protected from liability through sovereign immunity. Furthermore, the fact that the battle was waged by Loki, who hails from the mythical Norse world of Asgard, could protect insurers from paying out due to an ‘act of God’.

I find it amazing that some people would immediately think think that the Avengers should be financially accountable! I mean they didn't start it and seeing how Loki's army would have killed or subjugated everyone had they succeeded in New York, I'd think holding the good guys in the movie as liable would be stupid. But if such a thing really happened I'd bet that the defenders would be sued.

'Avengers Assemble' damage estimated at $160 billion | Film & TV News | NME.COM

Related articles

• New review: Avengers Assemble (thefword.org.uk)
• Real-life 'Avengers' would cost New York $160 billion in damages [video] (bgr.com)
• Review: The Avengers (tvquarks.wordpress.com)
• Morning Roundup: Avengers Assemble! For Yearbook Photos. (tor.com)
• 'Avengers' damage to Manhattan would cost $160 billion (entertainment.msnbc.msn.com)

Trekkies And We Know It Parody - YouTube

I just couldn't resist!




Trekkies And We Know It Parody - YouTube

President Obama Comes Out In Favor of Gay Marriage - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

Okay, I disagree with our President, obviously. I think he is being sincere but I think the reasons he is making the announcement now are political but I think the man really wants to be re-elected - enough that he's willing to alienate people that society is telling us hold the minority position.





President Obama Comes Out In Favor of Gay Marriage - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Dr. Randal Rauser Says I Came Up With a New Argument!

I'm not real familiar with Dr Randal Rauser  but I have to respectfully disagree with him. The following "argument" by John Loftus is neither new or "novel". It is truly an example of a failure to understand what Christianity is. I thought Loftus says he used to be Christian.

I don't know whether it's new or not, but the thought tickles my fancy. A novel argument is hard to come by these days because the ancients have stolen all of our ideas! Here is what Rauser said:

John Loftus just came up with a new argument against Christianity. He summarized it like this:

1) If Christianity is true then the Christian faith will probably not die out if Christians stop proselytizing.

(2) The Christian faith will probably die out if Christians stop proselytizing.

How does Loftus know this? What evidence does he have for this?

(3) Therefore Christianity is [probably] false.

It is, if nothing else, a novel argument. Link

My argument asks What Would Happen if Christians Went on Strike?

Walter, whose Quote of the Day provoked such an argument, is defending it in the comments:

I think what John is getting at is that it might be reasonable to expect the One True Revelation from God should occur supernaturally to all people at all times, and the Christian revelation did not happen that way–it spread just like every other false religion has since man first started inventing religions.

I think Walter does not understand what happens to person when he/she is born again. Being a born-again Christian - Accepting and living out the gospel - is itself supernatural - meaning that no human being does it on his/her own or chooses to do it apart from the power of God. This make it different from ALL other religions from the start.

It bothered me in my Christian days to think that the most important event in the history of man had to be spread by the glacially slow process of word-of-mouth between mere humans. It took the Native Americans some 1500 years to get the news. Seems a rather inefficient way of doing things.

This used to bother me too before I realized that the scriptures doesn't support this viewpoint...neither does history. Christianity's growth is unprecedented and unmatched when you look at how it began with just 120 people - around a crucified prophet - and covers the planet in just 2000 years. What seems slow to us doesn't mean it's slow to God.  Also given that the majority of all those who have ever lived, lived after Jesus completed his salvation work, it seems to me that Jesus came at just the right time (just like the Bible says). And given that salvation is retroactive for everyone who has ever trusted God and walked in His ways - even if they did not understand the whole picture. For example - Abraham, Moses, and Ezekiel are just as saved as I am although I have Jesus in hindsight while they looked forward to Jesus. I have more pieces of the puzzle than they but not all of it.

A true revelation from the Creator would not need human effort to sustain it; it would propagate in a supernatural manner.

Who says the revelation of Jesus is dependent on human effort. God uses us as means to spread the Gospel but he doesn't need us. There are countless stories of people coming to become Christians without being witnessed to by human being. Check out this link containing such accounts: links here and there.

The Christian faith appears to propagate by purely natural means, and the faith would disappear if no human kept spreading the message.

Again see the links and look around for more information. There is plenty of evidence destroying such an assumption. 

An omniscient and omnipotent being who seeks to get an important message out can easily come up with a better method of communicating to humanity besides appearing to a handful of men in backwater Palestine, then commissioning these men to spread this important message to the whole world via proselytism. Such a God could easily have every person on earth experience their very own Damascus road vision. In fact, an omniscient deity could dream up all manner of supernatural means of communication that I couldn’t even imagine.

Who said that God has never revealed himself to anyone else like he did to Paul? Or that no one ever sees or experience something supernatural? There are many reports that say exactly that God still moves this way. And once you realize how truly steeped in sin and spiritually destitute we all are you begin to see the fact that anyone gets saved at all is a miracle from God. 

Keep in mind I never said I could convince Rauser of this. It's a thought experiment. For some people it will be convincing. For others it won't. The point behind it is stated well by Walter I think.

I don't think anyone who knows what God did for them would ever be convinced by such a thoughtless experiment because we know that we weren't saved just by someone proclaiming God's message but that God transformed and changed us from the inside so that we are now not the same people that we were. Walter and John Loftus completely miss the point of Christianity.

There are so many scriptures that deal with this and that is why I would not call this argument "novel". No, "Facepalm worthy" fits it so much better. Here are just a few scriptures that show my point.

First, no one comes to God on their own without God redeeming them.

⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8

These verses describe all of us before one comes to God. So how do you explain a person overcoming their default hostility and hatred of God? Jesus said:

⁴⁴ “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. - John 6:44

How do you come to Jesus? You believe He is who He Claimed to be. 

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.” - John 8:24

As for why you are born when and where you find yourself:

²⁴ “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. ²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.- Acts 17:24-27

And lastly, 2000 years ago it was recognized that if God was not behind or in control of the Christian movement it wouldn't last. That it would have long died out. Now I recognize that this is not the best argument because if Christianity had failed and never left Palestine it would be proof that there was nothing supernatural to it, but the fact that it survived the best efforts to destroy it does not exclusively mean Christianity is true but it does add evidence to its validity.

Gamaliel is famous. He was Paul's teacher before Paul became a Christian and on top of that He is recognized even in Judaism today. Take a look at what he said. 

²⁹ Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! ³⁰ The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead —whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. ³¹ God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. ³² We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
³³ When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. ³⁴ But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ³⁵ Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶ Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷ After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸ Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹ But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
⁴⁰ His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. - Acts 5:29-40

Hmmmm....looks like this movement is from God. 

Debunking Christianity: Dr. Randal Rauser Says I Came Up With a New Argument!

Related articles

• Leap of Faith or Failure of Reason? (vridar.wordpress.com)
• Bart Ehrman's Huffing and Posting Against Mythicism (vridar.wordpress.com)
• You don't know Jack (nor could you) (musasha.wordpress.com)
• Old and New Claims Being Made Over the 'Jesus Discovery' (thewesternexperience.com)

James White Responds to Matthew Vines on Homosexuality

On his latest webcasts, James White has been responding to a lecture by Matthew Vines  on Christianity and homosexuality. Here is Mr Vines' lecture







 Dr White wrote:

Speaking of which, I am sure everyone is noticing that "he who frames the debate wins the debate" being fulfilled this very morning in the media in the US. The passing of Amendment 1 in North Carolina (don't worry, the Federal government will over-turn all these silly, backwards states over time), which affirms and defines marriage in the only logical, rational, historical, moral, ethical, biological, and, of course, Christian way, as the union of one man and one woman, is almost universally being identified as a "banning of gay marriage." Instead of the positive affirmation of serious and thoughtful morality and ethics that is rooted deeply in our history and culture, the main stream media in general has identified the amendment as anti-gay bigotry, etc., never, ever considering the deep bigotry and bias that is inherent in the homosexual movement. The issue is almost always framed in such a way as to paint the moral stance as negative and bigoted, and to put those who would resist the redefinition of marriage on the defensive. It is so obvious and yet the majority of our fellow citizens seem to ignore the reality.

Follow these links to here Dr White's webcasts.

Related articles

• Pitts: The Bible and homosexuality -- an eye-opening speech (goerie.com)
• The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality (slog.thestranger.com)
• Young Christian gives powerful sermon on homosexuality and the Bible (queerlandia.com)
• LEONARD PITTS | An eye-opening speech on the Bible and homosexuality (kitsapsun.com)
• God versus Gay? (timesunion.com)

Breaking The Law [infographic]

Breaking The Law [infographic]

Generation Gap

When I was in my mid-teens I used to play a game called Captain America And the Avengers in the Arcades (I know I am dating myself) and on the Sega Genesis. It was great! I had much fun when I played it. It was up to four players and you could be Captain America, Iron Man, Hawkeye, or Vision. At the time it was one of the best games available. There are several videos like this one on YouTube.


I'm not that old but you can see how much has changed in the past 20 years by comparing that old game with the new game based on the new movie. Most striking difference: you play this one on your phone or tablet. You can either be Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, or Hulk. I wish Hawkeye was included but he isn't.


I'd suggest experiencing both games to see how different they really are. You can get the new game at The Avengers - The Mobile Game. As for Captain America And the Avengers you don't need a Genesis or SNES or even an Arcade to play it now. You can get a Genesis or Super Nintendo (SNES) emulator for your Android device or PC or Mac and then download the original ROM for the game and then you can play it too. There are several websites about how to do this and easy to do.

I was watching my three year-old playing both games on one of our tablets and I was struck by the fact the seems to prefer the new one. I think the new graphics are definitely better!

FacePlant - Debunking Christianity: What Would Happen If Christians Went On Strike?

Often when I read things that atheists write I'm left wondering how they can really think their thought process is reasonable. Case in point: this particular post from John Loftus.

This post was provoked by Walter earlier, in the quote of the day, who asked, "Aren’t Christians supposed to be guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit? Are John’s arguments more powerful than the Third Person of the Trinity?"

Starting with Walter's quote - pure hogwash. No one becomes a believer without God's direct and complete action. So no, John's arguments are no where near as powerful as the Holy Spirit. 

Workers go on strike when they are overworked and underpaid. So I got to thinking what would happen if Christian believers from around the world went on strike. This strike would be against having to do all of the evangelistic and apologetic work themselves. What if they stopped praying for others to be saved? What if they stopped telling others about Jesus? What if Christians stopped evangelizing and arguing on behalf of Christianity? What if all evangelists, missionaries, and apologists went on strike?

God does work through Christian believers to save people. But there are people who become saved without direct input from Christians. Who do you think prayed for Saul before he became Paul? What about the villages in South America where all missionaries had to do was discipleship because people in the villages had dreams about Jesus.

I'm serious! What would happen? Think about this. I know Christians think they have a commission mandate to do evangelistic work, so it'll never happen. Consider it a thought experiment instead. Can God do this work himself? If he can, then why does he need for anyone to do this work at all? If he cares, really cares for people, then he should do something himself. Would God step in and show he cares? Would he do what is right because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether Christians helped him? Would Christianity survive and even thrive into the future? Or, would Christianity die out as God lets the world and its people go to hell? If God sits back and does nothing while the world goes to hell then he cannot be a good God, or perhaps he's just too lazy. ;-) Read to the bottom where I make a reasonable prediction that could very well upset your apologetic cart for good.

God does not need us. We have the privileged to be used by Him. This reminds me of how Loftus blames God for his infidelity instead of taking responsibility for his sin. We need God. We become born again by surrendering to God. Because Loftus does not understand this I don't think he was ever born again. Sure, he used to live a Christian life, but that is not the same thing. The fact that he has fallen away shows that he had no relationship with God.

If Christians went on strike there should be no cause for concern. If God is really inside the Christian faith then it cannot fail. The theme of the book of Revelation is about God's victory in the end. So the faith response is to relax since this is assured. "Be still and know that I am God," believers are told. Actually, the Hebrew is better translated, "Cease, and know that I am God." (Psalm 46:10). Even if believers didn't do anything the victory is assured. So don't be frustrated. Don't lose any sleep over it either. God is winning and will win in the end. After all, Jesus reportedly said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:30). Imagine that, me, offering devotional advice!

And He has a point: we don't need to be frustrated or worry. God does have it all in hand. He is missing a very important point: our part is to obey - tell others what God has done for us. 

⁵ What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. ⁶ I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. ⁷ So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. ⁸ The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. ⁹ For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.  - 1 Corinthians 3:5-9

It seems to me believers feel they must comment in order to keep others from being persuaded by what I write. "Oh" they say to themselves, "I must say something lest others be led astray."

I speak up because Loftus makes it too easy.  I can't stand the thought of someone thinking that these arguments are good ones. They aren't.

That's because they don't believe God can keep people away from my arguments.

I see people who speak out against such "arguments" as being used by God. Face it...rocks could refute them. 

They don't believe God can give believers an extra jolt of the God juice, or that he is able to answer a prayer in a spectacular way in order to mitigate my arguments, or that God can speak to believers in dreams, or audibly, or visibly appear to them at night, if needed. They simply do not believe God could blind people from sites like mine. They don't believe God could change the search engine hits so that susceptible believers would not find skeptical sites like mine. They do not believe God could keep any thought of reading something by a skeptic out of the minds of susceptible believers. They do not believe God can take away enough critical thinking skills that even if susceptible believers did find skeptical sites like mine they would not be led astray.

LOL!!!! How do you know God doesn't? He does all the things that Loftus asks about, but He takes  away the critical thinking skills from those who believe him. 

Believers act and talk as if God isn't helping them at all, as if God doesn't care to do anything if they don't do it themselves.

Who?

They really do not believe the Parable of the Lost Sheep applies to God, that he will do everything he can to shepherd his sheep. Christians claim to "pray as if it's all up to God, but act as if it's all up to us."

Again, who?  That's not what Scripture says.

Yet, that's not what I see. Many Christians simply do not believe God does anything to help at all. No, I cannot convince them of this, I know. But having been on the other side and seeing what I have seen for six years of Blogging, this is my informed opinion. It's what I see on a daily basis. Christians act and talk as if God doesn't do anything at all to help them. Not only this but they do not think prayers to God will work either.

The Faceplants sure pile up.

Christians really do not believe. That's my conclusion. They can't. The way they comment here to defend their God against every argument I make proves it. It proves to me they don't believe God can defend himself. They don't believe their God will take the necessary steps to defeat arguments against his existence and his plan of salvation. It proves to me that God needs humans beings to do this work because he doesn't exist at all.

People who try to talk to people like Loftus are being used by God to try to help him and those who listen to him so that they  don't go to hell in ignorance. If you are going to hell, you might as well know why you are going.

If Christians all went on strike then Christianity would go out of existence. That's MY prediction. You know it. I know it. Everyone who is not a Christian (however you conceive it to be) knows it. The Christian faith needs, depends on, is necessitated by people of faith who proselytize it. This is true of every religion. Without people of faith any given faith would die out because there is no deity behind them. That's what Christians think of other faiths other than their own. That's what seems equally reasonable to conclude about the Christian faith as well.

Totally Wrong. God uses us but He does not need us. 

What's your prediction? If you think the Christian faith would die out then your God isn't helping you at all in your present attempts to help convert people and keep others in the fold. If you think the Christian faith would die out then you don't believe the book of Revelation. If you think the Christian faith would die out then your God does not care at all. If you think the Christian faith would die out then your God is not a good God. Yet, it seems utterly reasonable that it would die out, doesn't it? 

God doesn't need me to proclaim His word. He has been gracious and merciful to allow me to do that. One thing the past 2000 years should have taught us that God's work is not dependent on us. Notice the Gospel keeps getting preached although John Loftus and Dan Barker are no longer preaching. It was getting preached long before I was born and will be preached after I am gone. Christianity has survived all manners of attacks and good and bad intentions.  Jesus said. 

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18

 I doubt Loftus' rhetoric comes even close to being as big a threat to the church as the "gates of hell". Paul wrote:

⁷ Now we pray to God that you will not do anything wrong—not so that people will see that we have stood the test but so that you will do what is right even though we may seem to have failed. ⁸ For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. 2 Corinthians 13:7-8

Thanks for your help John Loftus. God bless you.

Debunking Christianity: What Would Happen If Christians Went On Strike?

The Internet of Yesterday vs. Today [infographic]

Click to enlarge

The Internet of Yesterday vs. Today [infographic]