The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
Thursday, October 11, 2012
The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
The New NA28 and the Preservation of Scripture
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
I posted this video a few days ago but I recently found out that lyrics in the video actually make this a lot more funny.
Read the lyrics at:
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
Read the lyrics at:
Klingon Style Lyrics - Comediva
Kinect Inspires Wrist-Mounted Controller: The Future Of User Interface - G4tv.com
Monday, October 8, 2012
Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad
"Eastwooding" has become a meme. You can learn more here:
Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair Speech / Eastwooding / Invisible Obama
Answering Muslims: Eastwooding Muhammad
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin
That would be
Arthur Pink once wrote:
An ineffably holy God, who has the utmost abhorrence of sin, was never invented by any of Adam's descendents.Looks like Batman has a point.
Calvinistic Cartoons: In Search of a New Robin
“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI
“Aren’t you engaged, Joe?” someone then asked, and all eyes turned to me, wondering how I was going to defend my jumping into an institution they’d just essentially trashed.
“Sure am,” I smiled, “and looking forward to being a husband.”
“That’s nice,” a waiter responded, regarding me the way one considers a quaint little relic. “But is it really necessary? Don’t you love each other with or without a ring?”
“Yeah,” I nodded, “but we’re both looking for commitment, too.”
“We’re just as committed as you!” another waitress retorted, as though I’d just criticized her arrangement with her live-in boyfriend. “A ceremony and a license don’t make a commitment.”
“No,” I conceded, “they don’t. But they put teeth into it. And I guess it’s the teeth we’re looking for.”
How would you respond? Joe Dallas relates in the article how he responded. The article is really important because it points out a very important point: Denying the important of marriage has lead us to the mess we have today where people are confused about what marriage is. People think that they can make marriage mean whatever they want marriage to mean - that is if it is "only a ring".
“You Shoulda Put a Ring on It”: Witnessing to Cohabiting Couples | CRI
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"
I especially liked the contrast he gave for how Christians react to being mocked and insulted to how Muslims react to criticism.
Answering Muslims: Eric Allen Bell: "Islamophobia or Islamo-Reality?"
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Need Some Good Sci-Fi Storytelling?
Today, If you have a good idea and some talent you can make some top notch, high quality. Here are a couple of really good examples. You have to see theseMust Watch Sci-Fi Short: Plurality [Video]
Featured Sci-Fi Short: Tears of Steel [Video]
Monday, October 1, 2012
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?
Randal Rauser repeatedly tells us that, "Faith consists of assent to a proposition that is conceivably false." I have repeatedly said that faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, and as such, we should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. He claims I'm ignorant. I cannot hope to convince the deluded mind, but maybe more reasonable people can see what seems obvious to non-believers.
I disagree that faith is believing something despite the fact that it could be false. This is no different that believing something just because it seems more probable to you. This is not how the Bible describes or defines "faith". It makes sense to live this way if you don't have any other information. No one in the Bible was commended for their faith because they just believed something that they could have been wrong about. They believed God because of what God said to them despite their circumstances. For example, Abraham believed God would give he and Sarah children despite them both being well beyond child-bearing age because that is what God told him.
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. - Romans 4:16-25
Let's take just one example, the fact that the sun will rise this morning over the horizon where I live in Indiana. It's hard for me to calculate how many mornings the sun has risen but let me take a good guess. Given that the earth has existed for about 4.5 billion years multiplied by 365 days per year or so, the odds that it will rise today are about 1,642.5 billion to one (or something like that). So when I say I know the sun will rise today I can say this with a great deal of certainty. The odds are virtually certain the sun will rise over the horizon (even if clouds might hide it from view).
Notice how Loftus desires to equate concluding that the sun will rise tomorrow, based on the fact that it rose everyday for the past 4.5 billion years. The problem is that God did tell us about the sun and the seasons. They will never stop as long as the earth exists.
22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and nightwill never cease.” - Genesis 8:22
Therefore we can have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow - not just because of Physics but also because God says so.
The question is whether I need to be certain the sun will rise this morning and if faith is required to fill in this gap so I can know that it will. I think not, obviously so. I don't need this gap to be filled. I don't need to be certain the sun will rise today. I can be quite comfortable to go with the odds, the probabilities. Probabilities are all that matter. We should think exclusively in terms of them.
We don't conclude that the sun rises because of faith. Bad example. One might be comfortable with not being certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I would not want to bet that Christianity is wrong, based on the overwhelming evidence of what God has said
This goes for everything else I think is probably true. It doesn't change anything if the odds become different for other things I think are probably true, so long as I conclude they are probably true.
Concluding that something is probably true does not make it true. Same is true in reverse.
But wait!
Oh yeah! More fail!!!
Is faith used to calculate the very probabilities I use to conclude the sun will rise today? How so?
It doesn't.
That a great deal of background knowledge from personal experience is used to calculate the probabilities is granted, and most all of it could conceivably be false too. So? This background knowledge has the weight of probability to it, at least, we accept it as more probable than not over-all. We cannot do otherwise. What else do we have to judge our background knowledge by except in terms of the probabilities? The reason I trust my background knowledge is not because of faith but rather because it is built up based on the probabilities of personal experience one layer at a time from birth. Trust is based on the probabilities, that's why faith is not trust. If it were the same thing then Rauser would be found equivocating on the word "faith." For "faith" would become equivalent to trusting the probabilities which is the very thing I argue for leaving faith undefined. Given this fact, it's no wonder Christians cannot even agree on how to define faith, because it cannot reasonably be done apart from the probabilities.
Of course accepting Christianity can be done outside of probabilities. It's called trusting what God has revealed to you and making sure you examine facts to make sure you are not just making things up.
Could we be wrong? Yes. So what? What's faith got to do with this process?
If you are wrong, you are going to hell. Applying faith helps you believe God's revelation when there is no way you could have believed it on your own.
Therefore, to say we need faith to think the sun will rise today, at best, is superfluous, completely unnecessary, utterly irrelevant, and at worst irrational.
Yeah and pointless as to whether or not you need faith to live.
There is more!
Steven Garmon said, "Faith is what is required to uphold the things we believe are most probable."
How does faith do that?
Biblical faith is required to believe what God has said because we cannot without God's help.
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4 By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”[a] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. - Hebrews 11:1-6
Picture flipping a quarter. The odds are about equal that you'll get a heads or a tails. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
Faith isn't about flipping a quarter. With regards to salvation, faith makes salvation assured.
Picture a lottery where you have a one in 80 million chance of winning. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
Salvation is not about winning a lottery. Everyone is going to hell as default. Saving faith is what changes you from being hellbound sinners into children of God.
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
Picture a sports contest, say a boxing match. Gamblers place their bets on who will win based on the odds. Where is faith? What does it do here? How does having it change the odds?
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. - Proverb 16:33
Ahhhh, morning has broken! Whew, that was a lucky guess, right? ;-)
Has nothing to do with luck. It's all about God's mercy.
Debunking Christianity: I Could Conceivably Be Wrong. So?
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Fistbump of the Day: Yes, We Are Still Fighting Gnosticism
The past several weeks I've head of a manuscript fragment that people are suggesting sheds light on the early history of Christianity. It's just a scrap of papyrus written in coptic but what is putting the world up in arms is one of the phrases written on it:
Jesus said to them, my wife,
This is basically making people remember that some people believe that Jesus was married. Before people tried to use the gnostic text "Gospel of Thomas" to substantiate the claim but the text itself does not explicitly say that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene people infer it. The interesting thing is that neither this scrap of papyrus or the Gospel of Thomas have either the historical evidence or validity of the four canonical gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are people who don't see the Gospels as historical true or that there is historic and identifiable Christianity and they seem to want to give alternate gospels and texts equal weight.
[Dr Karen] King said that it was not until around 200 A.D. that claims started to surface, via the theologian known as Clement of Alexandria, that Jesus did not marry.
"This fragment suggests that other Christians of that period were claiming that he was married" but does not provide actual evidence of a marriage, she said.
"Christian tradition preserved only those voices that claimed Jesus never married. The 'Gospel of Jesus's Wife' now shows that some Christians thought otherwise." [Source]
Dr King and others are clear in telling that this does not prove that Jesus did indeed have a wife. However they think that there were Christians [the Gnostics] who did think that Jesus had wife and the reason why traditional Christianity does not is because the poor Gnostics were silenced. It's amazing to me that people would even try to make Gnostics Christians. The Mormons have more in common with historic traditional Christianity than the Gnostics did! I mean really. The only way you could really think that the Gnostics would have been recognized as Christians by Peter, James, John, Paul, and the other first century Christians is if you don't know what the Bible teaches and/or what the many Gnostic flavors taught.
Added to this Dr Dan Wallace has posted the following piece of information:
Dan Wallace just posted this:
“News flash: Harvard Theological Review has decided not to publish Karen King¹s paper on the Coptic papyrus fragment on the grounds that the fragment is probably a fake.” This from an email Dr. Craig Evans, the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia University and Divinity College, sent to me earlier today. He said that Helmut Koester (Harvard University), Bentley Layton (Yale University), Stephen Emmel (University of Münster), and Gesine Robinson (Claremont Graduate School)–all first-rate scholars in Coptic studies–have weighed in and have found the fragment wanting. No doubt Francis Watson’s comprehensive work showing the fragment’s dependence on the Gospel of Thomas was a contributing factor for this judgment, as well as the rather odd look of the Coptic that already raised several questions as to its authenticity.It's a forgery.
What I find interesting is that while we have people trying to water down Christianity and say things about Jesus that they cannot prove over a forgery and no Christian killing over the situation, we have three countries protesting and killing over a movie on YouTube that insult Muhammad based on Islamic sources! God is straight up showing us a difference between those who follow Christ and those who follow Muhammad.
It's nothing but the hand of God. The best thing is that God has called up brothers in Christ in every generation for when this kind of crap gets raised up. Here is a list of links regarding the way Dr James White, Mariano Grinbank, and Matthew Dowling have addressed this issue. Fistbumps to them all.
The Gospel of Jesus' Wife and Update: The Gospel of Jesus' Wife by Matthew Dowling
Was Jesus married? Manuscript says yes by Mariano Grinbank
Check these out by Dr James White
Get Ready for A Wave of Gnostic Looniness Once Again
A Note to the Secular World: Do Your History
Calling the MSM---Anyone Home?
Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315
Tim McGrew's Recommended Apologetics Reading - Apologetics 315
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Answering Muslims: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad!
The following link also contains a list of Islamic sources used in the video
Answering Muslims: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad!
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Calvinism vs Arminianism - Interviews on Both Perspectives
CMW056: Interview with Dr Jerry Walls on “What is Arminianism?”
CMW057: Interview with Rev Dr Mark Thompson on “What is Calvinism?”
Practical Apologetics MP3 by Dr. Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315
Practical Apologetics MP3 by Dr. Timothy McGrew - Apologetics 315
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Answering Muslims: Zakir Hussain vs. James White: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?
Answering Muslims: Zakir Hussain vs. James White: Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Unimpressive Arguments - Debunking Christianity: Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing
Harry McCall wrote:
Spray-on skin, made-to-order muscle, and print-out kidneys aren't just science fiction anymore. Dr. Anthony Atala and Dr. Stephen Badylak, two pioneers of regenerative medicine, talk about the latest methods for building new body parts, and the challenge of growing complex organs like the heart, liver or brain.
Audio @ NPR:
What the Doctor Ordered: Building New Body
Harry McCall seems to be laboring under two false assumptions:
1. That God does not heal people.
2. And that regenerative technologies are not from God.
He also neglect the fact that there are documented cases of people's organs like kidneys being miraculously replaced after being surgically removed and subsequent prayer. Just look at what Dr Gary Habermas says about miracles: CMW054: How would the Gospels Look Different if? Part 5, Interview with Dr Gary Habermas
McCall also neglects the fact that medical science and technology is not in spite of God but gifts from God.
26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.” - Exodus 15:26
Debunking Christianity: Science Is Doing What God Can’t Do: Answering Prayers for Healing
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Sulu, Warp Factor 2!
A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre; however, subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.
Check out the good stuff!
NASA Says a Real Life Star Trek Warp Drive Is Possible
Warp Drive May Be More Feasible Than Thought, Scientists Say
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Director's Cut - James Brown music video - It's Man's Man's Man's World on Vimeo
from SHOOT THE BOSS on Vimeo.
Director's Cut - James Brown music video - It's Man's Man's Man's World on Vimeo
FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me
I have said that Dr. Randal Rauser is not being intellectually honest when it comes to his faith. This does not mean I think he's doing anything unethical or immoral. It means his faith blinds him from being honest with the arguments to the contrary. Let me try, yet once again, to persuade him to throw off his blinders with what I consider one of the dumbest rejoinders to my arguments I think I have ever heard. I do so in hopes he will see it for what it is, and then take seriously that this same blindness affects how he treats other arguments against his faith. I hope in vain though. Dr. Victor Reppert endorses what Rauser wrote, so hey, he's no different. Faith makes otherwise brilliant people stupid, and I mean this.
So if Dr Randal Rauser and Dr Victor Reppert are blinded by their faith, what is that blinds John Loftus?
They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say.
I think jealousy might be part of Loftus' problems (besides sin) because of the derision of Ph.D.'s. Loftus does not have one while Reppert and Rauser do have them. Does that mean that Loftus' opinions are stupid or lack more weight than theirs? Nope. His arguments fail on their own merits.
Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.
In the comments below Rauser's post BlueDKnight said:
Loftus had made a career in trying to "debunk" Christianity. His stated goals put him in opposition to God. He's fighting God all the way and of course he expects to win. He won't but just like Satan he's going to give it his best try. It's not a "gotcha" moment but another example of a bad argument from John Loftus.
Clamat said to Randal,
Agreed that Loftus was not agreeing that God was omnibenevolent but that was not the point Rauser was making. Satan rejected the God of the Bible. Loftus and other atheists do the same thing. One is just as stupid as the other.
Sure wish Loftus and other would read the Bible with the same level of "sophistication" and "honesty" they demand when other critique what they write. Belief in the Resurrection means that you will worship the God of the Bible. You cannot have one without the other because you will see God's omnibenevolence. So we are back to rejecting God being a really stupid, stupid thing to do.
Rauser's charge does indeed stick because of the inconsistency of Loftus' misunderstanding what it means to worship and believe the God of the Bible.
With these two comments I don't have anything to add. They nail it. articulett has some great comments on Rauser's blog as well.
Although these rebuttals were written a year ago as of now, Dr. Victor Reppert recently said of Rauser's post that "This is a nice critique of Loftus."
When will these two Christian apologists become intellectually honest with their faith against the arguments to the contrary? The very fact that they feel led to concoct stupid straw man versions of our arguments, the very fact that they do not even try to understand what the arguments are, is a telling sign that they are most emphatically deluded.
Maybe providing good contrary arguments would help. Good luck finding some. I think that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of just how bad off we are without God. The logic presented here illustrates how bankrupt intellect is without God's resources.
If instead they are seeking traffic from my links to their blogs when responding to such drivel, then this is a breach of their ethical responsibility. That is, if they knew this rejoinder to me was a non-sequitur and yet posted it anyway for the hits, I do charge them both with being unethical. How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone at that point? You are willing to seriously weaken your own credibility for hits.
Non-sequitur does not equal an argument for which you have not defense against. No one should forget that.
So which is it boys? Are ye stupid or unethical?
Christian, if you want someone who does not purposely misrepresent the arguments for faith before criticizing them, if you want someone who cares about truth rather than playing intellectual chess games, then do not listen to either of them. Listen to me.
I have found some very valuable insight from Loftus - of what not to do.
Now boys, was it worth the hits?
Amazing how he does not even see that they are trying to help him. No one wants to see other people go to hell ignorantly. Paul was right
So if Dr Randal Rauser and Dr Victor Reppert are blinded by their faith, what is that blinds John Loftus?
They must hand out PhD's to almost anyone, is all I can say.
I think jealousy might be part of Loftus' problems (besides sin) because of the derision of Ph.D.'s. Loftus does not have one while Reppert and Rauser do have them. Does that mean that Loftus' opinions are stupid or lack more weight than theirs? Nope. His arguments fail on their own merits.
Let me show you this stupidity from a post Rauser wrote titled, "Is John W. Loftus 'dumber than a box of rocks'?" Warning, this is going to get ugly.
In The End of Christianity John W. Loftus describes the following Christian belief which he finds very implausible:I have seen Loftus make this argument more than once on this blog and to be honest I don't see how rejecting Jesus, as Loftus continues to do, is any smarter. It's the same thing as what Satan did.
“That the highest created being known as Satan or the devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent God … and expected to win. This makes Satan out to be suicidal, inexplicably evil, and dumber than a box of rocks.” (100)So how could any creature be so dumb as to rebel against the supreme omnibenevolent creator of the universe? John definitely has a point: that is definitely implausible.
Rauser has a valid point. If Satan was dumb enough to go against an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God - the God of the Bible, and Loftus is declaring that he would not worship the God of the Bible, then why not come to the same conclusion that Rauser did. I'd say that everyone who rejects God has something wrong with them. And since we all have and only God's saving power has blessed some of us to see the truth of our own stupidity.
But now consider the following statement John made in his blog:
“If I was convinced Christianity is true and Jesus arose from the grave, and if I must believe in such a barbaric God, I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God. I would fear such a Supreme Being, since he has such great power, but I’d still view him as a thug, a despicable tyrant, a devil in disguise; unless Christianity was revised.” [The source of this quote in context can be read here at the very end.]Let’s spend some time chewing on this passage.
According to Christianity, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent (that is, perfectly good). And worship is, minimally, the ascription of proper worthship to that deity. Incredibly, if that being exists John will refuse to worship that being. Thus we can paraphrase John’s position as follows:
“If I was convinced that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God existed I would refuse to recognize the worship of that perfectly good God and would instead treat him as a despicable tyrant.”Now wait a minute. John’s accusing Satan [Emphasis his] of being dumber than a box of rocks?
In the comments below Rauser's post BlueDKnight said:
This is an uncharitable reading of Loftus. Charity would have us try to interpret him as saying that the God depicted in the Bible seems barbaric/despicable for letting certain things happen, and perhaps for actively doing certain things. Loftus is not saying he would go to battle with such a being and expect to win, which is what he attributes to Satan. He is simply saying he wouldn't worship him. Indeed he even says he would fear him (e.g., a despicable tyrant is not someone you fight, but someone you might privately fear).
This is a weak "gotcha" kind of thing.
Loftus had made a career in trying to "debunk" Christianity. His stated goals put him in opposition to God. He's fighting God all the way and of course he expects to win. He won't but just like Satan he's going to give it his best try. It's not a "gotcha" moment but another example of a bad argument from John Loftus.
Clamat said to Randal,
You were eager to suggest John is “dumb as a box of rocks,” and figured out a way to do it: By reading without a reasonable measure of sophistication or honesty. Good luck with that.
John did not write “if I were a Christian.” John did not write “if God were omnibenevolent.” Had John written “If I was convinced God is omnibenevolent…God would be a barbaric, despicable, tyrant against whom I would rebel,” that would be inconsistent and difficult to defend. But that’s not what he wrote. You pay John the respect of assuming he’s not ignorant, why won’t you pay him the respect of assuming he chose to use particular words for a reason? To the extent those words may be ambiguous, why not read his words charitably (!) to determine the meaning he intended and argue against that meaning, instead of one you simply impose?
Agreed that Loftus was not agreeing that God was omnibenevolent but that was not the point Rauser was making. Satan rejected the God of the Bible. Loftus and other atheists do the same thing. One is just as stupid as the other.
The initial, unstated question of the blog post was whether John would believe God exists if he was convinced “Christianity was true,” i.e., if he was convinced “Jesus arose from the grave[.]” The answer was yes, “I would believe, but I still could not worship such a barbaric God” because that God is demonstrably not omnibenevolent, rather he’s “a devil in disguise.” Would your position be any different had John had written: “If I was convinced [the fact claims of Christianity are] true and Jesus rose from the grave…I would believe, yes, but I could still not worship such a barbaric God[.]” (Do you see what I’ve been doing here? Using John’s actual words to determine what his other actual words were intended to mean? Ah, context.)
Sure wish Loftus and other would read the Bible with the same level of "sophistication" and "honesty" they demand when other critique what they write. Belief in the Resurrection means that you will worship the God of the Bible. You cannot have one without the other because you will see God's omnibenevolence. So we are back to rejecting God being a really stupid, stupid thing to do.
The charge stands: You are narrowly reading a single phrase from John’s post entirely out of context and according to your unilateral definition of a single word in that phrase, in an effort to demonstrate an inconsistency in John’s thinking. No such inconsistency exists.
Rauser's charge does indeed stick because of the inconsistency of Loftus' misunderstanding what it means to worship and believe the God of the Bible.
With these two comments I don't have anything to add. They nail it. articulett has some great comments on Rauser's blog as well.
Although these rebuttals were written a year ago as of now, Dr. Victor Reppert recently said of Rauser's post that "This is a nice critique of Loftus."
When will these two Christian apologists become intellectually honest with their faith against the arguments to the contrary? The very fact that they feel led to concoct stupid straw man versions of our arguments, the very fact that they do not even try to understand what the arguments are, is a telling sign that they are most emphatically deluded.
Maybe providing good contrary arguments would help. Good luck finding some. I think that there was a fundamental lack of understanding of just how bad off we are without God. The logic presented here illustrates how bankrupt intellect is without God's resources.
If instead they are seeking traffic from my links to their blogs when responding to such drivel, then this is a breach of their ethical responsibility. That is, if they knew this rejoinder to me was a non-sequitur and yet posted it anyway for the hits, I do charge them both with being unethical. How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone at that point? You are willing to seriously weaken your own credibility for hits.
Non-sequitur does not equal an argument for which you have not defense against. No one should forget that.
So which is it boys? Are ye stupid or unethical?
Christian, if you want someone who does not purposely misrepresent the arguments for faith before criticizing them, if you want someone who cares about truth rather than playing intellectual chess games, then do not listen to either of them. Listen to me.
I have found some very valuable insight from Loftus - of what not to do.
Now boys, was it worth the hits?
Amazing how he does not even see that they are trying to help him. No one wants to see other people go to hell ignorantly. Paul was right
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:18-32
Debunking Christianity: I Doubt Rauser is Even Trying To Understand Me
Parting Shot: 'Baby Korra' Video Features Real Life Young Avatar - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Parting Shot: 'Baby Korra' Video Features Real Life Young Avatar - ComicsAlliance | Comic book culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)