Mt Saint Helens

Here is a video of the event of Mt Saint Helens' eruption from May 18, 1980 - 29 year ago. I actually remember when this happened - I was 5 years old and ash was actually falling in Oakland, California.

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Peter Singer Debate: Can There Be Morality Without God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

The Apologetics 315 blog has recently posted a debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Singer. Their topic was Can There Be Morality Without God. Singer, who is an atheist, argued that we can have morality with God. D'Souza argues that there is a God and we need God to understand Morality. Singer's approach is to just change morality to match the secular worldview. For example. Singer has proposed that a baby should not be considered to have human rights until it has lived about about 24 days to make sure its viable. I find that repugnant. Singer however attacked the Bible and I wish that D'Souza had defended the Bible in his arguments. I did like D'Souza's arguments.

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Peter Singer Debate: Can There Be Morality Without God? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Eugenics - Applied Dawinism

Here is a great podcast I found on the internet talking about the "science" of Eugenics. Applying Dawinian Evolution to human population is extremely evil. What right does any one of us have the right to decide who has the right to reproduce? This is worth hearing because it brings up questions of morality and who knows what is best for humanity. Remember Hitler used eugenics to "improve" the "German" race. Some real people died and civil rights violated in this country because of Eugenics. Listen to this. I would not say that Charles Darwin and other evolutionary biologists are responsible for Nazism and Eugenics but they did take those ideas of "natural selection" to its logical conclusion. I would love to know that if those who think that some people are worth more than others, are they willing to concede that there are people worth more than they? I'd be willing to bet that they don't.

Apologetics-DarkDa...

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 13 of 13

This post is the thirteenth and final post in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 13 of 13

Obama Speaks at Notre Dame ; Abortion Comes Up

I just heard that this last weekend, President Obama gave the commencement address at Notre Dame this year and received an honorary Doctorate. Recall that Notre Dame is a Roman Catholic university and opposes Obama's abortion policies, so he did have some protests and negative hecklers, however he is not one to stop talking with those who disagree with him. That is one of the things I admire about him even though I do disagree with his abortion policies. However, the President is right: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions are antithetical to each other. Here are excerpts from that speech and the news article.

Todd Friel Interviews Christopher Hitchens MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

I just found this interview of Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately, people listen to this guy so we need to know what this guy is telling people so we'll know how to refute him.

Todd Friel Interviews Christopher Hitchens MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Todd Friel did a great job. He basically approached Hitchens from a direction that I think most people think that he should be dealt with; namely people wonder could anyone really believe that anyone like Hitchens could truly exist. I mean we wonder has he really considered if he's wrong or not? Friel asked him pointed questions about how would he respond if the Bible was right and he wrong various ways. Hitchens did not bring out anything new. I didn't hear anything that I have not previously heard. Hitchens was only there to promote the farce he wrote God Is Not Great. He did not seem to take Friel seriously nor answer his questions. Hitchen's point was that even if God does exist he refuses to recognize God's right to rule over him and all humanity. Hitchen totally missed Friel's point when he read Romans 1:18-20

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Hitchens is blinded that the passage describe him and people like him to a tee.
I really think Hitchens response is rather telling. I kinda wish Friel had read further - verses 21- 23

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. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

But I guess he decided that it would be overkill and just add insult. Still, I sure would have liked to know how Hitchens would have responded.

I have recently heard a song that is a great answer to people like Hitchens.

Hazakim - Brace Yo...

Check out Hazakim's Myspace.

Heroes Webisodes "Nowhere Man" Part 4

Here is the 4th part of "Nowhere Man" called Pulling the Strings.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 12 of 13

This post is the twelfth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 12 of 13

Carrie Prejean - Under Fire

I can't believe the rhetoric and the scrutiny being brought against Carrie Prejean who lost the chance to be Miss America because she refused to compromise her belief that same-sex marriage is wrong.

Here is a video where they make fun of Prejean talking about the moment that she realized that she was being tempted to choose to go for being Miss America and turn her back on what she knew God wanted her to say. Every Christian can relate to how she felt and yet these people are laughing at Christians.




Prejean defends her answer and why she answered the way she did.


Even Kieth Olbermann is jumping on her


And here is her news conference

Atheism is Dead: Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied

Mariano has posted a great article refuting an article from EvilBible.com that attempts to find places in the Bible where Jesus lied. Mariano points out just how stupid the idea is!

Atheism is Dead: Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied

The Truth About Angels and Demons - Apologetics 315

Here is a great post from Apologetics 315 that we can use to learn about how to field questions about the new movie based on Dan Brown's novel Angel's and Demons.

The Truth About Angels and Demons - Apologetics 315

Islam Rising

I have recently heard about a couple of videos that Benny Hinn is telling his students in his school of ministry to share with family and friends. They are interesting but at the same time they will draw criticism because people will think that it paints Islam as an evil empire bent on world congress.





This particular video presents information that I was already aware of. Christianity is not just a religion its ingrained in Western Culture. This means that Islamic nations are going to be in conflict. There is no other way around it. The video presents the coming challenges from the fact that Islamic immigrants are over-running the Christian populations of the west as a war but I prefer to see it as an opportunity for evangelism. Muhammad (us) will not or cannot go to the mountain (Muslims) so God is bringing the mountain to Muhammad - to butcher an aphormism.





I'm tempted to say that subtitled video is an overstatement, however there really are people in this world who think this way. Historically, Muslims are inclusive and tolerant when they are the minority. But when they are the powerful majority they take over and force their viewpoints on other people. Historical fact. It's what people do, but not what God tells us in the Bible to do. However it is what the Koran tells them to do. We have a grace period in America...I think Europe may be too far down the rabbit hole to come back. In America, we can still reason with the Muslims among us and dialogue. We can still talk. I think most Western Muslims do not see themselves as needing to destroy us. There is that powerful minority that define themselves by hating us and Christianity. I thank God that we can still witness and talk to the reasonable Muslims.

Muslim Art?

Who says Muslims don't use political cartoons to express themselves about American influence and power in the Middle East.

A Ransom For ALL?

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from BibleToday.com and it read as follows:

Dear Bible Student,

We are pleased to send you a copy (attached to this email) of the slide presentation entitled "A Ransom for All" that answers the questions: Why did Jesus die for us? and How does the death of Jesus save us? We hope you enjoy it and that you will share it with others.

May our Lord continue to bless your studies.

Your friends at BibleToday.com

Okay, I was impressed at first. I mean a powerpoint presenting the gospel? What could go wrong I thought? I should have known that there was something wrong because of the title: "A Ransom for All". I have used my AuthorStream account to post the power point below. Take a look.



Uploaded on authorSTREAM by mmcelhaney


I had huge problems with this. i mean the first half of the presentation is great. It explains how messed us we are without Jesus. It used scripture very effectively to drive the gospel home. then it goes Carlton Pierson of us and turns into a failed apologetic for rejecting the reality of hell. My mouth was hanging open because it's a pretty presentation. I'm left wondering that they obviously sent this to people who read the Bible and it doesn't take much study to know the Bible teaches that some people are going to go to heaven and some are going to hell. This could turn into a Calvinist/Arminian or discussion of free will but let's save that for a different time and let's look at some of the assertions the presentation makes:

1. Did Jesus die merely to save a comparatively few Christians? And then answers no, citing 1 John 2:2 which says:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse does not say that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all, but not that everyone is saved

2. Jesus dies for all we were still in our sins. Then John 3:16, Romans 5:8, and 1 Peter 3:18 are cited.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
- John 3:16

Notice that only those believes in the son don't perish but get everlasting life.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. - Romans 5: 1-10

Look! Romans 5:8 was taken out of context. All people are ungodly until they are justified by the blood of Jesus.

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, - 1 Peter 3:18

Again, the passage is taken out of context. Peter is not talking about unbelievers and believers...he is only talking to believers.

3. The Presentation asserts that Romans 5 verses 12 and 18 show that Jesus sacrifice justifies all men, just as Adam's disobedience damned us all but I think that the verses are taken out of context, I mean why was verse 19 not included. It says:

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I'm getting at that the passage does not teach that ever human being was made righteous just those who believe.

4. There are two resurrections: the just and unjust. The presentation really breaks here...I can't tell if it's saying that the unjust are going to "mercifully judged and punished according to their past guilt" or that they experience the second death described in Revelations 2:11. The author of the presentation did not make it clear. Fortunately, Jesus did make it clear. He said that he is the only way to God.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

By definition a true Christian is a person who puts their trust and faith in Jesus for the justification from our sins. Bottom line. No other religion teaches this. This means that as unsavory as it sounds, everyone who does not believe will not be going to have eternal life with Jesus and there is no passdage in the bible that can be used to describe the "second" death as non-existence or oblivion. This how Jesus described it:

They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. -Matthew 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. - Matthew 13:50 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. - Luke 13:28

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13

This post is the eleventh in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13

Does the Temple Need To Be Rebuilt To Fulfill Bible Prophecy

I came across the following article on the internet. It's interesting.

ANALYSIS: Rebuild the Temple
By Lawrence J. Joyce
www.LighthousePrayerLine.org


A common belief among Evangelical Christians is that the Jews have to rebuild their temple in order for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. But a closer examination of the Scriptures suggests that perhaps this is not necessarily the case.

The prophecies in question are: 1.) The Antichrist or his False Prophet setting up the Antichrist's image in the temple; 2.) The Abomination of Desolation taking place; and 3.) The Antichrist setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God.

As to the first prophecy, it is a myth. The Bible simply does not say that the image of the Beast is set up in the temple, or indeed in any other specific location. (Rev. 13:15). (Nor does the Bible say that there were three wise men, for that matter. It simply says that there were wise men with three gifts. See, Matt 2:1-16.)

As to the Abomination of Desolation, the only thing needed for that prophecy to be fulfilled is the existence of the Holy of Holies. (Matt. 24: 15-22; Dan. 9:27 and 12:11). But the Holy of Holies can exist as it did prior to the construction of the first temple: in the Tabernacle. Many Orthodox Jews today believe that only Messiah can rebuild the temple. Perhaps they are right after all. And many Christians who follow Bible prophecy have noted that the progression of events in the Middle East right now seems out of sync with the idea of rebuilding the temple, which could take many years to finish. Also, rebuilding the temple could be violently explosive in the Middle East right now, whereas erecting a temporary structure, the Tabernacle, would not be nearly so. And erecting the Tabernacle on the site of the ancient temples could be a convenient compromise among Orthodox Jews who wish to rebuild the temple and those who insist that they do not do so.

The third prophecy---found in II Thess. 2:4, concerning the "son of perdition" setting himself up as God in the "temple" of God---seems to be the major obstacle to a Tabernacle theory of end-times prophecy. Yet looks, especially first looks, can be deceiving.

The New Testament uses two Greek words for "temple": hieron, which refers to the temple grounds and building, and naos, which refers to the sanctuary. Hieron is used 71 times in the New Testament. Naos is used 44 times therein. II Thess. 2:4 uses the word naos. (All uses of the word "temple" in Revelation use the word naos.)

The uses of these two words illustrates their different meanings. For instance, when the Word says that Satan brought Jesus up to the roof of the temple, it uses hieron. (Luke 4:9). Likewise, when it says Jesus taught in the temple (Luke 20:1), or states that He was on Solomon's porch (John 10:23), it uses hieron. The same holds true when it says Peter and John went to the temple to pray. (Acts 3:1). But when it quotes Jesus as saying that upon the religious rulers who opposed Him would come the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, "... whom ye slew between the temple and the altar," it uses the word naos for "temple", denoting the sanctuary itself. (Matt. 23:35). Indeed, it would not make sense to use hieron, the word for the temple building, in that context, for the altar itself was actually inside the temple building.

Likewise, when Jesus told his opponents that if they destroyed "this temple" he would raise it back up in three days (John 2:19), the word naos is used. The same applies to the references to the veil in the temple being torn when Jesus died. (Matt.27:51, Mark 15:38, and Luke 23:45). Similarly, when Paul tells the Corinthians that they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, the word naos is used. (I Cor. 3:16-17; II Cor. 6:16). The same is true when he tells the Ephesians that we are being built as a holy temple unto the Lord. (Eph. 2:21). Thus, the word naos can refer to things either physical or spiritual in nature; but it always refers, in any case, to some form of sanctuary, and is not the word used to specify the temple building and grounds generally. The word hieron is reserved for that.

Particularly noteworthy in this context is the wording of the travails mentioned in Daniel in and around the time of the Abomination of Desolation. There the prophet speaks of desecration and resanctification taking place in the "sanctuary", using two Hebrew words for sanctuary (miqdash and qodesh), but not one of the Hebrew words for "temple"---bavith or heykal. (Dan. 8:11, 8:13-14, 9:17, 9:26, and 11:31). Significantly, Daniel himself uses a Chaldean version of heykal when relating the story of how Belshazzar took the golden and silver vessels from Solomon's temple to drink from at his feast for his pagan gods. (Dan. 5: 2-3). So it is not as if Daniel would not have used a specific word for the temple building itself when the time came to do so.

Given the usage of hieron and naos in the Scripture, then, we must recognize that the statement in II Thess. 2:4 need not mean the temple building. The word naos consistently refers to the sanctuary itself---the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies---either in a physical or a spiritual context. The writings in Daniel likewise resonate with this meaning of the word naos. And the sanctuary, we must remember, can be present in the Tabernacle every bit as much as in the temple building.

................................

**More on this topic can be found at these sites:

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Antichrist

http://www.nobodyleftbehind.net/issues.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Pre-Tribulation,-Mid-Tribulation,-Or-Post-Tribulation---Why-I-Am-Mid-Trib&id=1892370

http://ezinearticles.com/?Whoever-Shuts-His-Ears-to-the-Cry-of-the-Poor-Will-One-Day-Suffer-Also!-Proverbs-21:13&id=2076813

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24842-what-church-fathers-said-about-rapture.html

................................

Great Book! Check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0931608066?ie=UTF8&tag=lighprayline-20

This article is good and all. There is only one scripture I would like to raise to the author to see if they can explain why Jesus said that there will be an "abomination that causes desolation" in the Holy of Holies. If this has not happened yet, then how will it unless the temple is rebuilt? Matthew 24:15-17 says:

"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house."

"ex nihilo" vs "ex materia"

I have recently written a post in which there has been dialog discussing differences in Mormon and Christian theologies. On my post called

More Dialog on Mormonism Part 1 - Responses

I was pointed to the following article by Blake T. Ostler. The article is supposed to be a refutation to a work by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig in which they argue that Mormons are wrong and that God created the universe out of nothing. It turns out that many Mormons believe that God made the universe out of pre-existing chaos. Who knew? What amazed me at the article was the professional polish and detail displayed in it. Craig and Copan argue that the Bible and Physics teach that all of the universe was created out of nothing - "creatio ex nihilo" in latin. Ostler takes offense. He argued that the Bible teaches "creatio ex materia"- latin for creation out of material. I think Ostler fails to prove his case for five reasons:
1. He asserts that "creates" in Genesis 1:1 does not mean "out of nothing" but never explains why. Instead he spend his time in the New Testament trying to show that the earth was created out something. Genesis 1:1 says

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. Craig and Copan, and for that matter myself, do not argue that the earth was created out of nothing -- no all of matter, time, and space was created out of nothing. Using scripture pointing out that those things were organized into the configurations we see today is moot
3. He seems to confuse "make" with "create". There is a difference. You "make" something out of what's available. You create something that is new.
4. There was no refutation of the "ex nihilo" argument from the ground of Physics as William Lane Craig always uses when he defends the truth of God's existence against atheists and skeptics.
5. Ostler never explained where the "chaos" out of which the Heavens and earth were made came from.

From what I understand "ex nihilo" undermines Mormon Theology because it automatically points to a transcendent and timeless God...while Joseph Smith had taught that God was once a man who had a god but became a god himself - infinitely regressed backward.

LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

Here is the article

Open publication - Free publishing - More theology

Another Transformers 2 Trailer!

2009 White House Correspondents' Dinner President Obama Speech

I'm amazed how events such as the White House Correspondents' Dinner takes on some significance with the Obama Administration more than any previous President. Here is some video from Obama's speech. He made fun of some of his critics.





Here is comedian Wanda Sykes' comments. She was the first African-American woman to speak at the venue. And the first open lesbian. She drew fire because of the jokes she mad about some conservative, who's name I will not mention right now, hoping that he will get sick and die. I think, from a Christian point of view, it was over the line. However she is not professing to be a Christian.

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13

This post is the tenth in Mariano's series of articles discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity and Atheism. Check it out!

Atheism is Dead: From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 10 of 13